where is the outrage when a lefty incites violence?

[AppleBonker]

Greg, you can't possibly be asking Obama to ostracize some of his support base, can you? While I am in complete agreement that the people you mentioned specifically (as well as those who are similar but were not mentioned) cause plenty of problems you still can't eliminate their support and expect to succeed. Those people (Reid/Pelosi/et al) need to throw their support behind someone and I would personally much rather it be Obama. Can you imagine if they drummed up support for someone far more liberal and were successful?

Unfortunately, in this country, crazy people have input as well...

[audtatious]

and Crazy is undefinable

[AZhitman]

Greg, you can't possibly be asking Obama to ostracize some of his support base, can you?

Absotively. Why not?

If he wants to "reach across the aisle", then he needs to get up outta the chair and walk the F across the room.

See, I'm not one of these who's so terribly certain that he's all that left-leaning. But the people who propelled him into office ARE. And I believe they THOUGHT, mistakenly, that because he's pro-Union, mixed-race, and Ivy League, that he'd be a lot more lefty than he really is. That's led to some of the dissension we've seen between him and his Administration.

So, he needs to drop them (they're outliers anyway) and pull in some moderate lefties and liberal conservatives. He'll do just fine and I'd be a lot more supportive if he walked the walk (bi-partisan cooperation) than just talking the talk.

Pelosi learned what happens when you disregard the majority in thinking you "know what's best" for the country. BHO won't go there if he's as smart as I think he is.

[audtatious]

He's not going to reach across anything. Hell, after two years he has only talked with half of his cabinet.

[AppleBonker]

Greg, you have an excellent argument. I have no viable counterpoint. You win, good sir...

[audtatious]

Honestly, I like NPR's reporting on matters. The only opinion you get is from guests (except for certain shows like Tell Me More where the host has a once-a-week segment where she gives her opinion on a certain topic in a clearly-labeled "Can I Just Tell You?" segment) and the hosts pretty equally challenge them on to explain themselves, but, and much to my chagrin, equally allow the guests to dodge questions. They rely on multiple, opposing guests to correct each other, on their topic shows, and on other shows, rely almost exclusively on expert interviews for their analysis.

It's everything a news organization should be, absent hiccups like Juan Williams, which only serve as distractions when NPR itself comes into conflict with other news agencies.

Looks like NPR is having more hiccups....

[stebo0728]

To say the least ... headed to the Air America trench are they?

[AZhitman]

Greg, you have an excellent argument. I have no viable counterpoint. You win, good sir...

There's no "win". I didn't disagree with you at all, was just elaborating on what I was thinking. Unfortunately, unless something changes, we ALL lose - and somehow, some way, it'll STILL get blamed on GWB.

[AppleBonker]

Wait your turn. The next time we have a republican president you can blame Obama.

Fun fact on losing: the US owes 14.2 or so trillion dollars. That's roughly $48k per citizen (including those not of or past working age). Sounds like a winning formula to me!

[AZhitman]

...and that's why, in MY Administration, NOTHING is "off the table". It's ALL up for reconsideration.

And if crackheads die, so be it. If the disabled have to take a telemarketing job, so be it. If we're 10 fighter planes short, so be it. If veterans have to pick up a little more of the tab for their care, so be it. If taxes go up ACROSS THE BOARD, so be it. If farmers have to pack up and start over, so be it. Some will get the short end of the stick. Welcome to America, circa 1932 - Put on your big boy pants and shut up.

[AppleBonker]

Big boy pants don't fit over my Pull-Ups.

[IBCoupe]

To say the least ... headed to the Air America trench are they?

This is something I posted on the NPR website under one of the stories about this:

You know why people who oppose NPR leap on things like this? Because NPR's reporting is genuinely unbiased. They don't have anything else to leap onto.

If you are aware of an actual instance of bias in NPR's airtime, go ahead and share it. b**** about that. This is one guy in a closed room, trying to get money out of a potentially large donor.

Now, I haven't watched either the heavily edited 10-minute video, or the full two-hour video, but I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a bit of prodding coming from the people behind the "sting." But even then, it's a nonissue, because I don't care about the ideology of the people behind the scenes, if the journalists involved are responsible enough to keep it off the air.

