Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was exactly the first thought that crossed my mind as I read the OP. Maybe the OP thinks that thought police should follow people around to monitor their "personal" opinions.
Yes. That is it! The right-wingers want to chase everyone down with "thought police" to flush out any dissenters of their own biased and racist viewpoints.
It's pretty funny that the same idiots who lost their minds over the Walker phone call are here defending NPR and their biased leaders. I don't care if NPR is biased, just do it without gov. money.
Is this supposed to be an analogy??? I do not see the correlation...at all!
It's pretty funny that the same idiots who lost their minds over the Walker phone call are here defending NPR and their biased leaders. I don't care if NPR is biased, just do it without gov. money.
You want to compare and contrast these two scenarios? Then tell us about what specific issues exemplify how the Walker phone call and this video conversation are the same.
It's pretty funny that the same idiots who lost their minds over the Walker phone call are here defending NPR and their biased leaders. I don't care if NPR is biased, just do it without gov. money.
The idiots who lost their minds over the Walker phone call are the ones calling for the defunding of NPR and PBS.
Interesting thought....so if right wing media personality called a certain group not human off air it would be fine,because those are his own thoughts???
How is calling someone xenophobic the same as calling them "not human"? Xenophobia has its symptoms at display, and outside of political correctness (that you desire as it fits your whim), there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with holding such opinions and being open about it, as long as it is limited at a personal level, and separate from professional.
The witch-hunting right wingers have embarked on has the signature of "the walls might be listening" fear enforced in dictatorship where a person can't hold personal opinion from the fear of being prosecuted.
If you must attack NPR, attack its ideology, its programming, and demonstrate its bias if you believe there is. In the mean time, I take pride in upping my contributions to the organization by 40% couple of weeks ago.
NPR reporters can be as biased and politically incorrect as they want off the air, as long as they try to maintain a sense of professional neutrality on the air, which I would say a good deal of them do. The same goes for any radio station or TV channel. Even reporters have their own opinions. Who knows what O'Reilly or Limbaugh say off-air? Who cares? They're entitled to their opinions. The only words we're allowed to hold them responsible for are the ones on air, and it's only the on-air words that count towards how biased or unbiased the station is.
I listen to a fair amount of NPR radio, and 90% of the hosts are liberals, and they conduct themselves as liberals. What I mean by that, is that these liberal hosts, when interviewing a republican or conservative, actually do a good job of challenging them to back up their claims and offer proof or facts. When the guest is a lib or a Democratic politician they seldom if ever challenge their assertions or refute their facts.
When the host, guest and caller are all libs, which is most of the time, the most commonly uttered phrase on NPR is "Oh, I agree".
I listen to a fair amount of NPR radio, and 90% of the hosts are liberals, and they conduct themselves as liberals. What I mean by that, is that these liberal hosts, when interviewing a republican or conservative, actual do a good job of challenging them to back up their claims and offer proof or facts. When the guest is a lib or a Democratic politician they seldom if ever challenge their assertions or refute their facts.
When the host, guest and caller are all libs, which is most of the time, the most commonly uttered phrase on NPR is "Oh, I agree".
Unrealistic claims need to be challenged by journalists. If you claim something, why must you complain about having to back up your claims? I'd in fact enjoy being challenged for my opinions. Only those who are weak want to run and hide.
And if that makes journalism "liberal", so be it. It is clearly beyond your grasp, as is the fact of providing equal opportunity for people to make their position clear. Good journalism will generally catch people trying to escape from providing clear points, just like a good interviewer would.
I listen to a fair amount of NPR radio, and 90% of the hosts are liberals, and they conduct themselves as liberals. What I mean by that, is that these liberal hosts, when interviewing a republican or conservative, actually do a good job of challenging them to back up their claims and offer proof or facts. When the guest is a lib or a Democratic politician they seldom if ever challenge their assertions or refute their facts.
When the host, guest and caller are all libs, which is most of the time, the most commonly uttered phrase on NPR is "Oh, I agree".
Are you accusing NPR of not being "Fair and Balanced?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just a minor correction...
If you don't see the correlation then try reading a book or 2.
