• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NPR Intolerance and Imbalance

Right. The liberals know that, but you'll never get one to admit it. When a liberal gets cornered with the truth they will reply with insults and name calling. Juan is the problem......not NPR. America is the problem...not Islamic terrorism. Those Americans who cling to their guns and religion are the problem.....not the Marxist useful idiots in our government who are destroying America. They think we're all stupid.
 
Jack Fate said:
Oh, I see. Fox news is not a legitimate news organization and NPR is. Funny stuff.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you'd even question that. I'm not saying that liberal leaning news organizations are legit and right leaning ones are not. Like I said, the wsj or the economist are hard right and absolutely top notch for credibility in anybody's book. Those two only make one factual error maybe every 2-3 years. NPR isn't quite in that category. They're more like 1 error every couple months. Doing live radio, like live TV for Fox, is more error prone so you can't really expect radio or tv sources to have quite the perfect records of the major newspapers who have time to review every word carefully before it goes to press. But NPR is definitely very solid for factual accuracy.

Fox on the other hand literally rarely goes a single day without publishing a flat out falsehood. Sometimes they get caught several times in a single day. They don't even bother doing retractions or corrections the next day anymore. Their audience doesn't care whether they retract mistakes or not, they just want them to get back to the infotaining.

Again, it's not about how biased they are, I'm talking about factual accuracy. Murdoch owns both the WSJ and Fox. They have the same lean. But he markets the WSJ to the intelligent, educated, conservatives who demand honesty and accuracy, and he markets Fox News to a less bright, less educated, less well off audience. Fox News competes with Jerry Springer and Judge Judy for the dramatic psuedo-information audience, the WSJ competes with the NY Times and Foreign Affairs for the high end audience. They just do completely different things.

The left has similar outlets to Fox. Michael Moore, for example, I'd put in the same category as Fox. But to compare Fox with NPR just makes no sense. They're completely different tiers.
 
teamosil said:
I'm surprised you'd even question that. I'm not saying that liberal leaning news organizations are legit and right leaning ones are not. Like I said, the wsj or the economist are hard right and absolutely top notch for credibility in anybody's book.
Click to expand...

Calling the WSJ and the Economist "hard right" is not exactly top notch for your credibility.
 
winston53660 said:
How did you determine that? And what she said in that short clip I do not think was her personal opinion even though it was a mean spirited thing to say.
Click to expand...

How could it possibly not have been her personal opinion? She was speaking of God's "retributive justice." Is God's mind objective fact that she was merely observing?

Again expressing a personal opinion is not acceptable to NPR. He expressed a PERSONAL opinion. I'm sure his relationship with Fox did him no favors with NPR though.
Click to expand...

And so did she; a far nastier one.
 
teamosil said:
I'm surprised you'd even question that. I'm not saying that liberal leaning news organizations are legit and right leaning ones are not. Like I said, the wsj or the economist are hard right and absolutely top notch for credibility in anybody's book. Those two only make one factual error maybe every 2-3 years. NPR isn't quite in that category. They're more like 1 error every couple months. Doing live radio, like live TV for Fox, is more error prone so you can't really expect radio or tv sources to have quite the perfect records of the major newspapers who have time to review every word carefully before it goes to press. But NPR is definitely very solid for factual accuracy.

Fox on the other hand literally rarely goes a single day without publishing a flat out falsehood. Sometimes they get caught several times in a single day. They don't even bother doing retractions or corrections the next day anymore. Their audience doesn't care whether they retract mistakes or not, they just want them to get back to the infotaining.

Again, it's not about how biased they are, I'm talking about factual accuracy. Murdoch owns both the WSJ and Fox. They have the same lean. But he markets the WSJ to the intelligent, educated, conservatives who demand honesty and accuracy, and he markets Fox News to a less bright, less educated, less well off audience. Fox News competes with Jerry Springer and Judge Judy for the dramatic psuedo-information audience, the WSJ competes with the NY Times and Foreign Affairs for the high end audience. They just do completely different things.

The left has similar outlets to Fox. Michael Moore, for example, I'd put in the same category as Fox. But to compare Fox with NPR just makes no sense. They're completely different tiers.
Click to expand...

Do you believe NPR was justified in firing Juan Williams?
 
Harshaw said:
How could it possibly not have been her personal opinion? She was speaking of God's "retributive justice." Is God's mind objective fact that she was merely observing?



And so did she; a far nastier one.
Click to expand...


Sorry but I'm not going to pass judgment on a one line clip.
 
RightinNYC said:
Calling the WSJ and the Economist "hard right" is not exactly top notch for your credibility.
Click to expand...

Maybe you can make an argument with the economist. They're very economically conservative, but not so much socially. They're kind of old school conservatives. The WSJ though, that's pretty much the bedrock of conservatism in the US. I can't think of a more serious conservative source than them. For a conservative journalist who wants to work in the conservative media the WSJ is definitely the highest station in the industry they can attain.
 
