Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-18/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
Congress agrees to fund the government for another three weeks. The Environmental Protection Agency proposes new emissions standards for U. S. power plants. And Fed Chair Bernanke says the recent surge in oil prices will not damage the American economy. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Naftali Bendavid
national correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
John King
anchor of CNN's John King, USA, and chief national correspondent.
Following the Congress's passage of the latest short-term budget resolution this week, Diane and the panelists discuss what paths the House and Senate debates about the federal budget and deficit may take in the months ahead - including the nature of continued threats to funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS, and NPR:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Among comments posted last Friday were number criticizing DR & NPR’s liberal bent, including, “you complainers.. must be incredibly jealous of the success of fox news and your vile contempt for things for which you disagree only uncovers you have indeed become what you claim to hate”. Late afternoon when I posted in NPR’s defense, a response challenged “come up with instance where any conservative had free reign over a NPR show” along with commentary in support of fairness and balance of Fox. Didn’t have chance to respond- would like to do so now, prefacing by saying I believe “most people have inflated view of themselves and their opinions” (me included)- this, in itself a major roadblock to resolving present issues facing our nation.
First I’d like to question inference that network profits is somehow proof of good journalism. Moral, ethical or just plain old "good" journalism is not based on or justified in circulation numbers or ad profits; but on factual reporting, not “infotainment”.
Second, I can understand why anyone who believes Fox “fair and balanced” representing mainstream moderate views would view NPR as wildly to the left. By this standard C-span would also be.
Third, it seems talk show hosts, being human, would allow personal views to sometimes guide course of discussion, but I would think the best would try to maintain a degree of neutrality. Admittedly I don’t watch Fox much, but when I have it seems hosts seldom make pretense of remaining neutral. If influential Fox members were caught during lunch saying “Those progressives are a bunch of yin-yangs”, I doubt there would be uproar (much less result in Fox President Ailes having integrity to resign), because Fox hosts seem to make such statements on air routinely.
Isn’t it odd entire board of directors at Fox is EXACTLY same as Wall St journal? Could there just possibly be conflict of interest? I know this is going out on limb, but is it conceivable that Wall street might have an agenda that Fox helps promote? Could there be better tool for conservative think tanks to attempt to mold public opinion?
Isn’t it odd that Tea Party is so against government oversight and regulation, the lack of which is directly implicated in the financial collapse? Or that they believe that cutting taxes for wealthiest, currently sitting on unprecedented reserves, will promote job creation? Wonder where they think the trillions we’ve borrowed for past 10 years went? Doubt it’s being burned in brush piles. In any slightly fair system our economy would be booming. W, even though elected by minority, acted on mandate from God to divide country, alienate world, and funnel the country’s present and future treasure to privileged few.
How well did Fox cover the story of “K street project” when through various strongarm tactics (many still in practice), GOP attempted to establish “permanent majority”?
After 8 years of policy which brought nation to brink of 2nd Great Depression , I would think it might be time to chart another course. Yet GOP have not only made no attempt, they've blocked and discredited every initiative, including abuse of filibuster rule so for first time in history it’s now standard practice that over 60% of Senate must agree to even allow debate. Is this what founders intended?
It’s frightening to imagine the possibility that large percent of Americans might allow Fox to be primary source of information. Sure watch Fox “News”- there is free speech after all, and we all need entertainment now and then, but I pray they can see they are not being wholly informed. Without an informed public, there is no Democracy.
Plutocracy and organizations that promote it (such as Fox), in my humble opinion, seem greater threat to American way of life than threat of terrorism (both real and imagined) ever was.
Drew: You typify what I would term a fair and balanced middle-of -the- road American citizen, though you are more engaged than most. I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful comments. If you go to the Bill Moyers Journal blog (It's still there.) you may be pleasantly surprised to find that Moyers and Winship (two astute patriots) have reached almost the same conclusions as you. I know your brain has burned some calories reaching independent conclusions. As in science, theses are confirmed when honest experimenters proceeding independently achieve similar or the same results. It must be reassuring to know Moyers has reinforced your findings. It would be hard for an indoctrinated shallow-thinking person to understand how wonderful original thought convergence can be. Congratulations unbiased and accurate analyst.
Notice how Diane has a WSJ journalist on her panel today.
Will that commentator toe the Fox line? Listen and report back.
Panelists: Will regular gas reach $4 a gallon by Easter? $5 a gallon by Labor Day?
I think gasoline demand in Japan will maintain or rise as they work to recover and rebuild. Their manufacturing supply network will reconfigure by May. Some procedures will move offshore within Asia to access electrical power. This will occur faster than most analysts expect. So with North African and Middle Eastern conflicts continuing I expect our gas prices to slow our recovery.
Which of you has information on insurance claim impacts from the triple catastrophe on major American insurance firms? Will CDOs result in insolvencies? Is another bailout request near?
Dear Diane,
I hope you will cover this well today. I am living in Japan now. I have been researching and I have come to the conclusion that there was no change in long term health outcomes for adults because of Chernobyl. I am of course not talking about the workers at the plant. Also, the only long term change for children is a increase in thyroid cancer (about 6000 cases I think). I have not found the facts that show that radiation has been dangerous (again except in super high levels received by workers at the plant).
Please take a look at the video from the IAEA here
http://www.iaea.org/newscen ter/focus/chernobyl/
and this interview with an Oxford physics professor here:
http://www.thetakeaway.org/ 2011/mar/17/radiation-expla iner-what-does-why-were-sca red/
There may be other opinions on this but I believe these are substantial and worth at least considering seriously.
Why is the White House failing to show any leadership on the budget? It's pathetic that we are only able to plan for 3 weeks at a time. The WH should stick its neck out, get involved and get the problem solved. Positioning itself for its run in 2012 is making a mockery of this country.
All Federal spending should be addressed, big and small. Local stations should not use Federal dollars to buy NPR programming.
"The road to the White House goes through Israel." That was fascinating.
Take a lot Vitamin C to remove any oxygen free radiacal triggered by radiation.
Tell people in Japan.
If the government should not be in the broadcasting business (reason for cutting funding to NPR), then funding for the International Broadcasting Bureau and its subsidiaries such as Radio Marti, Radio Liberty, Voice of America, etc. should be cut. Radio Marti is a huge waste of government dollars since the broadcast has been jammed for years... Joyce in Bradenton Beach, FL
About NPR funding...
NPR should not be refunded.
Not everyone has ideological reasons.
NPR has received federal money for 40 years.
The experiment has worked.
The private sector will make up the difference.
NPR will continue to grow and flourish.
and by the way...
Yes, every dollar counts in an economic crisis.
@Drew Kelly,
"Third, it seems talk show hosts, being human, would allow personal views to sometimes guide course of discussion, but I would think the best would try to maintain a degree of neutrality. Admittedly I don’t watch Fox much, but when I have it seems hosts seldom make pretense of remaining neutral." D.K.
Why would you expect FOX News opinion shows hosted by pundits to be different from NPR shows? What liberal host of an NPR show (and all NPR shows are hosted by liberals, even Tom and Ray Magliozzi are liberals), conceals their liberal bias or makes any attempt to be neutral? Why can't NPR have just one little show hosted by a conservative? What are they afraid of?
Still waiting for you to cite one example of NPR "drifting into the far right."
On the House's bill to stop funding of NPR: It seems to me to be an attack on middle class ideals, which in turn is an attack on the political left. I can see the argument for and against funding of NPR. However you look at it, it seems as if the government gets in trouble any time it deals with funding of non-profit identities. One big way that the government could help balance the budget is to also stop subsidizing religious non-profit organizations. By subsidizing, I mean giving them tax breaks and treating them as non-profits. When in fact (I live in Texas, home of churches the size of malls) our religious organizations are raking in money, and do not pay taxes accordingly. By the government continuing to subsidize religious organizations, it is also getting itself in deep waters. The church I belong to has almost 10,000 members . . . and don't get me wrong, I love my pastor. But I do feel like the money that is taken in is kept "in the family" because his son is also pastoring, and will take over the "empire he's built" when father retires. This is not a practice that should be kept as "non-profit."
Just something to think about.
@Rufflest1
"NPR has received federal money for 40 years.
The experiment has worked."
What? It took 40 years for NPR to figure out they can't survive in a free market without federal government assistance? The feds should not be in the business of subsidizing a supposed news radio media outlet that has admitted to championing a liberal political agenda.
When one looks at the the limiting actions many of these governors have taken regarding unions, which directly impact their ability to raise funds to support candidates; the speed with which legislation requiring voters to provide photo ID's in order to vote, is moving through many Republican controlled state legislatures; and the recent swift change in voting requirements for released felons in Florida; are we looking at a concerted effort on the right to limit the resources available to support Democratic candidates and to suppress the voter turnout of traditionally Democratic constituencies?
@Grady Lee Howard
"Notice how Diane has a WSJ journalist on her panel today.
Will that commentator toe the Fox line?"
Wouldn't it be refreshing if you, a liberal, would be concerned if the CNN and USA Today journalist will "toe the NPR line?" The liberal Juan Williams didn't. Look what happened to him.
NPR is a 90% public supported not for profit that dispenses information and cultural enrichment. Fox is a commercial outlet funded by corporate concerns that dispenses selfish greed, misinformation, hatred and propaganda in the interest of it's wealthy funders. This is hardly a good model for something vital like news.
Broadcasting bandwidth is a resource held in common by the People. A good way to level the playing field would be to require all news outlets such as Fox or CNN to operate as not for profits voluntarily funded by listeners. The kind of personality attracted and cultivated by Fox would not be of the type to Pledge. Fox would soon be off the air.
Hatred when broadcast is a form of toxic "radio-activity" that must be contained, isolated and nipped in the bud at its source. To allow an international propaganda corporation to invade our bandwidth to the detriment of our life quality is a symptom of government complicity with corporate fascism.
We need to resist these crimes and demand retribution. They are parallel and integrated with economic atrocities our People have recently suffered.
I can hardly be called a Liberal. I am a former progressive republican who served as a Congressional aide. I was radicalized by the corporate agendas of the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Good business is business that serves the needs of the People without resorting to fraud and government hijacking. Even a Republic will fall when undermined by corruption, empire and repression of innate human rights. Fox is the enemy of good government, and NPR, even if it could be construed as sometimes slightly liberal, is the friend of the People and good government.
Fox, as it is operated today, is for weak minded people who think rich criminals are smart.
Grady Lee Howard wrote:
"NPR is a 90% public supported not for profit that dispenses information and cultural enrichment. Fox is a commercial outlet funded by corporate concerns that dispenses selfish greed, misinformation, hatred and propaganda in the interest of it's wealthy funders. This is hardly a good model for something vital like news. "
NPR was given $225 million from the late Joan B. Kroc. That money came from her husband, Ray Kroc, the former head of McDonald's Corporation franchise. I guess these terrible corporations are only benevolent when they prop up liberal media outlets?
Another "wealthy funder" George Soros, known as the "the Man Who Broke the Bank of England," gave NPR $1.5 million to buy "reporters."
Grady Lee Howard wrote :
"Broadcasting bandwidth is a resource held in common by the People. A good way to level the playing field would be to require all news outlets such as Fox or CNN to operate as not for profits voluntarily funded by listeners. The kind of personality attracted and cultivated by Fox would not be of the type to Pledge. Fox would soon be off the air."
Perhaps you should learn about the system of ratings. Viewers and listeners indicate their support for a show by tuning in. Advertisers take note of this and voluntarily pay a media outlet to place their commercials where they will be seen/heard by the largest audience.
BTW: FOX News viewers of Bill O'Reilly's show not only "pledged," but actually paid, nearly $1 million to Fisher House, a nonprofit group that builds and maintains "comfort homes" on the grounds of U.S. military medical centers where families stay while their loved ones are being treated. NPR/PBS only raises coin for their self aggrandizement. .
Grady Lee Howard wrote:
"Hatred when broadcast is a form of toxic "radio-activity" that must be contained, isolated and nipped in the bud at its source. To allow an international propaganda corporation to invade our bandwidth to the detriment of our life quality is a symptom of government complicity with corporate fascism.
We need to resist these crimes and demand retribution. They are parallel and integrated with economic atrocities our People have recently suffered."
You need to adjust your tuner. You are channeling Karl Marx.
Grady Lee Howard wrote :
"I can hardly be called a Liberal. I am a former progressive republican who served as a Congressional aide. I was radicalized by the corporate agendas of the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Good business is business that serves the needs of the People without resorting to fraud and government hijacking. Even a Republic will fall when undermined by corruption, empire and repression of innate human rights. Fox is the enemy of good government, and NPR, even if it could be construed as sometimes slightly liberal, is the friend of the People and good government.
Fox, as it is operated today, is for weak minded people who think rich criminals are smart."
Right. You are not a liberal. You are a super liberal. Why would POTUS Obama be interviewed on FOX News if it were the "enemy of good government?" George Soros is a rich criminal. As he is indeed a dim bulb, perhaps liberals consider him smart.
Cicero on March 18, 2011 @ 1:09 pm asked: "Why would POTUS Obama be interviewed on FOX News if it were the "enemy of good government?"
Uh, maybe for the same reason Rand Paul agreed to be interviewed on The Rachel Maddow Show"? Because Fox (for good or ill) is a major news outlet, and Obama recognized it was right to make himself available, and had the guts to subject himself to their distortions and interruptions?
Funny, though, how the "brave" Republi-Cons (Palin, for example) usually only allow themselves to appear before friendly audiences. Remember Bush's carefully screened "Town Hall" meetings? (I would like to see "your side" subjected to the kind of abuse the Democrats went through during the Summer of 2009 - but you'd probably call protesters at Republi-Con "Town Halls" 'slobs', 'thugs', and a 'mob').
You, sir, are channeling Ayn Rand, Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, and others who have left reality far behind!
P.S. - This doesn't mean I necessarily agree with Grady Lee Howard either, but I don't have the time to deal with everyone today.
Ruffles, NPR isn't an experiment. I think if you've ever discussed public broadcasting with anyone of a cursory knowledge of "public broadcasting" they would tell you, in no uncertain terms, it isn't an experiment. The mission of public broadcasting programming is to inform and/or of cultural value. In many ways commercial underwriting has corrupted the mission and if public broadcasting goes commercial and completely off government funds this will further corrupt the programming. This isn't the argument NPR uses, but NPR and all of public broadcasting in particular is, indeed, no experiment and was never meant to be one.
The "experiment" defined:
NPR and CPB were started before cable, internet, etc. existed or were popular. Now, we have multiple sources of information, in addition to NPR.
Public money should be for new, innovative ventures that the private world might hesitate to fund. NPR and CPB are way past that point.
Other innovative ventures should now benefit from public funds...the day we have the funds to spare.
Ruffles1 on
March 18, 2011 @ 5:30 pm wrote: "NPR and CPB were started before cable, internet, etc. existed or were popular. Now, we have multiple sources of information, in addition to NPR."
Yes, and most of those other sources still constitute "a vast wasteland". Public broadcasting still provides the most informed, intelligent, and serious reporting, analysis, and discussion of issues (without the mindless shouting matches just about all of the other media provide).
Oh, and as for "innovative ventures should now benefit from public funds", why don't we eliminate all the tax loopholes and subsidies that helped the oil, airline, and automotive industries (among others) to become the giants they are today? Then we can use the increased revenue (public funds) to benefit innovative ventures like renewable energy and conservation, and also be able to decrease the deficit and still keep the relative pittance we provide to public broadcasting.
Budgets should be based on cost/benefit analysis: is something worth the money spent on it. In the case of public broadcasting the answer is a resounding Yes!
Would we still have to cut valuable programs if the Bush Era tax cuts hadn't been extended? What is the potential tax revenue compared to the cost of these programs?
Totally agree with Etaoin Shrdlu.
Steel Interstate rail infrastructure (www.steelinterstate.org) will advance rail service analogous to how the Interstate Highway System vastly improved the speed and safety of 1955-era vehicular traffic.
But unlike interstate highways, the Steel Interstate offers environmentally sustainable, domestically-powered, electrified mobility not currently available in North America--truck competitive "just-in-time" freight service and a fast national passenger rail network. The Steel Interstate will promote smart growth, strengthen both rural and urban economies, and interconnect all the nation's proposed high-speed rail corridors. Analysis shows the entire Steel Interstate System could operate on the power required just to compress the natural gas into a freight transportation fuel.
The Steel Interstate System will benefit the national economy, our health and safety, the nation's security, and our environment—including dramatically reducing both national oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
We are working to create the North American Steel Interstate Coalition. This citizens association will provide the popular political framework to alter national transportation policy to build the Steel Interstate System. Emerging regional rail advocacy groups which join this movement can host their own website on steelinterstate.org.
This new web site also offers compelling, relevant pages like:
• Up-to-date information about the imminent world peak oil production crisis.
• Exploring how over-the-road trucking is the fastest-growing contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. economic sector (transportation) with the fastest growing U.S. GHG emission
• www.steelinterstate.org is the premier web source documenting why it is a very bad idea to subsidize conversion of over-the-road trucking to Natural Gas (NG).
Men look strong and decisive,Christian Louboutin Pumps ClearanceChristian Loubo,Christian Louboutin at Discount, resolute woman appeared lightly