- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
WASHINGTON – NPR president and CEO Vivian Schiller has resigned in the wake of comments by a fellow executive that angered conservatives and renewed calls to end federal funding for public broadcasting.
The chairman of NPR's board of directors announced Wednesday morning that he has accepted Schiller's resignation, effective immediately.
NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik said in a tweet that Schiller was forced out by the board.
A hidden-camera video of an NPR executive calling the tea party racist and saying the network would be better off without federal money has led to that executive's immediate resignation.
NPR chief executive quits over hidden camera video - Yahoo! News
Speaking of punks, why is it that y'all give O'Keefe one iota of credibility and attention? Why do you allow yourselves to be punked by this lying sack of **** criminal, time-and-time again?
What exactly is NPR accused of? Employing someone with opinions?
...but how anyone still listens to James O'keefe is beyond me. I take everything he ever says for all eternity as a lie until he fully proves what he claims with full length videos or audio clips and much needed scrutiny. Anyone that takes what he says at face value is a buffoon.
Let's be clear that delusional rant of one individual, or even a few incidents, doesn't even come close to indicting the entire NPR organization.
Are you one of those that allows themselves to be fooled by the likes of O'Keefe?
I watched the video, a few comments made me wince, but most were spot on. What was so bad about it?
You're kidding me, right? This criminal O'Keefe has been caught on multiple occasions editing his video and you're going to take anything he now does as factual proof? He's got zero credibility, is a convicted criminal and a partisan hack yet you're willing to sing his graces because he's on your side. That's absolutely pathetic.
So, to you the result justifies the means? Where is your proof NPR is liberal biased, conservative like NPR as well as liberals. I can't prove it, but I would say NPR is probably the least biased of the networks. I think some conservatives don't like NPR because they don't like the truth, so they turn on the FNC.The score in this battle:
O'Keefe - 2
N.P.R - 0
No matter how many personal attacks the left launches on O'Keefe, or how long people dismiss this as "no big deal", it's not going to change the fact that NPR has been caught once again with their hand in the liberal biased cookie jar, and the chips are finally falling.
So, to you the result justifies the means? Where is your proof NPR is liberal biased, conservative like NPR as well as liberals. I can't prove it, but I would say NPR is probably the least biased of the networks. I think some conservatives don't like NPR because they don't like the truth, so they turn on the FNC.
Where is your proof NPR is liberal biased....
So, to you the result justifies the means?
Where is your proof NPR is liberal biased
conservative like NPR as well as liberals.
I can't prove it, but I would say NPR is probably the least biased of the networks.
I think some conservatives don't like NPR because they don't like the truth, so they turn on the FNC.
The score in this battle:
O'Keefe - 2
N.P.R - 0
No matter how many personal attacks the left launches on O'Keefe, or how long people dismiss this as "no big deal", it's not going to change the fact that NPR has been caught once again with their hand in the liberal biased cookie jar, and the chips are finally falling.
If O'Keefe was a liberal exposing Conservative or Republican organizations he would be showered with praise and awards from lefties.
Its true PBS current management is infested with liberals and their 'news' reporting is obviously to the far left of center. As a publicly funded organization that should be corrected.
But PBS does a lot of actual public programs, such as history and children’s which are excellent. I've given money to PBS and don't regret it.
Could this be done by private corporations? Yes. Should we still fund PBS? IMO yes.
How? They didn't even take the money! You didn't post one damn time on the Walker "punked tape" (which by the way was unedited), and he actually tried to squeeze more money out of the guy he was talking to. NPR did not take the money.
This CEO was quitting the job and spoke candidly about his beliefs. I'm appalled that you think he can't have opinions.
No, you don't understand. O'Keefe didn't "expose" ACORN.
Money changing hands and having opinions are not the issues here. I believe the donation would have been legal so I don't see a problem there. Everyone has opinions.
That being said, his opinions about conservatives and the Tea Party people in particular are ridiculous and he deserves the criticism he's receiving.
It's always fun to watch the reaction when a lefties true beliefs see the light of day. They seem surprised the country doesn't believe the same things they do.
0bama's probably still trying to figure out what was so bad about his bitter clingers speech.
It's always fun to watch the reaction when a lefties true beliefs see the light of day. They seem surprised the country doesn't believe the same things they do.
What? So you give no credit to the fact that they turned down 5 million from a shady donor? Also, this man can't have political ideas of his own separate from the company he works for? And I'm sorry, but this statement makes no sense:
You realize that it's like a 50/50 split in this country right? If you think his opinions of the Tea Party is ridiculous, I look forward to seeing you all over this board sticking up for the ridiculous attacks against liberals as well. In fact, there is no way you could listen Rush Limbaugh who grossly judges liberals daily.
So, with the news that George Soros is buying one hundred political “reporters” for National Public Radio (NPR), one waits with bated breath for the left to decry the fact that a famous anti-American leftist is buying and influencing the “news.”
George Soros’ Millions Buying ‘Political Reporters’ for NPR - Big Journalism
Yes, and Ed Schultz, and Dennis Prager are angles....Ok....:doh:lamo Oh, did NPR/PBS take a Million dollars from Soros to buy reporters?
but that's ok I suppose.
j-mac
What? So you give no credit to the fact that they turned down 5 million from a shady donor?
Also, this man can't have political ideas of his own separate from the company he works for?
You realize that it's like a 50/50 split in this country right? If you think his opinions of the Tea Party is ridiculous, I look forward to seeing you all over this board sticking up for the ridiculous attacks against liberals as well. In fact, there is no way you could listen Rush Limbaugh who grossly judges liberals daily.
Not the issue.
Again, I believe the donation would have been legal so I don't see a problem there. Everyone has opinions.
I don't believe the 50/50. It's roughly 2:1 conservative to liberal in most polls/surveys I've seen. There are lots of independents. 30-40% I believe. If I'm wrong let me know but that's what I remember from the few articles I've read. Polls are useful, but usually don't really prove anything one way or the other.
I do and will stick up for liberals when I believe they are being wrongly attacked by Conservatives or Republicans. That doesn't happen very often though, liberals are rarely right IMO.
I'm sticking up for 0bama right now on Afghanistan with regard to civilian deaths. They are unavoidable given the nature of jihadis and I support his military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan even though it will cause civilian deaths. I'm surprised more liberals aren't there with me.
I will also jump in when anyone goes after a politician's or public figures’ children.
So, with the news that George Soros is buying one hundred political “reporters” for National Public Radio (NPR), one waits with bated breath for the left to decry the fact that a famous anti-American leftist is buying and influencing the “news.”
..... and the wait continues.
Ed Schultz and Dennis Prager are no comparison - no one even listens to them lol. You can bring up nobodies if you want, but these guys don't have Beck/Limbaugh-like followings.
Also, now if NPR accepts funding from a liberal they are a liberal organization too!?! Let the attack begin. Man the conservative machine is something else.
Dennis Prager appears to be conservative, by the way.
So had they accepted the money you would not be attacking them for it? Just wondering.
Right, so you stick up for them when you agree with them. However, liberals get attacked daily by the most famous of conservative pundits. I hear nothing from conservatives. In fact, the meanest, most attack-like conservative shows are their most popular shows.
Yet, NPR, a non-profit news organization is under attack? Why? Let's be honest here, it was under attack well before this video came out as well. What has NPR ever done to negatively affect conservatives? And why does this CEO not have the right to have his own political views?
First of all, quote your sources.
Secondly, there is no reason they should not be able to accept donations from a liberal funder.
Grim17 said:No matter how many personal attacks the left launches on O'Keefe, or how long people dismiss this as "no big deal", it's not going to change the fact that NPR has been caught once again with their hand in the liberal biased cookie jar, and the chips are finally falling.
How? They didn't even take the money!
This CEO was quitting the job and spoke candidly about his beliefs. I'm appalled that you think he can't have opinions.
The score in this battle:
O'Keefe - 2
N.P.R - 0
No matter how many personal attacks the left launches on O'Keefe, or how long people dismiss this as "no big deal", it's not going to change the fact that NPR has been caught once again with their hand in the liberal biased cookie jar, and the chips are finally falling.
Really? And why do you suppose that is?To listen to them you'd think they ruled the ratings world.....:lamo
Oh, I see. So I suspect now that liberals will now accept the Scientists against GW theories that receive funding from oil concerns? You can't get away with constantly having it both ways pal.
Oh, yeah, damn you're right....I was thinking of Thom Hartmann....:3oops:
j-mac
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?