Undercover tape- NPR calls everyone else racist.

[Abbey Marie]

Oh the hypocrisy!


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xd9OYJMX9t4?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xd9OYJMX9t4?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

news.yahoo.com

[Psychoblues]

Who is NPR?

Psychochoblues

[actsnoblemartin]

npr is national public radio

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=546&q=npr&btnG=Google+Search

[actsnoblemartin]

202-513-3232 I spoke to Kristin, very lovely lady.

Let me have a conservation with her , and said if anyone wants to call them they can, its listener services

Please please please dont be an asshole, agressive, or mean.

You can be civil and get your point accross

thank you

[actsnoblemartin]

additi0onal sources

http://www.npr.org/sections/middle-east/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/08/134358398/in-video-npr-exec-slams-tea-party-questions-need-for-federal-funds

[sundaydriver]

My very first reaction to the video is that they do lunch in very nice restaurants! :laugh2:

[trobinett]

My very first reaction to the video is that they do lunch in very nice restaurants! :laugh2:

That would be my take.

Would like to have a face to face with these lost souls, but alas I doubt THAT would ever happen.:cheers2:

[logroller]

I listen to NPR frequently and have always been impressed with their unbiased analysis of political issues and presentation of the news. Not to say they aren't boring sometimes; but overall, they are very informative. Kudos.

Alternatively, CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews = corporate whores. They may be entertaining, but I prefer debatepolicy.com.

[namvet]

Vivian Schiller, NPR's prez resigns after a fellow exec is caught on vid calling the tea party racists.


The resignation caps a tumultuous period for Schiller and comes just two days after she delivered a major speech in Washington outlining her vision for NPR's future. NPR Board of Directors Chairman Dave Edwards, in a statement on NPR's website, said the board accepted Schiller's decision, which is "effective immediately," with regret.



source (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/09/npr-president-schiller-resigns/#)

[Abbey Marie]

I listen to NPR frequently and have always been impressed with their unbiased analysis of political issues and presentation of the news. Not to say they aren't boring sometimes; but overall, they are very informative. Kudos.

Alternatively, CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews = corporate whores. They may be entertaining, but I prefer debatepolicy.com.

Did you look at the tape? Even if you found some way to believe they are unbiased, it would be hard for me to imagine you feeling so rosy about NPR after seeing that.

How does the fact that the woman "loves" that Muslims think of NPR as "National Palestinian Radio", work for you?

[Gaffer]

National propaganda radio has been left wing for over 40 years. These two just put their feet in their mouths and have to get out of the lime light for a while. They'll be back in another capacity after a few months. Probably got nice severance packages as well.

[namvet]

looks like her hubby was one that was nailed. and he's moving on


DXinMaw-1qg

[Little-Acorn]

A govt-supported leftist propaganda organization in a mostly-conservative country, and they get in trouble?

Say it ain't so! :laugh:

[namvet]

so Ron Schiller is her hubby????

[Abbey Marie]

so Ron Schiller is her hubby????

no relation

[namvet]

no relation

to bad. they could have nailed 2 for the price a one

[Abbey Marie]

to bad. they could have nailed 2 for the price a one

The more the merrier. :thumb:

[logroller]

Did you look at the tape? Even if you found some way to believe they are unbiased, it would be hard for me to imagine you feeling so rosy about NPR after seeing that.

How does the fact that the woman "loves" that Muslims think of NPR as "National Palestinian Radio", work for you?

Of course I watched the video. Did you, I mean the whole video, looking for context and not just snippets. I don't feel the lady found their NPR reference funny in a "yeah that's true" kinda way, only that she was pleased they found their opinions voiced; not to be confused as acknowledgment that their platform is supportive of those opinions.

So far as biased, unbiased, or less biased- everything is relative. But they, atleast for me locally, present both sides of an issue and don't take sides. On several occasions they've admonished guests for attempting to do so without an oppositional guest to present alternative views. And please, show me a news agency which has less bias than NPR-- i'm certainly willing give them a try.

[Abbey Marie]

Of course I watched the video. Did you, I mean the whole video, looking for context and not just snippets. I don't feel the lady found their NPR reference funny in a "yeah that's true" kinda way, only that she was pleased they found their opinions voiced; not to be confused as acknowledgment that their platform is supportive of those opinions.

So far as biased, unbiased, or less biased- everything is relative. But they, atleast for me locally, present both sides of an issue and don't take sides. On several occasions they've admonished guests for attempting to do so without an oppositional guest to present alternative views. And please, show me a news agency which has less bias than NPR-- i'm certainly willing give them a try.

Your interpretation of the woman's response is a stretch at best. She showed what looked like real pleasure at the nickname. To see it as otherwise requires going beyond the logical interpretation that she like being identified that way, to look for a more palatable explanation. Neither she or the man seemed at all bothered by the Muslim Brotherhood reference, either.

Your view does help me to understand how you can't see NPR's strong left bias either.

Were you also pleased with the man's intellectual snobbery towards anyone who doesn't think as he does? Another hallmark of the left, so well expressed in the well-known "clinging to their guns and religion" speech.

[logroller]

Your interpretation of the woman's response is a stretch at best. She showed what looked like real pleasure at the nickname. To see it as otherwise requires going beyond the logical interpretation that she like being identified that way, to look for a more palatable explanation. Neither she or the man seemed at all bothered by the Muslim Brotherhood reference, either.

Your view does help me to understand how you can't see NPR's strong left bias either.

Were you also pleased with the man's intellectual snobbery towards anyone who doesn't think as he does? Another hallmark of the left, so well expressed in the well-known "clinging to their guns and religion" speech.

I think she was making the most out of touchy situation, for all she knew these guys may be the real Muslim Brotherhood and her head on a platter is just a phone call away. Hell the guy even took off his NPR hat, figuratively speaking, when making some comments. (which I believe he did during the guns&religion part) He did this because he knows his beliefs/opinions arent relevant to his role at NPR. Furthermore, if we wanna talk about bias, who are these guys and who do they really work for?

We all fall victim to the perils of shared ignorance; often being made "more palatable" because we agree. Does this conversely mean I should reject your opinion because it goes against mine? I doesn't, I can understand why you feel different than I; we just have different experiences by which we form our opinions. Your "logical conclusion" is based on preformed opinions of NPR, not any unbiased interpretation. Hence you see the left-bias relative to your own right-bias; but this does not make it definitively so. In your world that may be fine; while in mine I could not bear it. If this makes me more or less liberal relative to another, than so be it. I often discuss issues here with a liberal bias to explore my own roots in conservatism. Maybe I'm looking for the pony in a room full of horseshit, but there's nothing wrong with alittle cautious optimism.

I strive to learn with an open mind, and conceited attacks make this less fruitful. If you felt I did, I apologize-- as that wasn't my intent. I accepted your premise that there may be a left-bias to NPR, and requested a less-biased venue. Not answering me tacitly accepts that all media has bias, none less than NPR, but you still throw mud. Talk about bias, you can't see the forest for the trees!

[darin]

What's the problem with 'preformed' opinioins? First I think you're throwing that term out there slightly wrong. It's not a pre-formed opinion - it's a conclusion based upon seeing evidence. It's a conclusion based on NPR's "leadership" attitude and conduct.

I was watching a show on discovery channel about the SouthWest USA. During one portion they featured the Western Diamondback snake. The narrator presented unbiased evidence of snakes biting people (the true motivation of the bites is obviously hidden - the narrator speculated the snake bit out of fear - but we can't be sure snakes are capable of true 'fear' - more likely, the snake bit because that was it's natural response under the conditions). Should I have the fortune of treading into the American Southwest, I will keep a cautious eye out for the snake. I am basing the caution on a 'pre-formed opinion' the snake will in fact reveal it's true nature if I get too close. Am I unfairly or unwisely judging the performance or nature of EVERY snake, based on what I saw of the ONE snake on the discovery channel? I suppose I am.

The "leadership" at NPR is leftist or 'progressive'. Because of the evidence I've seen I will take caution on two fronts - first, I will get all itchy and upset I'm PAYING them to carry their views to the American people. I don't feel better knowing, as you say, "both sides are presented" because both sides don't necessarily matter when it comes to good vs evil. In this example, good = Not blowing up innocent children, evil = Palestinian Arab Terrorists.

So - to summarize, based on the evidence, it's logical to draw conclusions about this tax-funded media source. It's logical to assume the leadership's 'vision' for the organization - the org's values even - are at odds with what I, and perhaps millions of Americans consider 'right, true, noble, etc'.

As a private org, I couldn't care less. But as tax-funded folk - they need to go away.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't think I can top Darin's post above. :clap:

But I will add one thing about pre-formed opinions- I listened to NPR quite a bit back in the day. My conclusions about them are based not only on the speech from the horse's mouth as seen in this tape, but also on my actual listening experience. Which is more than I can say for a lot of opinions I've heard and seen expressed about radio talk shows.

Thank you though, for your civilized posts. :salute:

[logroller]

What's the problem with 'preformed' opinioins? First I think you're throwing that term out there slightly wrong. It's not a pre-formed opinion - it's a conclusion based upon seeing evidence. It's a conclusion based on NPR's "leadership" attitude and conduct.

I was watching a show on discovery channel about the SouthWest USA. During one portion they featured the Western Diamondback snake. The narrator presented unbiased evidence of snakes biting people (the true motivation of the bites is obviously hidden - the narrator speculated the snake bit out of fear - but we can't be sure snakes are capable of true 'fear' - more likely, the snake bit because that was it's natural response under the conditions). Should I have the fortune of treading into the American Southwest, I will keep a cautious eye out for the snake. I am basing the caution on a 'pre-formed opinion' the snake will in fact reveal it's true nature if I get too close. Am I unfairly or unwisely judging the performance or nature of EVERY snake, based on what I saw of the ONE snake on the discovery channel? I suppose I am.

The "leadership" at NPR is leftist or 'progressive'. Because of the evidence I've seen I will take caution on two fronts - first, I will get all itchy and upset I'm PAYING them to carry their views to the American people. I don't feel better knowing, as you say, "both sides are presented" because both sides don't necessarily matter when it comes to good vs evil. In this example, good = Not blowing up innocent children, evil = Palestinian Arab Terrorists.

So - to summarize, based on the evidence, it's logical to draw conclusions about this tax-funded media source. It's logical to assume the leadership's 'vision' for the organization - the org's values even - are at odds with what I, and perhaps millions of Americans consider 'right, true, noble, etc'.

As a private org, I couldn't care less. But as tax-funded folk - they need to go away.

Again, I understand your concerns, but as I said previously, when evidence supports what we already believe, we tend to look no further for refuting evidence. So far as 'vision', he took his hat off, acknowledging it was his personal view, not that of NPR. Perhaps we just agree to disagree that this NPR biz is smoke and mirrors to distract us from the real issues of budget.

So far as federal funding, they are publically funded, but not as significantly as one may be left to believe. 1.5% of $164M= less than $2.5M.- and that's indirect through CPB grants. To put that number in perspective, Lockheed martin spent $2.6M on lobbying last year, received $38 billion from contracts in '09, and has paid punitive damages for misconduct to the tune of $590 million since 1995, while the CEO received a $19 million paycheck. You wanna talk wasteful or misappropriated funds-- let us begin with the top end, not the meager grants to public media--puhleeese!

http://www.contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,221,html?ContractorID=38&ranking=1

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?cycle=2010&id=D000000104

this from wikipedia

In 2009, NPR revenues totalled $164 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants, contributions and sponsorships.[14] According to the 2009 financial statement, about 40% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations to receive programming. Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from direct government funding, 10% of their revenue from federal funding in the form of CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.[14][15] NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government.[16] About 1.5% of NPR's revenues come from Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants.



CPB grants enabled shows like Sesame street, clifford the big red dog, Mr Roger's Neighborhood and countless others to find a broad audience-- yea, those are just like rattlesnakes, great comparison--a vote for CPB is a vote for venomous vipers. I'd prefer to compare npr to raptors, so I shall

Tax-funded lockheed martin f-22 raptor, lowend cost per flight-hour around $20K, x proposed flight hours @14000= $280 million for flight training on f-22 raptor, thats a 33% cut-- whohoo. Bang for the buck- I'll take NPR over weapons. (sources: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated-02908/ http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw110225_2_n.shtml )

[revelarts]

ANd there seems to more to the story too.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/

seems the tape was edited a bit for stronger effect.

Not to say that they come out much better but not quite as bad.

And I have to agree with Log a bit, I used to listen to NPR and generally like the fact that they covered some things in a depth that didn't get hit in other places. I especially liked the NPR science fridays. But sometimes they used to REALLY piss me off with some stories POV but in general, like all media, you've got to pick the meat and leave the bones.

Now I go to their website and search their stories for info. Made a collection of there storys on the "Kelo v. City of New London" case where the supreme court did the crazy eminent domain ruling. NPR did some the THE best coverage I've heard on that.
Global warming , evolution Horrible, pitiful stuff. Art's funding terribly biased and christian stuff, Israel ugly.
But like i said left wing, right wing or other ,pick the meat leave the bones

[fj1200]

Again, I understand your concerns, but as I said previously, when evidence supports what we already believe, we tend to look no further for refuting evidence...

Yup.


CPB grants enabled shows like Sesame street, clifford the big red dog, Mr Roger's Neighborhood and countless others to find a broad audience...

Is this another of those subsidies we need to retain for "stability"? This is small money in the grand scheme, and so are earmarks for comparison, but we should be looking at essential functions of government. Do we need to publicly fund CPB anymore? No. Do we need to fund Lockheed? Yes. The problem is that these small expenditures aren't budget busters in themselves it's that they advance the idea that government money is bottomless and citizens can continue to look to the Feds for funding. That's the point.

[logroller]

Yup.



Is this another of those subsidies we need to retain for "stability"? This is small money in the grand scheme, and so are earmarks for comparison, but we should be looking at essential functions of government. Do we need to publicly fund CPB anymore? No. Do we need to fund Lockheed? Yes. The problem is that these small expenditures aren't budget busters in themselves it's that they advance the idea that government money is bottomless and citizens can continue to look to the Feds for funding. That's the point.

$38B is small money??? I have to think about how many zeros are in that number...9. So far as stability concerns, I guess I'd say news and information is necessary for a well-informed populus; rather it is necessary for stability is open to debate.

So far as bottomless spending. How much did we spend to prove the pres got a BJ-- waste. You have these wikileak probes into people calling govt out on illegal activities "essential to national security"- thats different though, because they say it is-- well I say media w/o commercial "buy this" being shoved down my throat is essential to national security. The worship of the market has become unhealthy. God knows mainstream media jumps on the bandwagon for selling war or voting in Obama. Buy this war buy this change guy,the ad dollars soared,as do campaign contributions, its all the same noise- every once in while you get someone who speaks out ahead of the curve, but more often than not its just selfish intent, a boost for ratings to increase ad sales, earmarks, whatever. Then when the stories over they sell a book, get a cush lobbyist job about their experience. Better yet a movie. You ever see Pay it forward, there was a book by the same or similar title. I;m sure it grossed millions and the Bible had the same message; the Gideons give those out for no charge. I get the point, but understand mine: what is govt to do when the populus is making shitty decisions based on purely hedonistic values--what of the social contract for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What is govt to do when individual rights become a threat to our social character? United we no longer stand it seems, beset on selfish pursuits, ignorant of the sacrifices a democracy requires to sustain itself. We did need CPB grants to begin with, rather we need it now, eh maybe not. But I would say if the govt did a good job at promoting core american values and not procuring american 'buy this' mentality abroad-- we wouldn't need lockheed contracts either!

Personal note:
I, like most on here I imagine, grew up with cartoons on regular channels, but now its all reality talkshow drama BS. When I first had kids I struggled financially; cable tv wasn't feasible. My wife stayed home and raised our children and their daily morning routine included watching PBS. I have since donated, but at the time I could not have and I'm grateful such programming was available. If that can occur without public funding, great, i'm all for that; if not-- I'm gonna say keep it/ lose another 125 fighter jet training hours.

[Kathianne]

Sorry LR, public broadcasting isn't a necessity of life. Plenty of folks are able to support it or it can go for the corporate sponsors if it wishes to survive or even grow.

BTW, being without television of any sort is not a bad thing.

[logroller]

Sorry LR, public broadcasting isn't a necessity of life. Plenty of folks are able to support it or it can go for the corporate sponsors if it wishes to survive or even grow.

BTW, being without television of any sort is not a bad thing.
to survive, or sell out?
Smoke and mirrors kath, public broadcasting isn't the root of our problems, not by a long shot. So far as necessity, tv isn;t, public or otherwise; neither is debt, but good luck surviving in this country without it! I'm trying not to assimilate-but resistance is futile!(hey-o fj):laugh:

I've been without tv, actually quite pleasurable. Sometimes I'll leave my cell at home, talk about freedom!

[fj1200]

$38B is small money??? I have to think about how many zeros are in that number...9. So far as stability concerns, I guess I'd say news and information is necessary for a well-informed populus; rather it is necessary for stability is open to debate.

Yes, small money:

Eliminating all earmarks in fiscal 2010 also would have hardly made a dent in the federal deficit, reducing it by only about a percentage point, according to the earmark calculations made by both OMB and CAGW.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/eliminating-100-percent-earmarks-cuts-fe

Not that I don't think they should be eliminated completely but mostly because of their symbolism and "bribery" factor in Congress.

Are you trying to tell me that CPB/PBS/NPR is our only source of news and information? FWIW, I don't want PBS to go away, just live on its own. Someone is thinking of the options:
How to Save Public Television (http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/08/how_to_save_public_television.html)


So far as bottomless spending. How much did we spend to prove the pres got a BJ-- waste. You have these wikileak probes into people calling govt out on illegal activities "essential to national security"- thats different though, because they say it is-- well I say media w/o commercial "buy this" being shoved down my throat is essential to national security. The worship of the market has become unhealthy. God knows mainstream media jumps on the bandwagon for selling war or voting in Obama. Buy this war buy this change guy,the ad dollars soared,as do campaign contributions, its all the same noise- every once in while you get someone who speaks out ahead of the curve, but more often than not its just selfish intent, a boost for ratings to increase ad sales, earmarks, whatever. Then when the stories over they sell a book, get a cush lobbyist job about their experience. Better yet a movie. You ever see Pay it forward, there was a book by the same or similar title. I;m sure it grossed millions and the Bible had the same message; the Gideons give those out for no charge. I get the point, but understand mine: what is govt to do when the populus is making shitty decisions based on purely hedonistic values--what of the social contract for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What is govt to do when individual rights become a threat to our social character? United we no longer stand it seems, beset on selfish pursuits, ignorant of the sacrifices a democracy requires to sustain itself. We did need CPB grants to begin with, rather we need it now, eh maybe not. But I would say if the govt did a good job at promoting core american values and not procuring american 'buy this' mentality abroad-- we wouldn't need lockheed contracts either!

I think we spent 20 bucks on proof of a BJ, but we did spend quite a sum on proving that the POTUS was guilty of suborning perjury.

I'm not sure I followed your train of thought completely in that paragraph but times change and government needs to change with it. We have major redundancies in the Federal budget and it's likely because government doesn't adapt, it just adds program on top of program, redundancies be damned.


Personal note:
I, like most on here I imagine, grew up with cartoons on regular channels, but now its all reality talkshow drama BS. When I first had kids I struggled financially; cable tv wasn't feasible. My wife stayed home and raised our children and their daily morning routine included watching PBS. I have since donated, but at the time I could not have and I'm grateful such programming was available. If that can occur without public funding, great, i'm all for that; if not-- I'm gonna say keep it/ lose another 125 fighter jet training hours.

I'm with you there but let's not subsidize a non-competitive enterprise when other options are available.


to survive, or sell out?
Smoke and mirrors kath, public broadcasting isn't the root of our problems, not by a long shot. So far as necessity, tv isn;t, public or otherwise; neither is debt, but good luck surviving in this country without it! I'm trying not to assimilate-but resistance is futile!(hey-o fj):laugh:

Don't make me come out there.

[Kathianne]

to survive, or sell out?
Smoke and mirrors kath, public broadcasting isn't the root of our problems, not by a long shot. So far as necessity, tv isn;t, public or otherwise; neither is debt, but good luck surviving in this country without it! I'm trying not to assimilate-but resistance is futile!(hey-o fj):laugh:

I've been without tv, actually quite pleasurable. Sometimes I'll leave my cell at home, talk about freedom!

Hmmm, I said it was the root of what? I don't think so. I watch PBS quite a lot, used to subscribe-which is what those that can afford and enjoy ought to do. However, the government has no business in business. Or the arts for that matter. Etc.

What I did say is that the end of PBS is not the end of the world, yours or anyone else's. If you had no TV, still not a biggie.

[trobinett]

Public Broadcasting huh? Who does it REALLY benefit, not me, not the rancher down the road, not my employee's, not my competitor across town, not the mailman, not the milkman, not ANYONE, except those employed by PBS. Just another waste of tax payer dollars.

I swear, about the only thing the ass wipes at PBS are good at, is coming up with new ways of ripping me off, THAT they are good at.

The whole lot of them couldn't get a job in the private sector, their not GOOD enough, THAT, my fellow Americans is how you should be judging these Leach's.

Those that can DO, those that can't, work for PBS.:poke::salute::laugh:

[Gaffer]

PBS the Positively British Station. Other than a few children's shows they never produced anything, just showed old British drama's and sitcoms.

[logroller]

PBS the Positively British Station. Other than a few children's shows they never produced anything, just showed old British drama's and sitcoms.

never say never---California's gold, frontline, antiques roadshow...besides, what's wrong with children's shows being the only claim to fame; I still love Mr Rogers neighborhood (except for that annoying cat; meow, mEOw, meow, meow) Spreading hope and understanding, community awareness and wholesome values like loving, caring and recognition of personal responsibility-- he was a beautiful person that inspired millions to become better people, myself included. Fred Rogers, BTW, was perhaps the single most influential spokesman before congressional debates on CPB grants.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yXEuEUQIP3Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[revelarts]

FrontLine is awesome sometimes.

So's Nova sometimes.

Some decent documentaries too.

But it' is just plain pitiful that PBS is so clearly socially left leaning and smugly oblivious of the fact, blinded by the idea that their view is not left but the "educated and intellectual view".

[logroller]

FrontLine is awesome sometimes.

So's Nova sometimes.

Some decent documentaries too.

But it' is just plain pitiful that PBS is so clearly socially left leaning and smugly oblivious of the fact, blinded by the idea that their view is not left but the "educated and intellectual view".
How's this for an educated and intellectual view:
When you find yourself on a familiar path, you've probably got yourself turned around.

The focus on dichotomy: good vs evil, love and hate, positive vs negative, change and resistance to it, greed and charity, debits and credits, public and private and of course dem vs rep, left or right. We all know that things aren't black and white, but they're not just shades af gray either-- it's a technicolor world. It might make things easier to understand when we focus on the contrast, but easier understanding doesn't mean a better one!

Is there a path down the middle? Too often the path which is best, takes us into a headwind; so we must tack back and forth, left then right. Try making left or right turns all the time and you'll just go in circles. Oblivious to fact that when the winds of change are at our back, it takes us away from where we need to go.

