NPR ‘appalled’ by former exec’s comments

[fansince62]

As I said before, there are plenty of long, "unedited" portions of the tape that show plenty of what that guy thinks.

And evidently NRP is comfortable enough with the pieces of tape and what was said was enough to fire him.

And yes, NRP and the CPB can fund themselves. Afterall, their audience is much smarter than everyone else. They can figure something out.

hey...let's ask Juan Williams what he thinks!!!

 

[Goaldeje]

1) NPR can survive on its own...just like...oh...I don't know...Fox? why a special dispensation for those Soros manipulated clowns?

2) The taxpayer's job isn't to guarantee employment for ideologues at NPR.

That's not my argument, though I did phrase my last post poorly. My question to you both is, are you comfortable with the fact the people lost their jobs based on a highly edited, dishonest video segment? That is what has happened, and the response in this thread appears to be that is fine, because they didn't share the same ideology as we do.

The debate about whether or not NPR should be funded by the taxpayers is separate.

 

[Sarge]

That's not my argument, though I did phrase my last post poorly. My question to you both is, are you comfortable with the fact the people lost their jobs based on a highly edited, dishonest video segment? That is what has happened, and the response in this thread appears to be that is fine, because they didn't share the same ideology as we do.

The debate about whether or not NPR should be funded by the taxpayers is separate.

I didn't fire those folks. NPR fired them. Had the "Oh the tapes have been edited by the ebil republican idialouge" line worked for them, they probably would have retained them, but they didn't. Which tells me there's something there that NPR was either uncomfortable with or something that could not be defended.

 

[Henry]

Again Henry, I'm not arguing the right and wrong. I'm arguing that it's a good thing that this came out on tape so that people may start to wonder if hte MSM is telling them the truth.

What came out on tape? Again Sarge, if it's so compelling, why the need to chop it up? Have you seen the long unedited version? Got a link for it?

I'm not saying people didn't deserve to lose their jobs, but if we are going to rake NPR over the coals, wouldn't it be nice to know why, exactly? If we are so smart that we can think for ourselves and don't need NPR, how about we don't need some guy moving bits of footage around and dubbing in incriminating statements. Right?

It happens on both sides. Dan Rather lost his job peddling forged documents about GWB. All the major networks reported that as "news" until almost everyone figured out that the documents were forgeries. Well, everyone but Dan Rather, who continued to present the documents as "news" almost every night.

Who's defending Dan Rather? Dan Rather lost his job.

Repeat after me: Dan Rather lost his job.

One more time: Dan Rather lost his job.

On the other hand, so far in this thread I can see at least two posters who are patting O'Keefe on the back because 'he's right enough' or 'he's probably right anyway.'

That's the distinction I'm finding troubling.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12615&only

The Journo list thing I've already brought up

Who's defending the Journolist? It was disbanded. At least one of the biggest participants resigned from his job. Do I need to repeat that one three times too?

FS62 already brought up 60 Minutes

I don't watch 60 minutes, so without specific examples that's tough to address. What exactly did they chop up and misrepresent?

And now NPR, and two people who quite likely represent the views of everyone that works there.

You just said for the fifth time they lost their jobs. Don't you see a pattern here?

 

[Goaldeje]

Or... maybe they figured it wasn't worth the fight with the right wing nutjobs?

Either way, it does not seem right to me that someone lost their job because of an edited video that does not appear to correctly represent reality, fully.

 

[fansince62]

not my position.

I'm tickled pink that someone, anyone...caught ACORN, Planned Parenthood, etc., in the act of what we all know has been going on forever: LYING. Let's flip this booger....not everyone or most or even a large per centage of folks at those organizations doing this? prove it.

I think there is a distinction between O'Keefe and Maning...to preempt a future conversation...but what do I know!

btw...Goldie.....it's pretty obvious that current policy makers don't care about folks losing their jobs.

 

[Goaldeje]

not my position.

I'm tickled pink that someone, anyone...caught ACORN, Planned Parenthood, etc., in the act of what we all know has been going on forever: LYING. Let's flip this booger....not everyone or most or even a large per centage of folks at those organizations doing this? prove it.

Innocent until proven guilty? No? I believe the burden of proof falls to you, counselor.

I think there is a distinction between O'Keefe and Maning...to preempt a future conversation...but what do I know!

btw...Goldie.....it's pretty obvious that current policy makers don't care about folks losing their jobs.

Perhaps. Hard to argue, actually. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them though.

 

[Henry]

Al, your argument boils down to 'I know it in my gut, therefore it doesn't matter if someone lies to prove it.'

Sorry, but I don't think your gut is a good enough reason to justify such a blatant breach of public trust.

 

[Henry]

Or... maybe they figured it wasn't worth the fight with the right wing nutjobs?

Either way, it does not seem right to me that someone lost their job because of an edited video that does not appear to correctly represent reality, fully.

According to NPR, the guy actually on the tape was leaving anyway. I think the job he had waiting for him has now fallen through, though.