[AZhitman]

Shovel 'em out. They droopin'.

[AppleBonker]

If you are aware of an actual instance of bias in NPR's airtime, go ahead and share it.

Reality has a liberal bias.

[AZhitman]

Uhhh, no.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... adio-quits

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg4Z7zZ62tQ[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd9OYJMX9t4[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77E0NX1Ezbs[/youtube]

If NPR is so unbiased, why do they need tax payer money to survive? Surely such an essential organization can survive on private funding, not MY money right?

Good riddance. Market forces prevail again!

[IBCoupe]

They don't need taxpayer money to survive. It's 2% of their budget. Defunding it for federal budgetary reasons is fine, but we don't need the absurd witch-hunt.

NPR's audience self-identifies 1/3 as conservative, 1/3 as liberal, and 1/3 as moderate. NPR listenership gets its highest percentage of the ears where? On military bases, because it's the only reliable source of easily-accessible news. Their largest block of funding comes from listeners - if nothing else, that's what keeps them in check.

And if you think they don't get called "too conservative," you obviously don't read any of the comment pages on their stories. Once again, do you have a damned instance of bias, or not? PTFU, or STFU.

[AZhitman]

There'll be no "STFU'ing".

Seems to me if their CEO had a leg to stand on, she wouldn't be getting kicked to the curb.

Witch hunt my a$$ - it's called "transparency". "Keeping them in check".

[IBCoupe]

I'm still seeing no actual arguments that NPR's coverage is biased. Is that because you have none? I don't give a s*** about the CEO. I don't give a s*** about the head of fundraising. Those aren't the reasons I listen to NPR. So unless you have a real, relevant argument, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Why are you wasting anyone's time?

[AZhitman]

No one's holding a gun to your well-coiffed head.

Seems to me we had this same discussion when the question was asked, "How is Fox News biased"?

Maybe the "reasons you listen to NPR" just happen to BE the actual arguments that it's biased. In other words, there's a chance you just might not listen to it if it was middle-of-the-road. Hmmmm....

[IBCoupe]

I've considered that, but in the absence of any arguments portraying the liberal bias of NPR, I can only dismiss such silly theories.

I don't look at FOXnews enough to see the bias. Though the agenda in the article linked to earlier on Project Gunrunner was pretty clear, but I can't say with certainty that it's not the exception. It seemed like they were trying to conjure up a scandal out of a revealed sting operation that hadn't yet come to fruition. Kinda like saying, "FBI, you've had an undercover agent in with the mob for a year now, and THEY'RE STILL KILLING PEOPLE!"

Got stuck on O'Reilley a little while ago while channel surfing, and he was trying to defend his comparison of the Koran to Mein Kampf: "Why, I only said that a teacher having their students read the Koran in 2002 was like a teacher having their students read Mein Kampf in 1947!" He wasn't comparing them, you see, he was just remarking how similar the two situations would be.

Someone hasn't explained to Mr. O'Reilley what "comparison" means.

[srellim234]

NPR is probably the closest thing we have to unbiased reporting in this country. With all of the corporate purchases of both news organizations and outlets and the resultant emphasis on turning a profit, we have a corporate controlled press, not a free press. Corporations are driving their "newsrooms" to focus on stories that will drive readership (viewership), sell advertising and turn profits.

With the majority of Americans lining up more to the left than the right (see the number of registered voters for each major party) I think it's to be expected that news organizations would lean that way. Mainstream media outlets in areas like here in the L.A. basin are worthless as they just feed the "sheeple" meaningless junk and put pretty faces on the screen. Most people don't want to have to deal with anything heavy.

Organizations like Fox are not news organizations no matter how hard they claim to be. When your news chief (Roger Ailes) directs reporters and commentators to lie to their viewers and he stays in his position there is no integrity. Same for Fox Washington news director Bill Sammon. Now it turns out that reporters are lying on their own without worrying about getting fired if the lie suits their bosses' political agenda. All you need to do is look at Mike Tobin reporting that he was punched in Wisconsin. I could go on and on.

Bottom line is: it's all about the bottom line. We have become a nation of corporate "for profit" press, not free press. You can only report what suits the boardroom. Unless you are someone like an NPR that is focused more on news than profit.

[stebo0728]

They don't need taxpayer money to survive. It's 2% of their budget.

Referencing the investigation begs the question, what % or their budget is from ill gotten gains?

[AppleBonker]

They don't need taxpayer money to survive. It's 2% of their budget.

Referencing the investigation begs the question, what % or their budget is from ill gotten gains?

Ill-gotten gains? Where are you pulling this from?

[stebo0728]

Well, Im not citing anything specific, just wondering, seeing as they were discussing a donor such as TMB. Hammas next?

But mostly pulling from my bumm like everything else right?

[AppleBonker]

Well, Im not citing anything specific, just wondering, seeing as they were discussing a donor such as TMB. Hammas next?

Now, I may be missing some info, but from the reports I've seen they didn't take any money. They also didn't agree to take any money. A couple of people posed as members of The Muslim Brotherhood and tried to get an executive of NPR to fall into a trap. He willingly did, kinda. As far as I can tell, no donation/whatever was ever agreed upon (if it were, don't you think this would be out in the open as it is a far bigger scandal than anything he may have said?). Seems you're not being very fair in assuming that they are benefiting from donations from ANY terrorlst/whatever organization.

I'll just leave this here:

Guilty until proven innocent. Not just in law either, but in everyday life. Its ASSUMED that I am going to buy 3 packs of psuedafed ONLY to cook methanfedamine, therefore I'm not allowed to buy more than 2 packs. If one of my children grab a toy I dont see in the store, and its slips out of the store, its ASSUMED I was stealing it until I can provide a decent story as to why I wasnt. Its a mentality we are being conditioned for it seems, assume the worst until you can find the best. I dont operate that way, not in my persoanl life, nor my business life. Has anyone else noticed this pattern?

You don't operate that way? Interesting...

[stebo0728]

Well played. But also note I didnt pass any conviction either, just noted a curiosity, but I can see your correlation, and concede a 2 internets to you on it.
Guess I should have said above that I try not to operate that way. Its become a bit engrained in all of us to a degree I think.

:: It also helps to know I've been feeling a bit trollish today ::

[IBCoupe]

What would have been ill-gotten about that deal, had it gone through?

[Encryptshun]

I just want to thank this entire thread for reminding me why I try to stay the hell out of the Politics forum.

[AZhitman]

I've considered that, but in the absence of any arguments portraying the liberal bias of NPR, I can only dismiss such silly theories.

If you did indeed consider that prior to me mentioning it, pat yourself on the back for me - I'm not being facetious, I'm being honest. I would be impressed with that.

I'm just having a hard time accepting a situation, in which a network voluntarily chooses to not cover global warming skeptics (especially during a high-profile debate ABOUT global warming skeptics and potentially fraudulent studies), that would NOT be classified as "biased".

Then again, I'm giving no one the benefit of the doubt here - nor will I.

[IBCoupe]

I actually have, and constantly have that thought wandering in the back of my mind whenever the conversation turns to bias.
A liberal will see bias in both moderate and conservative arguments.
A moderate will see bias in both liberal and conservative arguments.
A conservative will see bias in both liberal and moderate arguments.

I like to think of myself as a moderate, but there's always doubts in my mind about it, and so the only solution is usually to make matters of "bias" non-issues. If you frame the debate in such a way as to render bias meaningless (e.g., "Tell me they're wrong; don't tell me they're opinionated"), then your own subjective bias, whatever it may be, becomes irrelevant. In the example I provided, there is only truth or untruth. And perhaps shades of truthiness.

I'm just having a hard time accepting a situation, in which a network voluntarily chooses to not cover global warming skeptics (especially during a high-profile debate ABOUT global warming skeptics and potentially fraudulent studies), that would NOT be classified as "biased".

NPR covers the debate quite well, Greg, but they cover it in a political context, because the debate is political. There isn't really a debate in the scientific community. I wouldn't so much say that we're dealing with a "liberal" bias as we're dealing with a "science journalism" bias. Similarly, on public television, you're not going to see NOVA do an expose about "Climategate," because that was political, and, as a number of investigations have revealed, there was no data manipulation or other scientific wrongdoing involved. There were only bad manners.