So did the board dismiss Schiller to prove that they don’t have a media bias, and demonstrate that they will not tolerate such behavior that might indicate that they do; or was the dismissal, just an acceptance that they really do have a media bias, but they have to appear that they don’t?
It’s only proof that NPR doesn’t have any balls. O’Keefe is a lying punk who’s been proven to edit video before. I look forward to the day that he punks someone who’ll punch back. We just haven’t seen that yet.
And the things that Schiller said are weak porridge next to the mildest sentence out of the mouths of Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter. NPR is solidly establishment, perhaps having a slight bias toward the liberal side. Then again, so do facts. When the Right is engulfed so deeply by delusions like the President is a Kenyan-born Muslim, facts are almost guaranteed to have a liberal bias.
It proves that NPR’s board was tired of the controversies under her tenure, I think: first Juan Williams and now this. And that they want to make good while this funding controversy goes on.
O’Keefe’s actions are not relevant. NPR’s officials comments and actions are. And to compare a federally funded news organization’s behavior to editorialist programming isn’t even comparing apples to oranges.
NPR is either biased or they are not. The funding controversy should examine that very question. Federal funding should not fund a biased news organization.
So are they or aren’t they?
They aren’t. Or as close as we’re ever going to get. NPR generally has the most comprehensive reporting of any US news. To get any more objectivity, you have to get BBC World.
Of course, conservatives consider ANY airing of a liberal viewpoint, even alongside their own conservative viewpoint, as horribly biased.
The Board grew a set and dealt with a CEO who could not keep NPR out of the media as a story instead of as a reporter. When your funding is at risk already, you need a CEO who can make friends with both sides of the aisle.
Yes they are. His stated goal is to embarrass people and organizations like NPR and we know he’s a liar, so it’s very much relevant. His goal was to damage NPR and that should be kept in mind. To that end, he tried to get Ron Schiller to take money from a group with allege-able connections to terrorism, which Schiller did not do. What Schiller did do was say mean things about the Tea Party and its effects on the Republican Party, and suggest that NPR might be better off eventually if it did not take any government money (although he said it would be damaging if it were shut off now). He didn’t say anything that suggests NPR is biased.
I don’t think their actions can be interpreted either way. NPR is trying to defuse a controversy and avoid losing funding, which was already a possibility since the GOP controls the House.
In my opinion (as a conservative, mind you) NPR is the least biased of the major news organizations. They do have a bias, and it’s to the left, and this is not because the facts have a liberal bias. But If I were to quantify it, I’d say it’s about 0.5 left on a scale of 1-10, with Fox being 7.5 to the right and MSNBC being 6.5 to the left.
Pretty much what I think as well.
I do apologize to you, Bricker…I should have said “most conservatives” or even “the most vocal conservatives”.
I think the dismissal was a recognition that now is a bad time for the prejudices of one of their executives to come to light.
The press release you link to says so pretty clearly. They talk about how Republicans want to defund them, so now is a bad time for publicity that NPR executives really do hate Republicans.
You can spin this a lot of ways, but one way is that NPR kept Ron Schiller around even though he was rather fervently anti-Republican. And they didn’t fire the CEO for failing to clean house and get objective people in executive positions - they fired her when it became public that NPR executives are anti-Republican. As long as it was behind closed doors, no problem.
ISTM that NPR is scared they might lose their lip lock on the public tit. That’s what motivating them, not any concern for fairness or objectivity.
If they were paying their own way, I don’t see any issue - they can take any editorial positions they want. Once they are doing it on my dime - not so much.
Curse Ron Schiller for attributing all those anti-Tea Party sentiments to other NPR executives. :rolleyes:
The behavior of Shiller does not prove anything. It is possible that he was able to hide his hatred of conservatives and that it did not affect his job. That is possible but it is more likely that he was allowed to rise so high in the hierachy of NPR because the culture of NPR is one that sees hatred of conservatives as unremarkable. Absent other evidence, there is no way to know what is actually true based on one incident.
I have only heard NPR a couple of times, but everytime I have found them very biased. It could be that I caught them on bad days. Given that their audience are latte sipping liberals it makes sense that they tilt their news to pander to their audience just like every other media company does.
Not to worry – I recognize that the most vocal conservatives do indeed try to paint a picture of an ultra-liberal NPR.
If you’re going to make silly generalizations, at least be accurate. Latte-sipping liberals listen to Top 40 radio. People like Bricker listen to NPR.
Kind of tricky to be fair and objective when one party has declared war on you.
I don’t share this experience. I listen to NPR a good bit, and I’m most certainly not a latte-sipping liberal. I think their reporting is generally fair, with an obvious effort to be even-handed. The only times I see bias are (a) selection of news stories and (b) the occasional “everyone agrees that…” tone where some element of liberal orthodoxy is assumed to be true without analysis. But those are (in my experience) truly tiny moments, almost unavoidable if you’re a human being. Alone among major news outlets, NPR seems to make a great deal of effort to report and not opine.
Just out of curiosity, Bricker, what objectivity grade would you give CNN?
I think that any bias NPR has is more of an urban bias than a liberal bias. I listen to NPR a lot and consider their news coverage to be very good, and about as objective as one gets in the US media. If you look at their non-news content, it’s going to trend towards the things that interest their biggest audience-- affluent, urban and suburban listeners. To a lot of middle America, that content will probably look like it caters to more of a liberal than a conservative audience.
I don’t think this resignation proves anything about bias. Just one two many media scandals for her to be effective in her position.
:: Drops vintage monocle in shock ::
Do Volvos still come with factory installed PBS/NPR bumper stickers, or did that practice end when Ford bought them?