Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

pjorourke · 03-09-2011, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I guess y'all should agree that we need to get rid of the Voice of America also. Or is your call to defund good only for those broadcasts YOU deem to be liberal? There are probably others. What about the armed forces? The "Stars and Stripes?" Any other suggestions?

Well that's your basic non-sequitur.

VoA is part of our foreign policy -- not "providing quality TV" to American audiences. Personally, I doubt we are getting a reasonable bang for our buck with it, so I woildn't be heartbroken if it was killed too.

S&S is an internal newspaper to the military. Do you know any other newspaper that covers that beat? I suppose it serves a purpose, but again -- no sacred cows in this herd.

charlestudor2005 · 03-09-2011, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Assign arguments or examples of argument you interpreted to the original poster.

You should have looked. I WAS the original poster.

gnadfly · 03-09-2011, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

You should have looked. I WAS the original poster.

The posts of origin that you are referring to (in this case my and Rahkirs) but go ahead and don't answer.

Guest050715-1 · 03-09-2011, 05:05 PM

Well, it’s my guess that Sesame Street won’t go off the air and NPR will continue to broadcast.

I listened to the whole vignette. I think he has a pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist slant which is fine. I try to see both sides, but on whole, I would say I am Israel. What I don’t like is he is such an elitist snob. The crux of his whole sales pitch is that only the liberals are educated. Please. That’s right in line with liberals are open-minded and conservatives are closed-minded. As far as I’m concerned anyone on either extreme is close-minded.

Even allowing for the given that these two are trying to sell the clients on donating the $5 million, these two are PC run amuck. He mentions the “so-called elite” (His words not mine.), and proudly includes himself as a card-carrying member. If Juan Williams deserved to get fired for his personal beliefs, so does this guy. At least Juan just held a personal belief, he didn’t try to sway public opinion on global matters through his bully pulpit of the press.

BTW, I listen to NPR and Pacifica.

Doove · 03-09-2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

...Today's cable systems have 100+ channels and they are crying for good content. There is no shortage of money to pay for the production of good TV. In fact, people knowledgeable about the industry claim that this is the golden age of TV. Shows can be profitably produced that only have 1 million member audiences or less. In the days when the three nets controlled everything (including the news), this couldn't happen.

So getting rid of government funding will not damage NPR -- it will just change it and make it more customer focused and less political -- which I see as a good thing.

Yeah, more cooking shows, scrawny half naked guys running around in the jungle, and people who can't sing. Oh, and more Fox News style reporting.

Just what we need.

pjorourke · 03-09-2011, 06:06 PM

You forgot how bad it was when there were only three channels. Now we have shows like Mad Men, Weeds, Spartacus, The Tudors.

You know Doove, the really nice thing about Fox News is that you don't have to watch it if you don't want to.

Doove · 03-09-2011, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

You forgot how bad it was when there were only three channels. Now we have shows like Mad Men, Weeds, Spartacus, The Tudors.

All In The Family, Mary Tyler Moore, Andy Griffith, The Honeymooners, Twilight Zone - horrible TV!

Quote:

You know Doove, the really nice thing about Fox News is that you don't have to watch it if you don't want to.

Yeah, never mind that it wholly bastardizes news by catering to ratings instead of truth. Perfect evidence that making money hardly means you necessarily earn it.

charlestudor2005 · 03-09-2011, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Even allowing for the given that these two are trying to sell the clients on donating the $5 million, these two are PC run amuck. He mentions the “so-called elite” (His words not mine.), and proudly includes himself as a card-carrying member. If Juan Williams deserved to get fired for his personal beliefs, so does this guy. At least Juan just held a personal belief, he didn’t try to sway public opinion on global matters through his bully pulpit of the press.

BTW, I listen to NPR and Pacifica.

Olivia, if I read the news reports correctly, this guy was merely a fund raiser. He didn't hold any reporting or editorial position. OTOH, Juan was a reporter. Personally, I didn't agree with Juan getting fired. I thought he was a bit of a pansy being "uncomfortable" with people in Arab dress. But I did agree with firing Rick Sanchez. I thought Rick did much more to try and impose his biases on on his viewers, and should have been fired a long time before he was.

I think it is somewhat suspect to fire someone who has no power over reporting or editorial content. But that's just me. I think terminating this guy was pulling the trigger a little too fast, and terminating the lady was surely cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

You know Doove, the really nice thing about Fox News is that you don't have to watch it if you don't want to.

Yes, it's one of their best qualities.

WTF · 03-10-2011, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Ha! A WTF style intellectually disingenuous retort. Assign arguments or examples of argument you interpreted to the original poster.

?

A WTF style retort?

You mean one where a cheating spouse asks another cheating spouse WTF makes him so special?

I could see where you do not care for those fair and balanced questions Newt. Your infidelities are always done for love of country!

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/09/ne...ted-to-affair/

Guest050715-1 · 03-10-2011, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Olivia, if I read the news reports correctly, this guy was merely a fund raiser. He didn't hold any reporting or editorial position. OTOH, Juan was a reporter. Personally, I didn't agree with Juan getting fired. I thought he was a bit of a pansy being "uncomfortable" with people in Arab dress. But I did agree with firing Rick Sanchez. I thought Rick did much more to try and impose his biases on on his viewers, and should have been fired a long time before he was.

I think it is somewhat suspect to fire someone who has no power over reporting or editorial content. But that's just me. I think terminating this guy was pulling the trigger a little too fast, and terminating the lady was surely cutting off your nose to spite your face.

He was an executive not just a garden-variety fundraiser. Executives make decisions, and he was making a decision to accept funds from a radically racist group. Decisions at the top determine what stories get reported. Juan had no influence at the top of the food chain like this guy and his benefactors. I think the actors were being quite clear how they expected their $5 million dollars to be spent. It all has to do with the Golden Rule my friend: Those with the gold make the rules. That’s just the way it is.

Both of them, despite their vehement vow they are not racists and pointing fingers at all Republicans and Tea Party members as racists, just sat there and said nothing while the actors dogged Jews and Israel. The NPR exec is pretty good at neither walking the walk nor talking the talk. If he was, he would have stopped the actors and told them that the actors’ anti-Semitic attitudes were not in keeping with NPR’s plan of racial tolerance and offends his personal views. If you don’t like racism, then you don’t like it with regard to all races and ethnic groups.

The filmmaker’s intent was to present a radically racist group as generous benefactors. What disappoints me is that NPR was willing to take their money. I believe they both deserved to be fired. It’s hilarious, he actually thinks he’s right because he’s an intellectual that assumes he is looking out for the downtrodden that all the non-liberal, uneducated hicks persecute.

I also think that NPR needs to take a look at their track record. First they fire Juan for not wanting to fly with people that look Arab. I think Juan’s ridiculous, but whatever, he’s entitled to his opinion I guess. Then they fire these yahoos for getting caught on tape for being pseudo, self-appointed intellectuals defending, in their opinion, the discarded masses. So did all three of them get fired for being racist or because they made their views public? Do the fair and unbiased executives of NPR sit in their ivory tower and decided which groups are sufficiently beleaguered to warrant a pass when it comes to discrimination or do they just hire people that do? I’m just asking.

charlestudor2005 · 03-10-2011, 10:13 AM

Before today, I had only read articles. Today I watched the video. My thoughts:

Quote:

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

He was an executive not just a garden-variety fundraiser. Executives make decisions, and he was making a decision to accept funds from a radically racist group. Decisions at the top determine what stories get reported. Juan had no influence at the top of the food chain like this guy and his benefactors. I think the actors were being quite clear how they expected their $5 million dollars to be spent. It all has to do with the Golden Rule my friend: Those with the gold make the rules. That’s just the way it is. Let's be clear, between Israel and Islam, we're not talking about race here. Religion, yes. But, for the most part, people from the Middle East carry the same racial characteristics. But since we're talking religion, people can be of any race. And, although I generally sneer at the characterization that the American media is controlled by Jews, I don't think that Muslims should be prevented from funding programs in the media just like the Jewish people do. I further think the allegation that the Muslin Brotherhood is a radically racist organization is arguable:

Quote:

The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state".[10] Since its inception in 1928 the movement has officially opposed violent means to achieve its goals.[11][12] The Council on Foreign Relations says: "At various times in its history, the group has used or supported violence and has been repeatedly banned in Egypt for attempting to overthrow Cairo's secular government. Since the 1970s, however, the Egyptian Brotherhood has disavowed violence and sought to participate in Egyptian politics."[13] Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor, calls it "conservative and non-violent,"[14] The Brotherhood condemned terrorism and the 9/11 attacks,[15][16] but whether or not it has ties to terrorism is a matter of dispute.[17] On the other hand Hamas, Jamaat al-Islamiyya, and al-Qaeda, have historic and ideological affiliations with the Egyptian Brotherhood. Some of the world's most violent were once Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, including Osama bin Laden's top deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.[18][19][20] In its profile of the Muslim Brotherhood, the BBC says: "By the late 1940s, the group is believed to have had as many as two million followers in Egypt, and its ideas had spread across the Arab world...
The Brotherhood's nonviolent stance has resulted in breakaway groups from the movement, including the Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya and Al Takfir Wal Hijra.[27] Osama bin Laden has similarly criticized the Brotherhood, and accused it of betraying jihad and the ideals of Sayyid Qutb, an influential Brother member and author of Milestones.[28][29] In Egypt, the Brotherhood has stated that, while it seeks the establishment of an Islamic state, it would not force women to cover up.[30] The Muslim Brotherhood's position on women and Christians in politics is clear. Muslim Brotherhood Secretary General Dr. Mahmoud Ezzat, asked "Do women and Copts have the right to run for the presidential office, according to the Muslim Brotherhood?" answered: "The majority of scholars agreed that the highest office in the state cannot be run by a woman or non-Muslim."[31]

Both of them, despite their vehement vow they are not racists and pointing fingers at all Republicans and Tea Party members as racists, just sat there and said nothing while the actors dogged Jews and Israel. I think it is deplorable what they said about Republicans and Tea Partiers. But, I don't think you should expect a Muslim organization to come in and rave about Jews, just as you wouldn't expect that kind of conduct when it comes to Republicans, Democrats or Tea Partiers. They just don't have the respect to do that. To expect sworn enemies to lavish praise on one another is not being in reality. The NPR exec is pretty good at neither walking the walk nor talking the talk. If he was, he would have stopped the actors and told them that the actors’ anti-Semitic attitudes were not in keeping with NPR’s plan of racial tolerance and offends his personal views. If you don’t like racism, then you don’t like it with regard to all races and ethnic groups. Again, this isn't racism, but religious difference. Deplorable, but not racism.

The filmmaker’s intent was to present a radically racist (see my note above) group as generous benefactors. What disappoints me is that NPR was willing to take their money. I believe they both deserved to be fired. It’s hilarious, he actually thinks he’s right because he’s an intellectual that assumes he is looking out for the downtrodden that all the non-liberal, uneducated hicks persecute.

I also think that NPR needs to take a look at their track record. First they fire Juan for not wanting to fly with people that look Arab. No, that's not accurate, and you're smart enough to know it. They fired him for expressing his opinion; not for his feelings. I think Juan’s ridiculous, but whatever, he’s entitled to his opinion I guess. I agree, and because he is, they shouldn't have fired him. Then they fire these yahoos for getting caught on tape for being pseudo, self-appointed intellectuals defending, in their opinion, the discarded masses. So did all three of them get fired for being racist or because they made their views public? Olivia, I agree with you on this point, but I guess I've become jaded. How many people ride in their jobs until caught. Jimmy Swaggart, Richard Nixon, Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker, Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay. I could go on, so please NPR isn't the first and only organization to do this. Do the fair and unbiased executives of NPR sit in their ivory tower and decided which groups are sufficiently beleaguered to warrant a pass when it comes to discrimination or do they just hire people that do? I’m just asking. I see no difference in them and the organizations for which those people I named above worked. You really can't single out NPR. It happens in all organizations. Some are just more visible than others. Just sayin'.

Guest050715-1 · 03-10-2011, 10:30 AM

Ok, really? Do I have to add the race, creed, color, sex, religion, etc? I was speaking generally. I am aware what the three races are. It gets me when there is no argument people start picking at nits. How about I just say isms of any kind? Does that fit the bill?

Lavish praise on Israel? Not really, but dogging them and being as explicit as possible about how they expected their money to be spent pro-Islam and not spent pro-Israel. What are you saying? That’s its kinda ok for Arabs to hate Jews? What am I allowed to hate? I want to know. Really. Then tell me how I’m going to justify the said hatred. Isms are bad. They are bad for me. They are bad for you. They are bad for Arabs. They are bad for Jews. They are bad for everyone!

Now it’s my turn to say I know you’re smarter than that. NPR holds themselves out as unbiased reporters of the news. When you set yourself a higher bar and then market and sell yourselves as above that bar, then you loose the right to dip below the bar and kinda hate on groups or have your reporting show favoritism. It’s why it’s called an ivory tower.

Valerie · 03-10-2011, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Mark my words on this. If we give "these clowns" $450M to do things like produce education televisions shows for children there'll be no end to the waste and sloth we'll have to deal with in Washington. Public broadcasting is exactly the kind of program that we need to concentrate on in trying to cut out all of this wasteful and useless federal spending.

Cheers,
Mazo.

This is spot on Mazo!

Iaintliein · 03-10-2011, 11:04 AM

Have no fear komrade Doove. You can always get the current truth here:

http://thepeoplescube.com/

charlestudor2005 · 03-10-2011, 11:13 AM

@Olivia--a couple of points:

As one who deals with discrimination issues every fukn day, yes it makes a big difference whether or not it's race or religion. The only racial discrimination in the piece was when the NPR guy accused Republicans, Tea Partiers and Christians of it.
With regard to "Arabs" and Jews (I said Muslims b/c "Arab" encompasses a larger group). I am NOT saying it is OK for anybody to hate. And I never said that in the post. All I said was they have been traditional enemies. All the way back to Esau, if I remember correctly. But I don't condone hate.
With regard to NPR: I think opposing organizations ought to be able to run their programs there under the same rules. That is all I'm saying. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that Jewish programs were run on NPR. If Muslims want to run similar programs, they ought to be able to do so under the same rules. There should be no censorship in this regard.

You're putting words in my mouth that I never said.