Jack Fate said:
Do you believe NPR was justified in firing Juan Williams?
Click to expand...

No opinion. I haven't read much about it. I gather he blurted out some racist stuff about muslims? If so, then yeah, he needs to go.
 
winston53660 said:
But then again considering Helms position on AIDS:
Click to expand...

OK. So if someone takes a political position you disagree with it is OK as a journalist to with God would kill their grandchildren?

I think that is an extremely poor rationalization.
 
Harshaw said:
Right, but when it comes to Williams? Hmmm.
Click to expand...


I haven't passed judgment on Williams beyond saying he aired a personal opinion. And I did pass judgment on Totenberg saying her comment was mean spirited.
 
teamosil said:
Maybe you can make an argument with the economist. They're very economically conservative, but not so much socially. They're kind of old school conservatives.
Click to expand...

The Economist endorsed Obama, Kerry, and Clinton. If you think that's "hard right," I think that's a function of your own position on the spectrum.

The WSJ though, that's pretty much the bedrock of conservatism in the US. I can't think of a more serious conservative source than them. For a conservative journalist who wants to work in the conservative media the WSJ is definitely the highest station in the industry they can attain.
Click to expand...

The fact that the WSJ is one of the more prominent conservative-leaning papers does not mean that it is "hard right." Newsmax is hard right. CNS News is hard right. The WSJ is not.
 
Jack Fate said:
Here is the clip. After watching it, please tell us whether you believe he should be fired for this. Thankis.

YouTube - The Words That Got Juan Williams Fired From NPR
Click to expand...

After watching the video sand saying muslims dressing as muslims means they are saying they are muslim before american. Give him the axe.

Also NPR is about as middle of the road as the media gets. The homogenized right finds bias in anything that doesn't confirm their fundamentalist agenda.
If you think NPR is too liberal (and I listen to that stuff everyday on my radio vs MSNBC which IS liberal) youre approaching fundy status in my eyes.
 
Jack Fate said:
Here is the clip. After watching it, please tell us whether you believe he should be fired for this. Thankis.

YouTube - The Words That Got Juan Williams Fired From NPR
Click to expand...

Yeah probably a good call to fire him. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. He sees one of them on a plane and starts thinking they might be a terrorist? That's ludicrously stupid bigotry. Imagine instead if he had said that as a black man every time he sees a Christian he worries that they might be about to lynch him. Would that be acceptable to continue to employ him as a trusted source of news about the world? Of course not. Same deal.
 
SE102 said:
After watching the video sand saying muslims dressing as muslims means they are saying they are muslim before american. Give him the axe.

Also NPR is about as middle of the road as the media gets. The homogenized right finds bias in anything that doesn't confirm their fundamentalist agenda.
If you think NPR is too liberal (and I listen to that stuff everyday on my radio vs MSNBC which IS liberal) youre approaching fundy status in my eyes.
Click to expand...

So you say NPR was justified in firing Juan Williams. Interesting. They didn't fire a woman for saying Jesse Helms and his grandkids should get AIDS. Do you see anything wrong with that?
 
Jack Fate said:
So you say NPR was justified in firing Juan Williams. Interesting. They didn't fire a woman for saying Jesse Helms and his grandkids should get AIDS. Do you see anything wrong with that?
Click to expand...

I dont know what youre referring to, it sounds unreal and made up. Link it up or something.
 
teamosil said:
Yeah probably a good call to fire him. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. He sees one of them on a plane and starts thinking they might be a terrorist? That's ludicrously stupid bigotry. Imagine instead if he had said that as a black man every time he sees a Christian he worries that they might be about to lynch him. Would that be acceptable to continue to employ him as a trusted source of news about the world? Of course not. Same deal.
Click to expand...

Should the woman be fired from NPR for saying Jesse Helms and his grandkids should get AIDS?
 
RightinNYC said:
The Economist endorsed Obama, Kerry, and Clinton. If you think that's "hard right," I think that's a function of your own position on the spectrum.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. They also endorsed Bush Sr, Margaret Thatcher and Reagan though. They don't like social conservatism. They're definitely conservative though, they've just parted ways with the GOP in the past few elections. Not because they became less conservative, but because the GOP has become more radicalized on the social side while the Democrats have become more conservative on the economic side.

RightinNYC said:
The fact that the WSJ is one of the more prominent conservative-leaning papers does not mean that it is "hard right." Newsmax is hard right. CNS News is hard right. The WSJ is not.
Click to expand...

I guess. "Hard" might be too strong... Maybe. Murdoch owns both Fox and the WSJ though. There certainly are more right-wing extremist publications. WND for example is off the charts. The WSJ isn't like that. But then again, you can't really go that far right and still be a legitimate news source. Those publications are constantly pumping out right wing conspiracy theories and whatnot... If that's what it takes to meet your definition of "hard right", then by definition you can't have a legitimate hard right news outlet.

Let me rephrase- the WSJ is the dominant news source on the right end of the mainstream conservative spectrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom