Juan Williams Fired from NPR

Well-done news and information isn't "entertainment" in the consumer sense. It's a public good.

 

We could go back and forth all day with examples of what we consider "good and productive" government arts and education expenditures and what we consider "bad" expenditures. I don't agree with the above statement as absolute truth, but I understand it and it's at least a place from which one can have a rational policy debate.

Juan Williams is not such a place. There has been very little "rational" above the "debate" surrounding his firing, which was a dumb but internal personnel clusterfuck between him and NPR. Like so many things, it frustrates me because it's stupidity that obscures a larger and actually interesting question. I do find the larger discussion of such programs relevant (I value it. Like I said earlier, I give it my money once or twice a year. Whether enough other people do as well is an open question).

 

Its programming is not all news & information.

The very idea that government is subsidizing news coverage is troublesome in itself as well. When you're being paid by the very people you're supposed to be covering, you end up with MLB.com.

 

Except that you don't. NPR's news coverage is second-to-none and better at criticizing the government than virtually any other source (because their criticism usually involves actual reporting and not just yelling opinions).

But you are right, not all of their programming could strictly be considered news and information. Just consider the small amount of government funding they receive to be going to the news stuff.

 

Or the BBC.

 

Why don't you listen to public radio for 2 weeks and report back to us on what you think.

 

Look, NPR can fire Juan Williams or anyone else for whatever reason they like.

But, they handled it poorly, and have had to apologize at least twice so far.

And, by doing so, they vaulted themselves to the top of the news cycle at the precise time that a movement of people who are predisposed to disapprove the funding of things like NPR are preparing to make their voices heard at the ballot box.

That's just dumb.

And, they've not only opened themselves up to questions of whether they should be receiving government funding, but they've also caused people to look at whether they are also hypocrites.

Whether it's Nina Totenberg or Cokie Roberts, they've had other hosts/analysts/correspondents make controversial/opinionated statements.

 

I'd recommend "Morning Edition" and "Talk of the Nation." "Science Friday" can be particularly interesting in terms of stuff I wouldn't normally seek out for information, in my opinion. Stay far, far away from "The Diane Rehm Show." The woman's geriatric voice grates the hell out of me.

Those are the main things I listen to. Outside their broadcast of the BBC Word Service, but that doesn't really count for the purposes of this discussion.

 

I'll take the NPR challenge if someone here on the opposite side of the aisle will take the Rush Limbaugh challenge.

Who's up for it?

We'll start a thread & report back what we've learned.

 

I've listened to Rush plenty. I wouldn't expect to learn a thing.

 

You really think NPR is the left's equivalent of Rush Limbaugh?

Really?

REALLY???

 

A) The fact that you are trying to paint this as NPR-left/Limbaugh-right is the problem. Limbaugh is a political commentator. NPR is the syndicator of Car Talk, This American Life, All Things Considered, etc. They are not biased toward any political side.

B) Sure. Can I do Savage? If I can't find anything better than political talk radio, I usually find him pretty entertaining to listen to.