NPR a DNC Tool or just a Tool?

In yet another sting operation by Project Veritis, the true nature of NPR is revealed.

National Public Radio is partially funded by our tax dollars and is therefore required to be non-Partisan. Everyone who has an ounce of honesty inside of them knows it is not. It is now and has always been a propaganda tool for the DNC.

In the following video person's pretending to be with a front group for the "Muslim Brotherhood" meet with an Executive VP from NPR. During the conversation he labels Conservatives as gun carrying Racist's among other things while attempting to get a five million dollar donation.

He states that Liberals are the Intellectuals and implies the opposite for Conservatives. Remember folks your tax dollars help pay this persons salary. NPR however is only for Progressives even though Conservatives and Independents tax dollars help pay for it and are not represented. Remember when they fired Juan Williams for expressing his opinion?

Get ready folks, we are close to loosing our Free Press if they have their way. These people honestly believe if you don't believe the same things they do, you are stupid. On top of that, they are more than willing to take funding from the group that spawned Al Qaeda and other Terrorist Groups without hesitation.

Enjoy the video -

Sadly, they are likely just tools. Here we had a potential venue for truly unbiased factual reporting.... but their parade of talking heads is at times even worse than the commercial version....

At times I listen and simply grind my teeth, other times I shout back to the stream of 'approved' spewage streaming from their studios.

Occasionally they seem to stumble across an issue or set of facts they can't befoul with the "Pablum - seal of government approval" but for the most part I listen to them to get an understanding of what I am expected to believe... especially in economics and foreign policy.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Just about to watch the video, but I would remind readers that unless he is speaking for NPR, he is 100% entitled to his opinion.. regardless of how ignorant or extreme it might be.

gonna watch video now.

ok.. Watched it....

The guy is a tool... no doubt about it. He is narrow minded and a bit undereducated about what is really happening out there. However, I cry foul on the video. When he stated "I am going to take off my NPR hat and give my personal point of view", that was at 12:52 based on the timestamp on the video...However, it was edited to be AFTER the point where he is talking about "the Fanatical Tea Party". However a quick look at the time stamp when he is saying that it shows 12:53... In fact the comment "I like when you take your NPR hat off" is made at 13:08.

So the NPR guy apparently ranted for almost 20 minutes without his "NPR hat".


If anything, this video is a classic example of how with clever editing, you can make anyone appear to be saying anything.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Sadly, they are likely just tools. Here we had a potential venue for truly unbiased factual reporting.... but their parade of talking heads is at times even worse than the commercial version....

I'm with you on this one. I'm all for NPR, but in it's current form I can't support it.

I'm also a bit concerned about Hillary Clintons remarks about how great Al Jazeera is and how bad our news is. She actually implied we should have a State run Media. These people are starting to scare me, as if I was not already concerned.

The guy is a fundraiser, not a journalist. With the threat of losing federal funding, it comes as no surprise that he did this. If it had been a conservative organization that had approached him with $5 million dollars, I'm sure he would have pandered to them as well.

That being said, what a jerk he is!.

Also, I read earlier that he is leaving NPR to go work at the Aspen Institute.

reply to post by rogerstigers


Unless you have proof that this is out of context, your simply applying your personal bias to it yourself. Veritis did us a service with ACORN and the courts have born that out with all the cases and convictions of it's people for voter fraud and other crimes.

My point is not so much a taking sides issue, as I have no problem with any point of view having a forum. My problem is with a tax-payer funded news source being controlled by one point of view.

My main issue is with the Bigotry which is contrived to garner votes. The Race Card is played out to the point that whenever I hear it used, I know what scum-bag the person really is. This divisiveness is as bad as it was in the 1960's. Bad, bad people are in control and this NPR is just a propaganda tool for one Party and that is wrong.

That old legal charade of saying let me take my NPR hat off is so transparent it should sicken people to hear it being used. He is still the same guy who hates anyone who does not agree with him, enough to lie about them, when he is doing his job.

I'm apparently a rare person these days. I listen to or read any news source regardless of my personal beliefs. I would be a fool otherwise. You simply can't limit yourself to one point of view and make intelligent decisions. This crap from either side trying to silence the other should scare everyone.

reply to post by Blaine91555

As with their honored leader, BHO, the various departments say whatever their audience wants to hear, even if they contradict each other.

See the transcripts:
NPR execs bash conservatives and Tea Party, touting Liberals

Now, NPR, and progressive drones will say, "those are only personal opinions;" but, isn't this the same organization that fired Juan Williams for his personal opinions?

jw

reply to post by Aggie Man


That would be the same to me. NPR is supposed to be unbiased and anyone working for them who is not should be gone. Not to mention the fact he is labeling everyone who is not a Progressive as gun totting Racists, which is sick.

NPR is and has been a propaganda arm of the DNC for many, many years. To deny that either means a person has never listened to it themselves or they are willing to lie due to their own bias.

reply to post by rogerstigers

So the NPR guy apparently ranted for almost 20 minutes without his "NPR hat".

And?

This is the same organization that chastised Mara Liasson for occasionally appearing on FoxNews, and fired Juan Williams when he spoke "without his 'NPR hat.'"

