"Gee I'd like to see the 'Rally to Restore Sanity, but my bosses will fire me if I go

[Hayabusa Rider]

Huh? Williams has been on Fox for quite literally years.



I'm pretty sure no one here is particularly interested in how you perceive other AT partisan's viewpoint just as no one is interested in a pharmacist's perspective on health care reform.



You're inordinately slow if you truly believe Stewart and Colbert's event was non-partisan. They're liberals, they make fun of conservatives on their show. I honestly feel bad for you that you think it's a non-partisan event.



Except NPR is making a non-brainer attempt at at least appearing non-partisan, which is I suppose quite arguable given their obvious liberal slant (though as most NPR viewers are aware, they make a very solid effort to present the news well). After all this nonsense I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve because, basically, you aren't either. You're just sort of ranting like that old guy that curses at everyone to get off his lawn. It's weird and, well, sad.

The rally picked examples from both sides. Is Stewart liberal? Sure he is. Does that make him incapable of understanding what is over the top and what is not? I think not. I often disagree with him, however I don't see him as a foaming at the mouth Olberman type.

Perhaps you are correct. Maybe the Management knows they aren't capable of not putting their feet in their mouths and decided that being under a rock was best for them. Monasteries have been out of fashion for a bit, but I suppose we can always use a modern day equivalent.

A great many have been disabused of the affectation of propriety NPR management puts on. Apparently some haven't. Management needs to stop pretending they are above the rest of their peers by posing as automatons.

Strangely, this all comes back to reasonableness. If NPR fitted that category, then Vivian would be gone because of her gaffe. If NPR had sense then they would allow their reporters ordinary rights of assembly, and no that doesn't mean KKK rallies. That gets dismissed as absurd right now.

Common sense isn't.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sticking your head in the sand and saying "Objective journalism doesn't exist." is more foolish.

It doesn't.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Being an objective person (unlikely) and reporting objectively (challenging, but not absurd) are different things.

My newspaper days are well behind me though... so maybe I missed the paradigm shift.

What happens is that people who have a bias (and everyone does. It's not a good or bad thing, it's just another word for perspective) are trying to escape what they are. They cannot. They certainly can attempt to minimize it, yet it will still come through. It's unavoidable.

Now I can buy a concept of relative objectivity where someone tries to take into account their personal beliefs as opposed to someone trying to couch opinion as facts by selectively choosing them and constructing a story around them.

The inherent problem is that no one can get into the head of another, see the world through their eyes, then take a different perspective of the same situation and use a standard of Absolute Truth to reconcile everything. Even when presenting facts as they are doesn't make for an unbiased story. News regarding abortion can be classic examples.

We however aren't talking about objectivity but appearances. Window dressing by creating such restrictions aren't consistent with reason, which again is something Stewart can get. Others? Well...

 

[jackstar7]

We however aren't talking about objectivity but appearances. Window dressing by creating such restrictions aren't consistent with reason, which again is something Stewart can get. Others? Well...

I agree that the restrictions are absurd. But you were just talking about objectivity.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Actually in my world we would laugh at you.

Someone would say - "You mean he really tried to equate a rally for reason with the KKK and Nazis?"

Earlier you wrote: "I like it that they also go after the First Amendment rights of them as well in that they can't contribute. I hope none of them supported a political party. "

So i don't get your problem here, both the KKK and other groups exercise their right to free speech which would mean that if you are to allow one you really need to allow the other too.

Either that or it's not the employers but YOU who set the rules whether the employer can or cannot restrict what rallies the employees attend.

It's fairly well known that in some positions (real journalism is an example, government employee and military are two others) your employer will restrict what you say and how you act on your own free time, this isn't news to anyone in either of these fields because it's always been like that so if they don't like it, they should probably look into sensationalist news organisations or other avenues of employment.

The first amendment rights are not restricted and cannot be restricted by an employer, he cannot hinder them at all, they are free to make their own choice and attend.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The first amendment rights are not restricted and cannot be restricted by an employer, he cannot hinder them at all, they are free to make their own choice and attend.

