What Won’t Get You Fired From NPR

|

Wishing AIDS on your political enemies and their children. Check out this clip, from way back in 1995, of NPR's Nina Totenberg telling the host of PBS's Inside Washington that if there was "retributive justice" in the world the (admittedly loathsome) Jesse Helms would "get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it." Totenberg is still NPR's legal affairs correspondent.

Matt Welch on the Juantroversy here. Video of Williams' comments here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

152 responses to “What Won’t Get You Fired From NPR

  1. What Won’t Get You Fired From NPR:

    Wishing AIDS on your political enemies and their children.

    Hey, as long as you don’t say the “M” word, you’re fine!!

    (“M” word: Muslim)

    1. (“M” word: Muslim)

      Thanks for clearing that up. I was all, “WTF is a Migger?”

      1. I thought Macaca.

        1. I thought Mexican.

          1. Mi Krop, as referenced by Cartman.

            1. Mohammad cartoons at the NPR dot org site?

              1. Let’s not forget Marxist. lol They don’t seem to like that one either.

      2. “m” as in “mancy”.

  2. 15 years ago is quite a while back to be looking for comparisons.

    1. OK, how about the offensive term “Teabagger”? When discussing politics can we also use terms “rusty trombone” and “gorilla mask” to refer to those which we disagree?

      Of course, we should be able to say any of this, especially on taxpayer funded broadcasts.

      1. Dirty Sanchez?

        1. He’s already been fired.

        2. It isn’t dirty if the president does it.

          1. Space Docking?

        3. “Teabagger” is used only by left wing media. It’s a nasty little inside wink-wink joke with them — they should be embarrassed, but they are not. Never caught on with the general public.

          1. I should say that the lefty media’s usage of the term never caught on with the general audience…

          2. “It’s a nasty little inside wink-wink joke with them”

            Only in the sense that its typically left leaning salad tossers using the term as an inside joke because if the Tea Partiers are the teabaggers then who are the teabaggies?.

            As evidenced many times over clever Leftist are not so bright.

            1. If you are using the term “tea bagger” as as insult, are you anti-gay? Or anti-men? Or anti balls? Or the balls are OK, but your anti sac?
              I mean it dragging testicles across someone’s face is suppose to be disgusting, I’d hate to have to expound on analingus (sp? – OK salad tossing).

          3. Yes it did.

            My mom said it all the time until, when I was highly annoyed at her lack of knowledge about anything at all concerning politics and just parroted anything from CNN/MSNBC, I asked her if she even knew what teabagging is.

            When I told her, she laughed hysterically for a few minutes, but hasn’t used it to describe the Tea Party since.

            Every one of my libertarded friends uses teabagger as well.

      2. Some Tea Partiers used the term “Teabagger” themselves before others amusingly pointed out the term’s existing meaning.

        Besides, what does that have to do with this old story being old?

        1. The originator knew the existing meaning and that’s why he used it.

        2. Uh, it’s not old?

          1. 15 years is not a long time?

            1. I’m talking about the teabagger comment. And just so you know, even after 15 years, that which is said cannot be unsaid. Especially when it’s caught on tape forever and ever amen.

              1. They’ve obviously tightened up their rules since then.

                Besides, it’s always okay for Lefties to say insanely evil things about Republicans. After all, “Republican” isn’t a protected (and beloved) religion.

        3. Re: Geotpf,

          Some [who?] Tea Partiers used the term “Teabagger” themselves before others amusingly pointed out the term’s existing meaning.

          [Citation needed]

            1. Re: Geotpf,

              Always read your sources:

              The grassroots movement didn’t always consider “tea bagger” a slur: Early Tea Partiers innocently embraced the term until they discovered its vulgar connotations

              This is just an assertion or a statement of fact with NO links, names, or references. The writter just says it as if it were true.

              1. Um, did you actually read the link? It provides plenty of such citations. (A lot of them were talking about using “tea bag” as a verb, as opposed to “teabagger” as a noun (meaning one who tea bags), but, of course, the sexual meaning exists on “tea bag” as well.)

                Here, let me quote from the article (note that in the original each entry has multiple in-line links):

                Feb. 27, 2009
                At the first anti-stimulus “New American Tea Party” rally in Washington D.C., a protestor carries a sign reading “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems before they Tea Bag You!!” The Washington Independent’s David Weigel calls it “the best sign I saw.”

                March 2
                Americans for Prosperity, an anti-tax group, is one of the first Tea Party organizations to advocate sending tea bags to elected officials to protest the stimulus package. Several other lobby groups follow suit.

                April 1
                Several Tea Party protest sites encourage readers to “Tea bag the fools in DC.” Jay Nordlinger at National Review Online later admits: “Conservatives started [using the term]… but others ran and ran with it.”

                April 9
                Rachel Maddow is the first to mock the Tea Party’s use of the phrase on her left-leaning MSNBC show. “Even Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina is getting in on the hot tea-bagging action,” she says, stifling laughter. (Watch Rachel Maddow joke about the “tea baggers”)

                April 13
                David Shuster, filling in for liberal commentator Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, also makes fun of the phrase. “While the parties are officially toothless, the tea-baggers are full-throated about their goals,” he says. Jeff Poor at the Business and Media Insitute says that the MSNBC comments are “lost in juvenile criticism and ignoring the reason there is discontent from the conservative base”

                April 14
                Anderson Cooper, on his avowedly non-partisan CNN show, makes a similar crack, but later back-pedals, calling his remark a “stupid, silly, one-line aside” that was not meant to “disparage legitimate protests.”

                September 10
                Badges with the message “Proud to be a Tea Bagger” are still on sale at Tea Party events, according to an article written later in the year.

                November 10
                A report in The New York Times claims the President called Tea Partiers “the teabag, anti-government people” prompting the blog Redstate to respond: “Sexual innuendo is inappropriate in political discourse. The Left and their media tools need a soap bar sandwich to clean up their act.”

                December 7
                In an article for National Review Online, Jay Nordlinger notes that the word is being used so regularly, it is beginning to lose its pejorative association. “‘Tory’ and ‘Whig’ were put-downs when they originated,” he notes, and “‘Yankee Doodle’ was none too nice.” However, he suggests conservatives should continue to oppose the “lowdown term.”

                April 14, 2010
                Prominent conservative Andrew Breitbart posts a video on the site Big Government in an attempt to reclaim the term. “I’m Proud to be a Tea Bagger” currently has over 90,000 views.

                May 4
                In his book, Alter quotes Obama saying that GOP opposition to the stimulus package “helped to create the tea-baggers.” Grover Norquist, president of the Americans for Tax Reform group, compares it to the pejorative use of the N-word.

                Sheesh, I can’t believe I had to quote all of that.

                1. impressive knowledge of the term “tea bagger’
                  NTTIAWWT

              2. And embracing a term != making it up as a descriptor for themselves.

          1. Die in a fire…

        4. So what if she said it 15 years ago? Her statement wouldn’t be OK today but was just fine back then? I’m not sure exactly what your point is supposed to be.

        5. > Some Tea Partiers used the term “Teabagger” themselves
          > before others amusingly pointed out the term’s existing meaning.

          And some African-Americans use the term “nigger” to describe coloured folk (cf Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle).

          Therefore, referring to Barack Obama as a nigger proves not that the speaker is a racist, but how clever and insightful and witty he is for using the word.

      3. Teabagging is only cool if you dip your balls in ink first.

      4. “OK, how about the offensive term “Teabagger”? When discussing politics can we also use terms “rusty trombone” and “gorilla mask” to refer to those which we disagree?”

        I say yes.

        Now let me tell you all about that gorilla mask Jesse Jackson…

        1. Hiyoooooo!

    2. She’s gotten away with it for 15 years — is there some statute of limitations that disallows us from being appalled at her jaw-dropping nastiness (and her giggling about it)?

      As far as comparisons go, 15 years has done nothing to diminish or mitigate the awfulness of Totenberg’s death wish, which is several orders of magnitude worse than Mr. Williams’ confession of his problematic response.

    3. Which makes her comment even more outrageous. She said that 15 years ago? At least she didn’t hope anybody’s kidneys would fail. Oh wait, somebody did. Why is it the left saying all these hateful things?

    4. Time does’nt change free speech, obviously there is an underlying issue we dont know about. The comparison is a good example of the hypocrisy in the world today!

    5. Nina Totenberg continues to express opinions on non-NPR shows to this day, the same offense that Juan Williams was supposedly fired for. This was just one of the most egregious examples, highlighting an obvious double-standard.

      You’re trying awfully hard to not confront the issue.

  3. Brilliant pickup! Not that this had anything at all to do with sensitivity over comments about Muslims, but a nice pickup all the same.

    Of course the real issue is the fact that Williams was lending ‘credibility’ to the enemy at Fox via his presence. NPR as much as admits it by mentioning the executives displeasure with his appearances in the NPR article about his dismissal.

  4. Are you saying that . . . *gasp* . . . that . . . the NPR Editorial Chiefs are . . . dare I say it . . . a bunch of hypocrites????

    Say it ain’t so, Michael! Say it ain’t so!

    1. Even if one assumes the two quotations are equilvalent (they are both somewhat offensive, but in different ways), I seriously doubt the people running NPR in 1995 are all still there today. If the newest hyporcratic example is 15 years old, you are grasping at straws.

      1. How about this, Geotpf?

        http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..=120344047

        Asshole.

        1. That cartoon is really funny. The very first example out of the gate showing “intelligent discourse” is “I think the competition fostered by the public option will….” That is brilliant unintended self-satire.

      2. If the newest hyporcratic example is 15 years old, you are grasping at straws.

        Please provide proof that this is the newest example.

        1. WTF? You want Geotpf to essentially make your argument for you? Or do you mean no one has claimed this is the newest hypocrisy?

          1. Hey, if that’s not what he’s saying, then I don’t get the point of his comment.

            However, here’s a new seed to crack. What if those same statements were made today? Would that chick get fired? I actually think she would.

      3. “In appearing on TV or other media … NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows … that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.”

        How the fuck does Nina Totenberg do the Rachel Maddow Show? Not pundit-y enough for NPR?

  5. Finding all the NPR hypocrisy is going to be a fun game for the next few days. Good start, Moynihan.

  6. Finding all the NPR hypocrisy is going to be a fun game for the next few days. Good start, Moynihan.

    1. “Meeshell” Norris, but “Muhshell” Obama.

      1. Meeshell is (at least partially) black and her dad was shot by a white cop, so she is forever exempt from criticism.

  7. Finding all the NPR hypocrisy is going to be a fun game for the next few days. Good start, Moynihan.

    1. Funny. I don’t remember getting drunk/high yet today…

    2. You know what’s gonna be a fun game for the next few days?

    3. You know who else liked fun games?

  8. Wait, does this mean sage and CN are the same person?

    1. I neither confirm nor deny.

  9. And having a high, whiny, nasally voice that’s the male equivalent of Fran Dresher in a stalled elevator won’t do it, either. Hello Ira Flato!

    1. I think you’re thinking of Ira Glass.

      1. And I’m fucking awesome. I make good radio and work with the planet money group.

  10. Also applicable:

    “The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that’s how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”
    — USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

    1. Ok, this is even a year older, and she doesn’t even work at NPR.

      1. And another one goes ZOOOM! Right over your head.

  11. Why do we need to publicly fund NPR or PBS?

    1. Because begging for cash twice a year from a demographic that hearts them with everything but their wallets just ain’t cuttin it. But they will unheart the pols that are more than willing to use OPM to fund their morning commute brush with ‘intellectualism’, or something. Ah hell, I don’t have even the first clue about a reasonable answer to your rhetorical question. Got nothin.

      1. Here’s an answer, it’s as valuable, if not more, than most subsidies. Not much for a libertarian I admit, but there you go…

      2. The fundraisers are for local stations, not NPR. CPB funds NPR and PBS with federal money.

        1. NPR produces programs that are purchased by local stations. These stations only get about 10% of their funding from the Corporation for Public Broadasting.

          1. Then they won’t miss it.

    2. Garrison Keilor would roam the streets telling longwinded stories if we didn’t tether him to Minnesota with a paycheck.

      1. So he’d be like the homeless guy near the bus station who talks constantly about something I can never quite understand? Only with better diction?

        1. Like the old saying goes, if you give a bum a dollar, he’ll beg tomorrow. If you help him write a grant proposal, he’ll beg for two weeks every year with the promise of free tote bags.

      2. I took a shit in Minnesota once.

        1. That’s ridiculous Sandi. Chicks don’t shit.

        2. Me too and it was quite a load!

    3. Tribute to Carl Sagan
      Tonight on PBS
      Alistair Cooke is beggin’
      Tonight on PBS
      Maybe he needs my money more
      Than a man without a home.

      1. Gonna make a documentary ’bout the footwear of ancient Rome.

        I, too, was born to love volcanoes.

  12. I find pretty much everyone at NPR to have an annoying voice or speak smugly. I never knew NPR was a whiny lefty station until I listed one day. Didn’t take long.

    1. I once read an article (I believe Radley Balko linked to it on his blog) that talked about how there’s one voice coach that works with everybody on NPR and that’s why they all have that same disinterested, condescending tone.

      1. They like zombies!

    2. Everyone? you must have listened a long time to hear ‘everyone’. If you didn’t like it so much why not just turn it off?

  13. Meh. Despite their obvious biases NPR is still way better than any other broadcast news organization in the US. Not that that is a very high standard.

    1. If you consider Al Jazeera’s Washington bureau a US news organization, you’ve got your standard-bearer by miles.

      Unfortunately, it is not terribly available.

  14. What…the…f*ck? That is messed up…

    I find NPR to be easily one of the better radio sources of information, especially on the SCOTUS (not much competition if you think about it), but anything good about this would be the same without Totenberg involved…

  15. Because I–I mean they–cannot compete in a ruthless, dog-eat-dog marketplace, and America would be a poorer, meaner place without my docu–I mean without PBS.

  16. Don’t forget the “how to speak Tea Bagger” cartoons NPR defended last year.

  17. I find NPR’s bias to be in the fact that the vast majority of their hosts and correspondents are very liberal, so much so that they are many times ingorant of what non-liberals think. Having said that it is also pretty clear that they don’t try to actually play to and foster their bias like Fox does, which imo makes them better. I do think a large reason they are like this is because they are government run, some of the time their bosses will be conservatives and so they really try to be sensitive to that. Of course to many here that are to the right of Ghengis Kahn they will of course seem hopelessly and totally biased, but that probably says more about them than about NPR.

    1. Of course to many here that are to the right of Ghengis Kahn

      All this time here and you still haven’t figured us out? We have one or two right-leaning regulars, MNG. (Hi, John!) The rest of the regulars are no more ‘right’ than you are. Damn, you really are stuck on that single axis of politics, aintcha?

      1. You have quite a few right folks and very many principled libertarians. I have not said otherwise.

    2. NPR is a socialist organ of the federal government, primarily grounded in stations run at state-run universities and public school systems. Imagining that it wouldn’t have a built-in bias in favor of socialist government programs that spawned it and reflective of the left-leaning university culture that houses it is just silly.

    3. Genghis Kahn was not a conservative given his fondness for eminent domain.

      1. I think it was more ‘manifest destiny’ or OPP than eminent domain.

    4. Lots of people feel that pro-choice doesn’t include performing abortions against a woman’s will with a sword.

    5. Don’t make me laugh at that bullshit. The host roster itself guarantees fostering bias.

  18. …PBS’s Inside Washington…

    FWIW, Inside Washington isn’t a PBS show–although it may air on some PBS affiliates. You may be confusing it with Washington Week (in Review).

  19. I’m not so sure that the deeply ingrained and unconscious bias at NPR isn’t actually worse than Fox’s conscious decision to market to a different audience, MNG.

    1. One difference is the NPR makes a great deal of effort to adjust for their bias. They invite conservatives on the show to comment, seek out conservatives for comment, and their hosts try fairly hard to be devils advocates for conservatism (see the host of Talk of the Nation). They try to involve “counter-programming” to adjust for their bias (my first exposure to Milton Friedman was his PBS Free to Choose series). They actually have omsbudsmen to police and comment on their biases…I think that’s better imo.

      1. The NPR stops taking my tax money is the day they can claim to only be as biased as Fox News.

      2. You shouldn’t mix NPR with PBS in the same conversation regarding bias.

      3. Fox is a private entity. NPR operates on the public dime.

        1. NPR’s public status is not (directly) relevant to whether it is as biased as Fox or not. A libertarian would have to oppose it even if it had a libertarian bias.

          1. It is extremely relevant. I can choose to watch Fox or not, and the organization can sink or swim due to the whims of the viewers.

            If the majority of Americans choose not to listen to NPR, it still remains afloat.

            Apparently, you think that if someone opposes NPR, that same person loves Fox. I couldn’t give a fig about Fox, but I don’t have a vested interest in its existence.

      4. Which would make it ironic that they shed themselves of Williams for providing a liberal voice to balance Fox.

        I will disagree on substance though. Although I find NPR’s programming to be of very high quality, their attempts to “balance the discussion” are extremely weak. They will normally have a 3-person panel discussion (left, right, moderator) where the left is taken by a true progressive, the moderator is also progressive and the right is taken by a left-leaning republican ‘analyst’ or moderate democrat ‘strategist’.

        Fox’s discussions on their talking head show are mostly unwatchable for me – because they are little more than shouting matches of bullet points. Things usually move too quickly for any real debate – just get your points out and move on.

        But although I find the Fox talking head debates to be of lesser quality from the point of view of watchability (for my taste), the Fox team doesn’t pull the “right, righter, rightest” game in balancing their panel. In fact, they’ll empanel the most extreme lefties to go with their hardcore conservatives. Probably under the assumption that it makes for more fireworks.

        1. “They will normally have a 3-person panel discussion (left, right, moderator) where the left is taken by a true progressive, the moderator is also progressive and the right is taken by a left-leaning republican ‘analyst’ or moderate democrat ‘strategist’.”

          WTF? That’s Fox’s entire format: a right activist as “moderator”, a fire breathing right winger, and someone like Colmes as the left.

          At least at NPR the moderator is usually trying to be unbiased…

          1. Don’t try to make me laugh with that bullshit.

            1. I’m a flaming right winger!

          2. I can only speak to the shows which I listen to regularly (as previously implied, none on Fox other than Stossel for the last… well, long while anyway).

            Neal Conan, Diane Rehm, Joseph Cooper of WLRN’s Topical Currents are the traditional “talk show” hosts for whom I would count myself as a regular-ish listener. They are uniformly in the progressive camp and run shows that generally make no bones about being well left of center. They are generally professionally done and do not go anywhere near the partisan histrionics of a Limbaugh or Hannity, but despite an even-handed demeanor to the show, they are unabashedly progressive in editorial tone and content.

            Just last night NPR had a nice discussion panel about “historical illiteracy” in response to the 1773 – Sara Palin flack. The overt purpose of the round table was to paper over the obvious issues of hypocrisy and ignorance among the elite left by discussing the general lack of knowledge of details of history by most Americans. Host and liberal ‘expert’ guests on the show did a fine job of diverting attention to the American Public’s great ignorance of history. At no time did a voice from the right point out the obvious implication of the show and its unspoken editorial content.

            1. Counter example to prove that even a blind squirrel finds a nut and that blanket statements are uniformly wrong: NPR did a round table this morning on the NAACP report on Tea Party racism. Host and progressive guest (reporter with expertise on these matters) spent some time discussing the seriousness of the report and the history of the issue with respect to denials from the Tea Party. The entire subject was framed exactly as the NAACP intended – accepting the “we’re not accusing them of being racists” accusations of racism at face value and uncritically commenting on what the Tea Party needs to do to be more ‘inclusive’. Unfortunately they invited the wrong ‘republican strategist’ who failed to stick to the script. He immediately pointed out the NAACP report for the race-baiting tripe that it is, and pointed out that this is what the NAACP does every election cycle to keep the black electorate in line. So in this case there was a true diversity of opinion, with the host and leftie guest attempting to follow the intended script of painting the Tea Party as racist while claiming to do the opposite and one guest opting not to play and pointing out the game that was being played.

              To their credit (sort of) the host and guest appeared to know that the entire thing was a bullshit smear-job and only half-heartedly went after the “tea-party = racist” meme. They mostly wanted to repeat the “respected NAACP panel that studies hate groups” credentials with the racism label and be done with it. Once challenged nobody really stood up for the racism charge – they moved over to a “responsibility to repudiate racism” meme. To his credit, rightie had plenty of facts to show this has been happening all along. Unfortunately he was a bit of a far-right blowhard and had to bring black panthers and the Justice Department into it. When talking to a left-of-left audience it is best to stick to something a little less extreme than suggesting that the NAACP would do better finding racism if they were to investigate black racist groups.

      5. What a load of bull puckey! NPR and PBS haven’t been close to moderately liberal since they did the hit job on Clarence Thomas. They are rabid pinkos.

        Fox however, is balanced on their news and their commentary makes clear what it is. NPR and PBS – not so much.

      6. This is a joke. I think I can count on one hand the number of “conservatives” I’ve heard on NPR. And I don’t think I’ve EVER heard an actual discussion between a liberal and a conservative on NPR, where you can actually hear one make a point, and then the other responds directly to that point. Usually they have the two individuals on at different times, and they ask the liberal interviewee one set of questions, and then the conservative (or at least less liberal) interviewee a different set of questions, so you don’t really get a balanced contrast.

        Also, if you look at what stories they choose and how they present them, virtually everything is from the perspective of “what is the government doing to solve this,” or “what can/should the government do to solve that,” or “what lack of government intervention allowed this to happen….”

        Virtually everything they do betrays a perspective that cannot escape the confines of top-down command and control.

    2. I like all the infomercials.

    3. Right — NPR pretends to be unbiased, whereas with Fox at least you know what you’re getting.

      Frankly, the idea that NPR analysts and correspondents expressing their opinions detracts from their credibility is silly. They have opinions whether we hear them or not — the only difference is if we hear their opinions we can weigh our knowledge of that against what they’re reporting.

      For example, knowing that Nina Totenberg wished Jesse Helms or his grandchildren would get aids might make me treat her reporting on the subject of Jesse Helms with a little more skepticism than if I thought she had no such dislike for the man…. just as an example.

      Likewise, I would think NPR listeners would appreciate knowing about Juan Williams’ fears of Muslim-dressed people on planes, so they could weight that fact when he reports on, say, TSA airport screening procedures.

      The ironic thing is that the left correctly realizes that people are biased and biases color our judgement, but they’ve invented an understanding of themselves that says that because they are aware of their potential for bias, and because they have taken such great precautions against bias, that they are no longer capable of being biased (or simply that their bias is correct, which is equivalent). But that attitude exposes a misunderstand of what bias is.

      The reality is that we can’t escape our biases. Even if we try to do something like, “fact-based analysis,” our biases drive which questions we ask, which facts we uncover, how we interpret and then represent the facts we do uncover, etc.

  20. NPR has a certain political view point. I think that is pretty obvious. But, if I am paying for them to be operational, then some balance is required. Mr. Williams did not, in his comments endorse any type of action. He simply stated what so many Americans feel. So now the left feel it is OK to take action against anyone who states feelings. It is a sad state of affairs.

    1. A simple disclaimer that Juan Williams views do not represent the views of NPR was all that was necessary, if anything was at all.

    2. “Sad” is a feeling. Expect to hear from my lawyer.

  21. I’m all for firing Juan Williams from NPR, but for a different reason. NPR shouldn’t exist, so the whole lot should be out on its ear.

    1. Yeah, but this is like saying that you are ok with gay-marriage bans because government should not be in the marriage business. There is NPR. It is owned by us. And they just fired a guy for saying something most of us likely feel.

      1. It’s not the same thing at all, not even remotely. Stop stretching things to fit your own world view.

        I don’t want to own a radio station. If you do, fund it privately, so you can save all the Philistines.

        Oh, wait. That was Air America. How’d that work out for you?

      2. Most NPR listeners don’t feel that way (or at least pretend not to feel that way). Obviously, this choice panders to NPR listeners sensitive baby ears and not to the confiscated laundary money of the Joe Bobs in flyover country.

        NPR sucks like the rest of it, but like NASA, it’s footprint is relatively small compared to the marauding dragons that have indebted my unborn great-great-great grandchildren. However, when our belts start to tighten for a myriad of “well-meaning” “socially-responisble” reasons, NPR will be one in a legion of low-hanging rotten fruit sacrificed to the inevitably of fiscal gravity.

        1. Fiscal Gravity

          great band name, etc

  22. I don’t often agree with Juan Williams but I am appalled at NPR for firing him
    To be sure I will try my best to discourage anyone from having anything to do with NPR. Whatever happened to free speech?

  23. Calling Sarah Palin a “centerfold for Republican men” didn’t even get Juan Williams fired from NPR.

    No, what gets you fired from NPR is saying anything bad about the peaceful religion of Islam.

  24. The theocrats are running the show from behind the scenes. The progressives are kowtowing.

  25. When did the first amendment get trumped by CAIR? I will work to defund NPR.

  26. God doesn’t give you AIDS.
    Your cellmate gives you AIDS.
    Stupid NPR.

  27. At least PBS has the McLaughlin Group:

    http://vids.myspace.com/index……d=23497310

    1. I love her brilliant and fair-minded political critique.

  28. NPR has a very obvious liberal bias complete with condescending voices, but really it is only radio that is listenable. Radio is a forest of ads every 5 mins with repetitive music. Other news stations fill with slots with repetitive news cycles, and over the top, animated, unenlightening discussions. They all thrive on causing outrage and anger as the basis for entertainment. But NPR is calmer, and they have an air for patience and cordiality (even though it is all statist bullshit.) They have varied and locally sourced programming. Capitalistic radio can’t compare. I have a soft spot for NPR because everything else out there sucks, and are trying their very best to give you an adrenaline driven heart attack. I am in Los Angeles, no station comes even close to the music quality of the KCRW. Even the unprofessional youngsters on KXLU and KCSN have better music tastes than the whole lot of capitalistic radio.

    1. But NPR is calmer, and they have an air for patience and cordiality (even though it is all statist bullshit.)

      I do admit I prefer my statist propaganda to be calm and cordial. Which is probably why I listen to NPR.

  29. I feel so bad, but I always make fun of Diane Rehm whenever I hear her. GOOD LORD WOMAN SPIT IT OUT

    *going to hell*

  30. Nina Totenberg = pond scum. She needs to be FIRED!!!!!!!!!!!!

  31. All my peaceful non-extremist diversity loving and tolerant muslim friends and I agree that snicker snicker Jesse Helms’ grandkids should get aids snort snort. Tee-hee.

  32. Holy crap, this is some of the funniest shit I’ve read in years.

    All y’all are in rare form today.

    This is better comedy than anything done out there professionally.

    I can’t stand NPR because nothing pisses me off more than being condescended to by idiots.

    Even if they are being civil about it.

    1. It must be the upcoming elections lurker. Something about swapping one group of fucks for another just riles us up.

  33. What a desicated priggish elitist , let me guess..hmmm….Wellesley?

    Somewhere North of Ananpolis for sure.

  34. I think the point is that NPR is saying that Williams was fired for giving an opinion at all, which is against his contract at NPR.

    Inside Washington is an opinion show, and Nina Totenberg is on there all the time…giving opinions, including this one.

  35. Don’t forget that Nina Totenberg was the dirtbag that Democrats picked to leak the confidential documents to from the Clarence Thomas hearings that included Anita Hill’s testimony. I’ll leave it up to your imagination to figure out why they picked her as their hit person.

  36. Totenberg is a legal-affairs coorespondent (because we need those?), Williams was a news analyst. He has been given a second chance(s).

  37. With all due respect, Ms. Totenberg’s face has the drawn, inelastic appearance of an old goat’s scroutm.

  38. A news analyst gets fired for egregiously sucking at analyzing the news – seriously his remarks were as inane as they were bigoted – and the response here is to dig back fifteen years for an example of “Yeah, well, LIBERALS do it TOO, so THERE!”

    Seriously?

  39. Not even close, Duckie, you dimwit. Juan Williams voiced his concern that is shared by almost 90% of Americans. Pull your head out of the sand so you can receive your “Hot Carl”. Open wide. Tea Baggin’ Libbies, one salad tosser at a time.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.