NPR and its “standards”
James Rainey at the LA Times points out the obvious: that the policy NPR cited as its reason for firing Williams—that one that says correspondents in its employ can’t give opinions—is violated regularly and with impunity by others in the NPR lineup. This, for example, is a well-known instance:
Ha, ha, ha, Nina, funny joke, that, including the grandkids! And NPR apparently just smiled, too, when it happened—which was back in 1995. Totenberg is still with them, when last I checked—although now that their hypocrisy is so deeply exposed by the Juan Williams firing they might try to apply their policy more consistently ex post facto, and clean house by firing Totenberg, et al, too.
Of course, one problem would be that such a wholesale housecleaning would make it more difficult to fulfill one of NPR’s main raisons d’éªtre, which is to spew out liberal opinions onto the airwaves in the guise of supposed “objectivity” in those tony, neutral-sounding voices.
[NOTE: Stephen F. Hayes reminds us of a few other times Totenberg has violated the (wink-wink) “standards” of NPR.]
Let the media pigs snort and roll around in the mud. They are getting more and more desparate as they starve.
The lame stream media has lost its credibility, but they are still at. USA today continues to try and establish the “didn’t know separation of church and state was in the constitution’ slander against O’Donnell. They intentionally truncate the exchange between Coons and O’Donnell. (See link) However, I don’t think this will become established and will become like the “N” word incident on Capital Hill.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-10-20-churchstate19_st_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
The NPR CEO is being treated unfairly. If you watch the video of her announcing that “it” is between Williams and his psychiatrist, you will notice that there is a notable pause between “his” and “psychiatrist”. She started the sentence intending to use the conventional expression, realized that it involved using a word she couldn’t bring herself to use in public (people would think she was some sort of ignorant peasant, maybe even think she didn’t go to an Ivy League school) and was unable to say it. A panicky search of her word bag gave her “psychiatrist”, a very OK thing to believe in. I doubt if she was using it maliciously. The point is she was taking extraordinary care to make sure she didn’t libel Williams by publicly suggesting he might believe in God. Before you dismiss this out of hand, watch the video.
Kenneth Burke, I’ll look at the video if you link it. In the meantime, I wonder if the word that Schiller decided not to use is ‘shrink’.
Sen. DeMint Will Introduce Bill to Defund NPR In his “Talking Points Memo” tonight, Bill O’Reilly said that “Jim DeMint will introduce legislation to defund” NPR in the wake of Juan Williams’s firing Politico
ex post facto, you got it, they’re sorry now … fortunately now we have instant memory refreshers like YouTube … technology is a tool of liberation no doubt 🙂
On the other hand .. I see the rebuttal now which is so effectively passed off as a “personal attack” since both sides seem to employ the use of it, “But that was … 15 years ago!!”
Yes it was, but demonstrate how your process of thinking has grown to think more reasonable and ethically….. Hmm Nina, hmmm Christine?
O’Reilly’s defense of Williams last night was very good, loved it! I’m so sick of these I’m-ethical-my-default (bullshit!!), elitist, Status quo so-called Liberals.
But what also bothered me today was Rush Limbaugh saying that Obama took what was rightfully Hillary’s from the election. The Clinton’s sunk their own campaign against Obama by injecting race into the primary. The Republicans were clean of this, but to say Hillary deserved the Democratic nomination is not true, she sunk her own boat.
Top five answers Schiller thought of:
Juan Williams should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself and his
1. Chicken and watermelon
2. Southern Baptist minister
3. Afirmative Action education
4. Uncle Tom attitude
5. NPR paycheck
Nyo,
I have no use for Hillary, but her boosters had some serious beefs with the Obama steam roller that used Chicago tactics including busing “voters” from out of state to take over caucuses. Some are still bitter.
How NPR thinks: “Fire Nina Totenberg? We can’t do that, she a gurr-uhl! And she broughted us Anita Hill!”
(Sheesh, bunch’a babies.)
“”Juan Williams should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself and his””
Jimmy Swaggart fan club
Country Club good ole boys
Baby’s mama daddy
Cult of gun collectors
Lol @ “broughted”. 🙂
and his Zionist friends that control media and finance.
and his crack dealer.
and his homo friends.
and his red light district visits.
You can bet that any dirt on Juan will soon be uncovered by a caring CAIR.
Hey, hey, over here. Here. See me. ME. MEEE! I’m the persecuted Muslim. I top all other claims. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Just drive that truck full of goodies from the US government and liberal media and dump em all right in my driveway. Don’t worry if you see alot of my relatives and friends and that it will be a very expensive house with a nice well-manicured yard. Me. me me me me Meeeeeee. I love me.
I’m at 72 Mohammad Way, SoA.
Neither Mr. Frank nor I are Hillary supporters, but like him, I noticed something untoward about the caucuses. Ann Althouse’s blog discussed an example: Why are the results so different in the primary and the caucus in TX and what does that mean more generally about caucus results?
I’m just wondering here… Isn’t there a law against using federal funds for explicitly partisan journalism? Would not NPR’s very lively and public defense of their actions constitute such bias, particularly with regard to the fact that it might predispose public opinion concerning a potentially litigious situation? While only a small part of their budget comes directly from the federal government, the same cannot be said for their member stations, some of whom receive as much as 40% of their annual budget (according to NPR) and are (required?) to use these funds to purchase content from NPR?
Under the European concept of libel, which our own leftists wish to implement, any person who makes any statement which could at some point in the future potentially damage another’s reputation with the intended audience, EVEN IF IT IS TRUE, can be subject to a suit for libel even before any damage, financial or otherwise, can be shown. (This is my understanding of their concept of libel based on what I have read in the past.) Doesn’t NPR’s statements put them at risk of exposure to such a suit? After all, this is a position they would otherwise support… And are federally-sourced funds allowed to be used to defend NPR in such a suit, or used to pay a claim if a judgment is ruled in favor of a plaintiff?
Again, just wondering…
Oh, don’t fear for NPR’s leftists. There’s plenty of laid-off journalists from print media (and not a few from broadcast) who would eagerly sign on to opine about the racist, ignorant rednecks of the Tea Party.
What’s more, George Soros just put up a couple of million to pay them. He’s paying them directly, not giving the money to NPR. That’s 100 slots. And they’re going to know who signs the checks.
What NPR did to Juan Williams
by ThinkAsTheyDoOrElse
Dark humor involving a bird, a wind turbine, and funny music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6opUqt8pV3c
I’m suggested your blog by means of my personal uncle. We are do not certain regardless of whether this publish will be composed through the pup since nobody realize these precise approximately the problems. You will be incredible! Thanks a lot!