• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NPR Fires Liberal News Analyst For Non-PC Nervousness

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
NPR has lost any little credibility it has over this mess. They've shown their true colors, diversity of thought it not allowed, you must echo the politically correct leftist line or you're out.

Remove federal funding from them, and boycott any companies that contribute to NPR.
 
I disagree. The 2% should end. It's a tiny slice of the total funding, yet it taints the entire network with the perception that it's run by the government.

The problem is the view that this 'taints' it, buying the right-wing attacks. Instead, we need public support for why public broadcasting was created.

Imagine the BBC didn't exist, and was suggested. Imagine the howling from the right how it was communist, and would never work - it would be utterly crap programming by 'the government' that would be unwatchably bad but paid for by the taxpayer in an incredible boondoggle that threatened government tyranny. But that's not what the BBC is.
 
In light of the Mediamatters article explaining that he violated their code, it seems to me that they should have ended his contract a long time ago, for the reasons OTHER than what he said the other day.

Exactly. It was their bending over backwards to be INCLUSIVE of the right here for years.
 
George Soros, the boogey man of the uneducated masses.

They should make George Soros masks for Halloween. What a monster, spending for helping mankind against the corruption of the right, for things like democracy and human rights.

Actually, like Joe Kennedy on Wall Street before FDR, he's probably a bit of a 'son of a bitch' in his business activities doing things that are legal but could cause harm. Not a saint.

Funny enough, though, that's not what he's attacked for - it's the good things he does.
 
Exactly. It was their bending over backwards to be INCLUSIVE of the right here for years.

More left wing drivel as usual. Fact is that he said something politically incorrect and the left wing politically correct NPR does not allow for independent thought outside the party line.
 
Speaking as an enthusiastic if often alienated righty, I'm not saying that NPR doesn't have a perfect right to fire Williams at will. I'm merely pointing out the extreme hypocrisy in firing this lefty for not being sufficiently doctrinaire. In other words, just par for the course among the left. And of course I'm also saying that since NPR boasts that only 2% of its funding comes from the taxpayer, there should be no problem ending that 2% and letting NPR be known in its proper role as a tool of the left rather than insisting on this fiction of an unbiased outlet for quality entertainment and accurate reporting.
 
He got fired because he went on a show and openly said he has an anti-Muslim bias.
It is precisely because NPR is "an unbiased outlet for quality entertainment and accurate reporting" that they had to fire him.
 
More left wing drivel as usual. Fact is that he said something politically incorrect and the left wing politically correct NPR does not allow for independent thought outside the party line.

No, you're ignorant. The information is all over this thread, but as an ideologue, you can't hear a word of it.
 
Speaking as an enthusiastic if often alienated righty, I'm not saying that NPR doesn't have a perfect right to fire Williams at will. I'm merely pointing out the extreme hypocrisy in firing this lefty for not being sufficiently doctrinaire. In other words, just par for the course among the left. And of course I'm also saying that since NPR boasts that only 2% of its funding comes from the taxpayer, there should be no problem ending that 2% and letting NPR be known in its proper role as a tool of the left rather than insisting on this fiction of an unbiased outlet for quality entertainment and accurate reporting.

What doctrine are you talking about? He was talking about his involuntary reaction to Muslims, that probably every non-Muslim American has.
 
Statements about liberals by opponents here are wrong 95% of the time, and I can't remember the other 5%.

Oh Lord. :|

By your definitions above, the government having ANY tax means it 'does not support private property rights'.

My statement was regarding a private organization being allowed to hire and fire who they want, when they want, and for whatever reason they see fit. You think it is ok for government to do things like ban smoking in a bar. You do NOT have respect for private property rights. Sorry. And don't come back with your "where's the beef" again, that got old in the 1980's.


So, your commentary to the position of supporting more federal funding of something is, 'you would get the money from taxes'. I guess to you, that's a scathing indictment.

As I've said before, trying to have any discussion with such radical differences that one dollar in taxes is to you some horrific moral travesty, doesn't make much sense.

That's because people like you can't have just one dollar, you need a trillion here and a trillion there. It's never enough, and your beloved government can't even efficiently spend what they get. And when they don't have enough, they just borrow or worse, print. The ends justify the means, until the ends come home to roost. You can blame whomever you want, Republicans, doesn't matter. Republicans are part of the government just as their constituents are part of your beloved democracy. You may have to take your head out of your ass to see it, but the air you breathe in afterward should be cleaner.

Some people just are just lacking the idea of 'community' in their politics.

Negative, at least in my shoes. You see us a nation, a society. I see us as individuals.

That's normal, for after a healthy progressive movement has created a stable politician system for them - they forget the desperate problems it came out of.

At the same time our democracy is in great danger from the economic gutting of the middle class, removing much of its power, and the spread of right-wing ideology as the wealthy class returns to plutocracy, such as the new right for the monied to buy opinion in our political system, some recognize the threat, and others cheer it on.

Your system is broken, Craig. Or rather, just flat broke. You see millions of old folks with health care and a SS check, millions with an unemployment check. I see their children getting nothing, because the government you have made them dependent upon is running out of money, they've made promises they could never keep. Your excuse is it's a hell of a ride, but you've put them on one that ends, and badly. It's not sustainable and in the end, that's what matters most.

As they say, the path to hell is paved with good intentions. I honestly don't know anyone here with better intentions than yourself. So, I may applaud you for that, but I shake my head as I see the disaster down the road.
 
Fox News PR Stunt. What's that saying? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me thrice, shame on you....I will be Fooled again.
 
Yep. if it ain't right, it's defintely left. No such thing as straight ahead honest news reporting.....unless it's from Fox....bwahhahaha. Geeez, I didn't know NPR was such a needle in the side of the right. No wonder Bush tried to compromise and bend NPR to his will years ago. He didn't like anybody dispensing anything other than the crap propaganda coming out of Rove's hidey-hole. Rove wanted NPR to be more "balanced"...ahahhaaha.

You'd think that NPR was the pole opposite of Fox.....oh wait...from the point of view that Fox lies and distorts its "News" coverage all the time and NPR doesn't, it must be true.

And that's a FACT.

The truth really is the sworn enemy of the right after all.
 
He got fired because he went on a show and openly said he has an anti-Muslim bias.
It is precisely because NPR is "an unbiased outlet for quality entertainment and accurate reporting" that they had to fire him.


more like agenda based soviet style propaganda. And like the soviets they got rid of somebody that didn't echo the jack boot agenda.
 
Fox News PR Stunt. What's that saying? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me thrice, shame on you....I will be Fooled again.

Yeah thats it, Fox News contacted their good buddies NPR and they cooked up this stunt. 🙄 Then again you live in a country where unelected commissions can determine what speech is acceptable so I don't expect you to have much understanding of free speech.
 
What doctrine are you talking about? He was talking about his involuntary reaction to Muslims, that probably every non-Muslim American has.

I've commented before that the simple fact over nearly all public discussion of Muslims being about terrorism has a big propagandizing effect on the public's views.

I made a similar point about when nearly all public discussion of the Catholic Church was about priest molestation - even if nearly all priests are not doing it, you couldn't meet a priest or talk about priests without some presence of the molestation issue, though you don't say anything.

So even though I know Muslims are not only not Al Queda, not only the actual targets of Al Queda on 9/11, but seem less violent than the average American, you can hardly help when sitting on a plan and see a Muslim-dressed person not to think of the terrorism issue some, even if it's to remind yourself why it's not a problem - which I suspect most don't.

A real issue is more what to do to reduce the bigotry this sort of thing causes.
 
NPR has lost any little credibility it has over this mess. They've shown their true colors, diversity of thought it not allowed, you must echo the politically correct leftist line or you're out.

Remove federal funding from them, and boycott any companies that contribute to NPR.
And your opinion is of course totally unbiased. 🙄

NPR is the closest America has to a neutral news outlet. The fact that hard-right conservatives such as you think NPR has a liberal bias proves only that hard-right conservatives have an extreme right-wing bias.
 
Yep. if it ain't right, it's defintely left. No such thing as straight ahead honest news reporting.....unless it's from Fox....bwahhahaha. Geeez, I didn't know NPR was such a needle in the side of the right. No wonder Bush tried to compromise and bend NPR to his will years ago. He didn't like anybody dispensing anything other than the crap propaganda coming out of Rove's hidey-hole. Rove wanted NPR to be more "balanced"...ahahhaaha.

You'd think that NPR was the pole opposite of Fox.....oh wait...from the point of view that Fox lies and distorts its "News" coverage all the time and NPR doesn't, it must be true.

And that's a FACT.

The truth really is the sworn enemy of the right after all.

The left doesn't believe in facts or truths when it espouses post-Christianity and relativism. To me NPR has a clear liberal bias, Fox a clear conservative bias, but I have absolutely no issue with what Juan Williams said.

Muslims think they can come to America and change it to fit their world view by being loud about their beliefs, who do they think we are, Europe? =)

On the other hand, if America was run by you liberal PC ACLU fanboys then I'd only wish we can have convictions half as strong as the muslims do...
 
He got fired because he went on a show and openly said he has an anti-Muslim bias.
It is precisely because NPR is "an unbiased outlet for quality entertainment and accurate reporting" that they had to fire him.

You should have heard what NPR had to say when Arizona's new immigration law/reform was a hot topic. They were literally mocking Arizona lawmakers and all everyone supporting it. That was as far as it can get from have no bias towards anyone.
 
Yes, they are a private organization, but they still fall under the same labor laws. Being a ultra liberal far left media with reporters like Nina Totenberg and being funded by minority whores like George Soros does not allow them to break labor laws. If Juan wants he can easily file a suite and win.

lol. 😀.

such a shill. Do you even have your own ideas anymore? Seriously, which one of your messiahs told you this? Because this the type of information that someone merley repeats, b/c they hear it from someone else, accept it as truth, and never attempt to investigate it for themselves.

roflsocks.
 
I've commented before that the simple fact over nearly all public discussion of Muslims being about terrorism has a big propagandizing effect on the public's views.

I made a similar point about when nearly all public discussion of the Catholic Church was about priest molestation - even if nearly all priests are not doing it, you couldn't meet a priest or talk about priests without some presence of the molestation issue, though you don't say anything.

So even though I know Muslims are not only not Al Queda, not only the actual targets of Al Queda on 9/11, but seem less violent than the average American, you can hardly help when sitting on a plan and see a Muslim-dressed person not to think of the terrorism issue some, even if it's to remind yourself why it's not a problem - which I suspect most don't.

A real issue is more what to do to reduce the bigotry this sort of thing causes.

Two important points:

1. The koran DOES advocate violence against the infidel. FACT.
2. The individual is NOT the same as the collective. The Taliban are the nicest people when you're one dude seeking shelter, just ask OBL. But as a group they WILL seek to impose their will on you, through any means they possess.
 
You should have heard what NPR had to say when Arizona's new immigration law/reform was a hot topic. They were literally mocking Arizona lawmakers and all everyone supporting it. That was as far as it can get from have no bias towards anyone.

What do you mean, "they?"

Talk of the Nation had plenty of commenters on there talking about how Arizona is simply enforcing their current law, and federal law. I felt that I came away with a much broader sense of the situation, and much more from Arizona's perspective.

Odd how we can hear two completely different stories.

Were you listening to Glen Beck's interpretation of their reporting?
 
lol. 😀.

such a shill. Do you even have your own ideas anymore? Seriously, which one of your messiahs told you this? Because this the type of information that someone merley repeats, b/c they hear it from someone else, accept it as truth, and never attempt to investigate it for themselves.

roflsocks.

This

You should have heard what NPR had to say when Arizona's new immigration law/reform was a hot topic. They were literally mocking Arizona lawmakers and all everyone supporting it. That was as far as it can get from have no bias towards anyone.

Also during the presidential elections they would bring in all kinds of politicians on their shows and ppl like Diane Rehm would literally admonish the republicans and right wing ppl where as treat the lefties like Masaya. again, far far away from having "no bias"

Do you even listen to NPR?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top