NPR's Ron Schiller ousted after another sting by O'Keefe

[PokerGuy]

We're on the same page on all this. I don't really understand why you're making an issue of this with me but whatever.

I know we're on the same page, and I'm not making an issue with you over it (sorry if it came across that way, it was not intended that way), I was just responding to the "it's just hot air, no big deal" comments from various people. Apparently it's a big enough deal for the CEO and president to get booted.

 

[Linflas]

The big deal is that the right wing mantra is "Not with my money!" No doubt if the entire country were libertarians they'd still be yelling "Not with my money!" and calling each other communists.

NPR/PBS claim that they only receive 2% of their funding from the taxpayers. If it is really only 2% it seems to me that the smart thing for them to do would be to voluntarily find 2% to cut from their budgets and give up that 2%. It would be a public relations coup for them and free them from having to lower themselves to deal with all those "ignorant taxpayers" they are forced to contend with each time their funding comes up for review in congress.

 

[sandorski]

Gotcha Media.

 

[OutHouse]

Actually that's a pretty big problem, but on the opposite side of the argument. It's not just that Middle America is ignorant, but intellectualism is looked down upon and ignorance is celebrated. That's part of the reason why we get the shitty government we have right now.

This post is a prime example of ignorance

 

[Phokus]

This post is a prime example of ignorance

Nice Rebuttal. George Bush, Sarah Palin, constant bitching and lumping of "the east coast ivory tower educated elites", etc. etc.

Edit: I mean damnit, just look at George Bush, he has to PRETEND he's some sort of southern texas hick (with a ridiculous fake accent to boot) just to get GOP votes, even though he's a northeastern blue blood. How much more proof do you need.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

This may be a little hard for you to wrap your mind around...but Doc Savage =/= Michael Savage.

I understand that a steady diet of KoolAid cause hallucinations.

Ok, let me spell it out for you then: Stick to pulp fiction.

 

[Infohawk]

I was just responding to the "it's just hot air, no big deal" comments from various people. Apparently it's a big enough deal for the CEO and president to get booted.

Yep, it is a big deal. Just because this O'Keefe is a douche bag doesn't mean it's not really embarrassing for NPR. It feeds into the stereotype that they're just a liberal outlet.

One good reason for NPR to have federal funding is that it keeps them honest on issues like this. I really hope that if and when they lose their funding they don't start veering more to the left.

 

[sandorski]

Yep, it is a big deal. Just because this O'Keefe is a douche bag doesn't mean it's not really embarrassing for NPR. It feeds into the stereotype that they're just a liberal outlet.

One good reason for NPR to have federal funding is that it keeps them honest on issues like this. I really hope that if and when they lose their funding they don't start veering more to the left.

Total Fail. Everyone has an Opinion, even those in the Press. Show the Bias in the Content of the Organization, else there is no "Liberal Bias".

Lame attempt at Guilt by Association.

 

[Thump553]

NPR/PBS claim that they only receive 2% of their funding from the taxpayers. If it is really only 2% it seems to me that the smart thing for them to do would be to voluntarily find 2% to cut from their budgets and give up that 2%. It would be a public relations coup for them and free them from having to lower themselves to deal with all those "ignorant taxpayers" they are forced to contend with each time their funding comes up for review in congress.

I agree, but I suspect there is quite a bit of accounting smoke and mirrors in that 2% figure. NPR may only get 2% but I've heard the individual stations get quite a bit more directly and a lot of those stations would fold.

Finally looking at NPR's latest tax return (Form 990 for 2008) I could find it looks like their total income from all sources is just over $150M. Two percent of that is $3M and there are over 300M in population in the US. If only half the population of the US are taxpayers, that means each taxpayer is paying about two cents a year towards NPR. Pretty silly to be fussing about that isn't it?

 

[fskimospy]

Simple explanation for your Fox News statement, people with IQs over 80 avoid you like the plague.

Personally I don't see the big deal here. Everyone knows this is NPR's bias, as it is the same bias found in virtually all mainstream news organizations except for Fox News and CNBC (right biased) and MSNBC (far left biased.) And once you accept that NPR is a bunch of lefties, it's actually not bad news. I don't think NPR OR PBS should get public money, but I see nothing shocking, offensive, or unexpected in Schiller's words, nor anything that prohibits their being a legitimate news organization.

As I've said many times, and linked to many studies, the idea that the media is liberally biased is a myth, unsupported by factual evidence. (in fact, directly and repeatedly disproven by scholarly analysis) There has been exactly one study that found otherwise, and it is widely discredited.

 

[Tom]

1. I believe NPR and PBS should receive more public funding, not less. along with more funding for science and the arts.
2. I don't have too much problem with individual bias in a journalist, as long as they are professional that should not affect their coverage and analysis. That's why the firing of Juan Williams was so offensive to me, that was clearly a case of applying an anti-Fox, anti-conservative bias.
3. I don't see why an NPR executive had such a meeting at all, let alone discuss his personal bias in such a meeting.
4. I'm a liberal, but I don't want any liberal bias in NPR or PBS. I consider a good benchmark the Newshour, formerly the MacNeil/Lehrer newshour.
5. Since I'm typing..I also think NPR needs to rebalance it's coverage towards US national news, away from world coverage and particularly Middle East/Israel coverage.

If Israel wants a New York station that covers Israeli issues, let them start their own. That should not be the role of NPR.

 

[fskimospy]

That IS actual evidence, you just can't see it until you take off the left wing blinders.

Your personal perception that they are mean to the tea party is not actual evidence. By your same logic I could point out how supportive of the Iraq War programming was on NPR and then declare right wing bias. (hint: that would be really stupid)

Bull. I do listen to NPR occasionally (always good to know what the other side is thinking), and the coverage is anything but evenhanded. That's like saying Fox is fair and balanced.

Attempting to equate Fox with NPR just shows how far off the deep end you are. It's the standard tactic of the extreme right to accuse every news station of picking on them and being biased against them. In fact, it's exactly that sort of shrieking from the ultra right that has cowed so many news organizations away from reporting basic facts.

Like I said, go find some analysis, you know... not anecdotal evidence that supports your claim. It should be easy to find if the bias is so pervasive. I won't hold my breath.

 

[bfdd]

I bet NPR uses terms like "healthcare reform" and "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" instead of the proper term "Obamacare" too.

I wish we could all just call it "bullshit" it would make it easier.

 

[her209]

I bet NPR uses terms like "healthcare reform" and "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" instead of the proper term "Obamacare" too.

Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing!

 

[PokerGuy]

Like I said, go find some analysis, you know... not anecdotal evidence that supports your claim. It should be easy to find if the bias is so pervasive. I won't hold my breath.

Since there is no objective measure of bias in political coverage, there can't be any proof of it either. Duh. The "undocumented" versus "illegal" example is perfect: you can't "prove" any bias through that statement, but anyone who's paying attention can immediately tell what side of the issue you're on. That kind of bias can not show up in any analysis, but it's very real.

 

[fskimospy]

Since there is no objective measure of bias in political coverage, there can't be any proof of it either. Duh. The "undocumented" versus "illegal" example is perfect: you can't "prove" any bias through that statement, but anyone who's paying attention can immediately tell what side of the issue you're on. That kind of bias can not show up in any analysis, but it's very real.

So wait, let me get this straight, you think there cannot be proof of bias, but you're sure that it exists. Hahahahahahaha. You're a one of a kind.

There's plenty of research on the topic.

 

[PokerGuy]

So wait, let me get this straight, you think there cannot be proof of bias, but you're sure that it exists.

So in your world, until someone proves in some study that gravity exists it doesn't? Believe it or not you CAN come to your own conclusions.

 

[werepossum]

As I've said many times, and linked to many studies, the idea that the media is liberally biased is a myth, unsupported by factual evidence. (in fact, directly and repeatedly disproven by scholarly analysis) There has been exactly one study that found otherwise, and it is widely discredited.

Keep repeating that, it'll protect you against evil (Fox News.)

In order to believe there is no liberal bias in the media, one must believe that EVERY Democrat Presidential candidate is much better than EVERY Republican Presidential candidate, so the bias in positive versus negative coverage for Democrats is only accurate reporting. I'm sure you believe that, but please don't be so foolish as to think you can convince the rest of us.

 

[Patranus]

Since there is no objective measure of bias in political coverage, there can't be any proof of it either. Duh. The "undocumented" versus "illegal" example is perfect: you can't "prove" any bias through that statement, but anyone who's paying attention can immediately tell what side of the issue you're on. That kind of bias can not show up in any analysis, but it's very real.

Yes, you can tell bias.

The legal term is illegal alien. Any other term used is an attempt to make the illegal sound more like a person and less like a criminal which creates a bias.

 

[sandorski]

Keep repeating that, it'll protect you against evil (Fox News.)

In order to believe there is no liberal bias in the media, one must believe that EVERY Democrat Presidential candidate is much better than EVERY Republican Presidential candidate, so the bias in positive versus negative coverage for Democrats is only accurate reporting. I'm sure you believe that, but please don't be so foolish as to think you can convince the rest of us.

You are so confused, that you mistake your confusion for thought.

 

[fskimospy]

So in your world, until someone proves in some study that gravity exists it doesn't? Believe it or not you CAN come to your own conclusions.

And your conclusions should be based upon evidence. Try it sometime.

 

[Throckmorton]

Vivian Schiller was finally fired

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...PR-chief-resigns-amid-uproar-over-sting-video

 

[Bowfinger]

Keep repeating that, it'll protect you against evil (Fox News.)

In order to believe there is no liberal bias in the media, one must believe that EVERY Democrat Presidential candidate is much better than EVERY Republican Presidential candidate, so the bias in positive versus negative coverage for Democrats is only accurate reporting. I'm sure you believe that, but please don't be so foolish as to think you can convince the rest of us.

Right, because there is no negative coverage of Democrats and no positive coverage of Republicans. Taking your Kool Aid intravenously now, I take it?

I think the problem with nutters is they are so immersed in their faith they cannot do even semi-objective self analysis. When they see a negative story about the left, they don't see it as bias. They just nod their heads and say, "Damn right." or "It's about time they got one right." When they see a negative story about the right, however, they wind up the outrage and start shrieking, "See! BIAS! BIAS! BIAS! Damn librul media durr."

One reasonably scientific study of media bias I read tends to support this. It found Fox to be right-biased, MSNBC left-biased, network coverage reasonably unbiased, and CNN relatively unbiased but more negative overall. I think that why the right sees CNN as so liberal, because it has been quite critical of both parties. They ignore the negativity towards the left, obsess about the negativity towards the right, and conclude in their partisan haze that CNN is the problem.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, you can tell bias.

The legal term is illegal alien. Any other term used is an attempt to make the illegal sound more like a person and less like a criminal which creates a bias.

The legal term for every person who isn't a citizen is an alien. I won't rest until the news refers to the tourists in NYC as 'nonresident aliens'.

The fact that you're worried that people might become humanized is pretty fantastic though, you guys are really outdoing yourselves in the 'shitty person' category in this thread.

 

[her209]

Keep repeating that, it'll protect you against evil (Fox News.)

In order to believe there is no liberal bias in the media, one must believe that EVERY Democrat Presidential candidate is much better than EVERY Republican Presidential candidate, so the bias in positive versus negative coverage for Democrats is only accurate reporting. I'm sure you believe that, but please don't be so foolish as to think you can convince the rest of us.

That's because Jews control the media and they vote Democrat.

:awe: