Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-11-04/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
Weekly unemployment claims dropped to their lowest level in five weeks; GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain denied reports that he sexually harassed former female employees, and accused Gov. Rick Perry of orchestrating a smear campaign against him; and an Occupy Oakland general strike turned violent overnight. Guest Host Katty Kay of the BBC will analyze the week's top national news stories with Naftali Bendavid of The Wall Street Journal, Nia-Malika Henderson of the Washington Post, and Ron Elving of NPR.
Guests
Naftali Bendavid
national correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
Nia-Malika Henderson
national politics reporter, The Washington Post.
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Thomas Stewart wrote:
NewsBusters: Caller to NPR Attacks Media for Downplaying Democrat Sex Scandals, And Reporters Deny, Deny, Deny
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/11/04/caller-npr-attacks-me...
----------------------------------------
Newsbusters nails it, again. This is why NPR, and specifically The DR Show, is incapable of an honest evaluation of liberal lame stream media's hypocrisy in reporting political scandals. Caller Frank from St. Louis had to have known that Katy Kay, Naftali Bendavid, Nia-Malika Henderson, and Ron Elving would dismiss his factual representation of how the lame stream media handles past Democratic Party candidates indiscretions.
The liberal Freudian slips in this hour were priceless. Katy Kay thought she was on BBC radio, her usual grazing grounds, and NMH referred to the "Republicans and the liberals" before correcting herself and replacing Democrats for liberals.
Considering all the tittering that NMH did throughout the hour, one might have concluded she was sitting on a feather. Perhaps tittering is the sine qua non of her "reporting." She must get a lot of practice at The Washington Post and Politico.
I was very disturbed by your show on Friday, November 4th. One of the woman guests repeatedly relayed her personal, negative feelings about President Obama by throwing in statements without proof, like, "He's not well liked in Congress" and "he has shown no leadership." One caller politely called her on "editorializing" and your guest host ignored this statement and only took her other question. A gentlemen then called and talked with great sensibility about the negative tone about everything this President does. He was making good points but there was this immature suppressed laughter coming from the microphone throughout his entire statement! I was really shocked by this rudeness and disrespect blatantly exhibited toward your audience. This tone has never been this way before and I hope you take steps to correct it so it never happens again. In general I find many guests panelists all too eager to mouth positions put forth by the Republican party. This is not journalism, nor reporting, or even expert testimony. Can you please elevate the panel so we can be enlightened? We should not have to suffer through someone's pointless political barbs. Those kind of guests can stay home and rail on, but I think for public radio, we all want and need a higher level of discourse.
dengre wrote:
"I have been listening to this show for years, decades really. And I have NEVER heard a more bias "Reporter" than your guest from the Washington Post. She frames every comment with Republican talking points and framing. Her bias would make Byron York blush. She makes NO attempt to even pretend that there is any POV of value that is not a conservative one."
sandy johnson wrote:
"I was very disturbed by your show on Friday, November 4th. One of the woman guests repeatedly relayed her personal, negative feelings about President Obama by throwing in statements without proof, like, "He's not well liked in Congress" and "he has shown no leadership." In general I find many guests panelists all too eager to mouth positions put forth by the Republican party. This is not journalism, nor reporting, or even expert testimony."
------------------------------------------------------
It is rather hysterical that the both of you consider the obviously liberal Nia-Malika Henderson of The Washington Post to be a shill for the GOP because she couldn't conceal the fact that POTUS Obama's job approval is in the dumper. When Bush 43 was in The White House did you ever object to the panelists and the host on The DR Show who "relayed their personal, negative feelings" about him?
During the domestic hour Friday, a caller was commenting on the press coverage of what President Obama has accomplished. During his comment, one of the panel was chuckling, guess the mike was accidentally left on. I was very concerned by the message that sent to the listeners.
Imorgan wrote:
I don't think Mitch said it was his ONLY job! In any case it is the surgeons job to remove the cancer that's killing the patient.
No, he didn't say is was his ONLY job. He said it was his "single most important job". (most important wasn't strong enough, he added single for emphasis). He repeated this when the government was on the brink of shutting down. So, he is saying if the choice is having the US default and President Obama lose in 2012 or the US meet its obligations and have Obama win, default takes second (third or perhaps fourth) priority. Same for protecting our troops, perhaps it matters but not as much as beating Obama.
But, more disturbing than Mitch McConnell's statement is the comment by Henderson that there is nothing wrong with it. That it IS his job to make sure President Obama is defeated. That a reporter seems to consider it normal for a leading politician to consider partisanship his main job is unsettling.
I don't want to single Ms. Henderson out. The problem is that there are many (most?) reporters who take the attitude that partisanship is the "job" of politicians (and that is the focus of the Sunday morning talk shows, for instance). It seems the success of the parties/factions is more important than the success of the country.
Economics: It has been many years since college, 1973, studying Engineering, Computer Systems, and Business; Marketing/Economics. According to the taped lectures from a prominent Harvard Economics Professor there were two elements to an economic system. The first is similar to the second. One: the conversion of raw materials into finished goods; Two: value added manufacturing. With the marketing requirements of the 4 P's. The right product, at the right place, with the required promotion, at the right price.
O.K. so the price has become The GOD of product demand. Quality? Not important. We sent or technical expertise to any interested global area with the desire to produce product at a seriously reduced cost. We gave them the expertise so we could buy much more with much less. We are the "Need for Greed". We bought into the low cost for low quality scam. Now the folks we gave our technology to are producing quality items, making the profits that we did not think we would need to purchase the diversity of items we wanted at the diminished price.
The professor had revised his opinion of the source of economic sustenance and stability. About a decade ago he provided for the potential of sustainable economics based upon Global Service Industries.
Take a look around. There are few jobs that have not been shipped out and few demands for our opinions for how to make and sustain a Global market.
Our need for Greedies have led the market consumers to believe that there is no need for production at a profit as the cost to buy is so minimal we need not concern ourselves.
Here is an instance where the need for greedies duped the need for unlimited supply to giving up their jobs to allow products to be available to a nation of unemployed people that can now not afford to buy the products they once manufactured even at reduced prices, because they no longer have jobs or income.