NPR--many kinds of truth, unless you support Trump or are a conservative

Katherine Roberts Maher hasn't been CEO of NPR very long, but she's certainly a symptom of the rot there. She used to run Wikepedia, where everyone except conservatives get to provide their own "truth." Conservative media is now providing "mash ups" of her comments before she entered the elitist disinformation land of public supported radio. I'm not on X (Twitter), but I'd guess they are making mincemeat of her.

NPR CEO Katherine Maher Says She Coordinated With Government To Censor Misinformation As CEO Of Wikipedia | Video | RealClearPolitics

50 NPR employees demand CEO Katherine Maher, editor-in-chief publicly rebuke 'factual inaccuracies' (msn.com)

American Spectator, April 17, 2024:  "What is perhaps most notable about Maher’s radicalism is how utterly conventional it is. While her posts may be exceptionally risible, her views are par for the course in most of America’s elite institutions — in many cases, they are the price of entry. Maher herself sports impeccable elite credentials: Prior to NPR, she served as CEO and executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia. According to a 2021 biography, Maher was also “a fellow at the Truman National Security Project,” has written for outlets such as Foreign Policy, the Atlantic, and the Guardian,” and serves as “a member of the Advisory Council of the Open Technology Fund and the board of the Sunlight Foundation.”

These are the people who run our country. Maher’s only distinction is that she was marginally clumsier about concealing or soft-pedaling her ideas in the public eye.

This may come as a surprise to many elected Republicans, who have happily forked over government check after government check to institutions like NPR, but we are not actually obligated to fund people and organizations that hate us. https://spectator.org/its-bigger-than-nprs-katherine-maher/?

Update from City Journal: "Maher’s prolific history on social media, which she seems to have used as a private diary, narrating her every thought, emotion, meeting, and political opinion in real-time. This archive is a collection of her statements, but at a deeper level, it provides a window into the soul of a uniquely American archetype: the affluent, white, female liberal—many of whom now sit atop our elite institutions." https://www.city-journal.org/article/quotations-from-chairman-maher?

The J-6 trial sends a message

The J-6 trial was a filmed terrorist drama played out to tell Trump supporters or any conservatives and anyone who slavishly watched it that they better behave and not protest about anything, or they can expect the prison terms, house arrest and vile treatment. The only person killed was a female veteran protestor, shot by police. Yet if you read any "historical" account, it will still say 5 died.

 Tucker showed his 3 million viewers the video of guards letting people in and the "rioters" taking photos, and we might have seen more if Fox hadn't stopped him. I hope someday he can finish the job, but both parties seem to be terribly afraid of him. Need to shut him up. There are 30,000 video files according to NPR. 1,000 people being investigated. Nine terabytes of information.

 
How does this compare to the hundreds of people who died during the months after George Floyd's death with billions in property loss, and businesses destroyed? That had a message for America, too. Do what you want, we'll stand down because your neighborhoods don't matter. Your safety isn't important. The J-6 protesters didn't get that sort of treatment. How do their crimes compare to the crimes of the pandemic? There must be hundreds who should be in jail for those crimes. And what about the crimes that the government agencies committed to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop so his pop could win the election? It has terrible information about Joe.

 
Yes, J-6 trial was definitely a message to anyone who asks too many questions about the war, the border, the pandemic, the crime family in the WH, the climate scam, the child abuse in the schools, the gender clinics and doctors, the bank failures, the supply chain, the raging inflation, and the debt and deficit.

NPR's biased account of March 23, 2023 is frightening. One person has been acquitted. Majority have not been tried. "The defendants who haven't received any prison time are often fined, and sentenced to a combination of probation, community service and home confinement, depending on the nature of the case. The vast majority of these defendants are charged only with "parading or demonstrating in a Capitol building," which is a misdemeanor."

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/25/1165022885/1000-defendants-january-6-capitol-riot?

Early Covid tests failure rate 33%

So how does the blame game work? If Trump was at fault for hospitals not being prepared, is it also his fault if CDC failed on the tests?

“On Feb. 6, a scientist in a small infectious disease lab on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention campus in Atlanta was putting a coronavirus test kit through its final paces. The lab designed and built the diagnostic test in record time, and the little vials that contained necessary reagents to identify the virus were boxed up and ready to go. But NPR has learned the results of that final quality control test suggested something troubling — it said the kit could fail 33% of the time.”  Read the story: https://www.npr.org/2020/11/06/929078678/cdc-report-officials-knew-coronavirus-test-was-flawed-but-released-it-anyway

The fact that NPR would publish this failure of CDC and it’s been so critical of everything Trump indicates to me that this will be recorded as a Trump failure.

A rant about NPR from long time listener

“National Public Radio covers, in the absence of covering the case of the opposite side adequately, and supports the causes of abortion, homosexual, and transgender “rights.” Its editors directly instruct on-air staff how to speak about matters of abortion: reference to “babies” or the “unborn” in the wombs of pregnant women is verboten. As one commentator noted, NPR’s linguistic policing has nothing to do with objectivity; it’s all about shifting public opinion. NPR shoves same-sex “marriage” in our faces, but it lets traditional marriage and other forms of moral restraint fend for themselves. . .

National Public Radio’s coverage of the recent rash of mass murders tends to a mechanical and simplistic “solution”: ban guns. It made a hero of high-school anti-gun activist David Hogg because he agrees with this position. But NPR tells us basically nothing about the familial and sociological backgrounds of the murderers or of those persons and factors directly abetting the murderers: police, school officials, family members and other relations, as shown at times via personal expression on the media.”

Read the whole article in the New Oxford Review. https://www.newoxfordreview.org/documents/why-ive-tuned-out-national-public-radio/#

NPR and The Donald

I was listening to NPR while putting away groceries. Did you know there is a woman in St. Petersburg posting discord and disrespect on Twitter who's a threat to our election integrity? I thought about it, and I'll stick with Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi and Rosie O'Donnell as bigger problems sowing hate and misinformation in our midterm elections. When that interview was over, the announcer went on to lament that President Trump called a prostitute "horse face," but had a soft spot of dictators. And all this with my tax money

PBS and NPR funding events

Although I don't contribute to the fund raisers, it is my understanding the locals have done very well this spring. People fear loss of funding under Trump.  I think that's great. Sort of like the huge increase in gun sales under Obama. The issue of NPR PBS funding has never been about the paltry amount, but about the amount of bias in the coverage of the culture from news, to arts, to literature to politics. If it’s funded in part by taxes, then there should either be better representation of the whole population, or no funding. On the other hand, if most of the support is from left of center (don’t know which comes first, the coverage or the consumers), then that should be their direction, but without our funding it. I have certain shows I watch like the British dramas and comedies (now mostly reruns) and Antiques Roadshow, but never the news coverage. I can get that on broadcast.

Let NPR and Bloomberg explain the hatred for Steve Bannon

 Full interview by Fresh Air, NPR with Joshua Green,  without my comments and cut aways (it is very long and very opinionated) is http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/502413784/journalist-says-steve-bannon-had-a-years-long-plan-to-take-down-hillary-clinton

Dave Davies, NPR: Tell us about Steve Bannon. Where did he grow up? What was his background like?

JOSHUA GREEN (senior national correspondent for Bloomberg Businessweek): Well, Bannon grew up in a blue-collar, Irish-Catholic family outside a naval base near Richmond, Va. And after college, he joined the Navy - this was in the late '70s - wound up with a job in the Pentagon got a Master's degree in Georgetown. . . . Bannon described it to me is he had to talk himself into a job at Goldman Sachs, but he wound up specializing in mergers and acquisitions, and this was at a time when Wall Street was changing and banks like Goldman recognized that there was going to be a premium on specialization. . . . he wound up as a dealmaker making deals between movie studios and TV companies . . .  started a boutique investment bank that got further invested in setting up deals between people like Ted Turner and Castlerock Pictures. . ."

NPR: Because he was in the entertainment end of the financial industry, he ended up making movies. . .  connected with Andrew Breitbart. Tell us who he was and how they got together.

GREEN:  Andrew Breitbart was a conservative provocateur. . . worked for Matt Drudge who runs the Drudge Report website. . .  Breitbart was an interesting guy because he lived and circulated in Hollywood which, as we know, tends to be a bastion of liberalism.  He delighted in kind of, you know, provoking and outraging those liberals, really derived a lot of joy,  . .   Breitbart, I think, conscripted Bannon into what was then - it was pre-Tea Party, but it was that kind of Republican populist view that we have to kind of rise up and take back our government and take back our culture.  Bannon became the executive chairman of Breitbart News after Andrew Breitbart died. . . 

