PDA

View Full Version : Tim Ryan D- OH Introduces H.R. 4189



txradioguy
04-06-2012, 06:20 AM
H.R.4189 - To require the Secretary of Defense to provide an annual certification that all programming on the American Forces Radio and Television Service represents the best-faith efforts by the Department of Defense to provide programming for members of the Armed Forces and their families that communicates the policies, priorities, programs, goals, and initiatives of the Department while avoiding airing programming that exhibits values contrary to the values of the Armed Forces and the United States.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h4189/show


The flap over Limbaugh’s presence on AFN is now attracting congressional attention, with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, saying he thinks Limbaugh doesn’t belong on the military radio network.

In addition, Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, has introduced legislation advocating decency standards for AFN radio and television broadcasts that would prevent the airing of programs that “exhibit values contrary to the values of the Armed Forces and the United States.”

Levin told reporters that he would not personally demand the Defense Department cancel Limbaugh’s radio show, but “I would love to see them drop it.”

Ryan’s bill, introduced Thursday, would require annual certification by the Defense Department that shows broadcast on the military’s radio and television networks support policies, goals and initiatives of the military without exhibiting negative values. Ryan said he was not proposing censorship, but wanted “common sense and decency” applied to programming decisions.

His bill, HR 4189, was referred to the House Armed Services Committee for consideration, where it could be offered as an amendment to the 2013 defense authorization bill that the committee will pass later this year.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/03/military-rush-limbaugh-petition-armed-forces-network-030912w/

Bailey
04-06-2012, 08:31 AM
They cant kick him off the air by boycotts or petitions etc so they now must use the Congress to rid themselves of him. lol what assholes

Apocalypse
04-06-2012, 08:44 AM
Its nothing more then a political stunt. He knows it will never pass the House.

If the GOP in the house votes it down. He and his dims run out and proclaim the GOP doesn't care about "Values important to the Military."

txradioguy
04-06-2012, 02:40 PM
My question is...if they manage to get Rush off...does that mean that NPR and Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann get the axe too?

What about the entire line up of MSNBC?

txradioguy
04-07-2012, 06:02 AM
Its nothing more then a political stunt. He knows it will never pass the House.

If the GOP in the house votes it down. He and his dims run out and proclaim the GOP doesn't care about "Values important to the Military."

Exactly...it continues their stupid "GOP has a declared a war on women" meme and claim they support Rush more than they support the troops.

txradioguy
04-09-2012, 01:24 PM
which pundits on the left does AFN broadcast?



TV:

Matthews (both shows)

Maddow

O'Donnell

Blitzer

David Gregory

Bob Scheffer

George Stephanapolis

MSNBC Live (Thomas Roberts)

Ed Schultz

Ellen Degeneres

Jon Stewart

Stephen Colbert

The View

Piers Morgan

60 Minutes

The Daily Run Down (Chuck Todd)

Tavis Smiley

Anderson Cooper


Radio:

NPR (Morning Edition and All Things Considered)

AP Radio News

Ed Schultz

Thom Hartmann

Mike Malloy

Bill Press

Stephanie Miller

Randi Rhodes

Alan Colmes

Joe Madison

Bev Smith

noonwitch
04-10-2012, 08:47 AM
which pundits on the left does AFN broadcast?



TV:

Matthews (both shows)

Maddow

O'Donnell

Blitzer

David Gregory

Bob Scheffer

George Stephanapolis

MSNBC Live (Thomas Roberts)

Ed Schultz

Ellen Degeneres

Jon Stewart

Stephen Colbert

The View

Piers Morgan

60 Minutes

The Daily Run Down (Chuck Todd)

Tavis Smiley

Anderson Cooper


Radio:

NPR (Morning Edition and All Things Considered)

AP Radio News

Ed Schultz

Thom Hartmann

Mike Malloy

Bill Press

Stephanie Miller

Randi Rhodes

Alan Colmes

Joe Madison

Bev Smith


If they get rid of Rush, they have to get rid of Randi Rhodes-I've heard enough about her to know that she is just as obnoxious and tasteless as Rush is. I don't listen to or watch most of those listed, except Jon Stewart and sometimes Stephen Colbert.

txradioguy
04-10-2012, 08:54 AM
If they get rid of Rush, they have to get rid of Randi Rhodes-I've heard enough about her to know that she is just as obnoxious and tasteless as Rush is. I don't listen to or watch most of those listed, except Jon Stewart and sometimes Stephen Colbert.

But you know as well as I do that they won't. Mike Malloy makes Rhodes look like a saint.

LOL! Rush tasteless? :rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
04-10-2012, 09:03 AM
If they get rid of Rush, they have to get rid of Randi Rhodes-I've heard enough about her to know that she is just as obnoxious and tasteless as Rush is. I don't listen to or watch most of those listed, except Jon Stewart and sometimes Stephen Colbert.

The two NPR shows, Morning Edition and All Things Considered, are straight news. They have some commentary like on Friday with E.J. Dionne and David Brooks but it is presented as commentary, not news.

The others, like Shultz and Maddow, are factish infotainment like Rush. They just use a different schtick.

txradioguy
04-10-2012, 09:41 AM
The two NPR shows, Morning Edition and All Things Considered, are straight news.

Thank you for showing us you have no cluse as to what "straight new" really is. I've listened to both. They are as left in their "reporting" of news as the rest of the majot netowrks.

If what the way they report is "straight" news to you...then you are farther to the left in your daily worldview than you realize or will admit to.


They have some commentary like on Friday with E.J. Dionne and David Brooks but it is presented as commentary, not news.

Both shows are nothing but commentary.

But hey...what do I know about news and the media right?



The others, like Shultz and Maddow, are factish infotainment like Rush. They just use a different schtick.

The preceeding talking point was approved for regurgitation by Media Matters for America.

:rolleyes:

Odysseus
04-10-2012, 09:42 AM
The two NPR shows, Morning Edition and All Things Considered, are straight news. They have some commentary like on Friday with E.J. Dionne and David Brooks but it is presented as commentary, not news.

The others, like Shultz and Maddow, are factish infotainment like Rush. They just use a different schtick.

All Things Considered is hardly straight news. It's one of NPR's most biased programs. Here are some examples of that bias, courtesy of Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/media-topics/radio/npr/all-things-considered):


All Things ConsideredNPR Touts Leftist Campaign Against 'Hardline Conservative Policies' (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/04/05/npr-touts-leftist-campaign-against-hardline-conservative-policies)By Matthew Balan (http://newsbusters.org/bios/matthew-balan.html) | April 05, 2012 | 19:00
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumb_100x72/thumbnail_photos/2012/April/Peter_Overby_Cap.jpg (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/04/05/npr-touts-leftist-campaign-against-hardline-conservative-policies)


On Thursday's Morning Edition, NPR's Peter Overby slanted towards a left-wing coalition targeting the conservative group ALEC. Overby trumpeted how Coke and Pepsi succumbed to pressure from the "campaign to put a spotlight on companies that sell products to a public that might object to hardline conservative policies, such as 'stand your ground' laws or requirements that voters show a photo I.D."

The correspondent featured representatives from two of the groups in the coalition- ColorOfChange and Common Cause- and labeled them as a "civil rights group" and a "good government group" respectively. He also made only one passing reference to their political ideology- that they were part of "progressive groups and shareholder activists."


NPR Skipped Massive March for Life, But Publicized a Dozen Protesters of Marco Rubio (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/03/08/npr-skipped-massive-march-life-publicized-dozen-protesters-marco-rubio)By Tim Graham (http://newsbusters.org/bios/tim-graham.html) | March 08, 2012 | 08:09
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumb_100x72/thumbnail_photos/2012/March/rubio2.jpg (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/03/08/npr-skipped-massive-march-life-publicized-dozen-protesters-marco-rubio)


NPR’s Morning Edition and All Things Considered newscasts skipped covering tens of thousands protesting abortion in the “March for Life” in January, but on Wednesday night, NPR highlighted a dozen protesters of Sen. Marco Rubio, including illegal aliens.

Reporter Greg Allen began: “In Miami, a dozen young Hispanic men and women gathered outside Senator Rubio's office last week to send a message” that Rubio was "Tea Partino," not Latino:


NPR Touts Left-Leaning Group's Poll on Controversial ObamaCare Mandate (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/03/02/npr-touts-poll-left-leaning-group-controversial-obamacare-mandate)By Matthew Balan (http://newsbusters.org/bios/matthew-balan.html) | March 02, 2012 | 19:39
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumb_100x72/thumbnail_photos/2012/March/0226_healthcare_rovner3.jpg (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/03/02/npr-touts-poll-left-leaning-group-controversial-obamacare-mandate)


On Thursday's All Things Considered, Julie Rovner, NPR's resident ObamaCare flack, claimed that the U.S. Senate rejecting an amendment protecting religious liberty was "closer than the 63 percent majority that supports the contraceptive coverage requirement" from the federal government, according to the poll from the liberal Kaiser Family Foundation. The organization is an oft-used source for Rovner.

The group obtained the 63 percent figure by asking a question (http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8281-C.pdf) that omits the religious liberty component to the firestorm: "In general, do you support or oppose the new federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the cost of birth control?" A Pew Research Poll (http://www.people-press.org/2012/02/14/public-divided-over-birth-control-insurance-mandate/) from mid-February included that issue, and found that 48 percent supported an exemption for religious groups, versus 44 percent in support of the mandate.


Unbelievable: NPR Cites Planned Parenthood's Poll But Omits Its Name On-Air (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/02/08/unbelievable-npr-cites-planned-parenthoods-poll-omits-its-name-air)By Matthew Balan (http://newsbusters.org/bios/matthew-balan.html) | February 08, 2012 | 14:36
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumb_100x72/thumbnail_photos/2012/February/horsley.jpg (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/02/08/unbelievable-npr-cites-planned-parenthoods-poll-omits-its-name-air)


On Tuesday, NPR somehow thought a poll commissioned by abortion behemoth Planned Parenthood on the controversy over an ObamaCare birth control mandate was newsworthy enough to play up on its website (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/02/07/npr-touts-planned-parenthood-commissioned-poll-contraception-mandate). But later in the day, on All Things Considered, a show that reaches millions in the U.S., the media outlet spotlighted how the "new polling...suggests most voters, including Catholics, support the measure."

Correspondent Scott Horsley noted the "survey released today by Public Policy Polling," but completely failed to mention Planned Parenthood's name during his report (http://pd.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/atc/2012/02/20120207_atc_12.mp3?dl=1). Horsley also highlighted a disturbing strategy from the pro-mandate camp without: "Supporters of the new policy are belatedly trying to refocus attention in a more popular direction, away from religious freedom and towards women's health care."


NPR Plays Dumb: 'Nothing Terribly Ideological' About Saul Alinsky (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/01/31/npr-plays-dumb-nothing-terribly-ideological-about-saul-alinsky)By Tim Graham (http://newsbusters.org/bios/tim-graham.html) | January 31, 2012 | 15:06
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumb_100x72/thumbnail_photos/2012/January/saul.jpg (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/01/31/npr-plays-dumb-nothing-terribly-ideological-about-saul-alinsky)


People at National Public Radio boast about themselves as a network for the smart people. So why must they try to tell smart people that a man who writes a book called “Rules for Radicals” offered “nothing terribly ideological” in his activism?

In an attempt to "correct" Newt Gingrich on Monday night’s All Things Considered newscast, NPR correspondent Ina Jaffe became merely the latest in a line of liberal-media specialists in selling the Opposite of Reality: that Alinsky wasn’t a leftist, and that besides, the conservatives are the ones using Alinsky’s radical rules:


Scott Pelley's Obvious A.M. Error: Claims Florida's First High-Unemployment Primary State (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/01/31/scott-pelleys-obvious-am-error-claims-floridas-first-high-unemploymen)By Matthew Balan (http://newsbusters.org/bios/matthew-balan.html) | January 31, 2012 | 14:50
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumb_100x72/thumbnail_photos/2012/January/2012-01-31-CBS-PelleyCap.jpg (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/01/31/scott-pelleys-obvious-am-error-claims-floridas-first-high-unemploymen)


Scott Pelley simply got it wrong on Tuesday's CBS This Morning, when he claimed that the Republican presidential candidates "have finally arrived in a state that was very hard hit by the great recession and has been suffering for a very long time. The unemployment rate here is about 10%." In reality, South Carolina, the state that held the last GOP primary, has about the same unemployment rate, at 9.9% [audio available here (http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012-01-31-CBS-CTM-Pelley.mp3); video below the jump].

Two weeks earlier, on the January 17 edition of his CBS Evening News program, Pelley introduced a segment with John Dickerson, who was in the Palmetto State, which referenced the national unemployment rate. But neither on-air personality mentioned the specific unemployment rate inside the state:




Read more: http://newsbusters.org/media-topics/radio/npr/all-things-considered#ixzz1re2JUBSX

Arroyo_Doble
04-10-2012, 10:06 AM
All Things Considered is hardly straight news. It's one of NPR's most biased programs. Here are some examples of that bias, courtesy of Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/media-topics/radio/npr/all-things-considered):

Your link is broke.

Also, newsbusters is not an objective source for information. If you accept them, you must also accept Media Matters.

Do you?

txradioguy
04-10-2012, 10:49 AM
Your link is broke.

Also, newsbusters is not an objective source for information. If you accept them, you must also accept Media Matters.

Do you?

Umm no that premsie doesn't work Annoyo. MMfA has openly stated they exist to bring down and terrorize news outlets that don't agree with the Liberal agenda.

Where has Brent Bozell's organization ever made a statement like that.

Your idiot thory is akin to saying if you accept Fox News you must accept Al-Jezeera English.

So I ask...do you?

Odysseus
04-10-2012, 11:14 AM
Your link is broke.

Also, newsbusters is not an objective source for information. If you accept them, you must also accept Media Matters.

Do you?

Nope. Txradioguy nailed the logic before I had a chance to. However, you can click on each of the headings to read the stories for yourself and weigh the arguments. When Wei introduced a series of Media Matters articles to buttress his claim that Fox had fabricated news stories the way that NBC has, it took a few minutes to read each one and point out that MMFA was falsifying data in the articles in order to make the claims. This is why I can state that MMFA is a bogus source. Now, if you can point out that those articles contain false premises, then we will have grounds for discussion. If not, you can admit that they are accurate. I await your reply.


Umm no that premsie doesn't work Annoyo. MMfA has openly stated they exist to bring down and terrorize news outlets that don't agree with the Liberal agenda.

Where has Brent Bozell's organization ever made a statement like that.

Your idiot thory is akin to saying if you accept Fox News you must accept Al-Jezeera English.

So I ask...do you?

As a former tanker, allow me to say, "Target, cease fire. Target destroyed."

Arroyo_Doble
04-10-2012, 01:59 PM
Nope. Txradioguy nailed the logic before I had a chance to.

That doesn't sound like Txradioguy to me.


However, you can click on each of the headings to read the stories for yourself and weigh the arguments. When Wei introduced a series of Media Matters articles to buttress his claim that Fox had fabricated news stories the way that NBC has, it took a few minutes to read each one and point out that MMFA was falsifying data in the articles in order to make the claims. This is why I can state that MMFA is a bogus source. Now, if you can point out that those articles contain false premises, then we will have grounds for discussion. If not, you can admit that they are accurate. I await your reply.

OK.

The first one is generic pissing and moaning that the two shows didn't cover a story the author of the piece wanted them to cover. NPR has covered the issue before, though. Even this year just not on those two shows. It sounds like the DU guys who were upset that the Tea Party rallies were getting so much attention when they weren't drawing big crowds.

As far as his unbelievably biased reporting on the report itself, meh. He just seems upset that the reporters weren't fellating Rubio. This bit was interesting, though:


ALLEN: Rubio’s rising national profile has helped make him a target of attacks from the White House. Most recently, he took heat from the administration for backing an amendment introduced by Missouri Republican Senator Roy Blunt that would allow religious groups to opt out of providing birth control coverage. The White House labeled it the Blunt-Rubio amendment even though Rubio was one of just 23 cosponsors.


You would think if NPR was going to act a tool in the toolkit of the author's political opponents (real or perceived), they wouldn't have so effectively shot down the "Blunt-Rubio" meme from the White House.

On the second one, it was hard to take seriously after reading "On Thursday's All Things Considered, Julie Rovner, NPR's resident ObamaCare flack ..." but I tried. Never mind the irony in a hack calling someone else a hack, it pretty much sets the tone that it is an opinion piece and any facts (real or imagined) will not be analyzed with anything remotely like objectivity.

But hey, let's go:


Host Robert Siegel set the tone with a slanted introduction for Rovner's report: "The Senate has defeated narrowly an effort to roll back President Obama's policy requiring most insurers to offer no-cost contraceptives. Republicans have been arguing the issue is a matter religious freedom.
But as NPR's Julie Rovner reports, they were narrowly trumped by those arguing in favor of women's health."


That is not slanted. Unless you are going to argue that the Republicans have not been addressing the issue as a matter of religious freedom and the Democrats haven't been addressing the issue as a matter of women's health. If you are, I will bring quotes from Republicans and Democrats showing that to be the case. I see no need to go through the trouble unless you are challenging that position.


Later, Rovner gave more slanted language about the debate over the amendment, with supporting soundbites from liberal senators:


That is damn funny, there. There were also soundbites from conservative senators. Vitter and Hatch were represented (I know, he made that statement after he admits Hatch had a sound bite). I can only assume the author of the piece thinks it is liberal slant to allow liberals to speak.

Let me know if you want the quotes.

The third one is just a guy saying he doesn't like PPP as a polling organization. Cry me a river.

The other bit I did not understand. He is upset that during the show, Planned Parenthood isn't mentioned (I could not listen to his link ... I will assume it is accurate) even though it is on their website; complete with a link to Planned Parenthood with the poll. (http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146547418/poll-many-catholics-support-birth-control-coverage)

If they are trying to hide it, they are doing it wrong.

The Alinsky thing is a rightwing shibboleth. I am not even going to bother with that one.

The last one is newsbusters using NPR reporting to slam some guy from CBS. I guess they weren't lefty shills in that one instance.


That site is a fucking joke. It is affirmation for propaganda eaters. Fill yourself up. I see no difference between that and Media Matters. I will disregard them both.

txradioguy
04-10-2012, 02:29 PM
That doesn't sound like Txradioguy to me.



And yet with all your alleged superior smartness...you can't refute one thing I say. Instead you toss out some lame snark as if that will cover the fact you're floudering desperately on this.

You're up against a subject matter expert on this fanboy...and you've brought a knife to a gunfight. And a dull knife at that.

Again...let me ask you...following your line of "logic"...if you believe what al-Jezeera English/NPR/CNN/ says you have to accept what Fox News says as well.

So do you?

Odysseus
04-10-2012, 03:20 PM
That doesn't sound like Txradioguy to me.

See above.


That site is a fucking joke. It is affirmation for propaganda eaters. Fill yourself up. I see no difference between that and Media Matters. I will disregard them both.

Okay, then how about NPR's hiring of Abu Mumia Jamal, a convicted cop-killer, to provide commentary on ATC? Or their retention of Andrei Codescru after his stated desire, on the air, to see four million Christians "evaporate", followed by their firing of Juan Williams for far less inflammatory comments about being afraid of Islamic terrorists? For that matter, NPR's coverage of Israel and the Middle East has earned it the nickname National Palestinian Radio. Their Israel correspondent, Sheera Frenkel, rivals Julius Streicher for vitriolic propaganda. She has accused Israel of fomenting ethnic cleansing against Israeli Arabs (http://m.npr.org/news/front/142186667?textSize=small), blamed Israel for deteriorating relations with Turkey (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127413105) (while omitting Ergodan's lauditory comments towards Hamas and and repeated slurs that blamed Jews for the Mumbai massacre in her reporting for other outlets (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=1562). Daniel Schorr, another old lefiist, referred to the Isreali blockade of Hamas as a "Blockade of hate", part of the overall biased reporting that NPR displays when covering Israel. CAMERA provides a number of comprehensive lists of NPR stories that include this bias at http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=28&x_article=1772, http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/camera?domains=camera.org&sitesearch=camera.org&q=NPR, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=1864 and http://blog.camera.org/archives/2012/03/nprs_on_point_unfair_to_israel_1.html. Maybe whitewashing terrorism and blaming the victim doesn't strike you as bias.

Arroyo_Doble
04-10-2012, 05:08 PM
See above.

I like that you support your bootlick. It's nice.


Okay, then how about NPR's hiring of Abu Mumia Jamal, a convicted cop-killer, to provide commentary on ATC?

Had to dig a couple of decades almost to get that one. Did you ever hear one of his commentaries? Did they air on ATC? I bet something called the Prison Radio Project might have more than one criminal being used.

For my part, I have "serious misgivings about the appropriateness of using as a commentator a convicted murderer seeking a new trial, particularly since [NPR] had not arranged for other commentaries or coverage."


Or their retention of Andrei Codescru after his stated desire, on the air, to see four million Christians "evaporate",

You still digging into last century? The guy is a poet/author/all around beat generation hippie. He does commentary and made a joke about the Rapture. He then apologized.

Really, at least newbusters gets their bias drink on with items from this millenium. Granted, they are not nearly the pearl clutching outrage of a French Quarter weirdo baggin' on some snake handlers, but hey, you work with what you've got, I suppose.


followed by their firing of Juan Williams for far less inflammatory comments about being afraid of Islamic terrorists?

Rupert's pet liberal got a boo-boo. How sad.


For that matter, NPR's coverage of Israel and the Middle East has earned it the nickname National Palestinian Radio.

Sure. By right wing propagandists who live in fear of objectivity when it comes to the State of Israel (they don't mind trashing our president though .... heaven help you if you say a cross word about Bibi).

Seriously, the Washington Times? Pajama Media? What's next, the Walrus?


Their Israel correspondent, Sheera Frenkel, rivals Julius Streicher for vitriolic propaganda. She has accused Israel of fomenting ethnic cleansing against Israeli Arabs (http://m.npr.org/news/front/142186667?textSize=small),

Not in that report.

Or are you arguing that Israeli Arabs shouldn't be allowed to state an opinion?

BTW, does Bemuna allow Muslims in their communities? I am curious if they do discriminate based on religion and if the state of Israel allows such discrimination.


blamed Israel for deteriorating relations with Turkey (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127413105) (while omitting Ergodan's lauditory comments towards Hamas and

Not in that report.

BTW, Turkey was upset about Israel offing its citizens. I understand that is a weird thing to some Americans but yea, you can get mad at Israel if they do something you don't like.


and repeated slurs that blamed Jews for the Mumbai massacre in her reporting for other outlets (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=1562).

Now you are outright making shit up .... well .... more so.


Daniel Schorr, another old lefiist, referred to the Isreali blockade of Hamas as a "Blockade of hate", part of the overall biased reporting that NPR displays when covering Israel.

Daniel Schorr is a liberal. He is a commentator. They make that clear. Or is this another one of those things where allowing liberals to speak makes an organization liberal?


CAMERA provides a number of comprehensive lists of NPR stories that include this bias at http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=28&x_article=1772, http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/camera?domains=camera.org&sitesearch=camera.org&q=NPR, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=1864 and http://blog.camera.org/archives/2012/03/nprs_on_point_unfair_to_israel_1.html.

I may go into that propaganda site later to check the list out but judging from the first one you linked, it's a joke and a waste of time .... except for those who like their bias stroked, of course. Then it's like porn.


Maybe whitewashing terrorism and blaming the victim doesn't strike you as bias.

Whatever. You are raving.

Odysseus
04-11-2012, 12:04 AM
I like that you support your bootlick. It's nice.

You're a bit crude this evening. Is it you time of the month?


Had to dig a couple of decades almost to get that one. Did you ever hear one of his commentaries? Did they air on ATC? I bet something called the Prison Radio Project might have more than one criminal being used.

For my part, I have "serious misgivings about the appropriateness of using as a commentator a convicted murderer seeking a new trial, particularly since [NPR] had not arranged for other commentaries or coverage."

How far to the left do you have to be to even consider hiring a convicted cop killer to be a commentator?


You still digging into last century? The guy is a poet/author/all around beat generation hippie. He does commentary and made a joke about the Rapture. He then apologized.

But kept his job. Juan Williams wasn't so fortunate.


Really, at least newbusters gets their bias drink on with items from this millenium. Granted, they are not nearly the pearl clutching outrage of a French Quarter weirdo baggin' on some snake handlers, but hey, you work with what you've got, I suppose.

They were biased in the 90s, they're biased now. Address the substance of the argument, if you can.


Rupert's pet liberal got a boo-boo. How sad.

He was fired for making a mild criticism of Islam, as opposed to the Christian-hating "poet/author/all around beat generation hippie" who kept his job. Double standard = bias.


Sure. By right wing propagandists who live in fear of objectivity when it comes to the State of Israel (they don't mind trashing our president though .... heaven help you if you say a cross word about Bibi).

Ooh! "right wing propagandists who live in fear of objectivity"? You're throwing out all of the pejoratives, but not really providing much in the way of substance. We have no problem with objectivity. NPR, however, does.


Seriously, the Washington Times? Pajama Media? What's next, the Walrus?

More snark. You should take something for those cramps.


Not in that report.

Or are you arguing that Israeli Arabs shouldn't be allowed to state an opinion?

Not at all. But it would have been nice if she'd bothered to do more than present hearsay. Did she even bother trying to find an Israeli official to interview, or would that have interfered with her narrative?


BTW, does Bemuna allow Muslims in their communities? I am curious if they do discriminate based on religion and if the state of Israel allows such discrimination.

Arabs who hold Israeli citizenship have the same rights as Jews. It's Hamas and the PA that insist on ethnically cleansing their enclaves (and any adjacent land, like, say, Tel Aviv). Funny how you speculate in order to find theoretical attitudes to criticize Israel for possibly having, but aren't concerned about actual policies that the Palestinians enforce in order to guarantee that their areas are Judenrein.


Not in that report.

BTW, Turkey was upset about Israel offing its citizens. I understand that is a weird thing to some Americans but yea, you can get mad at Israel if they do something you don't like.

Then it shouldn't have sent them to try to illegally enter another sovereign state. The flotilla had no legal right to force the blockade, and again, you're willfully ignoring the point, which is that the correspondent fails to mention that the flotilla's goal was to provide material support to Hamas, which the Turkish Prime Minister doesn't consider a terrorist group, but everybody else does. By omitting that key fact, the article simply blames Israel for the flotilla incidents. BTW, do you consider Hamas a terrorist group? Do you think that it's acceptable to supply them? Just wondering.


Now you are outright making shit up .... well .... more so.

Uh, no. Did you even bother clicking on the link? Of course not. Here's what you missed:


UPDATED: London Times Coverage of Mumbai Events Includes Anti-Semitic Remark

Updates I and II follow.

Dec. 4, 2008 – At the height of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, the Times of London published a brief item entitled "Rabbi's toddler son saved from hostage house." The short article by Jerusalem-based Sheera Frenkel, which dealt with the heroic rescue of toddler Moshe Holtzberg by his Indian nanny from a bloody scene in the besieged Chabad House and a prayer vigil for the hostages in the Israeli city of Afula, appeared in both the Times’ online edition (on Nov. 27) and in several print editions (on Nov. 28).
Incongruously, the last sentence of the article is a highly anti-Semitic remark by someone identified as T.K. Bhat who suggests that the besieged Jews in the Chabad House had brought their misfortune upon themselves:


T. K. Bhat, who lives close to the Chabad house, said: "It could be that the attitudes of the Chabad, which gives the sense of an elite club for Jews alone, is part of what provoked the terrorists to target them for the attack."

That Jews have provoked the antagonism of their attackers is a staple of anti-Semitic rhetoric. It is outrageous that a reputable newspaper such as the Times would allow such an offensive and illogical cliché to be added to a brief article about the rescue of a baby. (The absurdity of the comment is apparent: If the terrorists were from Pakistan, how could the attitudes of a local Jewish center in India provoke them?)

The article includes no other "interviews" with any onlookers and is clearly not part of a survey of Indian reaction to the unfolding events. Nor is it relevant to the rest of the article. Nor is it presented as a troubling indicator of anti-Semitic views towards the innocent victims. It is all the more puzzling and disturbing that this single quote was slipped in.

The article was bylined from Jerusalem, so the reporter could not have had access to T. K. Bhat, who was allegedly located near the Chabad House in Mumbai.

The questions that must be asked are:

1) Who (if anyone) recorded the anti-Semitic comment?

2) Who decided to insert it into the article?

3) What was his or her motive in doing so?

4) How did London Times editors allow it to remain?

CAMERA has requested that the editors remove the offensive sentence from the article. Stay tuned for updates.

Update I: Dec. 9, 2008

When did Sheera Frenkel, the article's author who is based in Israel, obtain this quote from the alleged Mumbai resident? Apparently she never did.

When questioned about this by CAMERA, the reporter responded that the quote was heard on an Israeli television station. In what context was this quote presented? Why did she not mention that this was a second or third-hand quote and explain the context in which it was made?

Also, in some editions of the article (in news databases), the anti-Semitic comment was preceded by an additional negative characterization of Israelis:


Tourism officials estimate that nearly 50,000 Israelis visit India each year. They are known for congregating in tight-knit communities, leading to gibes about an "Israeli invasion" and "colonialism"

Frenkel suggests that Israelis are somehow responsible (by travelling and hanging out together?) for anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli sentiment. The words "Israeli invasion" and "colonialism" are highly charged phrases that echo anti-Israel propaganda, but Frenkel provides no hint of who exactly is making these accusations. She follows this charge with the hate rhetoric by "T.K. Bhat."

That the newspaper allowed an article to close with a gratuitous anti-Semitic cliché is offensive and highly inappropriate enough. That editors ignored sloppy, unsourced journalism to present such a questionable slur only makes matters worse. Even more egregious is the editor’s refusal to redress the bad judgement by removing the quote.

I didn't make anything up, but your desperation is showing. Frenkel is NPR's Israel correspondent but writes antisemitic trash for the Times of London in her off time.


Daniel Schorr is a liberal. He is a commentator. They make that clear. Or is this another one of those things where allowing liberals to speak makes an organization liberal?

No, allowing a liberal to speak doesn't make them liberal. Firing a liberal for not speaking the way that they want him to makes them liberal fascists. Again, the Juan Williams firing was eloquent testimony to NPR's bias.

Odysseus
04-11-2012, 12:05 AM
I may go into that propaganda site later to check the list out but judging from the first one you linked, it's a joke and a waste of time .... except for those who like their bias stroked, of course. Then it's like porn.

Like porn? Really? The site in question, CAMERA, has a long history of fact-checking news reporting on the Middle East. They're up front about their positions, which makes them a propaganda site to you, but a far more honest broker to the rest of us. NPR is biased, but refuses to admit it. That dishonesty makes them far less trustworthy than the the sites that report on their flawed reporting. Meanwhile, you cling to NPR like a crack addict to his pipe, and then have the gall to object to the news sources that we read? Pot, the kettle is calling.


Whatever. You are raving.
No, I'm clearly expressing an opinion that you don't like, so you're resorting to your usual shtick. Pathetic, really, but I seem to have struck a few nerves. It can't be fun trying to present NPR as an objective news source, and the various contortions and evasions that you've indulged in seem to have put you out of sorts. Mrs. O recommends Mydol for your condition, although any over the counter pain killer and anti-inflammatory will do. Let me know when you're feeling less pre-menstrual, and are up to a more productive exchange.

txradioguy
04-11-2012, 02:38 AM
Like porn? Really? The site in question, CAMERA, has a long history of fact-checking news reporting on the Middle East. They're up front about their positions, which makes them a propaganda site to you, but a far more honest broker to the rest of us. NPR is biased, but refuses to admit it. That dishonesty makes them far less trustworthy than the the sites that report on their flawed reporting. Meanwhile, you cling to NPR like a crack addict to his pipe, and then have the gall to object to the news sources that we read? Pot, the kettle is calling.


No, I'm clearly expressing an opinion that you don't like, so you're resorting to your usual shtick. Pathetic, really, but I seem to have struck a few nerves. It can't be fun trying to present NPR as an objective news source, and the various contortions and evasions that you've indulged in seem to have put you out of sorts. Mrs. O recommends Mydol for your condition, although any over the counter pain killer and anti-inflammatory will do. Let me know when you're feeling less pre-menstrual, and are up to a more productive exchange.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or feel sorry for Annoyo when he flails so desperately in a corner that he and his superior "intellect" have painted himself into.

For those of you watching from the sidelines...take note...what you see Annoyo doing here is what every Liberal does when they are presented with facts that contradict their pre programmed emotional responses.

Odysseus
04-11-2012, 08:13 AM
I'm not sure whether to laugh or feel sorry for Annoyo when he flails so desperately in a corner that he and his superior "intellect" have painted himself into.

For those of you watching from the sidelines...take note...what you see Annoyo doing here is what every Liberal does when they are presented with facts that contradict their pre programmed emotional responses.

Yes, while claiming that everyone who disagrees with them is being emotional. It's an old liberal trick, to present opposing arguments as prejudice, emotion, fear or anything but reason, because it's easier to dismiss than to argue.

txradioguy
04-13-2012, 03:24 AM
Liberal radio host Thom Hartmann came unglued over Trayvon Martin on Wednesday, blaming his death on...the Koch brothers.

"A young man died," he declared. "A young man died a violent and unnecessary death because the Koch brothers and other right-wingers and large corporations in America decided that it would be a really cool idea if they got together and wrote laws that they would then give to mostly Republican legislators in state legislatures all across the country at meetings twice a year of the so-called American Legislative Exchange Council." He also blamed the NRA and Wal-Mart:


The so called stand your ground and shoot first laws, brought to you by the NRA and Wal-Mart, peddled to state legislators, Republican state legislators, by the American Legislative Exchange Council, ALEC, funded by the Koch brothers. That’s pretty amazing, when you see a fairly direct line from right-wing billionaires funding front groups that are actually writing our nation’s laws to a dead kid in Florida.


In the second hour of his program, he debated Alan Korwin of Gunlaws.com, and added some racial craziness: "The point is that white people in this country now feel [that] if they've got a gun now they've got the power to kill black people and not have to answer for it. They've felt that way for a long, long time, but these kind of laws put it on steroids."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/04/12/thom-hartmann-trayvon-killed-koch-brothers-nra-and-wal-mart


And yet Rush is the root of all evil and the reason AFN needs "decency standards".


Thom Hartmann is heard M-F on AFN Radio and the AFN Talknet channel on satellite decoders.

Stoic
04-13-2012, 02:09 PM
Everyone who's ever watched AFN for more than a few minutes knows that it's a joke. Seeing one AFN commercial is all it takes.

Honestly, we should be promoting turning the stupid box off. I haven't watched TV for years now. Best decision ever.