| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/21/2010 10:24:50 AM · #1 |
NPR fires Juan Williams
Do my tax dollars support NPR?
Pretty sad state of correctness. Maybe this is an example of NPR's "fairness" in "complete" reporting that I read about so much in the last election (2008). |
|
|
|
10/21/2010 10:45:23 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Do my tax dollars support NPR? |
Not very much -- NPR is mostly paid for by fees paid be member stations, which derive most of their funds from individual donations and some corporate/foundation grants. I believe only about 10% of funding comes from governement sources. |
|
|
|
10/21/2010 11:39:28 AM · #3 |
NPR has been leery of Williams since he started working over at Fox news. Given the difference in how the two organisations present the news and the difference in their journalistic ethos, I'm amazed he lasted that long. NPR said in a statement that Williams' comments were "inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR." NPR had previously expressed discomfort with Williams' appearances on the Fox News Channel."
Small hint Mr Williams, when you start a statement with "I mean, look, Bill, Iâm not a bigot...but" just shut your pie hole. You are about to say something you know you shouldn't. His comment about people in Muslim garb on airplanes was staggeringly stupid, just the sort of pandering Fox needs from it's house liberals to keep up its fair and balanced image. But really the stupidity he expressed should have gotten him fired from Fox as well. When has a terrorist ever dressed in Muslim grab to take over a plane? Ever? I've seen a few images of Muslim hijackers, and they all dressed as inconspicuously as possible. The 9-11 guys, the shoe bomber, the Nigerian guy all dressed in western clothing. If you going to be racist (and who isn't sometimes?) then at least don't be stupid about it.
The fact that Mrs.Palin, Mr. Huckabee et all are shocked that Mr Williams was fired just shows how little they know about journalism. You should be free of conflicts and have a keen analitic mind to be a journalist, of course those two aren't journalists, they are out of office politicians cashing in on TV, one trained as a weather girl, one trained as a TV preacher, so they never learned what journalism ought to be. There are boundaries, Mr Williams crossed one. |
|
|
|
10/21/2010 11:42:51 AM · #4 |
| I'm just guessing here, but I predict that -- unlike what I'd expect from Fox -- NPR will probably cover this story in reasonable depth, and from more than one perspective. |
|
|
|
10/21/2010 01:23:35 PM · #5 |
I'm a bit disappointed by NPR over this. It seems like an honest remark (if a bit stupid as Brennan points out). Are things so charged that saying something like that gets you the ax?
Probably there is more going on behind the scenes, but it doesn't look good for NPR. |
|
|
|
10/21/2010 01:42:00 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
10/21/2010 02:17:10 PM · #7 |
| There will be a discussion about this with the NPR Ombudsperson on the Talk Of The Nation program coming up shortly. Tune in to your local station or stream it online from many stations -- links at the NPR website. |
|
|
|
10/21/2010 02:45:42 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There will be a discussion about this with the NPR Ombudsperson on the Talk Of The Nation program coming up shortly. Tune in to your local station or stream it online from many stations -- links at the NPR website. |
So while I just said I'm disappointed, I give NPR kudos for this. Good on them for being willing to discuss it. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 02:37:37 PM · #9 |
These are not my words. They are lifted (copied) from a "comment" reply to an article on the NPR firing. I have not independently verified these claims - however this person in my view did a bit of digging. IF true, then NPR's 2% tax payer funding is disengenuious at best - especially in leiu of the tax breaks as a "non-profit". If NPR paid taxes like the other corporate news stations then they should be able to slant their coverage any way they like. The other element making the news is the timely contribution of George Soros' 1.8 million to hire 100 journalists at NPR.
"[⢠I think Fox is getting their numbers from NPRs media relations consultant. I spent 2 hours breaking the numbers down from NPR's website for a report I sent to my senator Mitch McConnell. Not yet sure who to send the report to at Fox so they can confirm my results and report the indirect federal funding that represents 79% of NPR's total revenue. (wait until you hear about the 25 million dollar Corporation for Public Broadcastings 25million dollar bailout that congress approved last year) I donât recall hearing anything in the media about it. next post I will post highlights of my findings. All from NPR's financial reporting page and their "political advocacy" page
I. Public Radio Stations that are members of National Public Radio (NPR)
âStations receive support from several sources - listener contributions, corporate sponsorship, in-kind and direct support from universities (for those licensed to a college or university), foundation grants and major gifts, grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and in some cases state and local governments. â
Note: Most of NPRâs revenue comes from Public Radio Station members that ARE directly funded by the federal government. Federal funds are indirectly paid to NPR by member stations.
Direct funding by Federal, State and Local Gov. 5.8%
Publically funded Universityâs 13.6%
Thatâs 29.5% of the total Public Radio Station revenue stream comes directly from government (5.8%). Indirect public funding by Universities (13.6%) and the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (10.1%).
All income for public radio is income tax exempt and âdonationsâ are tax deductible charitable contributions. If they were private companies, they would be required to pay 35% federal income tax on revenue.
âNPR, Inc. has received no direct operating support from the federal government since 1983. Roughly two percent of our annual operating budget is comprised of competitive grants awarded to NPR from federally funded organizations such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Federal government financial support for public radio is directed to public radio stations through annual appropriations to the CPB.â
Note: Corp. of Public Broadcasting (CPB) received 25million from congress in 2010 as a bailout. $25 million for CPB for âfiscal stabilization grants to public radio and television stations, which have experienced a downturn in revenues due to the recession that has resulted in job losses and reductions to local programming and services.â In addition, the conference report included language providing that âfiscal stabilization grants shall be awarded to public radio and television licensees no later than 45 days after enactment of this Act based on the guidance outlined in House Report 111-220.â
* CPB approx. 420 million per year in federal funding.
This information comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting website: financial disclosures. CPB is 100% federally funded and its purpose is to "launder" the federal funding so NPR can say they do not get DIRECT federal funding. They apply for "grants" from CPB and they are always granted of course.
⢠part 2 of 2:
⢠II. National Public Radioâs Sources of Revenue
âNPR's revenue comes primarily from fees paid by our member stations, contributions from corporate sponsors, institutional foundation grants, gifts from major donors, and fees paid by users of The Public Radio Satellite System. We receive no direct federal funding for operations. The largest share of NPR's revenue comes from program fees and station dues paid by member stations that broadcast NPR programs. â
Note: this is true, they receive direct funding by entities that ARE Federally funded. Misleading but technically/legally correct.
âProgram fees and dues paid by our member stations are the largest portion of NPR's revenue.â (approx. 79% of total revenue). âThis includes fees paid to air the NPR newsmagazines, other programming we produce and distribute, and annual member dues.â
NPR funding continued: (sorry cant post URL to view this information because moderator has to approve comments with URLs to prevent spam advertisers. This information is available on the NPR website. Go to About NPR link at the bottom of the page, then click on sources of funding link.) continued from the last post.
a. Programing Fees 40%:
âNPR's revenue comes primarily from fees paid by our member stations, contributions from corporate sponsors, institutional foundation grants, gifts from major donors, and fees paid by users of The Public Radio Satellite System. We receive no direct federal funding for operations. The largest share of NPR's revenue comes from program fees and station dues paid by member stations that broadcast NPR programs.â
Note: The Public Radio Satellite System is 100% publically funded by the US gov. NPR operates the system and collects 40% of its revenue from the PRSS. Again, its indirect public financing.
i. Annual member dues make up 3% of total Programming Fees :
âAnnual member dues make up the balance of program fees and dues, contributing about 3% of the total program fee and dues; this is set at a flat rate.â
âPayment of dues entitles stations to be represented by NPR before Congress and regulators, and extends to them rights to NPR programming, digital distribution, and other services.â
Note: NPRâs Political Action Committee to lobby congress for federal funding of member stations.
b. Annual Member Dues 1%:
Note: Indirectly Federally funded income
⢠Dues are paid by the publically funded member stations.
c. Distribution Services 8%:
âNPR's Distribution Division operates the Public Radio Satellite System. They collect revenue from stations and producers that use its platform for broadcast distribution, (nearly every organization in the public radio community). In addition, the PRSS offers excess capacity to both public radio and non-public radio users for private networks to keep the cost of distribution as low as possible.â
Note: Indirectly Federally funded income
⢠Revenue from Distro. services comes from Federally funded public radio community.
⢠NPRâs Distro. Services income is tax exempt due to its non profit status.
d. Grants & Contributions 10%, NPR Foundation Support 2%, NPR Foundation Endowment Distributions 5%, and Investment Income 4%:
Indirect federal support; charitable contributions are tax deductible charitable contributions by the âdonorâ.
Note: Indirectly Federally funded income
⢠NPRâs nonprofit status means income from Investments and income received by both NPR foundations are tax free.
e. Other Revenues 4%:
âOther revenues include facility rental income, NPR-branded consumer products, and license fees.â
Note: Indirectly Federally funded income
⢠NPR does not have to pay income taxes on this revenue.
NPR and its non profit status:
"NPR, Inc and NPR Foundation are 501c (3) organizations and are each required to file Form 990. In addition to the Forms 990, NPR and NPR Foundation are each required to file form 990T to report unrelated business income. "
This means donations to NPR are tax deductible and NPR does not have to pay income taxes on its income. This represents a huge portion of their revenue, much more than is being reported, but I havenât spent the time to determine what its tax rates would be if it were a private company. Remember, all donations to NPR are charitable tax donations that everyone can used to reduce their adjusted gross income. This is indirect public funding.
⢠From NPR's Advocacy page: Again they claim they receive only 1 or 2 % of direct federal funding. They have a PAC and lobbies congress for additional funding each year.
"Why is advocacy important for NPR?
âWith the tremendous growth of digital services, public radio's mission now extends beyond radio to all digital platforms. As Congress moves to change policies impacting digital regulation, royalties, rights and privacy, NPR's role is to advise Congress and regulatory entities to preserve our public service mission and ensure that public radio content remains both free and universally available to the American public. â
âPublic radio is periodically threatened with the loss of all or some federal funding. Such cuts would be particularly harmful to the hundreds of stations that serve rural and minority communities as these stations receive higher levels of funding from CPB. Fortunately, every time cuts have been on the horizon, the public has stepped forward and voiced support for the programming and services stations provide.
We need you to get involved!
Congress listens and responds to the simple, effective actions of citizens who take the time to communicate with them. When thousands of public radio supporters speak out, the message is clear: Support public radio. Your help on policy and funding issues throughout the year enables public radio stations across the country to strengthen their service to you and your community. Please continue to help us serve you by declaring "WE SUPPORT PUBLIC RADIO!"
The NPR Board of Directors governs the PRSS®. The Distribution/Interconnection Committee of the Board is charged with proposing rates and policy to the Board and overseeing the operation of the satellite system. The composition of the D/I Committee is unique, consisting of both Board and non-Board members.
The presence of the non-Board members on the Committee reflects NPR Distribution's role as manager of an interconnection system which serves all public telecommunications entities needing satellite distribution services, including public radio stations, program producers, and other organizations not affiliated with NPR. The non-Board members of the D/I Committee are elected by the NPR Board and confirmed by the interconnected stations. ]"
Message edited by author 2010-10-22 14:44:36. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 03:54:20 PM · #10 |
There was further discussion on the San Francisco station's Forum Program this morning -- stream or podcast should be available.
Whether the decision was "right" or "wrong" (if there can be such a thing), or whether it was more a matter of how it was handled, there is actual, significant opportunity for public discussion.
I wonder if any of this would be happening if the situation was reversed -- if FOX had fired Mr. Williams for "mouthing off some liberal opinions" over at NPR ... |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 04:14:55 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I wonder if any of this would be happening if the situation was reversed -- if FOX had fired Mr. Williams for "mouthing off some liberal opinions" over at NPR ... |
Good solid question. From the programs that I watch there (Bret Baeir sp?) - I would suspect they would...although several here might disagree. I have watched Juan mouth off many liberal opinions on FOX and not only did he not get fired - he got a contract extension and expansion recently. But I do see things differently than some here. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 06:51:07 PM · #12 |
"That Rupert Murdoch may tilt the news rightward more for commercial than ideological reasons is beside the point. What matters is the way that Fox's model has invaded the bloodstream of the American media. By showing that ideologically distorted news can drive ratings, Ailes has provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to develop a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news. In this way, Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Its example has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable." Jacob Weisberg in a Newsweek opinion piece.
Here lies the real rub. Mr. Williams' role at Fox is to be a man with opinions, while his role at NPR is supposed to be very different.
The basic model for a show at NPR is to get a moderator and two experts on a topic who represent opposing view points and have the moderator ask questions that bring out differences and similarities in the arguments his guests bring forward. The host is meant to be seen as a facilitator of discussion, free of biases or opinions. On NPR we hear from the Hoover and the Cato Institutes more than any other think-tanks, conservatives have a strong and intelligent voice on NPR, and they are opposed by liberals from "The Center for American Progress" and the like : But the guests are meant to carry the argument forward, the host is an unbiased shepherd to the discussion.
On Fox (or MSNBC for that matter). the host leads with his opinions and might or might not have a guest to debate him, but we are never in any doubt what the big dog's opinion is, because that is the lead, and rarely do we hear from a voice who is not getting a check from Mr Murdock.
The two models of "journalism" are at odds with each other, and a host who has a certain opinion on a subject that he feels he must voice, is not a good host in the NPR model.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2010 07:11:14 PM · #13 |
Mr. Williams' most recent role on NPR was that of analyst, not as either a moderator or reporter. However, that analysis needs to be unbiased, and there are reasonable grounds to claim that the most recent comments could undermine the confidence listeners have in the unbiased nature of the analysis.
There's been strong opinion both ways on this issue -- that suggests to me that there is responsibility to be shared, between NPR for over-reacting and Mr. Williams for frequently pushing the boundaries of his contractual obligation to conduct himself within the NPR guidelines, and more-or-less forcing the issue to a decision-point. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 07:35:11 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Mr. Williams' most recent role on NPR was that of analyst, not as either a moderator or reporter. However, that analysis needs to be unbiased, and there are reasonable grounds to claim that the most recent comments could undermine the confidence listeners have in the unbiased nature of the analysis. |
I seem to remember Daniel Schorr would get used from time to time as an analyst (especially around election time). I don't think he's "unbiased" as he is also their commentator (which is understood as an editorial position). I'd say Daniel's commenary would have undermined his analysis far more than Mr. Williams. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 07:44:56 PM · #15 |
Yeah that sounds reasonable until you remember he still works for Fox, the most discredited and dishonest name in news.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2010 08:17:47 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Mr. Williams' most recent role on NPR was that of analyst, not as either a moderator or reporter. However, that analysis needs to be unbiased, and there are reasonable grounds to claim that the most recent comments could undermine the confidence listeners have in the unbiased nature of the analysis. |
I seem to remember Daniel Schorr would get used from time to time as an analyst (especially around election time). I don't think he's "unbiased" as he is also their commentator (which is understood as an editorial position). I'd say Daniel's commenary would have undermined his analysis far more than Mr. Williams. |
Quite possibly. I'm not defending NPR's action -- and whether or not it was ultimately "justified," it was certainly handled poorly. But you what -- people can make mistakes, and I think the reaction is starting to border on the hyperbolic ... |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 08:20:52 PM · #17 |
| I won't disagree with you there at all. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 09:27:49 PM · #18 |
It is startling how light the final straw is, that can break the camel's back. Seen as a single comment Mr. William's unfortunate opinion would not have been sufficient to trigger such a reaction. Any single action seen out of context is hard to understand.
I would agree about Mr Schorr's work, he was perhaps given too much latitude due to his history of being on president Nixon's enemies list. There needs to be a clear delineation between news and opinion, reportage and commentary.
NPR's federal support has gone from 70% in the 70's to 10% now, and perhaps this will be the justification to remove all federal support which certain conservative voices have been clamoring for for years. If they succeed, NPR will survive; I just hope that if it happens it doesn't shift the programming, which I for one, see as fair and balanced.
Message edited by author 2010-10-22 21:33:16. |
|
|
|
10/23/2010 12:06:17 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
It is startling how light the final straw is, that can break the camel's back. |
Isn't that the point of the metaphor, that it's only a single (piece of) straw? |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 12:37:12 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Here lies the real rub. Mr. Williams' role at Fox is to be a man with opinions, while his role at NPR is supposed to be very different. |
I suppose the point I would ask you to consider is the fact that the "most [biased] (discredited and dishonest was the actual quote) name in news" to quote another poster here - would even hire a liberal pundit like Juan Williams in the first place. Although perhaps some see it similarily to my view of MSNBC when they parade out Buchanan or the gray haired fellow with the gotee (Rawlings?) and pretend they are presenting the conservative viewpoint.
I still chuckle at the bristling from the left of FOX's success and their continued demonization of the "stupid" followers of FOX news who can't think for themselves. This intellectual elitism from the left does wear thin. I suspect a lot more center/left folks watch Fox than care to admit. Of course some center/right folks also read CNN, BBC, MSNBC and FOX to get a broader view.
Message edited by author 2010-10-25 12:43:47. |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 06:43:48 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I suspect a lot more center/left folks watch Fox than care to admit. |
Of course they do... just like Canadians watch the CBC... but only for the sports. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 08:54:59 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I suppose the point I would ask you to consider is the fact that the "most [biased] (discredited and dishonest was the actual quote) name in news" to quote another poster here - would even hire a liberal pundit like Juan Williams in the first place. |
Probably because he's most likely not a liberal. If anything he's more of a conservative democrat or moderate republican.
Message edited by author 2010-10-25 20:57:17.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 01:41:30 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Probably because he's most likely not a liberal. If anything he's more of a conservative democrat or moderate republican. |
Yes like that Alan Colmes fellow. WAAAYYY too conservative ;-)
Anyway...maybe the left turn we took as a nation a couple years ago will be "righted" somewhat in a few days. We'll see. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 03:22:27 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Anyway...maybe the left turn we took as a nation a couple years ago will be "righted" somewhat in a few days. We'll see. |
The nation will do what it always has, which is to buy into the latest fearmongering of the party not in power and vote those people in. It doesn't matter if the fear is real or not or if the candidates even have a pulse.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 04:15:00 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by yanko:
The nation will do what it always has, which is to buy into the latest fearmongering of the party not in power and vote those people in. It doesn't matter if the fear is real or not or if the candidates even have a pulse. |
This reads a bit cynical to me. My take is the last election saw a tremendous groundswell of support for a more centrist move (away from the Bush/Cheeney right). The result was more left than what voters signed up for and thus the predicted correction on Nov 2. To say that the move last time was due to fearmongering by the Dems and that was the catalyst for O's election - just doesn't seem quite right to me. For the Dems this time to be potentially loosing long standing bastions of voters - spells a little different reaction than simply a fearmongering conservative movement. Democrats outnumber Republicans quite substantially accross the country and the Independents are certainly the key voting block. Independents don't strike me as either far right or far left but more centrist. Thus - my view that Obama and the Congress had the opportunity to forever quell the Republicans and especially conservatives - but they simply got too greedy. On how this relates to Juan - it is symtomatic of the NPR story - as long as NPR stays centrist (as many here claim they are) then they benifit from wide support - but when they veer too far left then they are at risk of following the likes of Air America. Soros 1.8 million donation isn't helping the centrist independents see NPR as "fair and balanced" - even if they are. |
|
