NPR Political desk: "Don't mention birthplace"

[henryclay]

This is just one more indication that taxpayer funded "public" services know who butters their bread, , , , who runs the dairy that provides the butter, and where the dairy is.

There is a scientific story behind climate change, and there is a political story, too. Which one does NPR subscribe to and put on the air?

And then there is this birth certificate thingee. It seems an open mike when nobody is paying attention is like a surveillance camera in a convenience store. They may not be prominently seen, but they record the dog-gonedest outrages.

What would happen to people like this if they were on a "civilian" company payroll and the boss walked in on them and found out this was going on behind his back?

www.wnd.com/?pageId=272677

[billisonboard]

"So it's more complicated than saying, 'Where was Obama born? In Hawaii or not? Is he an American citizen or not?'" she explains.

"There's still a question about whether he is and that is a fact," she said. "But I think the challenge in our society now is questioning facts. It's not opinions that we're debating. It's what are the facts? Is the world flat? I mean is that the next question we're going to debate?"(from the link in the OP)

People are still questioning Obama's birthplace and citizenship even though that is established fact. It is a challenge when established facts, not opinions, are so open to debate. Is public discourse going to deteriorate to the point that we will have to be debating whether or not the Earth is flat?

So, what is the issue here?

[ed1066]

"We're not covering the birthers. We are not covering them," Liley said. "There's a whole movement within the conservative group about questioning something that Obama has said as fact, 'I was born in Hawaii, when it was a United States state.'

That right there is probably the scariest quote I have seen coming from the lib media. It belies a cult-like obedience they have to whatever The One says as the true word...freaks me out...talk about zealots..

[privateinvestor]

Mar 9, 2011 11:38:42 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

"We're not covering the birthers. We are not covering them," Liley said. "There's a whole movement within the conservative group about questioning something that Obama has said as fact, 'I was born in Hawaii, when it was a United States state.'

It is not just NPR who has refused to cover the so called "Birthers"...several states are debating this issue right now and it is not being covered by the Liberal Media..

[Deleted]

They could very well make it through his first term without this being resolved. A second-- not sure about that one. Then, if it comes out he is NOT eligible, what happens to all the laws he signed off on? It is interesting, if nothing else. I still find it odd that i can say who delivered my children, all five of them, and who was an attending nurse, because it is all right there on their BCs, which, I could add are from 2 different states. Mine is the same, and my ex-husband's-- who was born in a third state.................

[safeharbor37]

• NPR's CEO Vivian Schiller has resigned in the wake of another executive being put on administrative leave: "Schiller's resignation comes a day after Ron Schiller, NPR's former senior vice president for fundraising, was shown in an undercover video calling the Tea Party "racist" and "scary" and questioning whether NPR needs federal funding. Ron Schiller, no relation to Vivian Schiller, issued an apology Tuesday night and said his already-announced resignation would be effective immediately." piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/09/need-to-know-news-npr-ceo-resigns-gadhafi-remains/

It appears that NPR employees are kept on a short leash and jettisoned whenever they violate the strict PC rules of someone [or someones] at NPR. The problem is that NPR provides only the news [information] deemed consistent with some standard that no one will admit to. As opposed to "all the news that's fit to print." NPR provides "all the news we choose to broadcast." [But don't ask what our agenda is ~ we'll deny we have one.]

[ed1066]

NPR is operated in a manner consistent with their role in the media, as the propaganda arm of a Democrat administration. When a Democrat is not in charge of the government, NPR serves the role of propaganda minister in exile, undermining the "enemy" administration until they can move above ground again. It's a pretty basic tactic used by regimes all over the world. As is typical with Democrat institutions, step off the plantation, and you're gone...Mr. and Ms. Schiller must be laid at the altar of Barack Hussein Obama as a sacrifice, and the next batch of patsies will move in at NPR...

[deziloooooo]

Mar 9, 2011 12:16:57 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

They could very well make it through his first term without this being resolved. A second-- not sure about that one. Then, if it comes out he is NOT eligible, what happens to all the laws he signed off on? It is interesting, if nothing else. I still find it odd that i can say who delivered my children, all five of them, and who was an attending nurse, because it is all right there on their BCs, which, I could add are from 2 different states. Mine is the same, and my ex-husband's-- who was born in a third state.................

It has been resolved Krickett..possible not to your satisfaction and others , birthers, but since you folks would never be in favor of anything he does, including his rescuing kittens from a fire , there is no loss there.

[Deleted]

Mar 9, 2011 12:30:45 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

• NPR's CEO Vivian Schiller has resigned in the wake of another executive being put on administrative leave: "Schiller's resignation comes a day after Ron Schiller, NPR's former senior vice president for fundraising, was shown in an undercover video calling the Tea Party "racist" and "scary" and questioning whether NPR needs federal funding. Ron Schiller, no relation to Vivian Schiller, issued an apology Tuesday night and said his already-announced resignation would be effective immediately." piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/09/need-to-know-news-npr-ceo-resigns-gadhafi-remains/

It appears that NPR employees are kept on a short leash and jettisoned whenever they violate the strict PC rules of someone [or someones] at NPR. The problem is that NPR provides only the news [information] deemed consistent with some standard that no one will admit to. As opposed to "all the news that's fit to print." NPR provides "all the news we choose to broadcast." [But don't ask what our agenda is ~ we'll deny we have one.]

I doubt they have time to "print all the news that is fit to print"


Isn't it the job of the editor at whatever news outlet to determine what news is "printable"?

[safeharbor37]

Well Archie,
I was referencing the motto of the New York Times. I understand that National Public Radio is not in the business of printing very much.
I would like to point out that there is a difference between "what is fit to print" [or "printable'] and an agenda which determines what is broadcast [fit to broadcast or "broadcastable'].
NPR is actually not a government operation although it was established originally with a lot of local, state and federal money involved. So there is no reason why it shouldn't be biased. NPR depends primarily on donations and contributions from "sponsors" [known as advertisers on non-public broadcasters]. It is primarily those who support NPR who determine its content. You wouldn't expect a religious radio station or network to broadcast the same things as "public" radio or commercial stations. That is the reason that it is probably a good idea to withdraw federal funding [that is; there is no need for the federal government to subsidize George Soros, et al.]
Anything funded by any level of government should not have an agenda which is not apparent to everyone, but particularly to the tax payers who are, in effect, supporting it. Without government funding NPR would be free to broadcast anything it chooses [which it does anyway], but government funded should be even handed [objective ~ to the degree that is possible].

[Deleted]

I was referring the the fact that every news organization makes decisions about what they are going to cover. They can't cover everything.

[deziloooooo]

Mar 9, 2011 13:09:17 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

Well Archie,
I was referencing the motto of the New York Times. I understand that National Public Radio is not in the business of printing very much.
I would like to point out that there is a difference between "what is fit to print" [or "printable'] and an agenda which determines what is broadcast [fit to broadcast or "broadcastable'].
NPR is actually not a government operation although it was established originally with a lot of local, state and federal money involved. So there is no reason why it shouldn't be biased. NPR depends primarily on donations and contributions from "sponsors" [known as advertisers on non-public broadcasters]. It is primarily those who support NPR who determine its content. You wouldn't expect a religious radio station or network to broadcast the same things as "public" radio or commercial stations. That is the reason that it is probably a good idea to withdraw federal funding [that is; there is no need for the federal government to subsidize George Soros, et al.]
Anything funded by any level of government should not have an agenda which is not apparent to everyone, but particularly to the tax payers who are, in effect, supporting it. Without government funding NPR would be free to broadcast anything it chooses [which it does anyway], but government funded should be even handed [objective ~ to the degree that is possible].

My question Safe is are you a listener, NPR, just occasional or a reguler listener. I admit, I am. reguler listener.

I just don't listen to normal talk here, few beyond the "Rush" type, music, when I want that I put in a disk, many times I do, Jazz, Counry, Neil D. , Classical..depending on mood , sports, when baseball is being played yes, other wise, NPR, on now as I type.

I am interested in the Middle East right now, Lybia especially, while not much today so far, enough and they have been thorough with the commentators , ones who seem to have credentials to discuss ramafications, possible military intervention, Admirals , Airforce types with star on their shoulder, retired, so yes , the political of the area , tribal, who would take over, reason for me to listen

I just don't get a lot of LIBERAL , good, good , utopia, blown in my ears, or the opposite, CONSERVATIVE. bad, bad , nasty at all...possible I am not listening correctly. ;D

[Deleted]

NPR =liberal propaganda machine. End of story.
Conservative radio would shudder at the thought of tax funded dollars.
End of story.

[ed1066]

It's interesting that the listeners of NPR seem to be the only ones who don't realize it is a Soros-funded and government-funded, government-run propaganda outlet. Is this not obvious?

[Deleted]

I beleive it. I just don't mind it.

[safeharbor37]

My question Safe is are you a listener, NPR, just occasional or a reguler listener.

No. I'm an occasional listener. Once upon a time I was a regular listener and, in fact, a contributer [Member], but I found that they were providing news with an agenda [WUSF] and didn't renew my membership. It's been a while and I don't remember what my gripe was. FWIW, I also canceled my subscription to the St. Petersburg Times over what I thought was distorted coverage of local news [the local police chief] and switched to the Tampa Tribune. I once subscribed to The Orlando Sentinel I used to listen to WMNF in Tampa until they started carrying Radio Havana, Pacifica Radio News and Sandinista Radio and other far left programs. I still listened to specific music programs on both WMNF and WUSF but didn't [don't] contribute.
I don't have time to listen, watch and/or read every news source [no one does] so I'm a little more selective than I've been in the past, but if I want to comment on something I've not been following, I usually check it out before I comment on it.
Let me be clear. I have nothing against NPR or PBS and, particularly, watch PBS regularly [Lehrer, Washington Week, McLaughlin, etc.], but I do feel that both could get by without government funds [although I'd like to see the withdrawal gradual] and since everyone needs to pitch in, that is money that we could start saving immediately. Some stations could not survive, but those could be supported locally until their viability is determined.
The big deal about this thread is that taxpayers don't need to be supporting agenda driven news. Let the trusts, corporations and wealthy donors do that, if they so choose.

[Shirina]

Birther thread = slow news day.

[deziloooooo]

Mar 9, 2011 15:21:59 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

NPR =liberal propaganda machine. End of story.
Conservative radio would shudder at the thought of tax funded dollars.
End of story.

End of story?? Yes all reverered, all knowing , all rightiouse one. Salaam, salaam, salaam

[Deleted]

So says shirina............... I have missed you, shirina. Seems you are progressing quite well.

[deziloooooo]

Mar 9, 2011 15:36:33 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

My question Safe is are you a listener, NPR, just occasional or a reguler listener.

No. I'm an occasional listener. Once upon a time I was a regular listener and, in fact, a contributer [Member], but I found that they were providing news with an agenda [WUSF] and didn't renew my membership. It's been a while and I don't remember what my gripe was. FWIW, I also canceled my subscription to the St. Petersburg Times over what I thought was distorted coverage of local news [the local police chief] and switched to the Tampa Tribune. I once subscribed to The Orlando Sentinel [I think the name has changed since then. I was a big fan of Charlie Reese and Kathleen Parker. I used to listen to WMNF in Tampa until they started carrying Radio Havana, Pacifica Radio News and Sandinista Radio and other far left programs. I still listened to specific music programs on both WMNF and WUSF but didn't [don't] contribute.
I don't have time to listen, watch and/or read every news source [no one does] so I'm a little more selective than I've been in the past, but if I want to comment on something I've not been following, I usually check it out before I comment on it.
Let me be clear. I have nothing against NPR or PBS and, particularly, watch PBS regularly [Lehrer, Washington Week, McLaughlin, etc.], but I do feel that both could get by without government funds [although I'd like to see the withdrawal gradual] and since everyone needs to pitch in, that is money that we could start saving immediately. Some stations could not survive, but those could be supported locally until their viability is determined.
The big deal about this thread is that taxpayers don't need to be supporting agenda driven news. Let the trusts, corporations and wealthy donors do that, if they so choose.

On a personal level, where I live . plus having satellite radio, I wouldn't lose it, there is enough support here to carry it locally and then there is the satellite. However in other parts of the country. less population with out some help, it peobably be lost and for them that would be a shame.

The actual % of the budget of NPR and PUBLIC TV is small but I would love to know what the real $ are, I can't find that, no matter what I google, is it all hidden away? If anyone has the figure, appreciate posting it. If i saw a billion, I too will say holy s^%&%, stop, fall back. If I see say $25/30 million.... lot of money, you and I , in the big picture of Government expendatures...Naaaaaa.

I know Krickett, saw your post but in the big picture....NO.

Anmyway, Obama is for it, the expendatures , think he increased it, will be interesting to see after thy get together and start comparing figures what comes of it.

[henryclay]

If the birth thing has been resolved, does that mean the next glib snakeoil salesman that has a knack for selling himself and his ideas to the public can qualify for the job, or will the next person have to be more forthcoming about his/her origins?

Just asking?

[rockon]

Hopefully the states will at least institute some procedure that details the minimum proof required to have ones name on their ballots. Still seems unbelievable that this requirement was not already in place.

[Deleted]

This all revered, righteous...whatever else... one thinks this will be the LAST election where one is allowed to run without proof he/she is qualified. Fool me once, and all of that stuff..............

[deziloooooo]

Mar 9, 2011 16:39:08 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

This all revered, righteous...whatever else... one thinks this will be the LAST election where one is allowed to run without proof he/she is qualified. Fool me once, and all of that stuff..............

Krickett if it wasn't this with our POTUS, then there would have been something else as foolish for you and the others who feel the same as you do...IMHO