NPR: Andrew Breitbart died in 2012 suddenly, and Bannon became executive chairman of Breitbart News. Was his approach any different from Mr. Breitbart? . . .  In 2012, when Steve Bannon was the executive editor of Breitbart, he established a research arm - the Government Accountability Institute. What does it do?

GREEN:  . . .So not only was Bannon executive chairman of Breitbart News, but then with some of the same financial backers, he started the Government Accountability Institute which is a nonprofit research organization based in Tallahassee. . . a research organization that is going to do digging and stick to the realm of facts, and they're going to investigate corruption in cronyism in government, be it Republican or Democrat. GAI was a pretty sleepy shop.

But what really brought GAI into the forefront was that GAI's president, Peter Schweizer, wrote the book "Clinton Cash" that became an unexpected best-seller back in the spring of 2015, just as Hillary Clinton was getting ready to launch her presidential campaign. It drove up her unfavorability ratings, and it raised all sorts of pernicious questions about who Clinton - in the Clinton Foundation had financial relationships with and whether or not this was going to be a problem in her presidential campaign.

. . .  What GAI did instead was to reach out to investigative reporters and mainstream media outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post and others and try and encourage their reporters to take this research that they'd done and to go off and do some digging on their own. And they did, and that wound up resulting in front-page stories in a lot of major newspapers that got this negative information about Clinton in front of a whole different audience than reads Breitbart News or listens to talk radio.

And if you look at how Donald Trump chose to run against Clinton in the general election, Trump was essentially channeling the same attacks that Bannon had conceived and pushed in the "Clinton Cash" book. And so - and, you know, so ultimately, you know, he succeeded in this year's-long plan to plot and carry off the downfall of Hillary Clinton.

NPR:  The concern (about Bannon in the White House) is that it suggests a tolerance, if not embrace, of racism and anti-Semitism. What about the idea that Breitbart News itself propagates, you know, white supremacist views? I mean, The New York Times editorial on this said to scroll through Breitbart's headlines is to come upon a parallel universe where black people do nothing but commit crimes, immigrants rape native-born daughters and feminists want to castrate men. The Southern Poverty Law Center says he made Breitbart News a white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill. (I post this question in full, because it propagates lies in the form of an innocent question, with no credible source). What's your sense of the content of Breitbart News?

GREEN: Well, it is certainly inflammatory and fixated on race, on religion, on all the sorts of things that have upset people. I think the thing to understand about Breitbart - and this is not to excuse anything they write or publish - is that they are deliberately provocative. They're aiming to offend and upset people in order to stoke the grassroots anger at government and the broader culture. . .

NPR: You know, it's one thing if white supremacists read Breitbart News and if they write shocking comments in response to the stories. But as you look at the content, I mean, does the website seem to, you know, embrace and propagate these views of white nationalism and white supremacists? What's your sense?
(Another provocative question, to communicate the leftist views of NPR--the interviewer Davies is building up steam).

GREEN:  [I interviewed him in 2015] And what he said essentially was that they are trying to reach an audience that doesn't have an outlet anywhere else in mainstream media. I pulled up some of the quotes. He said, you know, we focus on things like immigration, ISIS, race riots, what he calls the persecution of Christians. He says, we give a perspective that other outlets are not going to give. There are not a lot of outlets that are covering that, at least not from the perspective that we should be running a victory lap every time some sort of traditional value gets undercut.

The question I was always interested in getting at with Bannon was do you really believe this stuff - because a lot of it is offensive and inflammatory. And he said, you know, personally I'm mixed on a lot of this stuff. But we're airing a lot of things that traditional people are thinking that don't get mainstream media representation anymore. So they were making a market for these kinds of views and these kinds of stories and attracting an audience, what's turned out to be an extremely large and powerful audience by tapping these sentiments. (Davies pretends the leftist media is never provocative or inflammatory.) . . .


NPR: He's an interesting character, and, you know, in your profile of him, the photos show him wearing cutoffs. And when you see him in photos now like with the transition team, he really stands out from the Trump family who are so carefully, you know, tailored and coiffed.. .

GREEN: That is just him. I mean, if you want to be blunt, he looks like a bloated homeless alcoholic... (imagine an Obama supporter being described this way on national radio--wouldn't happen)

NPR: (Laughter). 

GREEN: There's been so much kind of shock and consternation about how a guy like Bannon who is so far outside the bounds of anybody who'd typically be considered for, you know, a West Wing position gets elevated to one, I think it's important to remember what we've just witnessed and what Trump himself has just seen that Bannon - and this is what originally attracted me to him as a profile subject - is a smart guy and a clever strategist who orchestrated this elaborate plan to deny Hillary Clinton the presidency that we've just watched work. It succeeded. And so I think that Trump has a degree of faith in Bannon that he doesn't have in another people.. . .

. . .  Part of it was Breitbart News with its rolling narratives about how Clinton was corrupt and doing Benghazi and this and that and really stoking all this conservative right-wing anger against her and against any Republican that treated her as anything less than, you know, a terrible pariah and a threat to the country. That eventually came to include people like Paul Ryan who are the most mainstream of Republicans. And then on the other hand, you have the Government Accountability Institute and the "Clinton Cash" book that figured out a way to kind of hack into the mainstream media and propagate these negative anti-Clinton stories. It had the effect of driving up her unfavorability ratings.

If you look at what happened in the election, essentially Clinton was too unpopular to reconstitute the Obama coalition that got him elected twice. She lost the presidential race narrowly. I mean, to my mind, Bannon is one of the major figures, if not the major figure, that conceived of an orchestrated and carried out that attack. That was what he laid out in the piece that I thought was so interesting. And, to be honest, I never thought in a million years he would carry it off. But, look, he has. (And since he fooled Green, he needs to be demonized.)

A letter to the Mayor of Houston

Dear Ms. Mayor of Houston,

You believe anyone with gender confusion or change should be allowed to share restrooms with whomever they identify to the point you want to destroy the first amendment over it. At what point in the conversion should the sharing begin?

On NPR I listened to a female to male transgendered man, at least that's how s/he identified herself--only hormone treatments, but no surgery yet--just the clothing, facial hair, muscle bulking, voice change, receding hairline, etc. Much to her shock, because s/he'd been raised a good feminist, s/he found out her brain had been changed. S/he had become interested in pornography, and even just a little skin showing on another female aroused her. S/he found her crude thoughts embarrassing, but unstoppable. S/he began losing her verbal acuity which had always been her long suit, and s/he had difficulty crying. S/he claimed she was reading more in the sciences which had never interested her before. Some points sound like a joke, but this interview was on NPR and I know we can trust the government in all things about sex.  The NPR guest doesn't have the right equipment for the urinal in the men's room yet, but sounds a bit dangerous for the ladies room. Maybe while in Houston, s/he could use your private restroom?

Norma

P.S. You may remember Chaz Bono's girlfriend (a lesbian) complained about her former lesbian lover's male behavior (and personal habits) and left her/him. The former Chastity Bono decided her attraction wasn’t because she was a lesbian, but because she was a man.

The Budget, NPR and Planned Parenthood

$38.5 billion in cuts is peanuts and meaningless. Dropping the funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood would have meant nothing for their budgets--rich donors would have stepped forward, but both Republicans and Democrats are eyeing a bigger battle down the road, and seem to want to save their ammunition.

Planned Parenthood’s Abortions Every 95 SECONDS: PP Spent $1M Electing Democrats

The real reason the Republicans caved on NPR and Planned Parenthood

But here's something you can defund on your own--The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation--it supports Planned Parenthood, even though abortion puts a woman more at risk for breast cancer. And using the "emergency contraception pill" increases it even more. KNOW YOUR CHARITY!

Update: Review & Outlook: Spending Cut Hokum - WSJ.com April 13 WSJ: It's not even $38.5! "A mini-revolt is brewing among Republican backbenchers on Capitol Hill now that the specific spending cuts in Friday's budget deal are being revealed. After separating out the accounting gimmicks and one-year savings, the actual cuts look to be closer to $20 billion than to the $38 billion that both sides advertised. This is not going to help Speaker John Boehner's credibility with the tea party."

MedCity--Get an entertainment rundown of medical culture

If these guys can make it in the media with such a narrow focus, then NPR and PBS should be able to find investors and listeners to cough up enough to put their stuff out there.

"MedCity Life is a city guide for the healthcare industry, providing insights into the social side of the country's most important medical cities. It's a directory of where the people in healthcare are seen and the history of the life sciences was written. MedCity Life also fits the overall goal of MedCity Media Web sites: to cover local medical industries like communities or, better yet, scenes, where industry leaders can be known and in the know. Our motivation comes from what we've heard from our readers. They know deals are made over dining rooms as often as they are across board rooms. While stakeholders know the business reputation of our medical cities, they are less informed on the work-play-life aspects of these markets. They don't know which bars and events naturally attract their peers."

Isn't this clever? They know their market and go after it. (Cleveland, Twin Cities (MN) and Research Triangle (NC) NPR could do that--they already go after liberals and Democrats--why not ask them to pay for the programming and leave the rest of us alone?

Get an entertainment rundown of medical culture in the healthcare industry.

But they also cover the medical news. Who are benefitting the least from Obamacare? Those ages 55 to 65, low-income adults and the unemployed. More men are having facelifts, botox and breast reduction. I didn't know Cleveland Clinic was building a 360-bed Abu Dhabi hospital that's projected to open late next year. What? We're now outsourcing medicine for the mega-rich? And here's a really messy story about a 15000% price increase in a pregnancy drug.

NPR and the Democrats

Republicans aren't stupid. If they thought for a minute that funding NPR would represent their viewpoint even once in awhile, there's no way they would defund it. But of course, if you've ever listened for any period of time to NPR or watched PBS television you'll see the reason--that is, if you are conservative. Liberals don't see it, which is why President Obama is opposing H.R. 1076. It has nothing to do with rural areas, which in case Obama hasn't noticed, seem to be well served by many forms of media. When I visit Mt. Morris, Illinois, 100 miles west of Chicago with a population about 2,500 and decreasing after the closing of several important industries, I can get AM and FM radio and broadcast and cable stations from Chicago, Rockford, Freeport, DeKalb, Sterling, etc. and probably some Wisconsin stations if I tried--ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox and the internet with its vast array of programing.

"The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1076, which would unacceptably prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio (NPR) and the use of Federal funds by public radio stations to acquire radio content. As part of the President’s commitment to cut spending, the President’s Budget proposed targeted reductions in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides a small amount of funding for NPR, and the Administration has expressed openness to other spending reductions that are reasonable. However, CPB serves an important public purpose in supporting public radio, television, and related online and mobile services. The vast majority of CPB’s funding for public radio goes to more than 700 stations across the country, many of them local stations serving communities that rely on them for access to news and public safety information. Undercutting funding for these radio stations, notably ones in rural areas where such outlets are already scarce, would result in communities losing valuable programming, and some stations could be forced to shut down altogether." Link

No it has nothing to do with rural areas, and everything to do with another mouthpiece for Obama's hope and chains. He's got millions for his next campaign chest, so I really don't think this is a problem. Just advertise on the "new" public radio which won't be taxpayer supported and let the choir listen.

Pine Ridge Reservation Wind Power FM Radio KILI

Bill Moyers preaching to the choir--moreso than usual

With one left foot in his mouth and the other up his rear end, Bill Moyers explains to lefties at Huffington Post why the NPR is actually fair and balanced.

"Ron Schiller is a fundraiser, not a news director. NPR keeps a high, thick firewall between its successful development office and its superb news division. The "separation of church and state" -- the classic division of editorial and finance -- has been one of the glories of public radio as it has won a large and respectful audience as the place on the radio spectrum that is free of commercials and commercial values. If you would see how this integrity is upheld, go to the NPR website and pull up any of its reporting since 2009 on the Tea Party movement. Read the transcripts or listen to its coverage -- you will find it impartial and professional, a full representation of various points of view, pro and con, Further, examine how over the past few days NPR has covered the O'Keefe/Schiller contretemps and made no attempt to cover up or ignore its own failings and responsibilities."

The refreshing thing about conservative talkers, show hosts, and politicians is they know they have a bias--they'll even point it out, in case you miss it. Not so the lefties--they deny they are Communists or Socialists (although recent demonstrations show they are coming out of the Commie Closet)--they just assume no one of any value or intelligence ever has a different thought flutter past.

I predict

School bond issues, and probably library too (there were librarians carrying signs), are going to be dropping like flies based on the crass, rude, unpatriotic, and self-obsessed behavior of teachers, the general public, who are paid much less, are watching every night on TV.

Also, I'd be really surprised if NPR and public TV are going to be able to make their fund raising quotas after showing the world what a bunch of racist snobs their executives are and how they look down on anyone not like them. They don't need the government money, but they probably do need a few people to send in money to support Car Talk and Suze Orman.

Will Betsy Liley be the next to go?

New video released Thursday afternoon indicates National Public Radio intended to accept a $5 million donation from fictitious Muslim Brotherhood front group Muslim Education Action Center (MEAC) Trust – and that the publicly funded radio network might have helped MEAC make the donation anonymously to protect it from a federal government audit. . .
Liley said she and NPR have taken millions of dollars in donations anonymously before.

“We also got an $8 million gift,” Liley said. “I don’t know if you remember this; about two years ago a number of institutions, higher ed institutions, all with women as presidents, got donations that ranged from $5 million to $12 million. They were never identified who the gifts were from, but they totaled about $80 million dollars.”

Hmmm. That should make interesting research for a women's studies paper.

Read more at Daily Caller with video

In another video as she attempts to explain coverage of climate change to a donor who doesn't want the other side of the story, she gets off on the birthers and says NPR doesn't cover their point of view after stating 51% of Americans believe he wasn't born in the United States. So, does NPR cover the news, or decide what is news? For money. Not many people like Gaddafi, but NPR covers him, don't they?

NPR's Schiller caught in a sting--slams the Tea Party

Poor NPR. They just can't catch a break these days. I think they'd be much better off defunded by the government, then they could say what they please about the Tea Party, about race quotas, about Republicans, well, about anything. So, has NPR seen the "heavily edited tape," or are the executives taking Schiller's word for it? Has Ron Schiller ever been in the same room with a conservative, let alone heard them say all the awful things he spouts?

The NPR Vice President for Fund Raising (not sure of actual title) Ron Schiller told two men he thought were from a group like the Muslim Brotherhood some pretty nasty things about the Tea Party, which as we know, isn't really a party at all, but a grass roots movement of millions, unlike the Obama-Pelosi astroturf of unions and chains. Why he was getting so chummy with a group that wants to bring the world Sharia Law (he would definitely not be working under them), and even chuckled at their jokes, is beyond me. And as for "fundamental Christian," what would he call the group he thought he was talking to or the run of the mill environmentalist who worships the earth and wants us to return to the 7th century with the Muslims? Where are the videos of the "race baiting" Tea Partier carrying signs anywhere near as horrifying as what we've seen recently at the pro-union, pro-one world government demonstrations in Madison and Columbus?

— "The Tea Party is fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental Christian — I wouldn't even call it Christian. It's this weird evangelical kind of move."

— "Tea Party people" aren't "just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it's scary. They're seriously racist, racist people."

— "I think what we all believe is if we don't have Muslim voices in our schools, on the air ... it's the same thing we faced as a nation when we didn't have female voices." In the heavily edited tape, that comment followed Schiller being told by one of the men that their organization "was originally founded by a few members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America." There's no sign in the edited tape that Schiller reacted in any way after being told of the group's alleged connection to an Islamic group that appeared to be connected with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.

— That NPR "would be better off in the long run without federal funding," a position in direct conflict with the organization's official position.

Schiller is also heard laughing when one of the men jokes that NPR should be known as "National Palestinian Radio

In Video: NPR Exec Slams Tea Party, Questions Need For Federal Funds : The Two-Way : NPR

Mr. Schiller, who has a partner Alan Fletcher, is not married to or related to Vivian Schiller, who made a mess of the Juan Williams firing. His track record for fund raising brought him to NPR from University of Chicago.

Unedited version

More on Vivian Schiller firing Juan Williams at NPR

"Schiller, a former New York Times executive, is one of a few dozen power players working with the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and a leftist group called Free Press to ‘reinvent journalism.’ That’s how the FTC describes it. The FCC calls what they are doing the ‘Future of Journalism.’ Free Press, a think tank funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, among others, calls it ‘the new public media.’" Link

So the next time NPR asks you for money during one of the excutiatingly boring fund raisers, just say you gave with your taxes. If you google "NPR Project Argo" you'll see there is no need for your subscription, nor your taxes. NPR's doing just fine in the money department. The government owns the health industry, automobile industry and is soon to take over much of energy, so why not media?

NPR Announces Plan to Bolster News Coverage of State Government Nationwide

George Soros, powerful wealthy Communist, is funding NPR journalists so they can be more "open and transparent," and then Juan Williams gets fired for admitting he's occasionally fearful of men in Muslim garb. Woot! That was fast, wasn't it. Doesn't some of our tax dollars go to fund NPR (National Public Radio) and don't many of my liberal friends and relatives just hang on every word? Whew! Well, at least NPR is an equal opportunity boss--Juan Williams is black, and he occasionally appears on Fox as the liberal commentator. A real two-fer, but I want my tax money back! Dump, turn off, excoriate NPR! Not only is it taking money from an open Communist, but it is practicing employment terrorism by firing anyone who doesn't toe the standard line.

Soros also created (with help from Mrs. Clinton) Media Matters, and is giving money to Huffington Post, which really didn't need any more help to fall over the cliff, but it probably wasn't making enough money to support all those nut cakes who after all, want to be paid their fair share too.

NPR Announces Plan to Bolster News Coverage of State Government Nationwide | U.S. Programs | Open Society Foundations

NPR's Nina Totenberg gushes over Kagan after saying federal courts could threaten Obama legacy

It's no secret that Nina Totenberg of NPR is a liberal--she doesn't attempt to disguise it. Recently she has all but gushed over Elena Kagan, Obama's pick for the Supreme Court. The only naysayers she could find to quote were people even further left than she is. Can you imagine if she were writing about a Roberts or Alito only mentioning conservative sources. I looked back to 2006 and then she was remarking (not exactly complaining) about the unanimity in the decisions of a Roberts led court. In this source, she's ginning up some fear that her precious Obamaic legacy could be thwarted.

E-net! - NPR's Nina Totenberg says federal courts could threaten Obama legacy

Well, not to fear. She's got Superwoman Kagan to the rescue. But then, it isn't called NPR (National Progressive Radio) for nothing.

The most biased Climategate story I've heard

This morning driving to the coffee shop (and again on the way home) I heard a story on NPR by Richard Harris about "climategate." It was so appallingly biased I almost couldn't believe that even NPR, darling of the left, would put it on the air. "The deniers" who don't believe in AGW (man caused warming through CO2) were depicted as knuckle dragging, politically motivated morons who couldn't think their way through a kindergarten playground maze. I hope you all remember the next time we're asked for money through one of their boring, happy clappy, fund raisers.

Now the MSM is using the word "stolen" to describe the damning evidence that the so-called scientists e-mailed, distorted, and prevented from making it into daylight. When the story first came out on Nov. 20, they ignored it. When they realized it could be serious, they started with the word "hacked," you know, like Sarah Palin's e-mail was hacked--don't think they said it was "stolen." Actually, it's pretty clear this was the work of an inside "whistle blower," usually someone admired by the left, unless it's their team that gets the whistle and a penalty.

Harris never mentions the thousands of scientists who've been denied a voice, who have web sites, who've been sounding the alarm for years as they've been denied access to peer review journals, places at symposiums, or the lush government grants. He doesn't note the lost, destroyed, or paltry evidence for AGW. Money? Politics? He can only find the trail when it is coming from the other side, as though the thousands of bloggers and amateurs are being bought by big energy interests (who, by the way, are the same folks funding and supporting all the green angles).

And he's on his way to Copehagen. Wonder who's paying his way?

Where's the "national" in NPR?

It could be the DPR, at least as long as I've been listening. Like all liberal entities, they see the splinter and miss the plank. At least they are blind to that plank in Obama's campaign rhetoric, which continues on and on and on. His health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm's brother, would have had Ted Kennedy removed from the surgeon's schedule, if he'd had his way (see his JAMA article on rationed care and the expense of treating elders last year). Anyway, back to hypocrisy and the frittering of our tax dollars on NPR from James Taranto, Aug. 28:

"Julie Rovner of National Public Radio offers what we guess is supposed to be a defense of ObamaCare. She asserts that "recent claims" against the health-nationalization scheme, despite having been "all thoroughly debunked," have nonetheless been effective because "opponents used fear as a key weapon in their arsenal."

Of course, so have supporters. "What is truly scary, what is truly risky, is to do nothing," President Obama said earlier this month. And in reality, there is an element of fear in almost all political appeals. Opponents of just about any action will warn of its dire consequences, while proponents will make similar claims about the results of inaction. As it is perfectly rational to avoid dire consequences, fear often leads to highly sensible behavior.

That isn't quite how Rovner sees it, though. She ignores the scare tactics on the pro-ObamaCare side and portrays the other side's fears as something less than human.

I haven't seen any "debunking" that sounded truthful or non-partisan, have you? And comparing the opposition, the people who pay her salary, to rats, seems a bit over the top. It's all the same-old, same-old--The sky is falling. The Democrats can take care of everything, including grandma and your privacy. The right is wrong. Trust me I'm from the government.