DC Tom Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Charity work is when you don't get paid. I am certain the executives at NPR are fairly compensated. I just have a thing about that "public service" label. It always kills me when a US senator,with all the power and prestige that position brings,refers to himself as "public servant". But people do work for charitable organizations as salaried employees. I get your point...but it doesn't change that I'm referring to a type of person who honestly believes what they're doing is serving the public good. Whether or not they're really public servants in a public service job. It's the nature of the attitude I'm talking about. (And you've heard plenty of times when reporters talk about how their job and industry is intended to protect the public. My point is completely valid.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 10, 2011 Author Share Posted March 10, 2011 LMFAO! Wow. The video was alone worth the price of my internet this month. Man, those guys got to be a **** load of fun to hang out with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Yup because conservatives are nothing but a bunch of backwater, toothless, gun totin', ignorant, hicks. Yuck, yuck, yuck. I didn't say that, I just said that academics and sciency types tend to be liberal. Am I wrong? Of course the new photo is newer than the old photo. Otherwise it wouldn't be the new photo. Geez baldy, just up and face reality already. Or IS it? Seems you've fallen victim to the old switcheroo... In defence of Frenkle...............................he's Canadian. I'm mostly indefensible, but them's fightin' words! No, it really is. Public broadcasting by its very definition attracts people with a certain value set (currently considered a "liberal" value set - but really, the label's not important). You have to believe you're performing a public service, furthering the public good, are acting as a valid check and balance to the establishment as part of the "fourth estate". The simple fact that the people who apply and are hired there by default introduces a bias towards that shared value system - and more, a tendency to portray any view not of that value system as "outside" or, worse, "invalid". It's not a conscious bias, but it is present (and not just at NPR, but at most media outlets, and many other organizations. Your average public defender's office, for example, leans heavily liberal for precisely the same reason). Note, too, that "Well, what about Fox?" is a completely invalid response to the above. I'm describing the subtle, unconscious bias that a group of like-minded people reinforcing their shared world-view with each other inevitably have. Fox is a completely different animal: their bias is a completely conscious editorial decision (which in some ways is better - at least they're freakin' honest about being intellectually dishonest). By that logic, NPR's not exactly being dishonest if the bias is unconscious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 But people do work for charitable organizations as salaried employees. I get your point...but it doesn't change that I'm referring to a type of person who honestly believes what they're doing is serving the public good. Whether or not they're really public servants in a public service job. It's the nature of the attitude I'm talking about. (And you've heard plenty of times when reporters talk about how their job and industry is intended to protect the public. My point is completely valid.) Shockingly your views about motivation are less cynical than mine. Who would have thought it possible? Maybe the $400,000 a year United Way exec taints my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 In defence of Frenkle...............................he's Canadian. Frenkle is too far left and too confrontational to be Canadian. He'd be a proponent of the NDP or Green Party, both whom are afterthoughts here. You guys can keep him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 You have to believe you're performing a public service, furthering the public good, are acting as a valid check and balance to the establishment that's your criteria for being a liberal...and conservatives don't or shouldn't believe they're doing these things? you really believe acting for these purposes is bad? shame on npr employees for their efforts in this regard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Only watched the video once, but I'm still not sure what the NPR people said or did that was so shocking. They were in an entrapment situation where the undercover people were trying to make them say things and accept donations. They didn't accept the donations, woman went out of her way to stress their Jewish donors were supportive of the alternative views of the Israel-Palesine situation even though they didn't necessarily agree with them, and the guy stressed his Tea Party views were his own, and not NRPs. That's about as tame and innocent as one would expect in an entrapment setting like that. I mean really, what do they think a Hannity would say off the record in an entrapment setting? We do have a good handle that OReilly would give his female subordinates instructions on masturbation. O'Reilly Sued For Sex Harassment Just catching up on this thread. Have to go back to page 3 after posting this. Sorta like toe tapping in a public lavatory in an airport, huh Joe? And, to paraphrase Warren Sapp, please, "put a shirt on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I didn't say that, I just said that academics and sciency types tend to be liberal. Am I wrong? By that logic, NPR's not exactly being dishonest if the bias is unconscious. The notorious ones certainly are. So liberals on NPR aren't really liberals, but just zombies that were marinated in the FDR styled entitlement mentality during their every living - albeit unconscious moment? Shockingly your views about motivation are less cynical than mine. Who would have thought it possible? Maybe the $400,000 a year United Way exec taints my view. Tom's pretty right, though I admit to personally defunding the United Way years ago. Direct giving to one's favorite charities is the way to go IMHO. that's your criteria for being a liberal...and conservatives don't or shouldn't believe they're doing these things? you really believe acting for these purposes is bad? shame on npr employees for their efforts in this regard I guess the rest of the story is that liberals think they know what's in the best public interest and they'll move heaven and earth and spare no expense to reengineer society to fit into the shoe size that THEY know is right. Usually their programs end up wasting time, money and propagate the notion that the government is the answer to everyone's problems and that Americans should live in a risk-free environment and society. That's rubbish. A conservative's first move isn't (usually) to raid the public treasury to force feed the paying public a litany of ill conceived social programs that run contrary to the principles of personal freedom and responsibility. I can't imagine working in an environment where the constant whining and bemoaning the lack of governmental interference in every instance where a perceived injustice, slight, wrong, inequality of status/wealth/position/opportunity, etc., etc., etc. is uncovered. I much prefer to actually do something that actually helps people. But that doesn't come conveniently pre-packaged at the big box store of government handouts. It's an individual effort. Feed a person a fish - they're satisfied for a day and hungry again the next. Teach them to fish... By the way, I'm still waiting for Warren Buffett to write that big check to President BO that will equalize his tax rate with those of his office staff in order for justice to be served. I just don't know what's holding that up. He's free to contribute as much of his personal wealth to the government as he wishes at any time. Waiting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 The notorious ones certainly are. So liberals on NPR aren't really liberals, but just zombies that were marinated in the FDR styled entitlement mentality during their every living - albeit unconscious moment? A conservative's first move isn't (usually) to raid the public treasury to force feed the paying public a litany of ill conceived social programs that run contrary to the principles of personal freedom and responsibility. ah, so it's not really about a public service mindset. it's about the means to the ends...enabling self sufficiency versus handouts. and liberals don't desire folks to be self sufficient so they can be controlled. and this makes tom's argument as to why npr should be characterized as liberal invalid. on this last very small, insignificant point, we agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 that's your criteria for being a liberal...and conservatives don't or shouldn't believe they're doing these things? you really believe acting for these purposes is bad? shame on npr employees for their efforts in this regard That's not what I said. Of everything I wrote, you cherry-picked that and completely misunderstood it to prove...what, exactly? That you're retarded? Good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 That's not what I said. Of everything I wrote, you cherry-picked that and completely misunderstood it to prove...what, exactly? That you're retarded? Good job. He seems to be uncommonly blessed in that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 He seems to be uncommonly blessed in that area. If only he were geographically blessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Frenkle is too far left and too confrontational to be Canadian. He'd be a proponent of the NDP or Green Party, both whom are afterthoughts here. You guys can keep him. Riiiiiiiiight....I'm too far left to be Canadian. Good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 No, it really is. Public broadcasting by its very definition attracts people with a certain value set (currently considered a "liberal" value set - but really, the label's not important). You have to believe you're performing a public service, furthering the public good, are acting as a valid check and balance to the establishment as part of the "fourth estate". The simple fact that the people who apply and are hired there by default introduces a bias towards that shared value system - and more, a tendency to portray any view not of that value system as "outside" or, worse, "invalid". It's not a conscious bias, but it is present (and not just at NPR, but at most media outlets, and many other organizations. Your average public defender's office, for example, leans heavily liberal for precisely the same reason). Note, too, that "Well, what about Fox?" is a completely invalid response to the above. I'm describing the subtle, unconscious bias that a group of like-minded people reinforcing their shared world-view with each other inevitably have. Fox is a completely different animal: their bias is a completely conscious editor I counted 118 words in the bolded area. 119 if you count "you're" as two words. If you are considering using these 119 words in the future please save us all a little time and just type h-i-p-p-y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I counted 118 words in the bolded area. 119 if you count "you're" as two words. If you are considering using these 119 words in the future please save us all a little time and just type h-i-p-p-y. Don't think that exact thing didn't occur to me as I was posting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Frenkle is too far left and too confrontational to be a good Canadian. He'd be a proponent of the NDP or Green Party, both whom are afterthoughts here. You guys can keep him. Sorry Geno. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Sorry Geno. Fixed. Take off, eh? Is that a question? Hoser. Am I a good Canadian now or do I need to buy a tuque? (My American spell-checker didn't even recognize that - did I spell it right?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Take off, eh? Is that a question? Hoser. Am I a good Canadian now or do I need to buy a tuque? (My American spell-checker didn't even recognize that - did I spell it right?) I think it's toque, you hoser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I think it's toque, you hoser. I thought it was toke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I thought it was toke... that rhymes with joke which stands for HIPPIE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts