Juan Williams Fired from NPR

Here's something I did not know (but is suggested a few times on this magnificent thread):

Yahoo! reported that NPR receives a total of between 1 and 3 percent of its budget from the federal government, and that in the form of matching funds (which I don't pretend to understand).

If that's true - can anyone verify from somebody else's conscientious reporting? - then this talk about defunding becomes yet another farcical budget discussion in an increasingly farcical country.

 

That 2% figure is true as far as it goes - which isn't very far. It accounts only for direct federal money to CPB/NPR.

But all NPR member stations pay for NPR programming. Those license fees, which can be substantial, are composed in part of the public money individual NPR stations receive. So it's very difficult to assign a percentage figure to the overall total of public money circulating in the NPR system. Likely higher than 2%, however.

 

Here's what the Times has on it:

When you factor in the money to local stations, and the fact that some of that gets passed along to NPR, I think defunding is a bigger threat than you realize.

These are not for profits with slim operating margins, and in a tough economy, it would be hard for them to make up any loss in revenue.

Grants from the CPB have also covered capital projects at local stations and at NPR that have allowed for various upgrades.

Here's one example:

Losing grants like this would hurt NPR a lot.

That said, I doubt the CPB will be defunded anytime soon. The climate might be better in the new Congress than anytime in previous memory, but Congress usually discovers that these cuts are very unpopular with a large number of people & backs off. I expect the same.

 

The ACORN model is an apt example- defunded and now defunct.

 

Since the GOP ain't winning the Senate, this is moot.

 

It didn't happen in 1995, and it's unlikely to happen this time. Public broadcasting has a large constituency.

 

If an NPR commentator were to say that he or she suspects an intolerable violation of "church-state separation" is impending anytime they see individuals carrying a Bible in a government building, they wouldn't get fired. They would get promoted and given a raise for their astute analysis.

Bottom line: politically correct speech is A-OK with NPR, politically-incorrect speech is verboten. Wimp radio.

 

Ludicrous paper-tiger example.

Do better.

And this is from a guy who doesn't think Juan should have been fired.

 

It is a farcical rant by the screaming ninnies. "Defund NPR!" they screamed, without knowing nor caring that NPR's tiny bit of Federal funding comes from grants, not a line item in the Federal budget.

 

Epic thread.

Glad to know that in the future when I speak into a live mic, I should speak what I feel and it is all good. Doesn't matter what I say, because it is what I feel and that makes it OK.

 

Just as farcical as the idea that NPR is a "liberal" news organization. NPR has something like 15 foreign bureaus and numerous political reporters covering the war, the economy, the White House, etc. On the East Coast, NPR may not make a huge dent, but NPR and its subsidiaries play a large role in delivering news to rural America.

 

Can I ask a serious question?

Obviously, a lot of conservatives were looking for a reason to pounce on NPR.

Can I ask why NPR is considered a big "liberal media" outlet?

I've tried to listen to NPR a few times, well, because it feels like you should. Like eating your vegetables.

I can't do it. It's painfully boring. It's not only not politically slanted, it's completely neutered. Whoever their big interview guy is on there is the worst interviewer I've ever heard. He reminds me of Larry King with how completely uninformed he is about his subjects and the inane questions he asks them.

So, again, where does the venom toward NPR come from? If it wasn't so real, it would feel like a Saturday Night Live parody of conservative liberal media hysteria.