[Kathianne]

I really adore British humor and dramas. I enjoy much of PBS broadcasting. Then again, I also enjoy C-Span, Biography, History Channel, A&E, and many others.

I also appreciated PBS programing when my kids were tykes. I liked Mr. Rogers more than Sesame Street, but my favorite and my kids favorite was Reading Rainbow.

Now pretend for a minute that everyone agreed with the above. That still wouldn't justify spending money on PBS, NPR, or the National Endowment for the Arts & Humanities.

[fj1200]

... British humor...

That's quite the oxymoron. :poke:

[Kathianne]

That's quite the oxymoron. :poke:


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9V7zbWNznbs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Kathianne]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qCYpk0ivqjo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[revelarts]

PYTHON AND BENNY HILL!!!:laugh::laugh::2up:

not belly laugher here but YES MINSTER is pretty funny.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DGscoaUWW2M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gmOvEwtDycs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0DIy-C4cQ-M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[logroller]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yXEuEUQIP3Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The essence of authenticity is overwhelming-- it brings tears to my eyes everytime. we need more of this in the world.

[Kathianne]

LR, as i wrote already, Fred Rogers gave great service to the kids of the world. I've no doubt about his messages. None.

That is not in and of itself a reason to fund PBS by the government. Nor all the good programming they do. It will survive or not, without the government.

[fj1200]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/9V7zbWNznbs


http://www.youtube.com/embed/qCYpk0ivqjo

You had me at Monty Python... but then you ruined it with Benny Hill. :laugh:

I was more referring to the Friday night "Britcoms" that one must endure.

[Indy]

What's the problem with 'preformed' opinioins? First I think you're throwing that term out there slightly wrong. It's not a pre-formed opinion - it's a conclusion based upon seeing evidence. It's a conclusion based on NPR's "leadership" attitude and conduct.

I was watching a show on discovery channel about the SouthWest USA. During one portion they featured the Western Diamondback snake. The narrator presented unbiased evidence of snakes biting people (the true motivation of the bites is obviously hidden - the narrator speculated the snake bit out of fear - but we can't be sure snakes are capable of true 'fear' - more likely, the snake bit because that was it's natural response under the conditions). Should I have the fortune of treading into the American Southwest, I will keep a cautious eye out for the snake. I am basing the caution on a 'pre-formed opinion' the snake will in fact reveal it's true nature if I get too close. Am I unfairly or unwisely judging the performance or nature of EVERY snake, based on what I saw of the ONE snake on the discovery channel? I suppose I am.

The "leadership" at NPR is leftist or 'progressive'. Because of the evidence I've seen I will take caution on two fronts - first, I will get all itchy and upset I'm PAYING them to carry their views to the American people. I don't feel better knowing, as you say, "both sides are presented" because both sides don't necessarily matter when it comes to good vs evil. In this example, good = Not blowing up innocent children, evil = Palestinian Arab Terrorists.

So - to summarize, based on the evidence, it's logical to draw conclusions about this tax-funded media source. It's logical to assume the leadership's 'vision' for the organization - the org's values even - are at odds with what I, and perhaps millions of Americans consider 'right, true, noble, etc'.

As a private org, I couldn't care less. But as tax-funded folk - they need to go away.

Bravo!:clap: Along with public funded union donations. I'm sick of union yes men bought and paid for with my tax dollars.

[logroller]

I really adore British humor and dramas. I enjoy much of PBS broadcasting. Then again, I also enjoy C-Span, Biography, History Channel, A&E, and many others.

I also appreciated PBS programing when my kids were tykes. I liked Mr. Rogers more than Sesame Street, but my favorite and my kids favorite was Reading Rainbow.

Now pretend for a minute that everyone agreed with the above. That still wouldn't justify spending money on PBS, NPR, or the National Endowment for the Arts & Humanities.

oh come on-- nobody enjoys cspan:laugh: