I don't recall that, but I would say that is a very different statement, IMO.

 

First link that came up on the comments. And she did say Radical Christianity and it was a little different than I remembered.

 

http://newsbusters.org/node/7577

First link that came up on the comments. And she did say Radical Christianity and it was a little different than I remembered.

 

http://newsbusters.org/node/7577

That is very different.

 

Maybe you conflated her words with Mel Gibson's belief about the Jews?

That is very different.

 

Maybe you conflated her words with Mel Gibson's belief about the Jews?

 

Might have. They both have gone off the deep end to crazy land.

And for those that don't follow the link, O'Donnell said:

 

"radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America."

World of difference between "perceived" bigotry and the genuine article. Perception is often entirely subjective, whereas the real thing may be discerned by more objective means.

 

Juan Williams, an educated man who has written numerous books and articles on Civil Rights and genuine racism said nothing truly "bigoted". This was all about his liberal superiors at NPR being ticked at him appearing regularly on FOX and looking for an excuse to cut him loose. This will come back to bite NPR big time.

 

While your point about Fox can be correct it still doesn't validate Goldberg's point. His point seems to be that liberals are OK with anyone saying anything or doing anything against others . Simply not true.

While your point about Fox can be correct it still doesn't validate Goldberg's point. His point seems to be that liberals are OK with anyone saying anything or doing anything against others. Simply not true.

 

I agree the bolded is not true.

 

If it is something they agree with, they usually only say muted on the point or at least don't raise a big ruckus about it.

So how are you saying that ZERO money comes from the government.....when in fact they received 4 billion dollars in tax money since 2001...??

Are you sure that's NPR and not public radio stations? There's an important difference. Can you give us a link?

Your chart and source are for public radio stations, NOT NPR. Go back and check it.

 

As to your other point, of course even the small percentage that NPR receives in grants, for which they beat out other applicants for (known as winning, which is why I do call it earned but we can drop the semantics if you like) from the CPB (1-3% a year) matters to them, because pound for pound, they have to be the best news organization in the country. NPR's annual budget accounts for $160 million in revenues.

 

What do you think that Fox News has to spend? I do know that their parent corporation measures their gross revenues in the tens of billions.

 

NPR is putting out a first class nationally broadcast product on a shoestring budget. They emphasize that they get the vast majority of their revenues elsewhere because they don't want their REAL benefactors, private donors, to feel like they don't need to send in those checks. This is the same reason that the Fall Membership Drive for public radio stations in Louisville, just completed (in record time!) emphasized that contributions from listeners and community support was the lions share of what keeps them afloat.

Your passion for this topic is admirable.

 

This is very simple to me. Whether through grants won, direct disbursement from, or by other means… NPR does benefit from federal tax dollars.

 

These funds are either very important to NPR or an insignificant part or their revenue stream.

 

If, as it has appeared from the comments of NPR proponents this week, these funds are insignificant, then NPR should not miss them if removed or restricted by Congress.

 

If, on the other hand, federal funds are important to NPR, they need to get over the predominately left slant of their management, editorials and reporting. If they are truly benefitting from ALL the people’s tax dollars, they should endeavor to represent a more balanced perspective of ALL the people.

 

If NPR is genuinely the finest news and information product on the market, they should be able to stand strongly on their own merits. It would seem to me that advertisers would be chomping at the bit to be associated with the most fair, balanced, excellent product out there.

 

Something tells me you (and many others) would not approve of federal grant dollars going to support FOX News. How is NPR an exception to the rule?

Are you sure that's NPR and not public radio stations? There's an important difference. Can you give us a link?

 

But then, how much gets funneled from the public radio stations to NPR? I think that's what confuses people.

Your passion for this topic is admirable.

 

This is very simple to me. Whether through grants won, direct disbursement from, or by other means… NPR does benefit from federal tax dollars.

 

These funds are either very important to NPR or an insignificant part or their revenue stream.

 

If, as it has appeared from the comments of NPR proponents this week, these funds are insignificant, then NPR should not miss them if removed or restricted by Congress.

 

If, on the other hand, federal funds are important to NPR, they need to get over the predominately left slant of their management, editorials and reporting. If they are truly benefitting from ALL the people’s tax dollars, they should endeavor to represent a more balanced perspective of ALL the people.

 

If NPR is genuinely the finest news and information product on the market, they should be able to stand strongly on their own merits. It would seem to me that advertisers would be chomping at the bit to be associated with the most fair, balanced, excellent product out there.

 

Something tells me you (and many others) would not approve of federal grant dollars going to support FOX News. How is NPR an exception to the rule?

And here's where the rubber meets the road: you believe NPR to have a liberal bias. I disagree. I enjoy NPR for their fine, objective coverage.

And here's where the rubber meets the road: you believe NPR to have a liberal bias. I disagree. I enjoy NPR for their fine, objective coverage.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I never doubted that for a moment... :lol:

 

So, how would you feel if Fox News received the same federal funding?

"The left" ... as in, the whole bunch? Or just a selected few you would like to portray as representative of "the left?"

 

 

This fits for anyone who thinks it was OK to fire Williams, but it is OK to allow these indiviuals to keep their jobs.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-22/michael-moore-on-the-juan-williams-scandal-you-were-right/?cid=hp:mainpromo3

 

Michael Moore agrees with Juan???

 

What really matters is that you're 100 percent right: We shouldn't let political correctness stop us from paying close attention to what people like Shahzad say. The problem is, you just haven't taken it far enough.

 

So Juan, I'm asking you to join me on a crusade—whoops, scratch that, let's call it a “mission”—to publicize these statements by Faisal Shahzad as widely as possible. Because most of the media hasn’t spent much time on what he had to say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102206639.html

 

NPR faced fierce public and political reaction - most of it strongly negative - in the wake of its firing of commentator Juan Williams for comments he made on a Fox News program earlier in the week.

 

Even NPR's own staff expressed exasperation at the decision during a meeting Friday with NPR's president, Vivian Schiller. Several of those who attended said Schiller told employees that she regretted how she handled the episode.

 

The most serious issue facing NPR may be whether Williams's firing will cause lasting damage to public broadcasting's finances. Many conservative lawmakers and politicians - including House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) - have called on Congress to curtail or eliminate federal subsidies for public broadcasting.

 

 

The threat of a funding cutoff is an old one among conservatives, who have long characterized NPR as a bastion of liberal bias. But some at NPR and in public broadcasting worry about the timing of the calls this time. The Williams controversy broke less than two weeks before a midterm election that may restore Republican control of the House and Senate.

While NPR receives only about 2 percent of its $154 million annual budget from federal sources, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Endowment for the Arts, its 800-plus member stations are much more reliant on tax subsidies. Some smaller stations receive as much as a third of their operating revenue from federal sources.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303738504575568222953428174.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

 

Real case for defunding NPR

 

My quarrel with government subsidies to NPR—via grants from the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting—is that they cast a chill over the markets in which private entrepreneurs seek to raise capital for what might be called highbrow journalism. It is hard to quantify this. But it is a conclusion that I have reached after more than two decades spent seeking to raise capital for privately-owned publications competing in this arena.

 

More than once I have been interrupted, while singing the song of quality journalism to a potential investor, to be asked, "Isn't this already being done by public broadcasting?"