• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

T R E 4 5 O N

A lot of Dems talk about what the media tells them to talk about. Not helpful.

Happy indictment week to all who celebrate!

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

I wonder if trump will be tried as an adult.

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

You can’t love your country only when you win.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Jack Smith.

The words do not have to be perfect.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / An Unexamined Scandal / Hang Your Heads In Shame, Totebaggers

Hang Your Heads In Shame, Totebaggers

by $8 blue check mistermix|  October 27, 20107:36 am| 22 Comments

This post is in: An Unexamined Scandal

FacebookTweetEmail

NPR got a bomb threat and the president of NPR has gotten threatening phone calls at her home, all over the Juan Williams firing. I’m not upset about this, for two reasons.

First, it goes without argument that employing terrorism is the only effective way to counter the terrorist and racist threat posed by the Williams firing.

Second, even liberals acknowledge that public broadcasting is full of racists, so the Williams firing is not an isolated incident. As PBS’ own ombudsman details, the liberal watchdog FAIR has issued a report which uncovers the rampant racism on display in Public Broadcasting. Here’s the ombudsman:

I do not know how FAIR arrived at the numbers the report contains, but it appears as if they have included every sound bite we used in the broadcast’s news summary. If not, I have no idea how they determined that we had President Obama as a “source” on the program 34 times in the two month period they studied or U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Retired Thad Allen on 17 times. Obviously the Gulf Oil Spill was a major story during the time of the FAIR study. So to have two of the leading point persons from the administration handling the spill — President Obama and Ret. Admiral Allen — appear frequently as sound bites on a national news program should come as no surprise.

It’s clearly PBS’ fault that the newsmakers in Washington are typically white and male, just as it’s NPR’s fault that they’re receiving bomb threats. In fact, the depths of the damage that Public Broadcasting has done to this nation have yet to be plumbed by either FOX or media watchdogs who produce 16 page special editions [pdf] focusing on the most important issue in media fairness today, PBS’ lack of commitment to diversity.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Early Morning Open Thread: “Crazy Cat Lady, or Just Crazy?”
Next Post: Speech crime »

Reader Interactions

22Comments

  1. 1.

    Dr. Schaden Freude

    October 27, 2010 at 7:58 am

    “For more on this developing story, please tune to Fox News for ‘Fair and Balanced’ reporting or analysis by any one of our blue-eyed blondes available 24/7.”

  2. 2.

    cleek

    October 27, 2010 at 8:04 am

    firsties!

  3. 3.

    Mwangangi

    October 27, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Stop posting, I need to sleep!

  4. 4.

    vtr

    October 27, 2010 at 8:12 am

    I have spent 25 years in the employ of local NPR stations. (FYI, NPR owns no stations, and is separate from PBS TV.) I have found over the years Juan Williams to be superficial and dull, both in his analysis and delivery. He was of secondary presence on the air. Can anyone explain to me why anyone would genuinely care enough about his firing by NPR to send a bomb threat?

  5. 5.

    Linda Featheringill

    October 27, 2010 at 8:14 am

    Oh, my. So much irony, sarcasm, snark, etc. so early in the morning.

    Let’s see. NPR and threats. That is silly. There should be threats against CNN because three-quarters of their talking heads are still there.

    Or against Yahoo News because anyone is still there.

    Or against WaPo because 90% of their pundits are still there.

    Or against NYT because their political reporting has degenerated to promulgating propaganda.

    Bombing NPR is silly. Why don’t you just not watch it any more?

  6. 6.

    Linda Featheringill

    October 27, 2010 at 8:16 am

    @vtr:

    Can anyone explain to me why anyone would genuinely care enough about his firing by NPR to send a bomb threat?

    I wonder if it has anything to do with Mr. Williams. Perhaps it has something to do with NPR being placed on a list of acceptable targets.

    Are you familiar with the old English principle of “outlaw”?

  7. 7.

    Paris

    October 27, 2010 at 8:19 am

    If PBS is racist then shouldn’t Juan have quit in protest instead of whine that he lost his lower paying job and got a raise?

  8. 8.

    EndOfTheWorld

    October 27, 2010 at 8:22 am

    A friend who works the phones at Chicago public radio has had to field more than a couple death threats. Such wonderful people, these teabaggers. Faith, Hope, and Charity, everyone!

  9. 9.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    October 27, 2010 at 8:23 am

    The right basically owns the airwaves and they won’t be happy until they absolutely control them.

    Ok, even then they won’t be happy but that’s just the way they are wired.

  10. 10.

    Gromit

    October 27, 2010 at 8:25 am

    On “The Talk of the Nation”, one caller sounded like she was going to bust into tears over NPR’s treatment of Williams. I don’t get it either. I never cared for him as host and cared for him even less as a commentator, and I actually still like NPR, which I realize is somewhat out of fashion these days.

  11. 11.

    Winston Smith

    October 27, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Everyone at NPR should be thrown to the ground so Republican staffers can stomp on their heads.

  12. 12.

    Suffern Ace

    October 27, 2010 at 8:47 am

    @Odie Hugh Manatee: I’m thinking that’s about it. Remind the masses right before the election that “poltically correct” liberalism will criminalise the truth while damaging a competitive news source. It does bother me a bit since I’m pretty certain that certain elected Dems will fall over themselves in November to be shown as “tough on NPR”, just like they did over ACORN.

  13. 13.

    valdemar

    October 27, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Sounds like NPR is the US equivalent of the BBC in Britain, more or less. It’s the media organisation the right-wing corporate media love to hate, because it keeps deviating (often very tentatively) from the biased and sometimes downright crazy narrative these ‘proper’ journalists stick to.

  14. 14.

    cleek

    October 27, 2010 at 8:59 am

    @Linda Featheringill:
    this.

    wingnuts gotta hate, and NPR happened to wander into their line of sight.

  15. 15.

    El Cid

    October 27, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Many times FAIR does indeed over-reach, or rather seem to be forced into emphasizing fairly minor conclusions given that a study was launched.

    However, it’s not all nonsense. Moving beyond questions of the diversity of the ethnicity and gender of guests invited on PBS’ NewsHour, the party affiliation of invited guests versus the time on screen, and, for those who think it not significant due to the nature of powerful decisionmakers, the corporate or high government spokesperson commentators — this isn’t about NPR — there are a few interesting conclusions.

    On segments focusing on the Afghan War, though polls show consistent majorities of Americans have opposed the war for more than a year, not a single NewsHour guest represented an antiwar group or expressed antiwar views. Similarly, no representative of a human rights or humanitarian organization appeared on the NewsHour during the study period.

    Let’s say that that’s correct. That seems very much absurd to me, although there is this ridiculous convention in journalism & news broadcasting that the host’s tough questions makes up for the lack of such dissenting backgrounds of guests.

    That is certainly entirely normal and mainstream, but it’s one of the reasons I am rarely interested in watching the program, since I can certainly get better coverage elsewhere. On the other hand, in form and in time spent, I know why people prefer to watch that show than the quick cut, shouty news broadcasts from the big 3 or CNN etc.

    Other criticisms reflect concerns that FAIR would emphasize, and from their point of view should, but would not be that concerning to those considering their model to be major news broadcasting. There are reasons to prefer a more ‘diverse’ set of journalists and analysts to interview than just those from the largest corporate publications and broadcast shows — I know that I look for such perspectives, though not exclusively. I don’t watch it enough to have any opinions about the ethnic or other personal backgrounds of hosts or analysts or other staff.

    I agree with PBS questioning the methodology of arriving at who spoke which soundbites and the lack of a diversity of backgrounds on various shows. NewsHour challenges FAIR directly on the diversity of its hosts and correspondents regarding their personal backgrounds, quite convincingly.

    On the other hand, I agree that having on the powerful and significant government and corporate leaders and voices from the largest publications fails to present the entire spectrum of worthy analysis (i.e., ‘both sides’), particularly those challenging the mainstream consensus, and I would not agree with the suggestion that the hosts question these sources diligently and boldly.

    For better or worse, that’s what I think the most significant criticism would be for NewsHour.

    Ombudsman Getler agrees with this point.

    I do, however, think that the PBS programming focused on by FAIR does have a diversity issue–one that is also covered in the FAIR report and which I have also referred to in earlier columns. It is the rather narrow band of commentary and analysis that is presented on these programs. I have made the point in previous columns that public affairs programming seems to operate within a rather safe comfort zone that straddles the center. Certainly that has its place, but there are huge disparities of opinion in this country about everything from the war in Afghanistan to the public option in health care and the strongest voices are not heard very often.
    __
    That’s where the loss of Bill Moyers Journal and NOW with David Brancaccio come in, especially Moyers. Moyers had devoted fans and critics but whatever one thinks of him, he allowed the airing of important, intelligent and provocative views that rarely found a voice elsewhere on television.
    __
    So, here’s my quick review of the programs and the issue. I think PBS can still do better on the diversity front and that everybody will be better off, especially the viewers, if this is done properly. As a viewer, I would not have ranked the race/ethnicity/gender part of that as an obvious problem, but the FAIR analysis is a good reminder and renewable challenge, especially about the need for more public interest guests.

  16. 16.

    El Tiburon

    October 27, 2010 at 9:30 am

    I hereby nominate this post for Dud of the Day.

    Also, how dare FAIR use analysis and facts and observations to point how skewed our media, including the so-called liberal PBS and NPR is towards whitey.

    Doesn’t FAIR understand they should respect how it is and STFU? And that itnis the black man’s fault he is not white?

  17. 17.

    mistermix

    October 27, 2010 at 9:44 am

    @El Cid: Take a solid look at that PDF I linked and tell me that the same (good) points that you make couldn’t be made with more economy of expression and at less overall expense.

    @El Tiburon: And how dare PBS challenge the apparently laughably faulty method FAIR uses to count white vs black heads on the News Hour? PBS should just bow down to the obvious rightness and goodness of FAIR instead of dealing in facts and data.

  18. 18.

    beergoggles

    October 27, 2010 at 9:57 am

    I’m sorry, my poutrage at NPR has been maxed out. Once they provide Tony Perkins a platform to spew his bile, I can’t be bothered with them anymore.

  19. 19.

    El Tiburon

    October 27, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    @mistermix:

    PBS should just bow down to the obvious rightness and goodness of FAIR instead of dealing in facts and data.

    Perhaps you know very little about FAIR, I don’t know. But yes, I would trust by the power of a 100 anything FAIR reports to what PBS reports. I certainly don’t have the time and desire to read a 16-page pdf file of this study, but I will bet you dollars to donuts FAIR is a lot more correct in their assessment than PBS is in their retorts.

    And this:
    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4186

  20. 20.

    ThresherK

    October 27, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    I most recently heard the NPR ombud around Labor Day, on a local show (WNPR, CT). She all but said that NPR’s product is straight down the middle but is perceived as too liberal. (Note that this program was well before l’affaire JW, and didn’t include a single comment on him.)

    Left unasked, and unanswered, is how NPR can change right-wingers’ perception of it without further debasing its output to even-more entrenched Beltway Inbred goodness, where everybody from Americans for Prosperity all the way over to “Even the liberal ‘New Republic’ ” never drops off the Rolodex.

    Now, low-information consumers of low-information media are tuning in NPR for the first time, to destroy it, and NPR wants to know how to make them happy.

    Hey, just put a mic in front of a TV tuned to Fox News.

  21. 21.

    Pongo

    October 27, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    Obviously, this is what one would expect from the idiocracy of the right. However, NPR has not distinguished themselves in this debacle, either. When their president suggests at a televised press conference that the issues of the guy they just fired are ‘between him and his psychiatris’ that is going way over the line. It was petty and unprofessional and if we are going to point out when Fox misbehaves, it is only right to apply the same standard to other news organizations. I was disgusted with her for sinking to Fox-style mudslinging. Who knows, maybe she is auditioning for cushy Fox contract, as well?

  22. 22.

    Keith G

    October 28, 2010 at 7:34 am

    This is a test

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • brantl on Repub Enablement Open Thread: The NYTimes Has *CONCERNS* (Apr 1, 2023 @ 2:08pm)
  • Rudi666 on Repub Enablement Open Thread: The NYTimes Has *CONCERNS* (Apr 1, 2023 @ 2:08pm)
  • Another Scott on Repub Enablement Open Thread: The NYTimes Has *CONCERNS* (Apr 1, 2023 @ 2:08pm)
  • Jim, Foolish Literalist on Repub Enablement Open Thread: The NYTimes Has *CONCERNS* (Apr 1, 2023 @ 2:03pm)
  • brantl on Repub Enablement Open Thread: The NYTimes Has *CONCERNS* (Apr 1, 2023 @ 2:02pm)

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Seattle Meetup coming up on April 4!

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!