Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-25/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
House Speaker Boehner questions President Obama’s strategy in Libya. U.S. home sales fall to the lowest level in half a century. And South Dakota opens a new front in the war over abortion. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
David Corn
Washington bureau chief, "Mother Jones" magazine; author of several books, most recently, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War."
Susan Davis
congressional correspondent, National Journal.
Stephen Hayes
"The Weekly Standard," author of "Cheney - The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President"
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"... how about comparing the number of times Corn has appeared on this show with the appearances by others, especially conservatives like Byron York or Mr. Hayes?"
During Rehm's numerous absences from her own show, please cite just one example where a conservative was a fill in host? If York is such a regular, as you suggest, why doesn't Rehm ever allow him to be a guest host? Why are all the substitute hosts liberals i.e., Paige, Katy Kay, Steve Roberts, etc?
But do name one Friday news Round Up conservative panelist who is the equivalent of the far left David Corn? Of course you may believe "Mother Jones" appeals to moderates.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Very amusing, especially since the article clearly states the sign was made and carried by a student, not a teacher. I guess you have trouble differentiating between those words.
(And before you make a crack about what a bad job the kid's teacher did - tell me, do you know of any school that doesn't have poor students?)"
The teacher instructed her students to make these signs. Since the teacher organized the sign making and the protest field trip, and appears with them (see video) the teacher is a big a dolt as the kid. Tell me, were your public school teachers as incompetent as this one? If so, were they smart enough not to attract attention to their incompetence while protesting against teacher budget cuts?
http://www.kcci.com/video/22775952/detail.html
I'm sure you have a rational explanation for why a Wisconsin teacher is carrying an "IMPEACH BUSH" sign at the protest. She must be the history teacher. We won't even get into the absurd Hitler = signs.
http://gratewire.com/topic/the-historical-illiteracy-of-wisconsin-teachers
to ecgberht
The UN Security Council voted for the resolution to allow inspectors back in, Saddam complied. Hans Blix begged for more time to search and was forced to leave before Bush and the “coalition of the willing” invaded.Bush’s invasion was independent of the UN Security Council.
Just image if Hans Blix had been given more time… we wouldn’t have the massive lose in blood and treasure.
How do you know Obama did nothing to build a coalition of the UN, Arab League, and NATO?
Glad you are telling it like it is.
Etaoin:
Stated on March 25, 2011 at 4:22 pm.
"On the other hand, how do you explain all those TeaBaggers carrying signs that read "No socialized medicine. Hands off my Medicare"?"
Gee Etaolin, have you not stop to think that the population was forced to pay into Medicare from it inception in 1967.
As for the "TeaBagger" comment, it kind of shoots down your "civility" that you claim you had when the topic was debated a few weeks ago.
Etoain:
Stated on March 25,2011 at 4:33.
"Sorry, but if they are in the country illegally then they are indeed illegal. The problem is that people wrongly equate the word "illegal" with "criminal". They are not the same. It's illegal to breach a contract, it's not necessarily criminal."
Etoain, have you not read the present law on the books. If you are in this country illegally you are "breaking the law". You are doing a criminal act if you are breaking the law. Is there another word that can be used?
Etaoin:
Stated on March 25, 2011 @ 4:45pm.
"But of course (warrantless wiretaps) Republi-Cons (abortion restrictions) always favor (bans on gay marriage) less government control (drug laws) over (bans on assisted suicide) "the lives of citizens".
You also forgot to mention that they Republicans wants to see less illegitimacy especially in the African-American community which has reached 70%. No dad in the household leads to more abuse, crime, and failure.
Let not forget, they favor voucher systems so these minorities have the same opportunities with their middle class white kids peers that get some of the best educational opportunities.
Does Etaoin Shrdlu have any credibility left as a D.R. poster? NO.
cicero wrote: February 25, 2011 - 2:56 pm
@Etaoin Shrdlu ,
You must have graduated with distinction from the Keith Olbermann School of nit-witticisms. Your reliance on such gems as "faux news," "Republi-Cons ," " Fox Noise," etc only diminish your attempt at a lucid argument.
*Not to mention your penchant for Teabaggers.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: February 26, 2011 - 1:14 am
"Oh, and another little fact you ignore: I did not use terms like "faux news" or "Fox Noise" in my prior Comment."
meangreen wrote: February 26, 2011 - 11:33 am
To The Disingenuous Etaoin Shrdlu:
You did use "faux news on the opinion piece of this station on Friday February 18, 2011, "Hour 1:19pm
PROOF:
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: February 18, 2011 - 1:19 pm
"Well, gee, let's see now. As you noted, the Tea Baggers were hardly models of civility, but their right to be a pack of loud-mouthed violent thugs was staunchly supported by Faux News and Squawk Radio .."
The next time an administration invents stories about such things as "yellow cake", "aluminum tubes", "mobile chemical weapons factories", in order to start unecessary war; let's ask them to attack someone more local and save some travel expense. How about Mexico- (this would go a long way in solving the immigration problem)? I can picture Colin Powell standing before U.N. as he did before Iraq, and play an "intercepted message" from Mexico... "Hey Juan, the inspectors are coming, did you hide them WMD's", "Yeah, yeah I hid 'em real good,... heh, heh, heh?"
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger"
Hermann Goering- Nazi Reichsmarshal
If the only requirement for patriotism was to support war effort, than Germans of WWII were sure patriots. I think those few Germans who did what they could to resist war effort were far greater patriots- just like those Americans who have spoken out, done what they can, against the Iraq War are patriots. That's democracy- that's freedom.
ecgberht on March 25, 2011 @ 4:52 pm wrote: “First, I know you are a leftist because of your offensive use of the term "teabagger" in another post, so don't even bother trying to deny it.”
PART ONE
And I know you are a “rightist” because you use ad hominem attacks based on one small part of what someone writes rather than employ facts and reason to address the substance of the whole. I employ the term “teabagger” because that’s what they used to call themselves, before the slang meaning of the term was revealed. It’s a gentle “tweak of the nose” highlighting the vast fund of ignorance and misinformation that can be found in that “movement”.
“Now, why is it that the only ones who EVER are trying to sell that NPR (and/or PBS) are in any way "fair" are the leftists?”
- Right back at ya! Why is it that the only ones who ever try to sell that NPR (and/or PBS) are in any way "biased" are the rightists? Hmmmm?”
“Usually these statements are accompanied by a slam at Fox News, although this post of yours does not. The reason is, because NPR (and/or PBS) are NOT fair. Just ask Ron Schiller.”
- As you noted, I did not accompany my remark with such a slam (though I may have included one elsewhere). So, does that make me a “lefty”, a “righty”, or does it make you a partisan ideologue who abandoned reality a long time ago? As for Mr. Schiller - yeah, one guy who is merely a fund-raiser and doesn’t actually operate NPR (and/or PBS) nonetheless can speak for the entire institutions. (And isn’t it a shame that, once again, the “Okeefe report” has proven to be selectively edited in order to distort what that guy actually said. Just more “fair and balanced” reporting from our conservative friends!)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
“I believe two things about American media: . . . .”
- And I believe that for every drop of rain that falls, a flower blooms. Which has as much to do with reality as the rest of that paragraph of yours. By the way, if what you claim were true, and Fox was the only place “righties” could get the news they like to hear (as distinct from the news that actually happened), that means the rest of the American people are spreading their viewing time among all the other channels. I wonder what would happen if we compared Fox’s audience share with the totals of all the others? As you said, Murdoch has found his niche, but it’s only a niche. (Meanwhile, the audience for public broadcasting keeps growing.) Oh, and since when is popularity a mark of quality? By that standard the latest piece of foul mouthed “rap noise” is superior to Mozart. (NOT! )
“So believe what you wish, Strudel.”
And ending with another ad hominem attack, this time a pretty childish one. Great way to demonstrate what a serious, thoughtful, “fair and balanced” person you are - NOT!
(But I repeat myself.)
cicero on March 25, 2011 @ 6:33 pm wrote: “During Rehm's numerous absences from her own show, please cite just one example where a conservative was a fill in host?”
I believe what you are trying to do is known as “moving the goalpost”.
You originally complained (on March 25, 2011 @ 12:32 pm) about Corn being a “favorite” of Ms. Rehms.
I responded (on March 25, 2011 @ 4:28 pm): “Hey, ‘good buddy’, instead of just engaging in an ideological rant, how about comparing the number of times Corn has appeared on this show with the appearances by others, especially conservatives like Byron York or Mr. Hayes? Then we can decide just how much of a "favorite" he is.
So now, of course, you just engage in another rant, one that mis-quotes me (pointedly omitting the last part). Nice try, but the issue is how much of a “favorite” Corn is, not who has appeared as a substitute host. Why are you so afraid of making that inquiry?
For that matter, why are you so afraid of producing any evidence to back up your assertions? I mean, as I’ve already pointed out, today’s guest list kind of blows a hole in your claims that conservatives are always outnumbered whenever they appear here.
cicero on March 25, 2011 @ 6:55 pm wrote: “The teacher instructed her students to make these signs.”
PART ONE
Really? Where in the article (you provided a link to) did it say that? All I saw was a statement (by the person who posted the thing, hardly an unbiased source) that the “teacher made her students join her in protesting budget cuts”.
Now leaving aside the big issue of how, exactly, the teacher made the kids join her (like maybe she asked?), I don’t see anything to indicate she directly supervised the making of each and every sign (let alone the one in question). When my “middle school” teacher assigned me to make a book report, I assure you she wasn’t at my house reading over my shoulder as I wrote it!
So how do you know if the first time the teacher even saw this sign was at the protest, and that assumes she noticed it - it looks as if she had other things on her mind!
(Of course, since the video indicates she was a language teacher, feel free to make a joke about English not being her first language!)
;-)
By the way, I can’t help noticing two things I forgot to mention before:
1) You originally attacked this teacher in response to a comment about protests in the State Capital over the Governor’s union busting (March 25, 2011 @ 11:46 am). But this demonstration was held elsewhere, a year ago, and was about something else entirely (cuts to the local school budget by the local school board). Nice job inserting something completely irrelevant.
2) The teacher was retiring at the end of the school year, so the budget cuts wouldn’t affect her. Gee, could it possibly be she was demonstrating for the good of the kids, who would be deprived of valuable education programs in the next year? And could that be what “made” the kids join in?
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
As for those other signs “at the protest” - I guess it escaped your notice that the second story you referenced was from an entirely different protest!
With such keen powers of observation, and grasp of facts, it’s no wonder you’re a Republi-Con!
P.S. - And notice how I refrained from calling you “a big dolt”.
P.P.S. - As to those other signs, I'm more than willing to condemn boorish behavior from either side of the political spectrum. Tell me, did you ever condemn those "Obama as witch doctor" signs that turned up again and again at TeaBagger rallies?
meangreen on March 25, 2011 - 8:22 pm wrote: “Gee Etaolin, have you not stop to think that the population was forced to pay into Medicare from it inception in 1967. As for the "TeaBagger" comment, it kind of shoots down your "civility" that you claim you had when the topic was debated a few weeks ago.”
1) That does nothing to change the fact that Medicare is exactly an example of “big government”, “socialized”, medicine those TeaBaggers were protesting against. Which is the point, of course!
2) I’ve already explained why I use the term “TeaBagger”, and as for “civility”, I hardly think it compares to threats to employ “bullets instead of ballots” should elections not go the way conservatives wanted.
(I’m sorry, I really should call them “so-called” conservatives. Actually, they give conservatism a bad name.)
P.S. - Is it so hard to get my name right? All you have to do is cut and paste.
meangreen on March 25, 2011 @ 8:27 pm wrote: “Etoain, have you not read the present law on the books. If you are in this country illegally you are "breaking the law". You are doing a criminal act if you are breaking the law. Is there another word that can be used?”
Have I mentioned I’m a retired attorney? So maybe, just maybe, it’s possible I might know what I’m talking about.
Merely being in this country illegally is not criminal. I believe I previously cited an example: if you enter the country legally, but overstay your visa, you become illegal. However, doing so is not criminal. (Entering the country by sneaking over the border may be both illegal and criminal - depending on the facts.)
Can you break the law without doing a criminal act? Sure. I believe I’ve already mentioned that a breach of contract is illegal, but it’s hardly criminal. A doctor who commits malpractice has done something illegal, but they only face civil judgment, not imprisonment. It’s illegal for attorneys to divulge what a client has told them in confidence, for doctors to divulge what their patients have told them, and for members of the clergy . . . etc. But if we breach that confidentiality, we won’t go to jail. We may be sued into bankruptcy, disbarred, lose our medical license, or be defrocked, but we won’t be prosecuted for a crime.
Illegal simply means “contrary to law”. There is more to the law than the criminal code.
P.S. - Glad we are back to disagreeing. I was really starting to worry.
;-)
meangreen on March 25, 2011 @ 8:52 pm wrote: “You also forgot to mention that they Republicans wants to see less illegitimacy especially in the African-American community which has reached 70%.”
And what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?
Do try to keep things in context. I was responding to your statment (March 25, 2011 @ 1:10 pm) that “you [actually Pammity] favor more government control over the lives of citizens.” As if that was the exclusive province of Democrats and liberals (even assuming the statement is true, which it isn’t). So I just provided examples of Republi-Cons favoring “more government control over the lives of citizens.”
By the way, I would like to see less illegitimacy too, but the question is the means to be employed.
“Let not forget, they favor voucher systems so these minorities have the same opportunities with their middle class white kids peers that get some of the best educational opportunities.”
- Not sure what that has to do with illegitimacy, but I’m happy to see there’s at least one “big government” wealth transfer system you support - you old “commie”!
(I doubt, though, if it works as well as you think, plus there’s the whole church/state issue, but that’s a debate I have no interest in conducting.)
cicero on March 25, 2011 @ 10:37 pm wrote: “Does Etaoin Shrdlu have any credibility left as a D.R. poster? NO.”
PART TWO
If by “credibility”, you mean do I take things out-of-context, distort, misquote, overlook key facts that utterly destroy my argument (like, for example, you do), then I am happy to have none left. Let’s examine your “evidence” again.
Responding to one of your Comments, on February 26, 2011 @ 1:14 am I wrote, "Oh, and another little fact you ignore: I did not use terms like "faux news" or "Fox Noise" in my prior Comment."
Note the emphasized word, sir, I was talking about something I had written previously to that episode of the Diane Rehm show.
And your evidence of my lack of credibility is? To repeat the equally false and out-of-context assertions of meangreen about what I had written a week earlier, on a different episode of the show!.
I guess English isn’t your strong point either. I did not say I never used such terms, only that I hadn’t used them in my prior Comment. An absolutely true statement.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
Just to make it clear how false your accusation is, let’s summarize the sequence in date and time order:
February 25, 2011 @ 2:19 pm: I post my first Comment to that episode, in which I do not use the words "faux news" or "Fox Noise". (I was rebutting a charge of hypocrisy someone had made against Democrats by pointing out the Republi-Cons had done the very things they were now criticizing the Dems for, thus showing they were the hypocrites).
February 25, 2011 @ 2:56 pm: Your Comment (falsely) accusing me of using those terms. (Note: there was no other Comment by me that day prior to this one by you. Also note: you object to my pointing “to Republican bad behavior”, demonstrating that it was the 2:19 pm Comment you were responding to.)
February 26, 2011 @ 1:14 am: I state “Oh, and another little fact you ignore: I did not use terms like ‘faux news’ or ‘Fox Noise’ in my prior Comment.” (Which, by the way, was only the second Comment I had posted to that episode.) In short, I wrote nothing but the truth.
I’d say it’s your credibility that’s shot! (And meangreen’s too.)
The real question is: should I go back to the website for that earlier episode and reply to the nonsense meangreen posted?
By the way, just to prove I'm not infallible, I mislabeled the prior two Comments. There is no "Part One", so Part Two should actually be the "part one", etc.
Sorry about that.
(See, I admit when I've made a mistake. Can anyone remember Cicero or meangreen doing such a thing?)
"The real question is: should I go back to the website for that earlier episode and reply to the nonsense meangreen posted?"
Just answered my own question: I should and I did.
Drew Kelly:
What do you think that Saddam used to gas the Kurd and kill 5000 of them in 1987?
Dear meangreen:
2003 - 1987 = 16 years. A whole lot of things happened in the interim and, as was later discovered, gas canisters from back then were about the only WMD’s Saddam still had (and they were unusable after all that time).
Meanwhile, what does your argument have to do with Kelly’s point concerning false claims about "yellow cake", "aluminum tubes", "mobile chemical weapons factories". Answer: nothing!
If you feel you must defend Bush on this, allow me to provide a (slightly) better line of argument. It seems very clear that Saddam believed he had WMD’s (that’s the problem with dictatorships, everyone’s afraid to tell the dictator the truth), and he also wanted the world to believe he had them too. That, at least, can be used to argue some of the blame for Bush’s “misinformation” belongs to Saddam himself.
Of course, that still leaves open the question of whether the Bush Administration deliberately “cherry picked” the information it chose to believe, deliberately used false or misleading rhetoric (“mushroom clouds”), and “jumped the gun” without first making very sure about the need to go to war.
For the record, I believe the Iraq War was a big mistake - not the least because it diverted resources and attention from Afghanistan. It’s a double mistake we are still paying for.
However, what’s done is done, and Bush is out of office, so the only reason I see for discussing this is so all of us (including the politicians) are more careful the next time we consider whether to go to war. Thus, I will allow you and Mr. Kelly to go back to your partisan and ideological bickering. Playing the “blame game” at this point seems a waste of time.
Part 1
strudel (and, couldn't you tell I use the term affectionately?!)
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts:
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU...
The term is used by the left (ya know, folks like you) as a pejorative, not in the context of the Boston Tea Party and persons who sent tea bags to Congress. Go ahead, deny it.
As for the charge of argumentum ad populum, perhaps it is the case that those 50% were not being served by news from a "fair and balanced" perspective. Are you truly going to argue that NBC is fair? They even preach liberal tenets in their ENTERTAINMENT programming!
As for Fox, the numbers speak for themselves.
"I wonder what would happen if we compared Fox’s audience share with the totals of all the others?"
So you agree that the rest of the media is baised to the left?! Is that why you have to add them together? But, ok, in their evening program, add together MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN and Fox beats them.
"Meanwhile, the audience for public broadcasting keeps growing"
First, you have to distinguish between PBS and NPR. NPR's audience was growing until 2009. The audience at PBS has been shrinkng for a decade. But again, if the programming is so superior and they are so fair, why do they need to suck the public teat? No other outlet gets to do that.
Part 2
On NPR, specifically, this goes back to the election year, but this study at journalism.org says all you need to know about NPR:
"Like the media overall, the first 30 minutes NPR’s Morning Edition produced more stories about Democratic candidates than Republicans (41% vs. 24%). What was different was how little negative coverage Democrats received, especially compared with all other media. Stories about a Democratic candidate were more seven times more positive than negative: 41% positive vs. 6% negative. The majority of coverage, 53% of stories, was neutral. Looking at specific candidates, stories about Barack Obama carried a clearly positive tone two-thirds of the time. Not a single Morning Edition story was negative. Furthermore, 43% of Hillary Clinton’s coverage was positive vs. 14% negative. Stories about one of the Republican candidates was more evenly split in tone: 30% positive to 20% negative and 50% neutral. Similar to its public broadcasting counterpart, the NewsHour, NPR devoted more attention to lesser-known candidates. Mitt Romney, the candidate running third for the GOP nomination in most national polls, was the most covered Republican figure, tied with Mike Huckabee, a mostly unknown candidate at the time. Often considered the GOP front runner, Rudy Giuliani, only had one story devoted to him and John McCain had none. NPR was also the one outlet where there was a marked difference between the total amount of airtime vs. total number of stories. While 24% of the campaign stories were about a Republican candidate, just 15% of the total airtime was spent on them. This suggests that stories about the Republican candidates were brief, creating an even greater gap in the total coverage of Republicans and Democrats. "
rainlr wrote:
Parts of what you write are true. "complied"? "begged"? "independant"? Even Wiki will give a less biased view to anyone who is interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_actions_regarding_Iraq
But you miss the point, rainlr. I didn't post about Iraq. I posted about Libya. I repeat:
"If this were President Bush, the left would be asking, Why didn't he go to Congress? Can we afford this? What's it going to cost in blood and treasure? Don't we need jobs and not bombs? Is this really going to help the Libyans? Why not Bahrain or Yemen or Saudi Arabia? (and perhaps my favorite ...) What is the EXIT strategy?!"
C'mon left. Where are you?
The post wasn't even about the legitimacy of the attack! It's about the hypocrisy of the left, particularly main-stream media.
"Have I mentioned I’m a retired attorney? "
Hey meangreen,
Wouldn't you have thought that strudel, the self-proclaimed expert on valid argument, would have recognized argumentum ad verecundiam before he used it?!
ecgberht on March 28, 2011 @ 1:55 pm wrote: “You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts”
PART ONE
How true, but one is also not entitled to be selective with facts, and ignore the ones that destroy their argument. For example, the third paragraph of the article you so kindly provided a link to (that’s not sarcasm, by the way, thank you for doing so):
"The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was 'Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.' A protester was spotted with a sign saying, 'Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.' So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it."
Hmm. Now what would you call a group that was saying things like that? What term describes people who want to “Tea Bag” others? Why, how about “TeaBaggers”? As the article admits “. . . conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.” - Which is what I said!
Perhaps National Review Online is just another one of those “liberal” media you shouldn’t rely on anymore. Maybe you should complain to them that “You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts”!
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
As for the rest of the nonsense you posted along with that, some of it is merely a case of “lather, rinse, repeat”, and I refuse to continue the wash cycle, but here are a few selected responses:
“So you agree that the rest of the media is baised to the left?! Is that why you have to add them together?”
- Not at all. You were the one who trumpeted that Fox was doing so well compared with the ratings for each of the other media (in a fashion that at least implied you thought the others “biased to the left”), so I just suggested why not see how Fox does compared to all the other media combined.
Again we see your talent for missing the point, so let’s use an analogy and see if you can “get” it. Suppose Fox also does better than QVC, the Golf Channel, and MTV individually. Does that prove that Americans prefer hard-right conservative propaganda to shopping, Golf, or pop Music (including, heaven help us, Snookie)? Only if you can show that Fox’s ratings are higher than all the others put together! Same thing with news (or “commentary”). Fox may do well simply because it’s found a niche few others cover. Suppose CNBC (a “pro-business” channel) began including hard-right propaganda as a major part of its programming - how would Fox fare then? In short, the more televised sources for that stuff, the lower ratings for each provider.
(Of course, this all presumes the ratings are accurate. I wonder if they include the fact that people may be watching one show, while recording another to watch later? That would skew the results, I think. Also, have I mentioned how little trust I put in polling anyway? But for the First Amendment, I'd love to see the practice banned!)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
“But, ok, in their evening program, add together MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN and Fox beats them.”
- Care to provide a link to the data backing up that claim? Also, note that I originally asked for the totals of all the other channels. Apparently you’ve forgotten that your original boast was that Fox was also “beating up on many ‘free’ channel programs too (CBS, NBC, ABC).”* So why didn’t you include them in your mix? (Plus, since we are comparing Fox’s share of the news/commentary TV market, include other channels - such as all of C-SPAN).
*March 25, 2011 @ 4:52 pm
In short, if you’re going to reply to me, be sure to reply based on the entire content of our discussion, not just selected portions taken out-of-context. (That’s one of the reasons I try to include the date and time of the Comments I’m responding to, along with a quote of the part in question - so other people can go back and get the full context.)
Oh, and when I refer to Fox, I mean the cable channel only (the one with such “sages” as Beck). No fair including the local or regular “news” channels!
“NPR's audience was growing until 2009. The audience at PBS has been shrinkng for a decade.”
- I’d like to see some proof for that too. (Though in fairness, I was simply relying on what I’ve heard other commentators say about public broadcasting’s growing audience, so you are entitled to take a “pass” on this one if you don’t have the data.) Of course, since we are mainly talking about NPR (that’s what all the fuss has been about), limiting the discussion to that is appropriate.
TO BE CONTINUED