And be fired as a result, hardly a reasonable restriction in context. Perhaps I should rephrase it though and say that they violated a reasonable expression of free speech. We go from KKK to Reason. Why stop there? What if NPR said "You can't say to anyone what news source you use other than NPR". How about "You can never state an opinion". Surely someone can go against them and NPR can probably fire them for it, since most states are "at will". In all this NPR would hold themselves (or at least management) as the voice of reason. It would appear that the "fear" award is merited, because it's anything but reasonable. That's the problem.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

And be fired as a result, hardly a reasonable restriction in context. Perhaps I should rephrase it though and say that they violated a reasonable expression of free speech.

And you are the one who determines that? What about the rules laid forth by the employer? Are they unreasonable to you?

We go from KKK to Reason. Why stop there? What if NPR said "You can't say to anyone what news source you use other than NPR". How about "You can never state an opinion". Surely someone can go against them and NPR can probably fire them for it, since most states are "at will". In all this NPR would hold themselves (or at least management) as the voice of reason. It would appear that the "fear" award is merited, because it's anything but reasonable. That's the problem.

And if bears had no arseholes they would explode... But the "what if" game only works if there is no clearly laid out policy, there is, it was explained to your dumb arse in the second post: "NPR journalists may not participate in marches and rallies involving causes or issues that NPR covers, nor should they sign petitions or otherwise lend their name to such causes, or contribute money to them."

Those are the rules, don't like them, don't work for NPR, how fucking hard is that.

 

[JSt0rm]

Seriously? You're butt-hurt because NPR -- and presumably at least a few other principled news organizations -- still cling to the traditional standards for professional journalists? Requiring journalists to abstain from partisan activities is nothing new, nor is the concept unique to Journalism. Many professions hold employees to high standards, even in their private lives, restricting activities that might taint the image of the profession or the employer.

Journalists are expected to be objective in any stories they cover. They have traditionally been prohibited from engaging in political activities. Did you ever see Walter Cronkite in an anti-war march?

Kudos to NPR. It's a pity more news organizations aren't so principled.

QFT

NPR is the best news source.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And you are the one who determines that? What about the rules laid forth by the employer? Are they unreasonable to you?



And if bears had no arseholes they would explode... But the "what if" game only works if there is no clearly laid out policy, there is, it was explained to your dumb arse in the second post: "NPR journalists may not participate in marches and rallies involving causes or issues that NPR covers, nor should they sign petitions or otherwise lend their name to such causes, or contribute money to them."

Those are the rules, don't like them, don't work for NPR, how fucking hard is that.

It's not hard at all. NPR is a bunch of hypocritical pompous pricks pretending to be rational and instead make asses out of themselves. How hard is that? What a dumb fuck.

 

[Genx87]

For the people trying to push this off as some kind of jounalistic standard.
This is right from the article.

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller forwarded the memo, sent initially to news staff, to the entire organization, telling employees that the note applied to "digital, programming/AIR, legal and communications" employees in addition to the news staff.

I am sure legal, communications, programming and the janitor cleaning out Vivian's overflowed toilet will taint the fine image of NPR if they attend.

Nothing more than another example of these heavy handed management forcing their will on their employee's. Either toe the party line or disappear.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It's not hard at all. NPR is a bunch of hypocritical pompous pricks pretending to be rational and instead make asses out of themselves. How hard is that? What a dumb fuck.

I've never listened to NPR, i don't know fuck all about them but i do know that if there are rules of employment then there are rules that you need to follow to be employed.

I don't think it's the least bit strange and i don't think you do either, it's just that you don't like NPR. What did they do? Say they are unbiased and that is why they are enforcing a rule so that those reporters that cannot BE unbiased will have to leave? How horrible of them... Employers rights should be stripped immediatly, right?

Perhaps if you explained to me how they are hypocritical on this that would help?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

For the people trying to push this off as some kind of jounalistic standard.
This is right from the article.



I am sure legal, communications, programming and the janitor cleaning out Vivian's overflowed toilet will taint the fine image of NPR if they attend.

Nothing more than another example of these heavy handed management forcing their will on their employee's. Either toe the party line or disappear.

So you are saying that employers rights should be stripped and more power should be given to the unions to enforce that?

Or are you saying that you dislike NPR so this should be a special rule for them alone? If so i'm sure you can get together with Hugo Chavez and discuss how to make that happen, he's very good at that kinda thing.

 

[Carmen813]

Sticking your head in the sand and saying "Objective journalism doesn't exist." is more foolish.

The closest thing we have right now is probably Jon Stewart. And I don't know if that makes me want to laugh or cry.