It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NPR reporter pressured over Fox role

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

NPR reporter pressured over Fox role


www.politico.com

NPR recently asked the network’s top political correspondent, Mara Liasson, to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News because of what they perceived as the network’s political bias ... sources ... said.
Liasson was summoned in early October ... . The NPR executives said they had concerns that Fox’s programming had grown more partisan, and they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network.
Liasson reported she’d seen no significant change ... and planned to continue appearing ... .
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 7-12-2009 by jdub297]




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
One of the simplest rebuttals to the ATS whiners about “Faux News” has been the exuberant input and valuable contributions of liberals such as Mara Liasson and Juan Williams.

Liberals/"progressives" will ‘Uncle Tom” them and use other moronic tactics to denigrate the fine and insightful commentary they offer on the many Fox programs in which they appear, offering their unfettered and unabashedly liberal points of view.

Of course, the liberal press and "progressives" believe that the best response is to shut them up.

Prior restraint.

Censorship.

Desperate tactics of the ideologically bankrupt.


NPR’s focus on Liasson’s work as a commentator on Fox’s “Special Report” and “Fox News Sunday” came at about the same time as a White House campaign launched in September to delegitimize the network by painting it as an extension of the Republican Party.
One source said the White House’s criticism of Fox was raised during the discussions with Liasson. However, an NPR spokeswoman told POLITICO that the Obama administration’s attempts to discourage other news outlets from treating Fox as a peer had no impact on any internal discussions at NPR.


Liasson has been with Fox for over a decade, and Williams almost as long. The liberals just noticed?

What really was the impetus for the criticism, since their presence and the MSM/liberal critiques of Fox have been going on almost as long?

Could it be ... Obama? (You thought I was going to say "Satan," didn't you? Maybe I did.)

As the White House’s campaign against Fox heated up in October, Liasson’s work on Fox drew fire from Jacob Weisberg, the editor of Slate.
“By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations,” Weisberg wrote in an Oct. 17 Newsweek column, “Why Fox News Is Un-American.” “Respectable journalists — I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson — should stop appearing on its programs.

A little frightened, are we? You should be if your idea of ‘open discussion’ and “transparency” precludes the inclusion or disclosure of dissenting opinion. What a shallow, empty position!

What, I have to ask the liberal critics, are you so afraid of?


In the past, NPR has caught flak over its personnel appearing on Fox News and has taken some steps to put distance in the relationship.
In February, NPR asked that journalist Juan Williams, who is a political analyst for the radio network, no longer identify himself as such when appearing on Fox’s “O’Reilly Factor.” The request followed a “Factor” appearance in January in which Williams said of first lady Michelle Obama, “She’s got this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going.”


Oh no! Please don’t speak your mind! How dare you, Juan Williams, have an honest, ‘unpopular’ (from the liberal point of view, of course) opinion?

The liberal press are quickly losing whatever meager credibility they’ve scrounged up thus far as the sham becomes more obvious by the minute.


One complaint from NPR executives is that this very perception that Liasson and Williams serve as ideological counterweights reinforces feelings among some members of the public that NPR tilts to the left. “NPR has its own issues in trying to convince people that, ‘Look, we’re down the middle,’” the source said. “This is a public and institutional problem that has nothing to do with Mara. Obviously, you can’t give Mara a hard time for what’s coming out of her mouth. ... She’s very careful. She isn’t trashing anybody.”


Oh my! We can’t reveal our true nature can we, NPR? Or NBC, Or MSNBC.

Here’s a question to consider:

What will the MSM and the ATS liberal/progressive sycophants and anti-Fox luddites have to say about this?

Deny ignorance!

jw


www.politico.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Interesting and informative post, i will sit back and enjoy this thread as its sure to bring out several constructive posts here after.

In any case, all msm corporations have a healthy deal with which ever administration is in power. They are simply doing what is referred to as capitalism.

A is watching B and B is watching A and C is watching A and B but who is watching C.....

you might have guest it, its what is referred to within the Internet lingo as alphabet agencies.




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Her appearances on Fox does raise the question on whether she can report in an unbiased manner. While most of the major networks have some bias, Fox is biased to the extreme. It's really pure rubbish meant to entertain older white conservative males and to push the Republican daily talking points.

NPR has a reputation of being the most balanced network in the U.S. and I give them kudos for trying to keep their reporting unbiased. As we need at least one station that isn't afraid to dig deeper than the sound bites and screaming found on other stations.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaploink
NPR has a reputation of being the most balanced network in the U.S. and I give them kudos for trying to keep their reporting unbiased. As we need at least one station that isn't afraid to dig deeper than the sound bites and screaming found on other stations.


No such station could ever exist on the same level as the above. Simply because no advertising revenue would be obtained. Keep in mind, all these stations rely ON advertising revenue.

Here are the prices of spots per / 30 seconds. Changes in prices are subject without prior warning.




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaploink
Her appearances on Fox does raise the question on whether she can report in an unbiased manner.


You are exactly right! Mara Liasson is a plant, and was put in place 12 years ago to spout false liberal talking points only to make Fox seem 'legitimate!'

Maybe NPR or Chris Matthews could arrange an "accident" and eliminate this impostor. She should either stick with the liberal agenda 100% or turn in her press "credentials."

Anyone who listens to her reports knows she only takes a liberal side to make the conservatives look good, and that she in an insincere whore mouthpiece for the right-wing demagogues who control her.

She and Juan "Unlce Tom" Williams should just shut up!

All true liberals should abide by and honor the wise observation: "Will someone not rid me of this meddlesome priest?"


NPR has a reputation of being the most balanced network in the U.S. and I give them kudos for trying to keep their reporting unbiased. As we need at least one station that isn't afraid to dig deeper than the sound bites and screaming found on other stations.


I listen to NPR several hours a day (Diane Rehm's on right now), and find them to be quite liberal in their reporting. How else to explain Inskeep's observations about "alleged shootings and murders" at Fort Hood, or Totenberg's trouncing of Clarence Thomas' nomination (I listened all day to her imperious exasperation), among others?

Thank God there is at least one radio network willing to ignore the right on every issue and present the liberal point of view in the best possible light, even if they have to make it up!

Remember Cokie and Tamara last week when they had to admit that Grassley was RIGHT when he pointed out that Obamacare will raise taxes for 5 years before providing ANY benfits?

They were quick to point out that even so, if everything pans out and nothing changes, that in 20 years, "there will be some deficit reduction!"
(How smart, even if they had to change the subject and cite projections that the CBO says are baseless speculation!)

(The foregoing sarcasm should in no way be taken to be representative of the opinions of the post-er, any of its affiliates or lackeys)

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 7-12-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 

No such station could ever exist on the same level as the above. Simply because no advertising revenue would be obtained. Keep in mind, all these stations rely ON advertising revenue.


Except, of course, NPR, which gets 100% of its funding from listeners, foundations, corporations, State and local government, the U.S. Department of Treasury, and many dozens of Federal agencies.

Which explains why they have no bias toward government, liberals and the corporations and philanthropists from whose hands they are fed.

jw



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by tristar
 

No such station could ever exist on the same level as the above. Simply because no advertising revenue would be obtained. Keep in mind, all these stations rely ON advertising revenue.


Except, of course, NPR, which gets 100% of its funding from listeners, foundations, corporations, State and local government, the U.S. Department of Treasury, and many dozens of Federal agencies.

Which explains why they have no bias toward government, liberals and the corporations and philanthropists from whose hands they are fed.

jw





I most likely will be slapped across the wrist for my next answer but here it goes...


Exactly.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 
Maybe not slapped, just belittled, muted and disparaged.

That appears to be the standard response to legitimate criticism on ATS.

jw



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
In any case, i believe everyone is well aware how rotten the quality of journalism has evolved. Reporters being bribed, articles written in favor of corporations,politicians and the list is really endless.

This is why when someone approaches me regarding to a particular subject and they present themselves as a "reporter from ######" i tend to say "off the record" , "no comment" and i keep on walking. I have found it psychologically provokes so much mental stress they often blow out or become verbally abusive in an arrogant manner. which i find totally enjoyable.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


This is why it's a bad idea to make blanket statements - something I admit I've done in the past and something I'm trying not to do now or in the future. It's a hard thing not to do when you're passionate about something like the welfare of your country.

There are just as many fair, well-meaning liberals out there as there are fair, well-meaning conservatives. Mara Liasson sets a good example.

Star and flag for you for posting this, my friend!



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
O'reilly is a fascist!
Yes a fascist, a neo-nazi!

He hates America and freedom, and if people didn't realize that when he said that "If you disagree with our military then you should just SHUT UP" should have clued them in on that.

Fox News has slowly becoming better since Obama won, but if the republican party ever wins again Fox News will be back to it's old self.

during fox's neo-nazi break during having the dems in Power, MSNBC has become the new Fox.
Every news station is always better while in opposition, coincidently the same time as the 2 major parties.

Glen Beck calling Obama a racist is no different than that reporter on MSNBC saying the word "socialist" is a codeword for the N word. I see no difference... actually wait I do.
Calling Obama a racist is insulting one man, saying those who say call Obama a socialist are racist is insulting hundreds of thousands of people.

I disagree with the word socialist, it's incorrect to call him that but perhaps it's easier to say socialist then economic fascist.

Fox News, MSNBC and the Huffington Post are the most biased news sources in this continent.

But that doesn't mean refuse to show up as a commentator.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I am getting a little more scared every day, I am seeing myself agreeing with you more and more, How freaking scary is that. I consider myself a conservative but not a republican. I loved Bush until the Patriot act, I voted for and Loved Obama until TARP. Understand?


Back on topic, the News stations are not news, when your front page on your website reads "Foxy Knoxy Guilty" That’s total bogus BS, Or even CNNs "Black in America Coverage" It make me want to laugh. All three of the "News" groups are a bunch of idiots. I liked Lou Dobbs from CNN and Glenn Beck When he was CNN and Now fox, but other than that they all spin the news to what they want it to say.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Not sure what you guys do for a living or how well up to speed you all are as far as european news and i am not referring to U.K. news only but on all major power driven eu nations.

Then news from the 5 most wealthy and heavy industrialized nations seem to share a common rule as the U.S. , A.U. , Japan, China and Russia. There has been a shift in the style of news and the quality of content in respect to how the news is presented. It is as if WE TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK... , then the citizen of each of those respected nations walks away from his T.V. even more confused than before. It is as if they want you to become Bi-Polar and question and re-question anything that seems insane.

It is as if the majority of the world simply has lost it sense of rational thinking and has given in with its head bowed down to an ideology which 20 years ago was considered ludicrous to say the least. We are obviously living in times which do have many similarities to 1908 and 1920. The average person does feel that something is seriously wrong, something is just not right, but yet they cannot place their finger on the problem. Sure they have an indication but everyone is somewhat confused as to who,what,when,how and why.

I only fear that the ultimate outcome and most evident is what has been repeated every 30 years.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Fox isn't news, it's entertainment for the simple minds of the Right. I could care less about any commentator on that station.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 


Would you say the same thing about MSNBC or CNN for the left?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 


Would you say the same thing about MSNBC or CNN for the left?



The Right watch Fox to hear what they want to hear.
The Left watch MSNBC to hear what they want to hear.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I don't get this


so you're saying liberals are wrong about Fox not being biased?


The network whose talkshow hosts and anchors slander the POTUS, even when he makes a decision in their preferred party's favor?a

The same group of people whose interview tactics towards anyone with an opposing view being yell the loudest and interrupt often so they don't get to make their point?


The same network that works daily to instill fear into the public during the 10 o clock news? then follows it up with a story about a cute animal?


edited: I wrote this post very early in the morning

[edit on 8-12-2009 by piddles]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 
If people are able to overlook labels and examine the substance of a message, legitimate debate will thrive.

"Knee jerk" positions are frequently wrong and often insupportable on objective examination.

I value and respect NPR, Fox and ATS for what they are, rather than what others says they are or expect them to be.

An open, discerning mind is always preferable to one that is closed.

jw



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
In so many ways I am ever thankful to not be watching tv. I do get satellite radio and listen to BBC World radio a lot - they cover US news better than any of our guys and they have new news and new segments all day with news seldom so repetitive as ours and with deep investigative journalism that puts ours to shame, save for Christiane Amanpour from CNN...if you want to be informed without an American bias, and are interested in international news, please check it out.

If you want to subscribe to an American paper or have a look on the online edition with excellent international coverage, take a look at the Christian Science Monitor! ...and don't worry, it has no perceptible Christian agenda or focus.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join