NPR caught pandering to Muslim Brotherhood (so they thought)

[mookiemookie]

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

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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]

Originally Posted by Growler

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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?

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.