NPR reporter pressured over Fox role

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Actually, it's a cover for fear and lack of maturity.

I actually enjoy some of the malarkey spouted in liberal media outlets. Some of the funniest things come from there ("a chill running up my leg," "Doonesbury" on any given day).

I am not afraid of opposing opinions, I welcome them.

The young, inexperienced and rudderless cower behind the liberal "mother's" skirt and so will be bound for a very rude awakening when they discover that the world is NOT what they've imagined or been told it is.

Too bad for them; advantage for me. I don't mind ignorance, I can make a great living preying upon it, but I cannot abide an idiot.

jw

Sean Hannity: Media Matters' 2008 Misinformer of the Year

The Most Biased Name in News
Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt

Timeline of a [madrassa] smear

--Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

After teasing story by saying "Obama makes a little girl cry," Fox News' Kelly acknowledged it was not true

--Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.

Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters

--Never plagiarize.

Fox passes off GOP press release as its own research -- typo and all

--Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.

Media adopt gender, racial stereotypes in characterizing Sotomayor's temperament, intellect

--Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

REPORT: "Fair and balanced" Fox News aggressively promotes "tea party" protests

--Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.

Fox News, CBS air clips of peephole video of ESPN's Erin Andrews

--Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.

O'Reilly Producer Stalks Amanda Terkel: THE VIDEO

--Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

Foxy News breaks out the boudoir B-roll to cover "the great breast augmentation scandal"

--Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

Would a real news organization help GOP PACs raise money?

--Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.

FLASHBACK: When Fox News boasted about its "unprecedented" access to the Bush White House

--Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.

After exclusive access, softball interviews during Bush admin, Fox News blasts ABC for White House exclusive

--Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

EXCLUSIVE: Fox News seeks to confirm wildly inaccurate reporting that it's already aired on Jennings controversy; former student seeks Fox News correction

30 reasons why Fox News is not legit


Fox News Fiddles With Climate Change Polling

Fox News displays old campaign footage to claim Palin is getting ‘huge crowds’ at her book signings. (Updated)

FOX is a News organisation................................. ......................................hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Goodness !!

Oh forgot to include this gem

But in a broader sense, what "happened" to make me call Fox "News" a "festival of ignorance" was the past twelve years of knowing this festering pile of propaganda coated with drivel and wrapped in the American flag has been spewing its poisonous eggs into the brains of average Americans. Now THAT's desecration of the flag - watching it flap back and forth behind a Fox "news" program.

Why I Called Fox News "Propaganda" While Live on Fox News

Oh carry on with your jokes about Fox being a legitimate news organisation


[edit on 8-12-2009 by December_Rain]

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
Fox isn't news, it's entertainment for the simple minds of the Right. I could care less about any commentator on that station.

This is one of those "blanket statements" I was referring to in my previous post on page 1.

Blanket statements are the ammunition of simple minds. Don't fall into that trap by using them.

reply to post by December_Rain

Thanks for that.

Have anything to contribute on topic?

It's really sad to see the fear some have of alternate or opposing views. The NPR attempted censorship is an excellent backdrop for liberal terror of anything and anyone who fails to follow script.

Nothing in the OP is an endorsement of Fox. At best, it is an example of the bankruptcy of left-wing "thought" and their politics of destruction, with Fox as the foil.

Would your post have been as one-sided if the NPR criticism of Williams and Liasson had been based on their appearances in HuffPo or on MSNBC?

We already know the answer. Go back to mommy's skirt, the grownups are looking at you.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by December_Rain

 

Thanks for that.

Have anything to contribute on topic?

That's quiet a contribution I have already made on "FAUX/FIXED NEWS"

Originally posted by need2know4me
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 !!!

