NPR Fires Juan Williams For Muslim Comment
- Thread starter dieseldiva
- Start date
If and when I do watch, I like a little of all of them.
But....I am not on a personal crusade against any of them so that is why I ask the question.
Usally someone has a agenda if they are willing to commit that kind of time to a personal crusade.
You have to be your own voice of reason. And here's why: News organizations look at leak with different eyes, the same exact news story being presented in slightly, and some not so slightly, different ways.
For example, when you read a line that says, "The story these documents tell is ugly and often shocking," that's a subjective thing, with "ugly" and "shocking" being editorial and not simply an unimpassioned reporting of the events. Not always, but generally the use of superlatives is a dead giveaway that there's a bias or even an outright agenda in a news story. Sometimes, as in the case above, they are used in a manner to flat out tell you what to think about the story, as if you're not shocked, you dаmned well sure should be.
A voice of reason is rarely presented on television or radio, because a voice of reason is boring. It's a ratings killer. Which is better television?
"You can't build that mosque!"
"Oh, yeah?!?! Watch me!"
or
"Whether they build it or not will have little impact on our lives."
For example, when you read a line that says, "The story these documents tell is ugly and often shocking," that's a subjective thing, with "ugly" and "shocking" being editorial and not simply an unimpassioned reporting of the events. Not always, but generally the use of superlatives is a dead giveaway that there's a bias or even an outright agenda in a news story. Sometimes, as in the case above, they are used in a manner to flat out tell you what to think about the story, as if you're not shocked, you dаmned well sure should be.
A voice of reason is rarely presented on television or radio, because a voice of reason is boring. It's a ratings killer. Which is better television?
"You can't build that mosque!"
"Oh, yeah?!?! Watch me!"
or
"Whether they build it or not will have little impact on our lives."
I don't understand something about this entire thing. Why is it that when a man says something about HIMSELF, like being uncomfortable around Muslims on an airplane, that it is taken as a "racist" remark? Seems to me it was an honest evaluation of his own feelings. Is that SO wrong? What am I missing? Is no one ever going to be able to express their feelings, failings or concerns now?
Silly picture.
Silly picture.
Political Correctness stifles not only freedom of speech, but freedom of thought. This is just one more example of someone failing to think correctly and is why Political Correct speech is so insidiously evil.
Silly pic only if you don't get it. In order to make it clearer to those who pay more attention to what someone is wearing as a basis for judging someone, the artist appropriately garbed the others on the Fox News lineup to better illustrate what they are. Personally, I wouldn't have omitted the propeller hat from atop O'Reilly's head.
Silly pic only if you don't get it. In order to make it clearer to those who pay more attention to what someone is wearing as a basis for judging someone, the artist appropriately garbed the others on the Fox News lineup to better illustrate what they are. Personally, I wouldn't have omitted the propeller hat from atop O'Reilly's head.
Political correctness stifles honesty as well.
You would have to watch those Fox shows to understand the picture I would think. SO, not having ever watched any of those shows I just don't understand it so it just looks silly to me.
The liberal hypocrisy on display at NPR is just typical of liberal worldview in general. They are tolerant, inclusive and compassionate so long as on their followers toe the party line. Wander off the straight and narrow path and their hate filled venom is spewed on the transgressor. A fine example of this is their tolerance of Nina Totenberg, their legal correspondent who appears regularly on Inside Washington, offering her opinions on a regular basis; one of these viewpoints was her thought regarding how fair it would be for Jessie Helms or one of his grandchildren to get aids from a blood transfusion. This article from the Weekly Standard offers a good insight into the whole mess:
Is Nina Totenberg Next? | The Weekly Standard
Considering that correspondents / reporters aren't supposed to editorialize, why hasn't Totenberg been called on the carpet? NPR should just declare themselves a liberal organization like Air America and voluntarily give up their taxpayer funding altogether. They could still live off grants and donations from their supporters like George Soros and their liberal viewers everywhere.
Is Nina Totenberg Next? | The Weekly Standard
Considering that correspondents / reporters aren't supposed to editorialize, why hasn't Totenberg been called on the carpet? NPR should just declare themselves a liberal organization like Air America and voluntarily give up their taxpayer funding altogether. They could still live off grants and donations from their supporters like George Soros and their liberal viewers everywhere.
Trying to keep it civil here but.....we either have oppinions or, we don't. We either discuss our oppinions, or we don't. We either get a flag thrown at us, or we don't. We are all Americans, or not. And regardless of how you choose to sweeten it over they are ragheads if'n or not it is correct politilcally, and if it concerns someone/anyone....it should that they are in fact different in process from us.
Critter Truckin
Expert Expediter
It was stated in this thread that NPR is outside the Constitution. As it currently stands, yes. However, in Art. I, Sec. 8 it says that Congress may promote the useful arts and sciences. Perhaps, if NPR went back to the ways of the radio drama, or Car Talk (which is absofreakinglutely hilarious), that would fall under the definition of USEFUL.
The way it is now, things like Nina Tottenberg and the like that think Jesse Helms should die of AIDS and giving obvious high fives to the elitist left in the country (and around the world), and those that back the unions and their obviously leftist leaning agendas, NPR breaks out of the definition of USEFUL and into one of "do as we say, not as we do."
Remember, socialism is not for the socialist, it's for everyone else.
The way it is now, things like Nina Tottenberg and the like that think Jesse Helms should die of AIDS and giving obvious high fives to the elitist left in the country (and around the world), and those that back the unions and their obviously leftist leaning agendas, NPR breaks out of the definition of USEFUL and into one of "do as we say, not as we do."
Remember, socialism is not for the socialist, it's for everyone else.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
I was catching up on my reading from the weekend from my, "Our Daily Bread" devotions and thought I would share with you the Saturday, October 23rd entry. It seemed fitting.
First Impressions
Read:
John 7:14-24
Today's Bible Reading - John 7:14-24
(7:17; John 12:49-50). Additionally, Jesus said that His words were also the word of God (john 14:24; 17:8,14). - Sim Kay Tee
First Impressions
Read:
John 7:14-24
Today's Bible Reading - John 7:14-24
INSIGHT
When challenged that He had not been formally schooled by a rabbi (v.15), Jesus said His teaching was from God Himself (vv.16-17). Elsewhere, Jesus said God was His teacher (John 8:28) who authorized Him and determined what He should teach (7:17; John 12:49-50). Additionally, Jesus said that His words were also the word of God (john 14:24; 17:8,14). - Sim Kay Tee
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Whoa there, let's try that again;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
NPR, the Corporation of Public Broadcasting and even the endowment of the Arts is not anything close to what either the intent of those words or the practice of it.
What this issue is has to do with copyright and patents which right now copyright laws have been hijacked by the elite to the point they are rather ridiculous and extends way WAY beyond what should be.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
NPR, the Corporation of Public Broadcasting and even the endowment of the Arts is not anything close to what either the intent of those words or the practice of it.
What this issue is has to do with copyright and patents which right now copyright laws have been hijacked by the elite to the point they are rather ridiculous and extends way WAY beyond what should be.
Critter Truckin
Expert Expediter
True, Greg. But even if what I was saying were totally accurate, the current NPR format wouldn't even fall into the category of "useful." However, the Constitution being the stretched out version of what it should be, they'll twist this even further.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
witness23
Veteran Expediter
I didn't ask you if you watched anything. I answered your question and I respectfully asked you the same question, "Who do you think is the voice of reason out there?" Oh, and I didn't catch it the first time I read your question to me, but later did. I have ask, what did,
mean?
Also, if and when I watch, I watch a little of all them also. I like to get all views from all sides. You have to remember though, when speaking of pundits such as Beck, O'reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and I'll throw Olberman in there, even though I can't stand him, I view these people as entertainers and do not take them seriously.
Well, for some reason I feel you asked the question for other reasons other than asking me honestly, who I think is the voice of reason is, but that is debatable and not important. Like I said before, call it a public service on my part. Just trying to make sure people don't get taken in with Beck's fear mongering, apocalyptic views, race baiting, conspiracy theories, one world government, buy gold now, survival seed bank, Nazi rhetoric, and start believing what this Charlatan is saying.
Last edited:
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Oh yeah....and this guy. Jimmy Mcmillan from the, "The Rent Is Too Da* High Party.
C'mon, this was funny.
I don't know that people on EO need or asked for a daily public service announcement on what you think of Fox. The specific reason I asked was answered. I don't watch enough of the people you reference to really engage in your personal fetish.
As for your list of attributes on Beck, I am with him on the purchasing of gold. It has performed nicely against the falling dollar for over a year. Jumped in the day after Obama got elected. I have no idea on the rest of your list. Out of the times I have seen him, he spends a lot of time on the constitution.
I don't personally have someone I feel is the worldly voice of reason, but as to who I am gaining respect for in governing, would have to go to Chris Christie. Might be different tomorrow, but I like what I see up to this point.
Hope that answers your question.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Are you suggesting censoring me or others here in the Soapbox? or denying us our First Amendment rights? Surely you are not. Maybe we should have our posts go through you first then you can decide if they are worthy for the people of EO.
If you don't watch, then why the concern?
If you can add gold to your portfolio, kudos to you. There is nothing wrong with telling people to buy gold, but there is this thing called ethics and honesty and truth in advertising. Especially from someone who claims to be so concerned for the "little guy" and us "common folk". Here, I will refresh your memory on how Beck peddles gold. For some real entertainment, go to YouTube and search for Becks commercial for Goldline.
To see the image copy the address below and paste into your browser, removing the 4 .... after .com in the url.
http://www.newser.com..../getimage.aspx?mediaid=751640
Phew, I never thought we would get to the answer, it took awhile but we finally made it. I to am a fan of Christie. I don't like the fact that he was a lobbyist at one time but his work on public corruption is admirable.
Last edited by a moderator:
