NPR caught pandering to Muslim Brotherhood (so they thought)

[Bubblehead1980]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/03/08/stung-npr-execs-caught-in-candid-chat-with-would-be-muslim-dono/


Liberal NPR screws up again.After showing the liberal bias in the unjustified outsing and slander or Juan Williams last year, NPR is caught pandering to what they though were represenatives from a Muslim group but in fact turned out to be a sting by Conservative Investigative Journalist James O Keefe(video brought down ACORN) The remarks show the liberal bias of NPR and why it should no longer be taxpayer funded.Mr. O Keefe is a true patriot.O

Not:I put muslim brotherhood in the title, other reports have said some of the actors claimed to be from the muslim brotherhood, and NPR had no issue with that, sad.

[Takeda Shingen]

Have you ever noticed that the guys the side that one may agree with are 'investigative journalists', while the guys on the other side doing exactly the same things are 'thugs'? Curious.

[Bubblehead1980]

Have you ever noticed that the guys the side that one may agree with are 'investigative journalists', while the guys on the other side doing exactly the same things are 'thugs'? Curious.


Not sure what you are referring to.Left wing journalists usually try to make something that isn't true into a story.Rachel Maddow and MSNBC for example had night after night of reports about the Koch brothers, as if they are some evil empire on their own that controls everyone who is against obama and left.The left needs a boogeyman(and it's almost always a middle aged, well off white man) to scare certain parts of their audience.Their reporting was dishonest and misleading.

O Keefe on the other hand, has exposed the reality of several left wing operations.O Keefe exposed ACORN, which lead to it's demise.O Keefe exposed NPR which is a left wing op funded by tax payers, which is wrong, my tax money should not be funding a left wing propaganda network! O Keefe attempted to expose Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana via phone taps( I attend Law School in LA, know a couple people who know her and her family personal, if half of what i hear is true, then it wouldve been nice to hear her phone calls, bet she'd be on trial right now) O Keefe went a bit far breaking the law but still wouldve liked to hear just how dirty she is.The Second Louisiana Purchase aka her bribe to vote for obamacare is a great example of her corruption.

The left creates boogeymen and lies to people, the right gets real proof and exposes the actual boogeymen.

[Gargamel]

The left creates boogeymen and lies to people, the right gets real proof and exposes the actual boogeymen.


:hmmm:


Errrrr......

I don't know if that's bias, ignorance, or what talking there, but I'm pretty sure Tak is right on.

This happens on both sides, but it's difficult to see it when the results are ones that match your opinions.

The left can point to FoxNews and laugh. The right can point to NPR (Com'on, Click and Clack are not commies, they rock) and laugh.

Like the whole mosque in NYC fiasco. Foxnews refused to name the primary donator to the project, while continuing to bash it. Turns out it was THE minority shareholder for FoxNews, after Murdoch.

So blame the spin on the left as much as you want, but both sides do it equally.

http://poplicks.com/images/most-biased-news-outlet.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

Hey, I like NPR and their in-depth coverage of news items. I am fully aware they are pretty far left, I establish that based on years of listening to their take on events. But when someone is as whacky left as this Ron Schiller guy, I am glad their are right wing investigative muckrakers like O'Keefe to expose them. The CEO of NPR just resigned. As well she should. First Juan Williams, now this. Shame on you, NPR. :nope:

NPR reported its five highest paid employees were:
1. Managing Editor Barbara Rehm, $383,139
2. All Things Considered host Robert Siegel, $350,288
3. Morning Edition host Renee Montagne, $332,160
4. Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep, $331,242
5. NPR afternoon programming director Richard L. Harris, $190,267.

Ok, right, let them do that without my $$$$

[Gargamel]

Hey, I like NPR and their in-depth coverage of news items. I am fully aware they are pretty far left, I establish that based on years of listening to their take on events. But when someone is as whacky left as this Ron Schiller guy, I am glad their are right wing investigative muckrakers like O'Keefe to expose them. The CEO of NPR just resigned. As well she should. First Juan Williams, now this. Shame on you, NPR. :nope:

I agree, it's good there are investigators keeping all the news outlets "honest".



NPR reported its five highest paid employees were:
1. Managing Editor Barbara Rehm, $383,139
2. All Things Considered host Robert Siegel, $350,288
3. Morning Edition host Renee Montagne, $332,160
4. Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep, $331,242
5. NPR afternoon programming director Richard L. Harris, $190,267.

Ok, right, let them do that without my $$$$

Problem with lowering those wages (they do seem high to me), is the quality of talent. The people that run these types of places would quickly go somewhere else if they weren't getting paid a competitive wage. Then places like NPR are left with either hacks or up and comers that either can't do the jobs, or don't do it long enough to make a lasting impression.

[Tribesman]

The left creates boogeymen and lies to people, the right gets real proof and exposes the actual boogeymen.
Thank you Bubbles, you provide the laughs from the world of neverland

[Takeda Shingen]

Problem with lowering those wages (they do seem high to me), is the quality of talent. The people that run these types of places would quickly go somewhere else if they weren't getting paid a competitive wage. Then places like NPR are left with either hacks or up and comers that either can't do the jobs, or don't do it long enough to make a lasting impression.

And it's okay if they make that money. I think that Neal's point (and I agree with him) is that our tax dollars shouldn't be paying that salary. Fox and MSNBC can do it without subsidies, so I think it possible for NPR to do the same.

[Penguin]

NPR reported its five highest paid employees were:
1. Managing Editor Barbara Rehm, $383,139
2. All Things Considered host Robert Siegel, $350,288
3. Morning Edition host Renee Montagne, $332,160
4. Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep, $331,242
5. NPR afternoon programming director Richard L. Harris, $190,267.

Ok, right, let them do that without my $$$$

:o this is really the short end of the stick in the world of television.


And it's okay if they make that money. I think that Neal's point (and I agree with him) is that our tax dollars shouldn't be paying that salary. Fox and MSNBC can do it without subsidies, so I think it possible for NPR to do the same.

They don't live solely on tax money, otherwise they wouldn't have sponsorships or fundraisings.
Not even regarding the quality of these channels in compariusion to PBS: FOX and MSBNC also get their funds by you: anytime you buy a product advertized in one of these stations, you pay them a sum.

The million dollar question is: how can they remain independent and make quality TV? A pay TV model can't be the answer, as this would cripple their purpose to make educational tv for everyone. Only living from advertisements, would kill their independence.
In Germany we have a (very controversial discussed) model that anybody with a tv has to pay a certain amount of money every month to fund the public channels.
Though their quality declined over the years, the public stations here still have the best reputation regarding unbiased news and educational programs - same as in the US.

[Takeda Shingen]

They don't live solely on tax money, otherwise they wouldn't have sponsorships or fundraisings.

You're right, they don't. However, they do receive government subsidies, which are funded by our tax dollars.


Not even regarding the quality of these channels in compariusion to PBS: FOX and MSBNC also get their funds by you: anytime you buy a product advertized in one of these stations, you pay them a sum.

You're also right, but in this case it is my choice to buy that dish soap or motor oil. I don't get a say in terms of my tax dollars; that hand goes into my pocket whether I like it or not.

I would also agree with you about the quality of PBS vs that of the cable networks.

[Penguin]

You're also right, but in this case it is my choice to buy that dish soap or motor oil. I don't get a say in terms of my tax dollars; that hand goes into my pocket whether I like it or not.


yes, of course you choose what you consume, I just wanted to point out that the "free" stations are also not free.

However you chose to pay those stations, the result would be the same. Wheather you take tax dollars, or a fee per household, or an impost on every sold TV. Fact is they don't make stuff that is always compatible to the masses, but rather try to cover many interests, even those of a minority of viewers. If you want to have this and also commercial free television, they have to be subsided in some way.

One point is also very important : that they are independent of the government, so tax dollars can only be a sollutiuon if they are guaranteed independently of the stuff they send, wheather the government likes it or not.

[Tchocky]

Mr. O Keefe is a true patriot

Yes, fighting the good fight.

A conservative activist known for making undercover videos plotted to embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating "palace of pleasure" and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show.....

.....Listed under "equipment needed," is "hidden cams on the boat," and a "tripod and overt recorder near the bed, an obvious sex tape machine." Among the props listed were a "condom jar, dildos, posters and paintings of naked women, fuzzy handcuffs" and a blindfold.


http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/09/29/okeefe.cnn.prank/index.html

[mookiemookie]

Thank you Bubbles, you provide the laughs from the world of neverland

It is pretty funny, isn't it? It's like watching one of those comedy acts where the hypnotist gets people to say and do stupid things.

[Bubblehead1980]

Thank you Bubbles, you provide the laughs from the world of neverland


Name me a scandal where the roles are reversed? I can't think of any, if you can, then I'll stand corrected.Name me an incident where a left wing journalist etc caught an operation they claimed was biased on tape to back up accusations.There was much talk about how dirty ACORN was, they helped obama get elected via fraud, it's well known, they were a dirty left wing group who operated under the guise of helping poor people etc O Keefe went out and obtained proof, which lead to it's demise. Everyone has known for years NPR is a liberal propaganda operation, which would be fine if they did not get taxpayer money, but they do so should not be allowed to be such a left wing machine, again O Keefe went out and got proof(as if the Juan Williams outsting and slander were not enough) and now some top people at NPR are out and they are closer to losing their taxpayer money, which is fine, they should not have it anyway.Everyone knows how corrupt Mary Landrieu is, esp given the bribe she took to vote for obamacare, O Keefe nearly exposed her.

I'm honestly trying to think when the left has backed up any of their accusations with real proof instead of just using airtime to create a boogeyman where there is not one.Repeat the lie over and over until people think it's true is a skill of the left.So, show me the money:o

[Bubblehead1980]

It is pretty funny, isn't it? It's like watching one of those comedy acts where the hypnotist gets people to say and do stupid things.


Same goes for you mook, read my response to tribesman, give me an actual example where the left proves their accusations.Show me, if its legit, ill stand corrected.

[mookiemookie]

You can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

[Bubblehead1980]

You can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.


Plenty of reason behind my beliefs.Still waiting for an example.....yea you can't find one and you know it.

[XabbaRus]

I'm curious as to how old you are an which law school?

[Growler]

Bubblehead, the fallacy in this argument, from my perspective, is this:

First off: I'm not arguing the leanings of the organization one way or another; my question would be just as appropriate if I were asking a Liberal about a right-leaning, tax-supported radio station.

You assert that NPR is a "liberal propaganda tool" supported by tax dollars; therefore, by dint of that support, is a mouthpiece of a liberal-controlled government. Yet NPR has existed for far longer than a liberal has been in power, through Republican and Democrat administrations and Congresses. My question is: Why?

If the station were indeed a mouthpiece of one side, would it not stand to reason that the other side would immediately move to shut it down - by withdrawing that tax-dollar support - once the power balance shifted, as we know it inevitably does? Why would any such tax-supported institution survive not just one, but several reversals in power in the government?

[razark]

Why would any such tax-supported institution survive not just one, but several reversals in power in the government?
Obviously, it's another one of those left-wing conspiracies.

[Bubblehead1980]

Bubblehead, the fallacy in this argument, from my perspective, is this:

First off: I'm not arguing the leanings of the organization one way or another; my question would be just as appropriate if I were asking a Liberal about a right-leaning, tax-supported radio station.

You assert that NPR is a "liberal propaganda tool" supported by tax dollars; therefore, by dint of that support, is a mouthpiece of a liberal-controlled government. Yet NPR has existed for far longer than a liberal has been in power, through Republican and Democrat administrations and Congresses. My question is: Why?

If the station were indeed a mouthpiece of one side, would it not stand to reason that the other side would immediately move to shut it down - by withdrawing that tax-dollar support - once the power balance shifted, as we know it inevitably does? Why would any such tax-supported institution survive not just one, but several reversals in power in the government?


Perhaps when it started, it did not have such a bias, perhaps for years it did now.The fights of today are different than in years past, fiscal issues are of more concern, media bias is more of an issue than in years past.Perhaps some in Congress did not see what a problem it was like many citizens.I was unaware of NPR's bias until the last few years.I never listened to it, older crowd did as far as I could tell.I was made aware of it in a class my sophomore year in college so began listening, noticed just how bad it was , so have a problem with it being even partially funded by tax money.A private news station on tv, radio etc wants to air one side, that is their business and up to the viewer/listener to tune in or tune out.However, when public money is used, whole different problem.

O Keefe exposed NPR, which gets a nice amount of tax money in fiscally strained times, meeting with muslims, including some they were told were from the muslim brotherhood and had no problem at all with this.Had the muslim donors been real, a "news" operation funded with tax payer money would have taken money from muslim groups with interests the are not those of the country and mostly likely gave that side favorable coverage.This means NPR is a left leaning political operation and NOT as news org as they claim.They have been exposed, so time to cut off the cash flow.

[Growler]

Perhaps when it started, it did not have such a bias, perhaps for years it did now.The fights of today are different than in years past, fiscal issues are of more concern, media bias is more of an issue than in years past.Perhaps some in Congress did not see what a problem it was like many citizens.I was unaware of NPR's bias until the last few years.I never listened to it, older crowd did as far as I could tell.I was made aware of it in a class my sophomore year in college so began listening, noticed just how bad it was , so have a problem with it being even partially funded by tax money.A private news station on tv, radio etc wants to air one side, that is their business and up to the viewer/listener to tune in or tune out.However, when public money is used, whole different problem.

O Keefe exposed NPR, which gets a nice amount of tax money in fiscally strained times, meeting with muslims, including some they were told were from the muslim brotherhood and had no problem at all with this.Had the muslim donors been real, a "news" operation funded with tax payer money would have taken money from muslim groups with interests the are not those of the country and mostly likely gave that side favorable coverage.This means NPR is a left leaning political operation and NOT as news org as they claim.They have been exposed, so time to cut off the cash flow.

I would counter by suggesting that the Iranian hostage situation and oil crisis of the mid 70's would constitute issues of fiscal concern, as would, perhaps, the Cold War, the end of the Vietnam War, the 70's and 80's plane hijackings (terrorism), various nuclear weapons treaties, trickle-down economics, the first WTC and Oklahoma City bombings, Mogadishu - lots of crises attended to by diverse presidents of varying caliber, from Nixon to Clinton; today's crises are, in essence, not too dissimilar from the crises of the last forty years, taken in context. Furthermore, given Congressional "overlooking" of NPR, as you suggest, then who is to blame if all of those "many citizens" who did see such a bias continued to elect/re-elect Congressional representatives who did nothing to ameliorate the problem?

I'm still not seeing an answer to the question I posted earlier; perhaps I misread or misunderstood your answer in your post, so I'll restate: How is it that NPR survived as long as it has as a mouthpiece for only one side of a two-party system when power has shifted between those parties several times in NPR's 40-year history?

[Tribesman]

I'm curious as to how old you are an which law school?

Don't be nasty now


I can't think of any
Two words are extra there Bubbles.
If however you do manage then why not consider another current topic which gives some prime examples that you in your youthful idealism seem oblivious of.