http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41970138/ns/politics-more_politics/
More name-calling. Where is Rodney King when we need him?
More name-calling. Where is Rodney King when we need him?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Oops
- Thread starter Mark Giardina
- Start date
G
GeorgeKramer
Guest
Bauerle and Wenger mentioned in this story today:
http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/chris-lee/special-election/article361202.ece
http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/chris-lee/special-election/article361202.ece
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41986715/ns/politics-more_politics/
Ever get the feeling that NPR is shooting itself in the foot?
Ever get the feeling that NPR is shooting itself in the foot?
Mark_Giardina said:
In all of my 30 years in public broadcasting, I've never seen such a trainwreck at NPR (well, maybe the 1983 financial crisis). First there was the Juan Williams fiasco, followed by the firing of News VP Ellen Weiss and just days after that, NPR News annnouncing that Gabrielle Gifford's had died. And now we're dealing with Ron Schiller's very stupid remarks and today's resignation of NPR President Vivian Schiller. This is just bad! NPR is the face of public radio in this country. What's happened in the last couple of days will make the fight to retain federal funding all the more difficult. But it won't be NPR that suffers. It will be the small rural stations whose budgets are very dependent on federal funding -- stations that may very well be one of the few local voices in their community -- that will feel the consequences. Some could very well go dark if their federal funding is abruptly dropped.
Ron Schiller's remarks were appalling. But I find the sanctimonious statement from the tea party movement hypocritical. Here's a little bit of what Tea Party Express Chairman Amy Kremer said in a statement I received in my email:
It is untenable that he would express such ignorant views in public or in private. We at the Tea Party Express demand an immediate apology from Mr. Schiller, and will gladly welcome his departure from NPR. Regardless of Mr. Schiller’s future employment prospects, we highly recommend he undergo sensitivity training to discover why he is prone to express such unenlightened rhetoric.
Really? So, in all the private conversations tea party members have had, they have never said anything outrageous about NPR, its personnel or progressives in general? Yeah! And if you buy that, I have some swamp land you might be interested in. I guess it's okay for Rush to call our President names. It's fine when a right wing radio host disparages liberals as "pot smoking, aging hippies." But say something nasty about the tea party in what was supposed to be a private conversation, well, the guy needs sensitivity training. Again, I'm not defending Ron Schiller here. A person in his position should know better. His comments could have a devastating impact as Congress deals with the proposed funding cut to public broadcasting. But it's the hypocrisy of the right that gets to me! And I better stop here lest this be taken outside.
What disturbs me most of all is this "gotcha" journalism we're seeing in recent weeks. Believe me, I was just as appalled at what Buffalo Beast did to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker a couple of weeks ago. Journalists can't misrepresent themselves. The people who are engaging in these charades may believe they're doing the right thing in holding the other side accountable. But they're not journalists.
I guess the upshot is that we all need to be very careful what you say to people you don't know. It may come back to haunt you!
Philip_Airtime said:
Great post. I agree with every word. I'm very troubled by the state of "journalism" in this country right now. And I think the public is very confused by what they see. I wonder how LBJ would fare today. There is no such thing as private conversation any more, no rules of engagement, and I don't expect things to get better any time soon.
Oh, so catching someone in the act is "gotcha" journalism?? Right.
I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored, if you'll excuse the cliche.
If anything's appalling it's a sanctimonious "public broadcaster" simultaneously declaiming about his organization's freedom from bias and spin while making outrageously, demonstrably false, ugly and racist remarks rife with the most base stereotypes....about his fellow citizens.
And Schiller characterizes Republicans as uneducated, neanderthal boors. Oh, the irony.
Big A and Phillip, since you've brought it up, perhaps you'd like to share with the rest of the class specific examples of Tea Party people making comparable statements about progressives. (While pandering to Muslim extremists to curry favor for politically-motivated multimillion-dollar contributions for good measure, but we won't hold our collective breaths. In the meantime, great job demagoguing the issue, but your efforts to divert the discussion into lofty theories about journalistic ethics are transparently trivial and contrived.)
NPR's public statements about Schiller's remarks speak for themselves. The man is a race-baiting moron, and if he wasn't fired, he should have been.
I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored, if you'll excuse the cliche.
If anything's appalling it's a sanctimonious "public broadcaster" simultaneously declaiming about his organization's freedom from bias and spin while making outrageously, demonstrably false, ugly and racist remarks rife with the most base stereotypes....about his fellow citizens.
And Schiller characterizes Republicans as uneducated, neanderthal boors. Oh, the irony.
Big A and Phillip, since you've brought it up, perhaps you'd like to share with the rest of the class specific examples of Tea Party people making comparable statements about progressives. (While pandering to Muslim extremists to curry favor for politically-motivated multimillion-dollar contributions for good measure, but we won't hold our collective breaths. In the meantime, great job demagoguing the issue, but your efforts to divert the discussion into lofty theories about journalistic ethics are transparently trivial and contrived.)
NPR's public statements about Schiller's remarks speak for themselves. The man is a race-baiting moron, and if he wasn't fired, he should have been.
Savage said:
Probably, and that's what you get in today's reality-TV world. Everyone wants to kick the other people off the island. Make them go home with nothing.
I don't know about you, but some salesmen will say anything to close a sale. They want to create a positive atmosphere with the client where they can get to "yes." So that means saying things you don't agree with. Have you ever told a record label guy, "Man I love that new artist you guys just signed." Meanwhile you tell the MD not to play it. It happens a lot. How many times has someone sat in an interview with a prospective employer and said things they don't agree with. Everyone has to kiss some butt to get things done. If you don't, you're probably going to find yourself on the outside soon.
As I said in some other thread, a lot of people still haven't forgiven Katie Couric for her Sarah Palin interview two years ago. That was a form of "gotcha" journalism. So now the shoe is on the other foot. I'm sure someone, maybe Michael Moore, will make it his mission to go to a Tea Party convention and get them saying bad things about minorities. I saw news coverage of a tea party convention last year that led me to believe they're fertile ground for some gotcha journalism, if that's what you want to do. The gloves are off, and that's what will pass for news as long as there's an audience for it. Obviously, there is.
I would respond but this gun-toting undereducated redneck is too busy laughing at the demise of the NPR hierarchy. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hoo boy, we got a live one here, folks!
With all due respect to my colleague, noted poster and respected broadcaster Bob Savage, shall we also consider the myriad remarks of Mr. Beck and Congresswoman Ms. Bachman which have been directed at democrats and President Obama to be as tasteless and uncalled for as the remarks of NPR Senior VP and fund raiser Ron Schiller. And yes, Vivian Schiller's (the two are not related) handling of the Juan Williams situation months ago was an absolute disaster.
I certainly don't expect an apology from the Schillers, nor will any be forthcoming from Bachman and Beck. So the big wheel keeps on turnin'.
From all published and reported accounts, NPR made it clear that it could not and never would consider accepting the money offered in the bogus meeting. It's no real surprise that money offers such as these, real or concocted, occur in Washington, DC and that the left and right wing press/media resort to ambush/gotcha interviews.
That people with big salaries and titles fail to learn from previous incidents leaves me amused and wondering what ever became of the axiom "the best managers stay in the background and manage with a minimum of fanfare?" To say nothing of "Why am I posting on a message board in the middle of the day?"
Next, there'll be security scans before managers and programmers sit down to be interviewed, including the requisite, "You wearin' a wire?" Given the opportunity to manage again, I'd sure as hell be asking. Not that I don't trust people, of course.
As to the way NPR news people and program hosts approached this train wreck, it's likely you'd not hear such an objective self-evaluation and appraisal on any other commercial outlet or network as that offered by NPR. The reports of CEO/President Vivian Schiller's resignation topped NPR's 11 a.m. newscast. On Point and Tom Ashbrook dedicated the 11 o'clock hour to analyzing the NPR debacle. In that hour could be heard as many voices, by in studio guests as well as callers, harshly critical as well as appreciative of NPR's programming.
WBFO General Manager Mark Vogelzang was one of Ashbrook's guests, appearing in the mid to late half of the 11 o'clock hour. Vogelzang frankly assessed state of the affairs at NPR, remarking that member stations were "furious" about the errors made by NPR fund raiser Ron Schiller and NPR's CEO and president, Vivian Schiller. Vogelzang added that he was "glad that the change in management is happening." That might be the understatement of the year as it applies not only to WBFO and WNED, but hundreds of NPR member stations nationally.
One small irony, while Vogelzang was addressing these issues, WBFO was airing its normally scheduled "Tell Me More." This poster hears both hours of On Point while listening to WNED-AM 970. WBFO airs the second hour during its early evening line-up.
With all due respect to my colleague, noted poster and respected broadcaster Bob Savage, shall we also consider the myriad remarks of Mr. Beck and Congresswoman Ms. Bachman which have been directed at democrats and President Obama to be as tasteless and uncalled for as the remarks of NPR Senior VP and fund raiser Ron Schiller. And yes, Vivian Schiller's (the two are not related) handling of the Juan Williams situation months ago was an absolute disaster.
I certainly don't expect an apology from the Schillers, nor will any be forthcoming from Bachman and Beck. So the big wheel keeps on turnin'.
From all published and reported accounts, NPR made it clear that it could not and never would consider accepting the money offered in the bogus meeting. It's no real surprise that money offers such as these, real or concocted, occur in Washington, DC and that the left and right wing press/media resort to ambush/gotcha interviews.
That people with big salaries and titles fail to learn from previous incidents leaves me amused and wondering what ever became of the axiom "the best managers stay in the background and manage with a minimum of fanfare?" To say nothing of "Why am I posting on a message board in the middle of the day?"
Next, there'll be security scans before managers and programmers sit down to be interviewed, including the requisite, "You wearin' a wire?" Given the opportunity to manage again, I'd sure as hell be asking. Not that I don't trust people, of course.
As to the way NPR news people and program hosts approached this train wreck, it's likely you'd not hear such an objective self-evaluation and appraisal on any other commercial outlet or network as that offered by NPR. The reports of CEO/President Vivian Schiller's resignation topped NPR's 11 a.m. newscast. On Point and Tom Ashbrook dedicated the 11 o'clock hour to analyzing the NPR debacle. In that hour could be heard as many voices, by in studio guests as well as callers, harshly critical as well as appreciative of NPR's programming.
WBFO General Manager Mark Vogelzang was one of Ashbrook's guests, appearing in the mid to late half of the 11 o'clock hour. Vogelzang frankly assessed state of the affairs at NPR, remarking that member stations were "furious" about the errors made by NPR fund raiser Ron Schiller and NPR's CEO and president, Vivian Schiller. Vogelzang added that he was "glad that the change in management is happening." That might be the understatement of the year as it applies not only to WBFO and WNED, but hundreds of NPR member stations nationally.
One small irony, while Vogelzang was addressing these issues, WBFO was airing its normally scheduled "Tell Me More." This poster hears both hours of On Point while listening to WNED-AM 970. WBFO airs the second hour during its early evening line-up.
We're not talking about reality TV, radio talk hosts or Sarah Palin. We're talking about a public broadcasting limousine-liberal pathetically groveling to whom he believed were Muslim extremists so he could snatch millions of dollars to hopefully advance his vile views - all at taxpayer expense. While we're at it, Phillip - I'll see your swamp and raise you the Brooklyn, Williamsburg and Tri-Borough Bridges if you think Schiller is the only ranking NPR exec with his extreme views.
As I said, the attempt to turn this ugly episode into yet-more-observations-on-Rush and conservative talk radio completely, totally misses the point. The issue is not Rush. It's "tea partiers," the current bete noir of the unhinged left. Rush says all kinds of things because he is an entertainer. His job is to create chatter and generate phone calls and get ratings. Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann engage in precisely the same practices (with, I will observe, notably less success. Olbermann - indulging once too often in professional meltdowns of the sort Limbaugh has somehow avoided in 25 years of network stardom - is now featured on cable news' answer to WASB Brockport.)
Snap the issue into focus. However you feel about Rush and Sarah Palin, the federal government doesn't pick our pockets to support them. If I as a taxpayer have to support NPR and PBS, Phillip and Big A should have dough taken out of their paychecks to support Rush, Beck and Hannity.
As I said, the attempt to turn this ugly episode into yet-more-observations-on-Rush and conservative talk radio completely, totally misses the point. The issue is not Rush. It's "tea partiers," the current bete noir of the unhinged left. Rush says all kinds of things because he is an entertainer. His job is to create chatter and generate phone calls and get ratings. Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann engage in precisely the same practices (with, I will observe, notably less success. Olbermann - indulging once too often in professional meltdowns of the sort Limbaugh has somehow avoided in 25 years of network stardom - is now featured on cable news' answer to WASB Brockport.)
Snap the issue into focus. However you feel about Rush and Sarah Palin, the federal government doesn't pick our pockets to support them. If I as a taxpayer have to support NPR and PBS, Phillip and Big A should have dough taken out of their paychecks to support Rush, Beck and Hannity.
Savage said:
How can one not appreciate the craftsmanship of this alliteration. Although Rush imploded on hubris during the NFL Pre-game and his Oxycontin episode certainly qualify as meltdowns of sort.
Fine writing, barrister.
Savage said:
You're saying a lot in that sentence. Keep in mind there is no connection between fundraising and editorial. And if you read the news reports on this, there was no promise of news coverage in exchange for the money, and in the end, NPR didn't accept the money. It was just a meeting, like lots of meetings, where lots of things are said, but nothing happens.
But yes, he's groveling because the system that is in place right now requires him and people like him to grovel for money. And unlike commercial broadcasters, they can't give much in return. It's charity. It's a donation. You give money to something because you want to give it, not because you're getting something in return. It's a bad system. Begging isn't easy and it isn't glamorous. And removing all taxpayer money means there will be more groveling. Back when public broadcasting began 43 years ago, more than 80% of the money came from taxpayers. Then Ronald Reagan came along and told them they needed to raise more money. So they did, and that opens the door to lots of bad people.
As I said in another thread, I think it's important that broadcasters, commercial and non-commercial, be more beholden to the PEOPLE and not to their funders. That includes advertisers. I think the taxpayer supported system makes it more likely that public broadcasting will be more responsive to the PUBLIC and not to the money. The more they have to grovel at the feet of Muslims or George Soros or Bill Gates, the worse it is for the American public, who are stuck with the system of media we have.
JimPastrick said:
I think you're right, and what we saw today was the power of these stations saying they're mad as hell and they're not gonna take it any more. The stations own and control NPR, not the other way around, and this isn't good for them. So I believe we will see even MORE shake-ups within the public radio system in the next few weeks. Just because the CEO is gone doesn't mean the problem is solved. It took more than two years to fix NPR after the crisis in 1983, and I think this problem may be bigger.
Savage said:
As I said in a previous post, Bob, I remembered your work as a Buffalo DJ back in the day. I was very supportive of how you built a small radio station into an apparently successful outlet, using the hallowed call letters WYSL. So, I really don't want to engage in a personal battle here. Let me just say you disappoint me more and more. Apparently, you didn't read my post closely enough. You'll notice that I was just as critical of the liberal Buffalo blogger who posed as that wealthy billionaire in the phone call with Governor Scott Walker. You don't misrepresent yourself if you're a journalist. I don't agree when the left pulls a charade like that on the right. Nuff said!
Okay, I don't have a specific example of a "tea party person" disparaging progressives. I'm sure I could find one if I was inclined to spend the time "googling" the issue? But I can cite examples from their surrogates in the media. Rush Limbaugh has called President Obama a "thug." I've heard that with my own ears. And when my boss posted a statement on our web site in the wake of the Juan Williams fiasco last October, a local commercial radio talk show host began making fun of his German heritage and began talking in a German accent. What did that have to do with the Williams' firing? Classy, real classy! So please, Bob, spare me your comments.
Savage said:
It's not the same thing. Name a talk show host on NPR. Yes they do talk shows, but their shows are not about the hosts. It's a very different world. But yes, the public airwaves belong to all of us, and we all pay for it in some way.
It's fine to think NPR is liberal and therefore you shouldn't pay for it. But there's nothing endemic to public radio that makes it liberal. Just the particular circumstances and people involved in it. I have a feeling we are about to see a huge purge at NPR, and a lot of changes to fix the problems that have led to the current situation. But in the final analysis, the public should have ownership in its media. Taxpayer support gives the public access to things in public broadcasting that they can't get in commercial broadcasting. But the problems there need to be fixed, and I think what we're seeing now will lead to a lot of changes. Now who will step up and fix Citadel?
Thanks, Jim. "I just tried to capture the spirit of the thing." And I don't claim that Rush isn't a soiled dove (a soiled hawk?) All I'm saying is if Rush's career followed the same trajectory as Olbmermann's, he wouldn't be on 400ish/500ish radio stations today. He'd be on an Archer SpacePatrol.
NPR's "problems may be bigger?" BigA wins today's Understatement Kewpie Doll. All of this stuff about poor, poor public radio's fiscal plight - sad little dears - wouldn't amount to anything if long-suffering taxpayers weren't footing the bill for their own geopolitical undoing, being forced to support media whose leaders are committed to deconstructing an American society most of our fellow citizens cherish.
This ain't Britain. We have a vast array of media choices which are naturally selected by the best socioeconomic model devised yet by man - the free marketplace of ideas and innovation. It's not perfect, but it's the best there is. We don't need an American BBC paid for by those who have no interest in it. We should take Schiller at his word and defund NPR. Then they can wallow, grovel or lionize themselves however they please, and nobody will care except those who chose to fund it.
NPR's "problems may be bigger?" BigA wins today's Understatement Kewpie Doll. All of this stuff about poor, poor public radio's fiscal plight - sad little dears - wouldn't amount to anything if long-suffering taxpayers weren't footing the bill for their own geopolitical undoing, being forced to support media whose leaders are committed to deconstructing an American society most of our fellow citizens cherish.
This ain't Britain. We have a vast array of media choices which are naturally selected by the best socioeconomic model devised yet by man - the free marketplace of ideas and innovation. It's not perfect, but it's the best there is. We don't need an American BBC paid for by those who have no interest in it. We should take Schiller at his word and defund NPR. Then they can wallow, grovel or lionize themselves however they please, and nobody will care except those who chose to fund it.
Savage said:
Yeah it hasn't been tidy to this point. Lot of blood on the tracks. And no one got any listener input on the changes that took place. And just look at Citadel ratings to see how successful they've been in the marketplace. If that's the American way, it's not very good.
Look, I understand you don't like NPR, don't like their politics, and don't like the fact that they get taxpayer money. I understand all that. The PUBLIC needs to fix it. Not some Wall Street banker or some corporate advertiser. These are the PEOPLE's airwaves, and they need to be involved. And their money gives them the right to that involvement.
Savage said:
They have that in Britain too. It's not all BBC. Rupert Murdoch owns SkyTV, and so he competes every day with the BBC. He knows what that's all about.
The point is that even with a vast array of choices, they are all controlled by fewer and fewer people, mostly big corporations like Comcast, Viacom, Disney, and Time-Warner. We need one alternative that the public owns. Not big corporations. Where the people have the right to say "You need to fire your CEO." That's what we have with public broadcasting. And since I'm a taxpayer, my views for continuing taxpayer funding are just as important as yours against.
D'accord, BigA. I'm not trying to take away your right to have views. As much as I disagree with your observations, I also value them highly. We simply look at the same data and draw differing conclusions.
Calling all Phillips: c'mon, man. This isn't about you - or me. The only reason I used your name was so readers would know I was addressing your arguments. And you don't really want to state here, in front of everyone, that you regret having respect for my professional accomplishments - based on politics, do you? What kind of reflection is that on tolerance of differing views?
Sorry to hear my stock is slipping on your personal Exchange, but let's keep our heads and not order a hearse and flowers just yet. This is just a debate on a radio message board. Not one manatee has been harmed this afternoon. Who knows? Maybe I'll do something else down the road and you'll like me again.
I don't rescue kittens out of trees, though. Just sayin'.
Calling all Phillips: c'mon, man. This isn't about you - or me. The only reason I used your name was so readers would know I was addressing your arguments. And you don't really want to state here, in front of everyone, that you regret having respect for my professional accomplishments - based on politics, do you? What kind of reflection is that on tolerance of differing views?
Sorry to hear my stock is slipping on your personal Exchange, but let's keep our heads and not order a hearse and flowers just yet. This is just a debate on a radio message board. Not one manatee has been harmed this afternoon. Who knows? Maybe I'll do something else down the road and you'll like me again.
I don't rescue kittens out of trees, though. Just sayin'.
Savage said:
But you're saying "They're liberal, and I don't want to pay for them."
I'm saying, "The need to change the liberal thinking." And since the public pays, they need to listen. I believe this will be what you will see in the coming weeks, months, and years. They will change because it's the right thing to do. Not because some Wall Street banker wants them to.
Here't the thing to remember: The reason why commercial broadcasters were willing to give up spectrum to NCE in the 60s was because they saw it as an opportunity to get out of doing programming they didn't want to do. Plus, giving up a portion of the FM band, which no one used anyway, wasn't much of a compromise. In exchange, commercial broadcasters were told they wouldn't have to compete with these new taxpayer supported broadcasters. I think the last thing commercial broadcasters want is relaxed fundraising rules for non-commercial radio. You have enough comeptition without having a few more stations battling you for limited advertiser dollars. Because if taxpayer dollars go away, the money has to come from someplace. You can pay them now, or pay them later. The choice is yours.
- Status