ViperOverLord wrote: Woodruff wrote: ViperOverLord wrote: Phatscotty wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: I can virtually gaurantee there were clauses in his contract limiting what he could say in public. As a reporter, he is not just "any other citizen". He did not have to take that job. Having taken that job, he was obligated to abide by the terms.
You are virtually guaranteed to destroy the NPR's prestigious credibility of it's "reporters"
He was actually fired for not adhering to NPR's 'editorial slant.' So in other words, for thinking for himself.
If that is true (I haven't seen it, but I'm willing to take your word for it), you don't believe that is a business decision? You don't believe they should be trying to give their customers what they believe their customers want?
I misremembered. The term 'editorial slant' was not used. I was thinking of virtually the same thing though. "His remarks on 'The O'Reilly Factor' this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."
NOT the same thing at all. The term "editorial slant" means that you expect a certain bias. the words "inconsistant with our editorial standards and practices..." generally means they expect the reporters to refrain from taking hard positions in any specific direction, but to try as much as possible to remain unbiased in public (no matter what their personnal positions are).
ViperOverLord wrote:He did not violate any editorial standards or practices and he did not do thing 1 to undermine NPR's credibility.
I have not seen his contract, but the standard he violated was to take a position in public.
ViperOverLord wrote:They called him a bigot when in fact it is clearly they who are the bigots when they cannot even respect a person's feelings.
I believe you misunderstand the term "bigot". See, it is not about respecting or not respecting feelings, it is about how one judges people. Bigots try to justify classifying large groups of people based on the bad actions of a few. Deciding that its OK to be afraid of Muslims becuase the hijackers claimed to be Muslim is being bigoted, particularly when recent evidence shows how wrong that idea is.
ViperOverLord wrote:Also despite his personal feelings which he relayed, he was an advocate for all human's Constitutional rights during the discussion in which he was fired for. So the message from NPR here is that you cannot interject human emotion into a debate on real issues. You simply have regurgitate their group think and that is bushwah.
Their position is that their REPORTERS should not take strong stands on issues in PUBLIC, yes.
ViperOverLord wrote:And as for giving the customers what they want? Well personally I respect news organizations that strive for diversity of thought (which NPR clearly does not do).
I see, and who do you believe does a better
job? Because I can tell you I heard pretty well what ALL the candidates were saying, what various ideas about big bills and such were from NPR. On the main media, I never got that full perspective.
ViperOverLord wrote:But if they aren't going to do that then that's fine, but I don't want my taxes subsidizing them.
But you want your taxes subsidizing other media outlets that don't even pretend to be unbiased?
And... you got your wish. NPRs funding has already been heavily slashed. BEFORE this happened.