I didn't think this thread had much "hate" for NPR. In fact a number of posters including myself indicated an affection for NPR. The hate generated by this thread has been toward Fox news. I for one think that both Maria Liasson and Juan Williams are strong enough to stand on their own outside the friendly confines of NPR, perhaps you don't have the same opinion of them. I think these two are a fine challenge to the ''i'm old ,and hate non white people'' programming you describe on Fox. Judging solely from your above post I doubt you have much more than a knee-jerk reaction to any of this. I like that these people accept the challenge of appearing in multiple forums. I don't know whether they are being sought by the other networks for commentary. But if not, why not? Williams has appeared on ABC in the past.

For instance would either of these NPR commentators do damage to the Zbigniew Brzezinski agenda if they were to appear on MSNBC? Much safer to let Pat Buchanon, an unabashed Nixon WH stooge, spar and chuckle with Brzezinski than have him undressed by anyone even remotely approaching neutrality. This is not for you to ponder need2, I think you've likely moved on to a topic more to your liking. One where all caps substitutes for substance.

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!!!!!!!

I peg you at about 12 years old. ATS should have some type of age screen. Seriously...however old you are, stop being an idiot.

reply to post by December_Rain


Care to post a little something about another news organization that may have been a little bit of hypocritical about Bush Sr.? Maybe FAKING news coverage about a certain war? You must really dislike Fox or Rupert Murdoch. I have yet to figure out yet which one you hate more. Every single thread that even hints at anything Fox you do the same thing. Agenda much? How about you use this energy and hatred to expose the rest of the truth and call a spade a spade, THEY ALL ARE POLITICALLY BIASED! Most of the tripe you do post in relation to Fox is nothing but overblown nitpicking by a hatchet man.( not meaning you) Your avid hatred and fervor for attacking Fox is getting stale; time to start becoming a tad more objective.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by djvexd]

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.

....

It is clear that the left is hell-bent on destroying Fox,

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

[edit on 2009/12/7 by GradyPhilpott]

Riddle me this ....In your opinion which of these two scenarios constitutes illigitimate government interference with media outlets?

President Obama's communications head and various staff describing Fox News as an arm of the Republican Party?

Or this from 2005 when conservatives were in power...

A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting,

In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting --

Several denounced the decision by the panel, which has 10 Republicans and seven Democrats, as payback by a Republican-dominated House after years of complaints from conservatives who see liberal bias in programs carried by the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio.

www.washingtonpost.com...

IN ADDITION BUSH APPOINTED A NEW CHAIRMAN TO OVERSEE PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND "root out" what he considered a "Liberal Bias"

This guy STOLE OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS while defunding NPR..one of the organizations he was supposed to be leading..

Tomlinson was appointed as chairman of the CPB board by President George W. Bush, for a two-year term, in September 2003. He embarked upon a mission to purge CPB of what he perceived as "liberal bias".

His efforts sparked complaints of political pressure. Broadcasting & Cable Magazine wrote when Tomlinson "...uses terms like “fair and balanced” in talking about what PBS should be, it is understandably seen as code guaranteed to evoke charges of the “Foxification” of PBS and raise alarm bells with liberals and moderates, as well as with viewers who just don’t care about a political agenda at all."

According to The New York Times, there was an inquiry concerning possible misuse of federal money by Tomlinson. Investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting said on 15 November 2005 "that they had uncovered evidence that its former chairman had repeatedly broken federal law and the organization's own regulations in a campaign to combat what he saw as liberal bias."According to the New York Times, State Department investigators determined in 2006 that he had "used his office to run a 'horse racing operation'," that he "improperly put a friend on the payroll," that he "repeatedly used government employees to perform personal errands," and that he "billed the government for more days of work than the rules permit."

en.wikipedia.org...

So one administration accuses Fox News of being biased...

While the last one put a crook IN CHARGE of NPR with the declared goal to eliminate funding and then the conservative congress votes to completely cut off all funding...for NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO...and PBS etc.

See the difference? between expressing an opinion about a news outlet and THE GOVERNMENT ELIMINATING VOICES THEY DON'T WANT THE PUBLIC TO HEAR???

So save the bit about....

what the left wants--ignorant, spoon-fed masses.

reply to post by djvexd

When you are committed to anti-Semitism propaganda and fixated by left-wing fear, you (not you personally, but other posters) are unable to rationally respond to anything. There are boogeymen everywhere except mother's skirt.

