• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NPR chief executive quits over hidden camera video

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON – NPR president and CEO Vivian Schiller has resigned in the wake of comments by a fellow executive that angered conservatives and renewed calls to end federal funding for public broadcasting.

The chairman of NPR's board of directors announced Wednesday morning that he has accepted Schiller's resignation, effective immediately.
NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik said in a tweet that Schiller was forced out by the board.

A hidden-camera video of an NPR executive calling the tea party racist and saying the network would be better off without federal money has led to that executive's immediate resignation.

NPR chief executive quits over hidden camera video - Yahoo! News


You know there is a problem there at NPR when Juan Williams is too conservative for ya....Anyway, Good riddance.


j-mac
 
Speaking of punks, why is it that y'all give O'Keefe one iota of credibility and attention? Why do you allow yourselves to be punked by this lying sack of **** criminal, time-and-time again?

What exactly is NPR accused of? Employing someone with opinions?

...but how anyone still listens to James O'keefe is beyond me. I take everything he ever says for all eternity as a lie until he fully proves what he claims with full length videos or audio clips and much needed scrutiny. Anyone that takes what he says at face value is a buffoon.

Let's be clear that delusional rant of one individual, or even a few incidents, doesn't even come close to indicting the entire NPR organization.

Are you one of those that allows themselves to be fooled by the likes of O'Keefe?

I watched the video, a few comments made me wince, but most were spot on. What was so bad about it?

You're kidding me, right? This criminal O'Keefe has been caught on multiple occasions editing his video and you're going to take anything he now does as factual proof? He's got zero credibility, is a convicted criminal and a partisan hack yet you're willing to sing his graces because he's on your side. That's absolutely pathetic.


The score in this battle:

O'Keefe - 2
N.P.R - 0

No matter how many personal attacks the left launches on O'Keefe, or how long people dismiss this as "no big deal", it's not going to change the fact that NPR has been caught once again with their hand in the liberal biased cookie jar, and the chips are finally falling.
 
The score in this battle:

O'Keefe - 2
N.P.R - 0

No matter how many personal attacks the left launches on O'Keefe, or how long people dismiss this as "no big deal", it's not going to change the fact that NPR has been caught once again with their hand in the liberal biased cookie jar, and the chips are finally falling.
So, to you the result justifies the means? Where is your proof NPR is liberal biased, conservative like NPR as well as liberals. I can't prove it, but I would say NPR is probably the least biased of the networks. I think some conservatives don't like NPR because they don't like the truth, so they turn on the FNC.
 
So, to you the result justifies the means? Where is your proof NPR is liberal biased, conservative like NPR as well as liberals. I can't prove it, but I would say NPR is probably the least biased of the networks. I think some conservatives don't like NPR because they don't like the truth, so they turn on the FNC.


You have got to be kidding here....*shakes head*


j-mac
 
So, to you the result justifies the means?

The means? If you're referring to undercover investigative journalism, absolutely!

Where is your proof NPR is liberal biased

Wake up Pete... That ship sailed when they fired Juan Williams because he worked for the "enemy".

conservative like NPR as well as liberals.

I'm sure that there's a percentage of conservatives that do like NPR, but that doesn't change a damned thing.

I can't prove it, but I would say NPR is probably the least biased of the networks.

There are certainly plenty of other media outlets that are more biased than they are, but when you receive public funding, any level of political bias is unacceptable.


I think some conservatives don't like NPR because they don't like the truth, so they turn on the FNC.

First, conservatives want all the news, not just the news deemed fit to report on from a left of center perspective, and second, NPR is a radio network that is generally listened to in the car, or at the workplace, so switching to FNC is not an option.
 
Please, libs, keep attacking O'Keefe.

What will he bring down next?

ACORN, NPR, Planned Parenthood, PBS, teachers unions, Fannie and Freddie......your sacred institutions are Charlie Sheening down the gutter left and right.

Where's my popcorn.
 
If O'Keefe was a liberal exposing Conservative or Republican organizations he would be showered with praise and awards from lefties.

Its true PBS current management is infested with liberals and their 'news' reporting is obviously to the far left of center. As a publicly funded organization that should be corrected.

But PBS does a lot of actual public programs, such as history and children’s which are excellent. I've given money to PBS and don't regret it.

Could this be done by private corporations? Yes. Should we still fund PBS? IMO yes.
 
The score in this battle:

O'Keefe - 2
N.P.R - 0

No matter how many personal attacks the left launches on O'Keefe, or how long people dismiss this as "no big deal", it's not going to change the fact that NPR has been caught once again with their hand in the liberal biased cookie jar, and the chips are finally falling.

How? They didn't even take the money! You didn't post one damn time on the Walker "punked tape" (which by the way was unedited), and he actually tried to squeeze more money out of the guy he was talking to. NPR did not take the money.

This CEO was quitting the job and spoke candidly about his beliefs. I'm appalled that you think he can't have opinions.

*Edit:

By the way, this is the third topic on this worn out subject.
 
Last edited:
If O'Keefe was a liberal exposing Conservative or Republican organizations he would be showered with praise and awards from lefties.

Its true PBS current management is infested with liberals and their 'news' reporting is obviously to the far left of center. As a publicly funded organization that should be corrected.

But PBS does a lot of actual public programs, such as history and children’s which are excellent. I've given money to PBS and don't regret it.

Could this be done by private corporations? Yes. Should we still fund PBS? IMO yes.

No, you don't understand. O'Keefe didn't "expose" ACORN. He edited footage to create an apparent crime where there was none. ACORN employees did not help a "prostitute" set up a brothel for underage girls. I'm shocked people still aren't aware of this. The house the "pimp" (who was actually pitched as her boyfriend and wore a dress shirt and tie, not the pimp outfit) and prostitute were supposedly trying to get a loan for was pitched as an escape from prostitution for said underage girls. Additionally, the "tax evasion" advice given was to... always pay taxes on any income. Not really sure what defiinition of "evasion" you guys use, but that doesn't fit mine.

Thing is, when evidence of this is shown, conservatives still don't believe it. It's really amazing.
 
How? They didn't even take the money! You didn't post one damn time on the Walker "punked tape" (which by the way was unedited), and he actually tried to squeeze more money out of the guy he was talking to. NPR did not take the money.

This CEO was quitting the job and spoke candidly about his beliefs. I'm appalled that you think he can't have opinions.

Money changing hands and having opinions are not the issues here. I believe the donation would have been legal so I don't see a problem there. Everyone has opinions.

That being said, his opinions about conservatives and the Tea Party people in particular are ridiculous and he deserves the criticism he's receiving.

It's always fun to watch the reaction when a lefties true beliefs see the light of day. They seem surprised the country doesn't believe the same things they do.

0bama's probably still trying to figure out what was so bad about his bitter clingers speech.
 
No, you don't understand. O'Keefe didn't "expose" ACORN.

Then you and I have a very different interpretation of "exposed".

He proved ACORN was willing to be involved in an illegal act. They seemed quite eager to help ..... almost like it wasn't the first time they had falsified documents to benefit an illegal enterprise.

Exposed sums it up nicely.
 
Money changing hands and having opinions are not the issues here. I believe the donation would have been legal so I don't see a problem there. Everyone has opinions.

That being said, his opinions about conservatives and the Tea Party people in particular are ridiculous and he deserves the criticism he's receiving.

It's always fun to watch the reaction when a lefties true beliefs see the light of day. They seem surprised the country doesn't believe the same things they do.

0bama's probably still trying to figure out what was so bad about his bitter clingers speech.

What? So you give no credit to the fact that they turned down 5 million from a shady donor? Also, this man can't have political ideas of his own separate from the company he works for? And I'm sorry, but this statement makes no sense:

It's always fun to watch the reaction when a lefties true beliefs see the light of day. They seem surprised the country doesn't believe the same things they do.

You realize that it's like a 50/50 split in this country right? If you think his opinions of the Tea Party is ridiculous, I look forward to seeing you all over this board sticking up for the ridiculous attacks against liberals as well. In fact, there is no way you could listen Rush Limbaugh who grossly judges liberals daily.
 
What? So you give no credit to the fact that they turned down 5 million from a shady donor? Also, this man can't have political ideas of his own separate from the company he works for? And I'm sorry, but this statement makes no sense:



You realize that it's like a 50/50 split in this country right? If you think his opinions of the Tea Party is ridiculous, I look forward to seeing you all over this board sticking up for the ridiculous attacks against liberals as well. In fact, there is no way you could listen Rush Limbaugh who grossly judges liberals daily.


Yes, and Ed Schultz, and Dennis Prager are angles....Ok....:doh:lamo Oh, did NPR/PBS take a Million dollars from Soros to buy reporters?

So, with the news that George Soros is buying one hundred political “reporters” for National Public Radio (NPR), one waits with bated breath for the left to decry the fact that a famous anti-American leftist is buying and influencing the “news.”

George Soros’ Millions Buying ‘Political Reporters’ for NPR - Big Journalism

but that's ok I suppose.


j-mac
 
Yes, and Ed Schultz, and Dennis Prager are angles....Ok....:doh:lamo Oh, did NPR/PBS take a Million dollars from Soros to buy reporters?



but that's ok I suppose.


j-mac

Ed Schultz and Dennis Prager are no comparison - no one even listens to them lol. You can bring up nobodies if you want, but these guys don't have Beck/Limbaugh-like followings.

Also, now if NPR accepts funding from a liberal they are a liberal organization too!?! Let the attack begin. Man the conservative machine is something else.

*Edit:

Dennis Prager appears to be conservative, by the way.
 
Last edited:
What? So you give no credit to the fact that they turned down 5 million from a shady donor?

Also, this man can't have political ideas of his own separate from the company he works for?

Not the issue.

Again, I believe the donation would have been legal so I don't see a problem there. Everyone has opinions.


You realize that it's like a 50/50 split in this country right? If you think his opinions of the Tea Party is ridiculous, I look forward to seeing you all over this board sticking up for the ridiculous attacks against liberals as well. In fact, there is no way you could listen Rush Limbaugh who grossly judges liberals daily.

I don't believe the 50/50. It's roughly 2:1 conservative to liberal in most polls/surveys I've seen. There are lots of independents. 30-40% I believe. If I'm wrong let me know but that's what I remember from the few articles I've read. Polls are useful, but usually don't really prove anything one way or the other.

I do and will stick up for liberals when I believe they are being wrongly attacked by Conservatives or Republicans. That doesn't happen very often though, liberals are rarely right IMO.

I'm sticking up for 0bama right now on Afghanistan with regard to civilian deaths. They are unavoidable given the nature of jihadis and I support his military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan even though it will cause civilian deaths. I'm surprised more liberals aren't there with me.

I will also jump in when anyone goes after a politician's or public figures’ children.
 
Not the issue.

Again, I believe the donation would have been legal so I don't see a problem there. Everyone has opinions.

So had they accepted the money you would not be attacking them for it? Just wondering.

I don't believe the 50/50. It's roughly 2:1 conservative to liberal in most polls/surveys I've seen. There are lots of independents. 30-40% I believe. If I'm wrong let me know but that's what I remember from the few articles I've read. Polls are useful, but usually don't really prove anything one way or the other.

That appears to be correct. I never knew that. I always thought it was like 40% conservative, 40% liberal, 20% independent, but it's more like 40% conservative, 40% independent, 20% liberal.

I do and will stick up for liberals when I believe they are being wrongly attacked by Conservatives or Republicans. That doesn't happen very often though, liberals are rarely right IMO.

I'm sticking up for 0bama right now on Afghanistan with regard to civilian deaths. They are unavoidable given the nature of jihadis and I support his military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan even though it will cause civilian deaths. I'm surprised more liberals aren't there with me.

I will also jump in when anyone goes after a politician's or public figures’ children.

Right, so you stick up for them when you agree with them. However, liberals get attacked daily by the most famous of conservative pundits. I hear nothing from conservatives. In fact, the meanest, most attack-like conservative shows are their most popular shows.

Yet, NPR, a non-profit news organization is under attack? Why? Let's be honest here, it was under attack well before this video came out as well. What has NPR ever done to negatively affect conservatives? And why does this CEO not have the right to have his own political views?
 
Last edited:
So, with the news that George Soros is buying one hundred political “reporters” for National Public Radio (NPR), one waits with bated breath for the left to decry the fact that a famous anti-American leftist is buying and influencing the “news.”

..... and the wait continues.
 
So, with the news that George Soros is buying one hundred political “reporters” for National Public Radio (NPR), one waits with bated breath for the left to decry the fact that a famous anti-American leftist is buying and influencing the “news.”

..... and the wait continues.

First of all, quote your sources. Secondly, there is no reason they should not be able to accept donations from a liberal funder.
 
