Skip to main content

View Diary: Juan Williams' tongue is healing nicely (166 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This was a set-up.. (10+ / 0-)

    To make NPR look bad and so repukes could use this to cut off funding. That douche bag Eric Cantor is already talking about it.

    •  I'd love to see what (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Debby, RickMassimo

      the basis of their argument will be.  It isn't a free speech issue -- it is a contract issue.  And if they push it -- every entity that receives federal funding will deal with the same law.  What asshats.

      " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 06:34:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No it won't. (0+ / 0-)

        When they were defunding ACORN, someone (I think it was Grayson) said "Well, let's look into defunding Halliburton, which has admitted defrauding the government of billions of dollars." And the Republicans said "No you can't do that because that's totally different because" and then they turned on their Jet Engine of Outrage that they turn on whenever they want to throw a hissy fit but they can't actually use nouns or verbs because the Democrat in question is totally right so they just make enough noise that the spineless leadership backs down.

        And that's exactly what happened.

        Fight until we win. Then we can begin arguing about the details. - Kwickkick (RIP) 2009

        by RickMassimo on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 06:44:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Funny part is: WHAT "Federal Funding" for NPR? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue in NC, Matt Z, sneakers563, MNGrandma

      NPR receives no federal funding.  Not one thin dime.

      What happens is that NPR receives grants for its operating budget. Some of these grants come from agencies funded with federal dollars, but there is never any direct payment of federal dollars to NPR.

      It's not even a matter of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's "fungible wall" where its general fund magically splits itself between foreign contributions and domestic contributions while remaining a coherent whole. When NPR gets a grant, that money didn't come directly from the federal government and requires no tap-dancing from NPR to declare it "not federal funding."

      So by all means encourage the tea baggers to "cut federal funding for NPR". Once they get done doing that, they'll be quite skilled at similar activities, such as finding unicorns, leprechauns, and fairies, and they'll have been distracted for months from doing anything really damaging.

      •  Get real: (0+ / 0-)

        this is as much magical thinking as how you describe the Chamber of Commerce. The money goes to CPB with the full expectation that PBS/NPR will be funded. If the CPB announces that they will not be funding NPR next year, watch those millions evaporate from their budget.

        •  Hasn't the CPB been a relentless target (0+ / 0-)

          for de-funding by rightwingers since St. Ronnie?

          They only receive a fraction of their budget from the federal government, thanks to the efforts of Strom Thurmond and Jessie Helms, so there's not too much that the rightwing can take away from them.

          Interesting that you accuse the commenter of having "magical thinking" when it comes to the Chamber of Commerce . . . if they weren't so secretive about their members/donors, there wouldn't be anything to speculate about, would there?

          If there's nothing to hide, why the need for subtrefuge?

          •  If there's nothing to hide, (0+ / 0-)

            why the need for subtrefuge?

            A perfectly reasonable question, but not perfectly germane. IMO, financial contributions to organized political discourse ought to be traceable. OTOH, I can easily imagine all sorts of outcries that, say, contributers to the Socialist Workers Party ought to be protected from public disclosure—and similarly for other causes that may not be popular.

            However, the only point I was answering was the assertion that because CPB funds NPR "indirectly," we ought to pretend that federal funds do not actually support NPR. This is what i called "magical," using the term employed by the original poster.

            •  Who says donors to the Socialist Workers (0+ / 0-)

              Party shouldn't be divulged?

              And, how does that organization compare to the US Chamber of Commerce when it comes to influencing legislation in Congress and political parties?

              It's a known fact that the CoC was behind the recent failure of the disclosure legislation in the Senate (unless you get your "facts" from Fraud Newz).  I haven't heard any such influence exerted by the organization you cite.  How does the membership compare?  The US CoC claims 3 million members (which is bullshit, btw) -- how many members are in the SWP?

              And sofuhkingwhat if federal funds go to the CPB or NPR?  Federal TAXPAYER funds go to subsidize Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and WS -- what's the difference?

              •  You're clearly having an argument (0+ / 0-)

                with someone, but that someone isn't me, or anything I wrote. I repeat: I am in favor of disclosure rules.

                •  You certainly have an odd way of saying what (0+ / 0-)

                  you mean, then.

                  Why use the false equivalency analogy to make your point?

                  Williams is a bigot and a fool, not necessarily in that order, either.  The fact that he's being embraced by Fraud Newz is enuf evidence of that.

                  •  Different kettle: (0+ / 0-)

                    IMO, based on years of interested listening, Williams is far from either a bigot or a fool, and NPR did itself a vast disservice by firing him. His "embrace" by Fox News, even if only a clever ploy, actually shows that they are more willing than NPR to tolerate a voice largely to the left of what's apparently their usual fare (truthfully, I wouldn't know first hand; I never watch Fox, or any other commercial network's, news programs).

                    •  You're either naive or disingenuous. (0+ / 0-)

                      You say Fraud Newz is "tolerating a voice . . . to the left of . . . their usual fare" yet admit you don't watch it, which begs the question, how do you know what political opinions JW expresses when he is on FNC and how do they differ from what he says on NPR when the conservative bullies aren't around to intimidate him?  I've heard him on both venues and he blows with the wind -- he's defensive, uncertain, accomodating, and apologetic when it comes to liberal viewpoints on NPR, and a sympathetic voice for conservatives on FNC -- the worst kind of journalism.

                      You, apparently, believe the "fair and balanced" canard that Fraud Newz trumpets for itself, in spite of the fact that the number of commentators it has on its payroll that can even come close to being middle of the road can be counted on one hand.

                      And, why do Republican candidates prefer to appear EXCLUSIVELY on FNC to answer the softball questions they're so conveniently fed?

                      NPR should have canned JW's ass long ago.  Their only mistake has been trying to play both sides of the issue instead of sticking to journalistic ethical integrity.

    •  Unforturnately (0+ / 0-)

      after watching the head bimbo of the NPR try to rationalize this assault on freedom of speech, it is apparent that NPR doesn't need a set-up to look bad.

      I'm not really familiar with Juan or what he does on NPR, but if the comments shown on the news are what prompted his dismissal, he clearly has grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit.

      Though it sounds like he doesn't need the money...

      •  wrongful termination? ha ha ha. (0+ / 0-)

        how about bringing your employer into disrepute?
        Most employers don't like that action by subordinates.
        $2 million is quite the consolation prize. NPR will find somebody better to that slot's commenting/hosting, and won't have the embarrassment of moonlighting Juan at Faux Noooze.

        cast away illusions, prepare for struggle

        by Pete Rock on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 10:16:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site