Do not expect much from your observations.

jw

Originally posted by maybereal11

Riddle me this ....In your opinion which of these two scenarios constitutes illigitimate government interference with media outlets?

President Obama's communications head and various staff describing Fox News as an arm of the Republican Party?

Or this from 2005 when conservatives were in power...(Congressional consideration of de-funding Public Broadcasting)

First, you forget that Obama's gang didn't just "talk" about it, they tried to exclude Fox from coverage.

Second, you seem to think that ANY organization is entitled to my money (through Congress) regardless of their conduct or purpose. (How much do you give to ACORN?)
Congressional funding of private organizations is discretionary, i.e. they don;t have to do it.

So, under the first, that is clearly censorship and prior restraint.

Under the second, that is a choice to spend money on other things. People who support PBS are free to contribute everything they want. I am a member of 3 radio stations (KUT, KSTX, WFYI), and 2 TV stations (KLRN, KLRU). Congress is under no obligation to fund any non-profits at all.


Deny ignorance.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297

Second, you seem to think that ANY organization is entitled to my money (through Congress) regardless of their conduct or purpose.

Congressional funding of private organizations is discretionary, i.e. they don;t have to do it.

jw

You are confused, public broadcasting is both a private entity affording it to recieve donations from individuals it is also a PUBLIC entity. Established in 1967 to offer a non-commercial, non-biased source of information on the airwaves.

Here is the LAW that established it.
www.cpb.org...

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting shall have a Board of Directors (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “Board”), consisting of 9 members appointed by the President,

When a government decides to defund and appoint someone to the board with the avowed goal of dismanteling what the government itself established to be an objective media source that does not serve political or corporate interests...what does that say?

No way does it compare to the current administrations idiotic verbal exchanges with FOX "News".

One is reminescent of the USSR the other is tabloid politics.

NPR endeavors to be objective in everything they do...When it's listeners feel they have been biased, they call themselves out on it and read those letters on air without defense or comment.

Fox uses "fair and balanced" as a punchline.

I understand conservatives dislike of facts, science, evidence and objectivity...reality does not always align with our chosen views of the world, but declaring facts as being biased, embracing smears and fiction as truth...well it's no platform for any political party...or news organization.

Carry on though, watch Fox to your hearts content, sate the hunger to be told what you want to hear. Affirm those world views...it pays the bills at Fox...disregard facts and truth...Choose what is real and what is BS...facts be damned.

Fox news is intellectual nicotine. It feels good in the moment, it speaks to baser emotions, tells you what you want to hear, but over time it wastes your mind away.

Originally posted by maybereal11
You are confused, public broadcasting is both a private entity affording it to recieve donations from individuals it is also a PUBLIC entity. Established in 1967 to offer a non-commercial, non-biased source of information on the airwaves.

Non-commercial and non-biased are used in their loosest sense regarding public broadcasting. For example, "This Old House" is underwriten by GMC, GE, Lumber Liquidators, Stanley and State Farm. Where exactly is GMC getting money to underwrite Public Television? Oops, sorry to get side-tracked. Being a long time listener to and viewer of these programs, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation jumps immediately to mind.

Topics of interest to the Foundation include international peace and security, conservation and sustainable development, population control, reproductive health, human rights, international migration, community development, affordable housing, and educational, juvenile justice, and mental health reform, public interest media, including public radio and independent documentary film. The Foundation also gives grants to arts and cultural institutions in the Chicago area. - Wikipedia

That's about as subtle as a "Fox". A few throw away adjectives (Who or what isn't interested in International peace?) buffering population control, international migration, community development all with Chicago thrown in for good measure. Move along, there's no agenda here.

See for yourself:

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation website

Originally posted by maybereal11

You are confused, public broadcasting is both a private entity affording it to recieve donations from individuals it is also a PUBLIC entity. Established in 1967 to offer a non-commercial, non-biased source of information on the airwaves.

You are lying or you can't read.

(10) a private corporation should be created to facilitate the development of public telecommunications and to afford maximum protection from extraneous interference and control.
(b) Establishment of Corporation; application of District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act
There is authorized to be established a nonprofit corporation, to be known as the “Corporation for Public Broadcasting”, which will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government. The Corporation shall be subject to the provisions of this section, and, to the extent consistent with this section, to the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act [D.C. Code, Sec. 29-501 et seq.].

Public Broadcasting Corporation Act

What part of the statute do you not understand? Or is that just more misdirection?

When a government decides to defund and appoint someone to the board with the avowed goal of dismanteling what the government itself established to be an objective media source that does not serve political or corporate interests...what does that say?

That says it no longer serves those purposes.

No way does it compare to the current administrations idiotic verbal exchanges with FOX "News".

Way. There was no "exchange," the administration made a one-sided decision to exclude FOX from coverage. Even the other networks protested, or didn't you notice?

One is reminescent of the USSR the other is tabloid politics.

Censorship and prior restraint ARE exactly the Soviet-style tactics Obama resorted to. I don't know what "tabloid politics" are. Is that something like "not letting a good crisis go to waste?" (As per Obama, Clinton and Emmanuel)

I understand conservatives dislike of facts, science, evidence and objectivity...reality does not always align with our chosen views of the world, but declaring facts as being biased, embracing smears and fiction as truth...well it's no platform for any political party...or news organization.

As I've shown above, that is precisely what you've done. And NPR.

Deny ignorance.
(or at least try and fake it)

jw

[edit on 8-12-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by djvexd



Yes I do not like Fox so called "news" at all simply because it is not a news organization and pretends to be one. I don't like anyone or anything who "distorts facts" and try to fool people. I do not know who you speak of Murdoch or whatever as I rarely visit that website or anywhere else read who the author is but I will say this anyone working in such a organisation cannot be free their Policy of biasness and distortion. But glad you are keeping an eye out for me, there are hardly any chicks who do that.

I dont care what other news sources are being biased, my reaction to any or all "biased/fixed/ distorted" sources will be the same when they are being discussed on ATS or outside. Just FYI I always try to obtain my news sources from google news/ yahoo/ reuters/ wiki news or AFP nowhere else.

reply to post by jdub297


I take it the anti-semitism remark is too me, show me 1 thread or post which is anti-semite from me. If you can't just carry on with your fox propaganda but STOP falsely accusing. Oh and if you are referring to my critical view of apartheid Israel and it's so called terrorist govt/ politicians then I'll take that anti-semite remark as a badge of honor for speaking the truth.

reply to post by December_Rain
A little insecure, are we? Touch a raw nerve, or lift the veil?

If you can't just carry on with your fox propaganda but STOP falsely accusing.

I've made NO false accusations and defy you to cite one.

I've posted no "fox propaganda" and defy you to cite one.

The OP and every one of my posts here have considered prior restraint, censorship and outright bullying from the frightened and resentful left.

Your inability to objectively consider opposing viewpoints belies your small-mindedness and fear of realty.

There are two sides to EVERY story. Refusal to even consider one diminishes your capacity to function and contribute in a world that does otherwise.

Crawl back under mommy's skirt before someone makes you face facts.

(Remember your "See 'n Say?" 'This is a sheep: Baaa.')

Deny ignorance.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Raw nerve no but I notice you have FAILED to post even 1 post or thread by me which is anti-semite. This is what you and Fox have in common, all propaganda/talks/ baseless lies and no facts/ (-)0 truth. Just wanted to show it right here citing your statement

Edit to add: Another similarity when you and Fox have no facts/truth you both resort to personal/family member attacks..how mature! what are you 3 yr old

[edit on 9-12-2009 by December_Rain]

reply to post by December_Rain
Much as you would like, the OP is not about YOU.

Of course, you CANNOT respond to my challenge to your lies and misdirection, can you?

Deny ignorance.
jw