Ed Schultz and Dennis Prager are no comparison - no one even listens to them lol. You can bring up nobodies if you want, but these guys don't have Beck/Limbaugh-like followings.

Really? And why do you suppose that is? :cool: To listen to them you'd think they ruled the ratings world.....:lamo


Also, now if NPR accepts funding from a liberal they are a liberal organization too!?! Let the attack begin. Man the conservative machine is something else.

Oh, I see. So I suspect now that liberals will now accept the Scientists against GW theories that receive funding from oil concerns? You can't get away with constantly having it both ways pal.

Dennis Prager appears to be conservative, by the way.


Oh, yeah, damn you're right....I was thinking of Thom Hartmann....:3oops:


j-mac
 
So had they accepted the money you would not be attacking them for it? Just wondering.

If it was legal and the donors were not affiliated with an organization that promotes violence then no. I wouldn't be 'attacking' them.

I've donated money to my local PBS station myself. That would be a bit hypocritical.

Right, so you stick up for them when you agree with them. However, liberals get attacked daily by the most famous of conservative pundits. I hear nothing from conservatives. In fact, the meanest, most attack-like conservative shows are their most popular shows.

I don't doubt that you believe that, but without doing a long search and wasting your time, just give me three quick examples of unfair attacks against liberals.

Yet, NPR, a non-profit news organization is under attack? Why? Let's be honest here, it was under attack well before this video came out as well. What has NPR ever done to negatively affect conservatives? And why does this CEO not have the right to have his own political views?

NPR has been under "attack" for their bias 'news' reporting while being publically funded. If NPR/PBS was a private corporation I wouldn't have a problem with their reporting what they want.

Yes, the guy has the right to an opinion. It's his ridicilous opinions that has caused the dust up.
 
Grim17 said:
No matter how many personal attacks the left launches on O'Keefe, or how long people dismiss this as "no big deal", it's not going to change the fact that NPR has been caught once again with their hand in the liberal biased cookie jar, and the chips are finally falling.

How? They didn't even take the money!

This wasn't about the money... It had absolutely nothing to do with anything... Geez...

It was about the partisan, blatantly anti-conservative beliefs expressed in public by an executive of NPR, which as a publicly funded organization, is supposed to be politically neutral. If NPR didn't receive government funding, nobody would have lost their job and this would have been nothing more than another one of the thousands of examples over the years, of the liberal bias in the American media.

This CEO was quitting the job and spoke candidly about his beliefs. I'm appalled that you think he can't have opinions.

So, he was quitting his job at NPR before this tape went public? Really..... I didn't know that.

Even if that is the case, it doesn't change a damned thing.
 
The score in this battle:

O'Keefe - 2
N.P.R - 0

No matter how many personal attacks the left launches on O'Keefe, or how long people dismiss this as "no big deal", it's not going to change the fact that NPR has been caught once again with their hand in the liberal biased cookie jar, and the chips are finally falling.

I haven't attacked O'Keefe at all. Yes, execs have been caught with their hand in their cookie jar, saying and doing some stupid things. But until someone can destroy the credibility of NPR's journalistic ethics themselves, it is irrelevant. Do I think that NPR possesses a slight liberal bias? Yes (however i should also humbly opine that reality also possesses a slight liberal bias, and that's not just my own opinion). But NPR does a much better job than the vast majority of other national news organizations at presenting the facts and a fair representation of both sides of an issue.
 
Really? And why do you suppose that is? :cool: To listen to them you'd think they ruled the ratings world.....:lamo

Probably because liberals are not interested in attack politics the same way conservatives appear to be. I, personally, enjoy listening to a nice broadcast that highlights both the ups and downs of the situation, has no screaming, and no blaming. But that's just me.

Oh, I see. So I suspect now that liberals will now accept the Scientists against GW theories that receive funding from oil concerns? You can't get away with constantly having it both ways pal.

Is that the only place the scientists get donations from? If you could prove that NPR changed their view because of Soros' donation, that would be something. However, if a group of scientists pops up out of no where with a claim that is contrary to popular belief and it is found that they were funded by a source that holds a stake in the findings... well, I think you can see the issue.

Oh, yeah, damn you're right....I was thinking of Thom Hartmann....:3oops:


j-mac

These things happen. I honestly don't know who any of these people are. I don't listen to pundits.
 
Back
Top Bottom