There are plenty of things to like regardless of where you lean. Particularly their music guests, playlists, and interviews. No one will ever be happy with the news portion unless you agree with the leanings of every host/interviewer/story. Balance doesn't exist and I'd argue cannot exist when talking politics. Hell, some people consider MSNBC and Fox News to be balanced.

BGFalcons82;532369 wrote:So fish....what tumors would you go after since this ass-pimple isn't important? Wasting money or sending it to places like Pakistan ($2,000,000,000 commitment last week to this terrorist-sponsoring state) is unacceptable in today's economic crisis. Is there a floor where you would look the other way and spend until the constituents send you back for more pork?

All the biggies first, man. All entitlements & Defense. I'm not saying this stuff doesn't need to be dealt with...it's just not at the top of the list. Let's be honest...were it not for the Williams flap, none of the Pubs would even be talking about the money wasted on NPR.

fish82;532440 wrote:All the biggies first, man. All entitlements & Defense. I'm not saying this stuff doesn't need to be dealt with...it's just not at the top of the list. Let's be honest...were it not for the Williams flap, none of the Pubs would even be talking about the money wasted on NPR.

All corporate welfare is on the table. Paying farmers to not grow crops is on the list. too. NPR has always been a sore spot for me, because there is nothing in the Constitution nor Bill of Rights that says the US federal government is duty-bound to provide a radio network to all citizens. I have absolutlely no idea why taxpayer dollars subsidize a corrupt organization.

I Wear Pants;531768 wrote:Not the same type of comment IMO.

I agree. It is worse.

I Wear Pants;531768 wrote:These Muslims in question on the plane aren't doing anything that could be construed as wrong or taunting. In the quote you posted the person who said it believed that there were racially charged signs (which may or may not have been I don't know what signs he's talking about) being held at rallys of a certain group. Had he said "the Tea partiers all dress like rednecks so I feel insecure and nervous around them" or something then it'd be comparable.

The person who said it was Jaun Williams. He accused Americans assembled to protest out of control government spending as being racists and carrying signs that proved it. I'll bet he saw one sign and twisted its real meaning. Lets see the proof. Lets see the signs Jaun. The reason you don't know what sings Jaun is talking about is because these blatant racists signs likely do not exist.

No Jaun's comments about the tea party were far worse. They would be akin to him saying those muslims he saw on the plane were wearing anti-American garb and wondering why these people are overwhelmingly of one religion in such a diverse world.

My point was there appears to be a greater tolerance at the so called right wing Fox News than the so called impartial NPR.

You don't know what sign he's talking about and neither do I.

I Wear Pants;532884 wrote:You don't know what sign he's talking about and neither do I.

I doubt Jaun knows what sign he is talking about either. If he did he would have clearly noted what it said. If such blatant racism was on display why not specifically call it out instead of referring to baseless accusations. He is a journalist. Where is the proof? He don't have photographers traveling with him? What about his camera on his phone? Why does he not directly quote these racist signs he saw? Bottom line is Jaun is full of shit.

I thought Juan was the guy calling out Muslims for daring to get on airplanes? I think the Tea Party call out guy is a different person.

If i'm not able to listen to Car Talk, i will kill someone.

cbus4life;533038 wrote:If i'm not able to listen to Car Talk, i will kill everyone.

Fixed.

cbus4life;533038 wrote:If i'm not able to listen to Car Talk, i will kill someone.

As long as they only talk about Government Motors, we're good.

believer;533054 wrote:As long as they only talk about Government Motors, we're good.

Na, they talk about anything and everything. Two really smart dudes talking about car problems and the like, and having a really good time while doing it. Always puts me in a good mood whenever i listen to it.

http://www.cartalk.com/

I Wear Pants;532377 wrote:If you can't find something that you like on NPR you don't like anything.

I didnt say there was nothing I liked on NPR, but your response does NOTHING to answer the question. NPR is most definitely a far left wing news organization, why should the government fund that? You did not answer the question or even come close to answering it.

jmog;533726 wrote: NPR is most definitely a far left wing news organization, why should the government fund that? Y

It is not "most definitely a far left news organization." NPR has been accused of both liberal and conservative bias, bias' towards Israel and the invasion of Iraq. Nowadays it does not receive a majority of its funding from the government and people who tune in to PBS and NPR have been found to be, as a general rule, better informed on issues than those who get their news from other media outlets. The thing with Juan Williams is dumb and terrible, but this festering heard attacking what is generally a positive public good, under both conservative and liberal administrations, is worse. And no, I'm not saying PBS and NPR are immune corruption, but to here Brit Hume, a man I generally respect hypothesize that this was a conspiracy by liberals in the dark to get rid of an uncle-tom liberal, well....smh...

BoatShoes;533781 wrote:It is not "most definitely a far left news organization." NPR has been accused of both liberal and conservative bias, bias' towards Israel and the invasion of Iraq. Nowadays it does not receive a majority of its funding from the government and people who tune in to PBS and NPR have been found to be, as a general rule, better informed on issues than those who get their news from other media outlets. The thing with Juan Williams is dumb and terrible, but this festering heard attacking what is generally a positive public good, under both conservative and liberal administrations, is worse. And no, I'm not saying PBS and NPR are immune corruption, but to here Brit Hume, a man I generally respect hypothesize that this was a conspiracy by liberals in the dark to get rid of an uncle-tom liberal, well....smh...

Nah...liberals love Fox News. They wouldn't go after one of their own that enjoys a good life on that network....would they? Did you see they also want to get rid of Mara Liasson...hhmmm...what network is she a regular analyst on again? Brit is not one to have conspiracy theories and he's very level headed. If he believes it, there must be something to it.

BoatShoes;533781 wrote:It is not "most definitely a far left news organization." NPR has been accused of both liberal and conservative bias, bias' towards Israel and the invasion of Iraq. Nowadays it does not receive a majority of its funding from the government and people who tune in to PBS and NPR have been found to be, as a general rule, better informed on issues than those who get their news from other media outlets. The thing with Juan Williams is dumb and terrible, but this festering heard attacking what is generally a positive public good, under both conservative and liberal administrations, is worse. And no, I'm not saying PBS and NPR are immune corruption, but to here Brit Hume, a man I generally respect hypothesize that this was a conspiracy by liberals in the dark to get rid of an uncle-tom liberal, well....smh...

Far left wing? No. But to deny that the network has a significant tilt to port flies in the face of all the recent studies.

fish82;533852 wrote:Far left wing? No. But to deny that the network has a significant tilt to port flies in the face of all the recent studies.

This is B.S. man. Epic bullshit spewed since the 70s. If anything, they're elitist in that they only have on government officials and experts...not really what ought to be the province of public radio some say.The only recent study suggesting a liberal bias is the UCLA study and even that said that the morning edition was more liberal than the average republican but more conservative than the average liberal. Even in 1993 when Clinton had the presidency and the Dems had Congress, 57% of their guests were conservatives. The only bias going on here is a confirmation bias by conservatives that NPR is run by a John Lennon boogie man out to introduce their daughters to black boys, their boys to gay sex and to slip communist manifesto in between the Gospels. The second one thing happens like this it's the ultimate justification for the liberal bias phooey. Maybe it's just that a guy said something a little insensitive towards muslims in a world where people are too sensitive towards Muslims? I mean shit, they won't even show Muhammad on Comedy Central these days...

BoatShoes;534153 wrote:This is B.S. man. Epic bullshit spewed since the 70s. If anything, they're elitist in that they only have on government officials and experts...not really what ought to be the province of public radio some say.The only recent study suggesting a liberal bias is the UCLA study and even that said that the morning edition was more liberal than the average republican but more conservative than the average liberal. Even in 1993 when Clinton had the presidency and the Dems had Congress, 57% of their guests were conservatives. The only bias going on here is a confirmation bias by conservatives that NPR is run by a John Lennon boogie man out to introduce their daughters to black boys, their boys to gay sex and to slip communist manifesto in between the Gospels. The second one thing happens like this it's the ultimate justification for the liberal bias phooey. Maybe it's just that a guy said something a little insensitive towards muslims in a world where people are too sensitive towards Muslims? I mean shit, they won't even show Muhammad on Comedy Central these days...

I saw nothing resembling that in the UCLA study. The Harvard study did an overall measurement, and the numbers were pretty concrete. 42% of stories about liberals had a positive slant, compared with 30% for conservatives. Conversely, 5% of the stories about Dems had a negative tone, vs. 20% for the Pubs. What do you call that, if not bias?

What year(s) was/were that study done?

2007/2008 if memory serves.

BoatShoes;534153 wrote:This is B.S. man. Epic bullshit spewed since the 70s. If anything, they're elitist in that they only have on government officials and experts...not really what ought to be the province of public radio some say.The only recent study suggesting a liberal bias is the UCLA study and even that said that the morning edition was more liberal than the average republican but more conservative than the average liberal. Even in 1993 when Clinton had the presidency and the Dems had Congress, 57% of their guests were conservatives. The only bias going on here is a confirmation bias by conservatives that NPR is run by a John Lennon boogie man out to introduce their daughters to black boys, their boys to gay sex and to slip communist manifesto in between the Gospels. The second one thing happens like this it's the ultimate justification for the liberal bias phooey. Maybe it's just that a guy said something a little insensitive towards muslims in a world where people are too sensitive towards Muslims? I mean shit, they won't even show Muhammad on Comedy Central these days...

Fish82 just gave you a game/set/match, I might have stretched and said FAR left wing (ok, thats really only MSNBC) but NPR most definitely has a left wing slant, that is undeniable, and I love NPR to be honest.

fish82;534577 wrote:2007/2008 if memory serves.

Do you realize who was president and what much of the country thought of him then? That couldn't have had anything to do with the "bias" could it?

The main focus late 07 and all of 08 was McCain/Obama.

I'm pretty sure I remember it as "get this guy out of the White House".

Wonder how much of NPR's budget comes from the taxpayers?????

I Wear Pants;534929 wrote:I'm pretty sure I remember it as "get this guy out of the White House".

You just might have remembered it that way. At any rate, it didn't matter because he was on his way out, regardless. Obama/McCain had nothing to do with Bush's leaving.

But, the media as a whole had alot to do with how the general public saw both candidates. And that is the point.