"Progressive" hypocrisy knows no bounds.

... I would remind readers that unless he is speaking for NPR, he is 100% entitled to his opinion.. regardless of how ignorant or extreme it might be.

So, when a blatantly biased liberal opinion comes out, we should look the other way, or blow it off? I do not recall your defense of Juan Williams' opinion, which was .... What? The "progressive" mouthpieces merit your defense, but not the conservative?

"Progressive" hypocrisy knows no bounds.

jw

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

Unless you have proof that this is out of context, your simply applying your personal bias to it yourself. Veritis did us a service with ACORN and the courts have born that out with all the cases and convictions of it's people for voter fraud and other crimes.

Sorry, what personal bias are you referring to? My personal bias that the guy is a tool or my personal bias that the timecode on the video -- the one you posted -- shows that the conversation was edited to appear that he was speaking officiall for NPR in blasting the Tea Party and Republicans, when in actually, that happened almost a minute AFTER he "took off his NPR hat"

I don't agree with the guy at all. I think, as I said, that he is being ignorant and stupid. But then I also agree with Aggie that he was probably just saying what needed to be said to get the $5 million.

Gonna look at that transcript, though.

reply to post by jdub297

Later in the lunch, Schiller explains that NPR would be better positioned free of federal funding. “Well frankly, it is clear that we would be better off in the long-run without federal funding,” he says. “The challenge right now is that if we lost it all together we would have a lot of stations go dark.”

Read more: dailycaller.com...

Let them go dark. If there is a market for this, it will support itself. I doubt they would survive though, unless they sold out to a company that knows what it is doing. NPR simply does not have an audience and that is for a reason.

We already get both sides in a constant barrage on our senses as it is. The Right has almost all Radio, the Left has all the Broadcast News and all Cable except FoxNews and they scream to shut down FoxNews and Talk Radio. This talk of reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" should scare people as it's an attempt to control us by limiting our information sources. Right now under Obama it is clear they are pushing that direction.

It should not matter which side people are on, we should all want a completely Free Media and never a State Sponsored Media. The later is to dangerous and we know where it leads from history. How smart can anyone be who ignores the lessons of history.

reply to post by Blaine91555

Does NPR ever have a Non Liberal point of view expressed?

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Sorry, what personal bias are you referring to?

Sorry if I misunderstood your intent. I was responding to this-

If anything, this video is a classic example of how with clever editing, you can make anyone appear to be saying anything.

I thought you were assuming that the video as edited was deceptive and we don't know that.

Originally posted by RRokkyy
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Does NPR ever have a Non Liberal point of view expressed?

Yup. Dianne Rheem has conservatives on her show all the time. In addition, I rarely find Morning Edition to be slanted... it has happened, but I rarely hear it. They do tend to abbreviate the news badly though, but that is not any differant than Fox or MSNBC

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Sorry, what personal bias are you referring to?

Sorry if I misunderstood your intent. I was responding to this-

If anything, this video is a classic example of how with clever editing, you can make anyone appear to be saying anything.

I thought you were assuming that the video as edited was deceptive and we don't know that.

Apologies.. my statement was unclear. I don't know that they intentionally edited it toward that purpose. That would be a huge guess on my part. But the video does show how it *could* be done to affect the outcome.

reply to post by RRokkyy


While listening to them, the fact they lean strongly to one side is obvious. That would be just fine if they were not tax-payer funded.

The point some may miss when viewing the tape is that he believes the money is coming from the "Muslim Brotherhood". Add to that him playing the Race Card to solicit funds and you have a real piece of work.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Yeah, so? Dude gets to have his own opinion. Unlike you, who's just licking up whatever James O'Keefe barfs up and calling it your own.

reply to post by rogerstigers


In the end, all we can do is take a look at the sources track record and I tend to like what this Documentary producer is putting out there. It's time that this sort of thing is done to lift the lid of these activities being partly funded by our tax dollars. We deserve to know what these people are really like.

Give up the tax funding and let the public decide how important they are and I'm all for them continuing. Now though, they are not deserving of tax funding due to their bias.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Oh yes, regarding the Muslim Brotherhood.

First off, they did not "spawn" any terrorist organizations, and certainly not al-Qaeda. That's a plain lie. Your own government - the CIA, to be exact - is the origin of al-Qaeda. Back in the 50's and 60's, the Muslim Brotherhood had ties to Fatah, but that was forty years ago; Fatah is now a nonviolent political party (though one I hesitate to deem "respectable.") it was this relationship that led to Israel funding Hamas in the late 70's, early 80's, to act as a Islamic counter to the secular influence of the MB-backed PLO and Fatah. I think you've been misled.

Second, with that in mind, the Muslim Brotherhood is not illegal in the US - not the Egyptian version, not the Syrian version, not even a Canadian version, if one were to pop up. it might be a shocker for people like yourself, but being Muslim is still not a crime in this country, nor is being a member of a legal Muslim organization. It's not regarded as a terrorist organization, its funding isn't frozen, nothing.

The reason these guys went in and claimed to represent the brotherhood is because they could sell that to people like you, who are the same people they've been lying to for years.

Wanna know why the NPR guy thinks you're stupid? Because you believe crap like that unquestioningly.