The CEO was ousted by the board of directors "because the board concluded that this controversy, and the lingering effects of last fall's controversial dismissal of analyst Juan Williams, made it impossible for her to effectively lead the organization."

 

[Elephant]

... such a blatant breach of public trust.

You talking about ACORN or NPR?

 

[fansince62]

Al, your argument boils down to 'I know it in my gut, therefore it doesn't matter if someone lies to prove it.'

Sorry, but I don't think your gut is a good enough reason to justify such a blatant breach of public trust.

nice try turning the tables......the folks at ACORN, etc., are the liars.....and they have been outted.

 

[fansince62]

Perhaps. Hard to argue, actually. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them though.

I do believe you don't undersatnd the system. Manning went through a review process and signed paperwork in order to receive clearances/access. He violated the law. Early in my career I knew people who paid a high price for misplacing a document. This guy KNOWINGLY released classified information. He's a traitor and I hope he receives a lethal injection.

 

[Henry]

nice try turning the tables......the folks at ACORN, etc., are the liars.....and they have been outted.

ACORN really isn't relevant anymore. ACORN is gone. It's out of business. It was put out of business because of a heavily edited video which implied criminal activity when none was there.

According to your logic if Charleton Heston was forced to resign after being ambushed and then heavily edited by Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine it would be a good thing, because I personally think the NRA is full of cheats and liars. That's the exact argument you guys are presenting here. Does that work for you?

 

[fansince62]

ACORN really isn't relevant anymore. ACORN is gone. It's out of business. It was put out of business because of a heavily edited video which implied criminal activity when none was there.

According to your logic if Charleton Heston was forced to resign after being ambushed and then heavily edited by Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine it would be a good thing, because I personally think the NRA is full of cheats and liars. That's the exact argument you guys are presenting here. Does that work for you?

1) I have never argued for silencing Mike Moore. I have called him the schmuck he is and don't accept his ideology. You are free to do the same with O'Keefe.

2) The tape is what it is. The guy said what he said. It's only incidental that the themes he sounded have gained currency across the board in the Left leaning community for years.

3) That he lost his job isn't my issue. NPR decided to do that after...one assumes...an internal review....right? I simply don't want NPR publicly funded.

 

[Henry]

You talking about ACORN or NPR?

I don't listen to NPR. What exactly have they lied about?

1) I have never argued for silencing Mike Moore. I have called him the schmuck he is and don't accept his ideology. You are free to do the same with O'Keefe.

2) The tape is what it is. The guy said what he said. It's only incidental that the themes he sounded have gained currency across the board in the Left leaning community for years.

3) That he lost his job isn't my issue. NPR decided to do that after...one assumes...an internal review....right? I simply don't want NPR publicly funded.

I guess I'm still not getting my point across so I'll let it go.

 

[Goaldeje]

Hits just keep on coming for NPR:

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Radio_46/House-votes-to-yank-NPR-funding.asp

I don't have a problem with cutting funding for NPR; times are tight, we need to cut back across the board. Key part of that sentence being "across the board".

 

[Elephant]

Hits just keep on coming for NPR:

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Radio_46/House-votes-to-yank-NPR-funding.asp

I don't have a problem with cutting funding for NPR; times are tight, we need to cut back across the board. Key part of that sentence being "across the board".

I have no problem with cuts across the board as long as the cuts in Defense do not affect the troops in the field. In fact, I've been saying it for months.

 

[Goaldeje]

I have no problem with cuts across the board as long as the cuts in Defense do not affect the troops in the field. In fact, I've been saying it for months.

Could not agree more. Sadly, many in Congress do not share our view. They will be glad to hurt programs that affect the other party without stopping to think about the good of the nation.

It's funny. I am watching the John Adams miniseries with my 13 and 10 year olds, and I was struck last night at how much we need someone like Adams who was unafraid to do the unpopular thing because he felt it best for the nation. Crazy idea, I know.

 

[Elephant]

Could not agree more. Sadly, many in Congress do not share our view. They will be glad to hurt programs that affect the other party without stopping to think about the good of the nation.

It's funny. I am watching the John Adams miniseries with my 13 and 10 year olds, and I was struck last night at how much we need someone like Adams who was unafraid to do the unpopular thing because he felt it best for the nation. Crazy idea, I know.

Like Scott Walker in WI? Unpopular but willing to tackle a tough issue against one of the toughest lobbies, unions.

 

[Goaldeje]

Like Scott Walker in WI? Unpopular but willing to tackle a tough issue against one of the toughest lobbies, unions.

Heh. I think my position on Mr. Walker has been clear. Were he asking everyone across the board in government employ in Wisconsin, and not trying to take away the one bargaining chip the teachers have, I might be inclined to appreciate his ways.

I was referring more to Rand Paul, who proposed sweeping cuts across all sorts of programs, and has been mostly ignored by both sides. I did not agree with his proposal in its entirety, but I thought it worthy of discussion. Sadly, not many agreed with me or Mr. Paul, I guess.