Tommy's fault? Only partly


#1

I tried to post the following in “General Discussions” but it went to “Repair & Maintenance” causing a fever pitched rallying cry for my public execution, and repeated queries about year, make and model. Anyhow this was the post:

And even though Republican members of the House of Representatives brush up on their lets completely slash funding for public broadcasting speeches whenever they hear us say it, this is NPR. Just a suggestion. Wow those 2 brothers must have really pissed off them law makers-- it seems unlikely it was only Tommy’s fault.


#2

Honestly I don’t listen to NPR. If it went away, I probably wouldn’t notice. It’s not like there aren’t literally thousands of other commercial radio stations around.


#3

“Thousands of other commercial radio stations” that are going to hype the products they endorse and take positions that benefit that of their sponsors, regardless of the truth. Commercial broadcasting is not “truthful” broadcasting as we know it. NPR was established to provide broadcasting programing free of corporate influence. There was a need then, there is equally a need now. It was, is and always should be at least in part, govt. funded.

We find ourselves now in a choice of trusting elected govt. sponsored programing or corporate interest. W/O entities like NPR, the choice comes down to trusting corporate interest or govt. officials bought by corporate interest.

Your right is to continue to trust commercial radio alone. My choice is to have an option every time I go for a walk (not driving) with my headphones between NPR and “Fox” or whomever.


#4

The problem with Commercial Radio these days…is there isn’t much competition anymore. The new FCC rulings under Bush allow for one owner to own several Radio Stations in a service area. Here in the Boston and NH area…there are at least 8 different stations owned by one company.

Tom and Ray have nothing to worry about. Their program is one of the most popular (if not thee most popular) program on NPR. Plus their syndicated column in newspapers around the world. They’ll survive.


#5

I didn’t say I trusted or even paid attention to messages from commercial radio. The only radio show I listen to is the Jim Rome Show, and that’s just a sports radio show, other than that it’s just music.

It doesn’t take a great deal of knowledge to realize that if you’re listening to Rush Limbaugh then what you hear is likely going to have a conservative slant to it, and if you are listening to Al Franken you’re going to get a liberal slant. I think or at least hope, that most people are familar enough with the people radio they listen to to know what to expect.


#6

Another problem with commercial radio is they serve only markets that will make them a nice profit. Rural areas (which there are plenty of in my state) often go without any coverage. NPR can be their only source for news & weather info., especially when not near a tv.


#7

Public radio isn’t going anywhere. They might cut funding, but if they do, there will be a cultural backlash. The tea partyers of the world don’t seem to realize they are just mobilizing the sleeping liberal in every moderate, and they will pay for it the same way Democrats did when they passed the assault weapons ban.

Do you think Americans really want to go back to the way things were when it was legal for your insurance company to deny your claims and drop your health insurance coverage? A small dose of what the tea partyers have to offer will leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.


#8

If both were at fault, the life sentence could be cut in half. Figuring out how many years to divide by two is the real problem. Having a brother to blame things on is fortunate because it saves one from marriage. This works out because…


#9

@ pleasedodgevan2 Lol. Yeah, this cut won’t survive the Senate or Obama veto. Not so funny that they’re targeting women’s health care. Once you start threatening yer moms, grandmas, daughters and nieces, you’d better start thinking about what to do after the next election, coz you have a career change ahead of you.


#10

As an independent in favor of the “assault weapons ban”, I feel the problem was the way it was “sold” and not the ban itself. There are just to few politicians out there who technology minded enough to explain the situation in a manner that does not threaten the average gun owner.


#11

Happy I don’t have any career changes ahead. I worked at an auto parts place once, it’s gone without a trace of the old building. On the positive side, nobody misses it in Limestone.


#12

No he even partly at fault, NPR made a lot of dumb mistakes, including the firing of Juan Williams was just the last in a long string.

He was fired for stating in a nutshell that if he sees a group of Muslims getting on a airplane with him it makes him stop and wonder.

NPR has a long history of a liberal slant, and it’s catching up with them. The political climate has change. No longer are people willing to be told they are bad people, just because they have opinions that differ from the liberal point of view.

Personally I find it funny that those how preach tolerance are very ofter very intolerant of people who view differ from their own. Think about it if you oppose gay marriage you are a homophobe no matter what, see a group of blacks that look like gang member, why you’re a bigot for even thinking that! I could go on and on about being PC, but I won’t.

It enough to say if the public want NPR, then the public will support it, it shouldn’t be up to the government foot the bill.

That’s my opinion and

My opinions are subject to change with new facts.


#13

Let’s see. A liberal by definition is one who considers others, their opinions and their point of view. Often done without interuption or talking over. Yep. That would make NPR full of liberals. We’ll have none of that in our radio stations.


#14

Gee I didn’t expect a heated debate on my little joke, only a few lols and maybe a ‘gee that’s a clever suggestion for a Car Talk closing statement.’


#15

The way I remember it, the assault weapons ban was promoted pretty well. Clinton said several times that it was targeting weapons used most by criminals, not the average legal gun owner.

This seems to be the latest thing to say. “You don’t like that legislation? Oh, that’s just because you don’t understand it. We didn’t do a good enough of a job explaining (or ‘selling’) it.” Nobody likes being called stupid. This isn’t the way to win friends and influence people.

This isn’t about how well certain people communicated. I don’t care how well you communicate. Some people will never like or listen to your message if you are on the wrong side of the issue.

BTW, I liked the Brady Bill too. Egypt has shown us that revolutions can be bloodless.


#16

Remember when “liberal” wasn’t a dirty word?

lib?er?al? ?[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] ?adjective

  1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
  2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
  3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
  4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
  5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
  6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
  7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
  8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
  9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
  10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
  11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
  12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
  13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

#17

rwee2000, Juan Williams fired himself when he violated the terms of his contract…repeatedly. His firing was long overdue. NPR was negligent for not firing him sooner.

I am curious, how would you resolve an issue with an employee who repeatedly violates the terms of his employment contract, and ignores your warnings? Would you cave in to those who think you should keep that employee on the payroll?


#18

Having employed a few people, I can tell you what I would do and would have done in his case.

But first, the fact that NPR didn’t basically nothing until he made that public statement, tells me they weren’t really bothered by his statements or conduct before that. I have had employees that have made some boneheaded statements, and did some boneheaded things, some of which got them fired some didn’t. And yes I have been pressured into keeping an employee longer that I should have. Trust me I know what political pressure is like.

If he had made the PC statement that anyone who feel nervous when seeing Muslims getting on a plane are bigots, I wonder if he would have been fired for that statement too.

But to answer your question, give the statement and NPR actions or lack in the past, in their shoes I would have FOLLOWED their own procedure. I would have pointed out the conflict between his appearances and comments on FOX and NPR, and that although NPR would like to continue the relationship, but he needs to decide if he wishes to have an opinion based show or a news based show. If he wishes to continue to work for NPR he would need to stop working for Fox, or quit his NPR show. If he were not to choose, NPR will not renew his contract.

There problem solved, it’s his choice, he can pick NPR or Fox. If he doesn’t want to make the choice NPR won’t renew.

Remember, NPR’s senior vice-president Ellen Weiss resigned and CEO Vivian Schiller lost her bonus over poor handling of Williams case.

Vivian Schiller 'In appearing on TV or other media. … NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows … that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.?

Yet she stated that Williams should have kept his Muslim comments between himself and “his psychiatrist or his publicist?take your pick.” Was that fact-based? Is Williams seeing a psychiatrist or talking to a publicist? Or was she speculating and being a pundit? If she was just speculating or being a pundit shouldn’t she also have been fired?

Like I said they didn’t follow their own procedures and it came back and bit them.

My opinions are subject to change with new facts.

EDIT

BTW NPR knew and approved of his appearance on Fox and before you ask Vivian Schiller is covered by their Ethics Code

http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/ethics/ethics_code.html#outside


#19

I’ve watch and listen to shows on both sides, and have found the liberals and liberal hosts are far more likely to cut off or talk over the other person.

I’ve watch show were the liberals were able to talk uninterrupted, but wouldn’t give the same courtesy to the host or other guests. And yes I’ve seen it go the other way too, but it appears to me, liberals are far more guilty of this than other groups.

My opinions are subject to change with new facts.


#20

I’ve watch and listen to shows on both sides, and have found the liberals and liberal hosts are far more likely to cut off or talk over the other person.

I take it you don’t watch Bill O’reilly or Rush Limbaugh…or Ann Coulter…It’s IMPOSSIBLE for anyone who doesn’t agree with them to get one word in.

Watch a Rachel Maddow show…EXTREME liberal…Yet probably the most courteous talk show host. She’s had many conservative’s on her show and ALWAYS let’s them get their point across. On the conservative side…G. Gordon Liddy is very courteous.