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: 2
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I saw Juan Williams on Fox yesterday afternoon and I was thinking to myself firstly, what a stand up guy this must be to enter the lion's den and inject his thoughts. Secondly, why is NPR allowing this? They are funded by baldly leftist foundations. I then thought, well maybe this is their attempt at bi-partisanship. I was apparently wrong about NPR but right about Williams.




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


First you have confused Maria Liasson as a "liberal voice" on a "conservative network.

Maria Liasson, a dying breed of journalist, is a nuetral/analytical voice...

But these days conservativces often accuses the truth as having a "left-wing liberal bias".

The concern that NPR had with Maria Liasson appearing on Fox News had nothing to do with "White House Pressure" or her somehow aiding in Fox's attampts to appear objective..

The concern was that she was appears in a forum on Fox where they are trying to position her as the token "liberal voice"...and NPR does not want to appear either Liberal or Conservative...or compromise their nuetrality.

* They weren't afraid of her being on a conservative network...they were concerned with the Network's recent efforts to position her as "Left/liberal" and thus biased...thus degrading her credibility as being nuetral.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 


I wish I could agree with you on your opinion of NPR being unbiased.

I listen to the radio all day while at work, and I got so sick of hearing NPR always promoting liberal agendas that now I only listen to it for the music. Now, I am NOT a republican, which was probably your first impulse after reading my last statement.

My take on it is ever since Obama was elected there has been an even greater rift down the aisle, and NPR is probably just drawing a line in the sand, trying to get their star reporters to choose.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   


There has been a concern in the upper regions of NPR that Fox uses Mara and Juan as cover” to defuse arguments that the TV network is populated with right-wing voices, said the source, who asked not to be named.


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.




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisCrikey
 



I do get satellite radio and listen to BBC World radio a lot - they cover US news better than any of our guys

I couldn't agree more. I've subscribed to CSM for years precisely because they take no sides and are unafraid to challenge orthodoxy.

I've changed my sleeping habits because my local station only broadcasts BBC World News between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. I don't really like the British style of melding news and comment, but they will cover US news better than most American MSM. And if you want to know what the US is doing overseas, they and Agence France Press are the only alternatives.

jw

[edit on 7-12-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 

I saw Juan Williams on Fox yesterday afternoon and I was thinking to myself firstly, what a stand up guy this must be to enter the lion's den and inject his thoughts.

I don't always agree with Williams, but I appreciate a reporter/commentator who will stand his ground. He will not abide an idiot, and I give him a lot of credit for that.

"In the Lion's den" is right, but Juan holds his own. Have you ever see him sub for O'Reilly? He runs the show better than the namesake.

jw

[edit on 7-12-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


NPR does not want to appear either Liberal or Conservative...or compromise their nuetrality.


I'll grant you that NPR doesn't want to be considered Liberal or Conservative.

That is a far cry from actual "neutrality." No reasonable person can credibly assert that NPR is not Liberal, much less "neutral."

I listen daily, to a variety of NPR programming beginning with "Morning Edition," and their liberal bias is evident, if not obvious.

They are not "all in" like MSNBC, but given the chance, they'll comsistently slant the news to the left.

You only deceive yourself if you believe what you've posted.

jw



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Here is a novel idea. Quit watching any and all of it. All of it is complete garbage that is designed to keep you in fear, arguing amongst yourselves, and to perpetuate the money machine.

From the looks of this thread, the agenda is working marvelously.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
No reasonable person can credibly assert that NPR is not Liberal, much less "neutral."



Like I said...to some folks Reality has a well-know liberal bias


NPR is not perfect, but when they err it is without agenda, intent or bias.

It's difficult to take seriously someone's opinion as to what constitutes a credible news organization when they consistently champion Fox News.

General News Media now caters to both the left and the right with associated ratings and advertising dollars...but Fox News is leading the descent for pretend news.

Alas...once upon a time the evening news was a "loss-leader" and a "public service". NPR is far from perfect, but they are as good as it gets in todays news-tainment age...

Don Henley summed it up nicely years ago when telivision media outlets figured out they could make big money off the news.

"I make my living off the Evening News
Just give me something-something I can use
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry

We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who
comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam
in her eye
It's interesting when people die-
Give us dirty laundry

Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down

We can do "The Innuendo"
We can dance and sing
When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing
We all know that Crap is King
Give us dirty laundry! "

[edit on 7-12-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 7-12-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Damn well said mate! I can't agree with you more. S&F for you.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Perfect!



[edit on 7-12-2009 by factbeforefiction]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Hemisphere
 

I saw Juan Williams on Fox yesterday afternoon and I was thinking to myself firstly, what a stand up guy this must be to enter the lion's den and inject his thoughts.

I don't always agree with Williams, but I appreciate a reporter/commentator who will stand his ground. He will not abide an idiot, and I give him a lot of credit for that.

"In the Lion's den" is right, but Juan holds his own. Have you ever see him sub for O'Reilly? He runs the show better than the namesake.

jw



jw, I rarely agree with Williams. I do admire him for competing to have his views aired and I like it when Fox has him on. I think the one's credibility adds to the others'.

Regarding NPR, I listen to NPR at various times throughout the day. I was hooked on NPR a few years ago. I now mainly listen to music stations to avoid the heartburn of news and the talk shows while I'm working.

What clued me in to bias on NPR was an interview by Robert Siegel. It was during the Bush administration and the topic was rebuilding after Katrina. I remember that Siegel was asking leading questions and the guest was not giving answers with the Bush bashing slant that Siegel wanted. It got almost comical with Siegel almost pleading "Are you certain you didn't encounter any difficulty dealing with blah, blah...?" The truth was I was all for bashing Bush over the handling of Katrina among many things. But that interview let the cat out of the bag for me on NPR. I know now, I was very slow on the uptake but I was also anti-Bush and that made me less critical of anyone slamming Bush.

I've heard numerous MSM interviewers stoop to this style of pleading/leading questioning, O'Reilly does it nightly; "Are you sure you want to side with this pervert?" and things of that nature. This Siegel interview was the first time I noticed an open bias on NPR though. Siegel typically sounds cool, calm and collected, I was a frequent listener. In this case Siegel was clearly "leading the witness" and the funny thing was that the guest, although I'm certain in retrospect was hand selected, was oblivious to the agenda and continued to answer honestly in my opinion. The guest actually sounded confused by the repeated questioning. I heard no follow up disclaimers over the next couple of weeks on NPR or specifically on "All Things Considered" the Siegel program. They are very quick to do that when either they screw up and want to avoid litigation or they can discredit someone like this guest. It didn't happen.

This didn't put me off NPR totally as you might think. What it did was to remind me to listen intuitively. That's what I try to do whenever and whatever I'm listening to. Considering and researching what can be gained by the various sources of information is now an integral part of my news gathering. I think that is likely the case for many here on ATS. We "consider the source" rather than ignore the news.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I think most of us see where this is coming from, I believe the adminstration is behind this to some degree. In america we have never seen an assualt on the freedom of speech to this degree. If you are not concerned you should really take another look. What happens when the right gains control again is the left going to be silenced? This is a double edged sword and can swing both ways wake the F**k up. Why are they so bold now? the only reasons I can think of are very scary indeed. I hope our children have a future that they can say what they want even if it left or right of what the goverment thinks.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Well… I agree with EvolvedMinistry as I have canceled my satellite television due to the blanketing of overtly negative and biases information, which promotes blind stupidity, no offense. It is obvious there are problems in the world, but the fear mongering is pathetic, which is adding to society’s state of anxiety and lack of personal accountability.

I find the Wall Street Journal to be the most unbiased news outlet available on American soil, due to both liberal and conservative journalist being employed! Articles are straight forward and usually without liberal/conservative spin and/or propaganda.

People seeking their personal political party agenda will continue to support their news organization whoever that may be.

The continuous whining about the issues and the media outlet in which it comes from is becoming very sad and useless! Stop watching it and do something proactive for a change. Words without action are just that….words!

Sorry Op, I steered a little off course, but the whining about Fox is….well enough said already!

RGS



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


I couldn't agree more, well said Sir.

It's not just television either, it's all over terrestrial and satellite radio as well. All the day long the right demonizes the left on their programs, and the left reciprocates.

I also agree with you that there is a purpose for it other than ratings, and that is to keep the American people polarized. Polarized and preoccupied.

As someone has already said, good Americans come from both sides of the aisle, but it seems to me that there are those who would like us to think that that isn't true.

The govt has been caught feeding radio programs in the past. The Bush administration conceded that it paid right wing radio host Armstrong William $240,000 to push the "No Child Left Behind" act.

USA Today claimed Williams was hired "to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same".----wikipedia

I have little doubt that as the White House denounces Fox News that it too is influencing some left wing commentator(s).

I understand that ratings are the predominant goal, but with the populace politically polarized, being biased one way or another is a quality a lot of people are looking for in talk news formats.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 

This didn't put me off NPR totally as you might think. What it did was to remind me to listen intuitively. That's what I try to do whenever and whatever I'm listening to. Considering and researching what can be gained by the various sources of information is now an integral part of my news gathering. I think that is likely the case for many here on ATS. We "consider the source" rather than ignore the news.


I'd rather have too much info from various sources than not enough from any.

I listen to the major NPR news programs every day. Sometimes they scoop everyone with their well-placed Washington sources. Some of my threads are based solely on an NPR "breaking story."

That in no way means I agree with or endorse what they say.

Some people can't see past that. They fear their shadows and other "scary places." They'd rather avoid them, and make everyone else do so, than face them and deal with it.

I know parents like that. Their kids are frightened idiot sheep, afraid to think or act for themselves unless a "grownup" says it's OK.

I see that some of their kids have learned to type and post on ATS.
(Or work for the liberal media and "learning" institutions.)

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 7-12-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

NPR is not perfect, but when they err it is without agenda, intent or bias.


"You cannot be serious!," to quote a famous athlete.

NPR is as biased as any news outlet can possibly be.

Don't you get it?

Did they try to pressure Liasson into violating her contract with Fox because they are unbiased?

On their hard news programs, Fox has a veritable battalion of liberal reporters, commentators, and activists to weigh in on most subjects and these individuals appear frequently on the commentary shows, as well.

It is clear that the left is hell-bent on destroying Fox, even if it means destroying the liberals who provide part of the balance that Fox offers.

I've been on this planet for a long time now and have been a news junkie for much of that time.

I listened to NPR for more than a decade before I began to understand the power behind it, PBS, and APR. By that time, I was also becoming aware of the bias of the broadcast TV channels, as well.

When I found Fox, it was quite a relief and while I don't agree with everything I see there, I do know how they stack up against the others.

You know. All you have to do is watch. Almost everyone I've ever met who despises Fox never watches.

That's what the left wants--ignorant, spoon-fed masses.


[edit on 2009/12/7 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
i love N P R !!!!!!!!!!!
WHY ALL THE HATE FOR IT?
YOU ALL MUST BE SLOW!
I JUST HOPE N P R WILL NOT SUCK NOW !!!



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by maybereal11

NPR is not perfect, but when they err it is without agenda, intent or bias.


"You cannot be serious!," to quote a famous athlete.

NPR is as biased as any news outlet can possibly be.

Don't you get it?

Did they try to pressure Liasson into violating her contract with Fox because they are unbiased?

On their hard news programs, Fox has a veritable battalion of liberal reporters, commentators, and activists to weigh in on most subjects and these individuals appear frequently on the commentary shows, as well.

It is clear that the left is hell-bent on destroying Fox, even if it means destroying the liberals who provide part of the balance that Fox offers.
.
[edit on 2009/12/7 by GradyPhilpott]


there is no real news on fox.its just food for the ''i'm old ,and hate non white people''
or i hate all things that give a hand out to ''them'' ''
cant wait until most of the old people are gone!!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by need2know4me

there is no real news on fox.its just food for the ''i'm old ,and hate non white people''
or i hate all things that give a hand out to ''them'' ''
cant wait until most of the old people are gone!!!!!!!


This is complete baloney and I can tell that you don't watch the network, so you're just quoting what others have told you.

And don't worry about the old folks. We'll be gone soon enough and the world will be in your hands.

Isn't ageism a form of hate?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join