Gary Knell
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-06-07/gary-knell
NPR recently announced a downturn in corporate sponsorship. The falloff in revenue has led to speculation about cuts in staff and programing. Gary Knell is NPR's president and CEO. He succeeded Vivian Schiller, who was ousted after the release of a tape in which an NPR executive disparaged conservatives and in the wake of firing Juan Williams. These incidents nearly cost public broadcasting its federal funding. Knell joins Diane to discuss NPR's future as it faces many challenges, including financing, competition for audience and changing technology.
Guests
Gary Knell
president and CEO, NPR.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
NPR is a treasure and a testament to the quality of American society. The journalism is responsible and in depth. Because there is less corporate influence (though there is some) of its news, there is less bias and more truth unfettered by moneyed interests.
Regarding the right wing and left wing, a friend of mine, who voted for Richard Nixon, told me recently he felt that Nixon was more liberal than Obama. Nixon created the EPA and sustained LBJ's Great Society principles, furthering social security and medicare, and moving for detente with the Communist country China. And he added that Eisenhower before him would not sign on for Republican calls for tax cuts.
Meanwhile Obama has already extended tax cuts, has picked up where Bush left off engaging in foreign wars, and he has bailed out banks and the car industry, and has entertained very non-keynesian right wing austerity measures. Not exactly textbook liberal. The fact is that we have moved far right of the Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon's days. And Presidents Clinton and Obama would have made solid Republicans in earlier times.
Finally, I appreciate this chat forum, but would like it more if there was some limit to the number of postings per listener (say, 3?). It seems that a few people get on this sight and cannot write less than 10 posts, acting like attack dogs running down everyone's opinion not in agreement with their own.
mellifluous wrote:
"I wouldn't even think to disparage your upbringing or by extension, your mother, especially since we don't know each other."
Please reread my post. I never suggested such a thing.
" I am continually frustrated in trying to divine any principle that "conservatives" apply consistently: apparently there is none."
I suspect this is a reflection of your lack of "intellectual integrity, your grip on reality and your command of relevant facts"
"This seems to me to be an awfully slim reed upon which to base a justification for the eradication of individual liberties (you mean like the individual mandate or perhaps the large soda ban in New York?), mismanagement of public funds (like Solyndra? or was there something else you had in mind), habitual fraud (perhaps you had Kinde Durkee in mind) and sanctimoniously lying (oh - a classic ... I did not have sex with that woman?) as a way of life"
"Citizens United could have been decided differently 1) if the Supreme Court had stuck to the very narrow question that had been brought before it, rather than the extremely activist Chief Justice Roberts taking the extraordinary step of expanding the Court's consideration in order to enshrine the protection of corporations' supposed free speech rights ..."
Roberts is a pretty smart guy.
Based on your decision with respect to CU v FEC, it's September, 2012 and Michael Moore's production company wants to release a movie about the Mormon faith. It never mentions Mitt Romney, but it's not very complimentary. Can he do it?
"And I said that where?" -- Again, I was making a point that it strikes me as awfully peculiar what you and your ideological brethren choose to object to, and the greater instances of injustice and destruction that you apparently ignore"
So you can't bring an example of where I said that. I would appreciate you not ascribing thoughts and words to me that I have not expressed. It's dishonest.
"my thoughts are sometimes scattershot and my command of facts is not always all I would hope for."
No kidding.
"I'll take my blood pressure over your knee-jerk dismissiveness, sense of entitlement and deliberate narrow-mindedness any day."
Again, you need to come with examples that we can discuss, mellifluous, not just your preconcieved notions of what I think.
"But I at least try to make cogent comments, posit useful questions, engage with others honestly and openly in the spirit of inquiry and to keep my derision and rancor to a bare minimum."
I try to make cogent comments, present facts, engage with others honestly and openly in the spirit of inquiry, and respect the golden rule with regard to "derision and rancor".
The bottom line is, you don't like my viewpoints, you can't debate me on facts, so you respond with "derision and rancor" and broad generalizations.
Bottom Line:
If public funding continues to be cut from NPR and survives because it receives private money, then examine the source of that money.
Crazed cookie cutter conservatives (gosh I love alliteration) including those who blog here claim that only liberals listen to NPR and only liberals contribute to NPR, then by their own reasoning/ravings, the programming bias fits those who support it. Right?
By extension, if the programming fits its supporters, then isn't that "free speech" which conservatives bash others with in campaign contribution discussions? e.g. 4 to 1 ratio in outside money propping up Scott Walker.
Heck, maybe the Koch brothers and Donald Trump will start supporting NPR......... we could have a politics version of Celebrity Apprentice on the radio !! I can hear The Donald now saying, "You're Elected!"
ecgberht wrote: "The bottom line is, you don't like my viewpoints, you can't debate me on facts, so you respond with "derision and rancor" and broad generalizations."
That's a lie and you lie habitually. Your style is to isolate phrases from posts written by people you disagree with, write some snarky comment that may or may not address the idea being expressed, pretend that you've successfully refuted what the other poster wrote, and call it debate.
Conversely, I've attempted to address points you've made and answer specific questions you've asked. The effort hasn't been reciprocated, so I'm unlikely to waste my time anymore. An example in your response above: you asked me directly how Citizens' United might have been decided differently, and I told you. Then you come back with an irrelevant further question. Citizens United wanted to release a film-length hit piece on Hillary on cable ahead of the election, that's the case was brought before the Court. Your question about Michael Moore, Mormonism and Mitt Romney isn't even apples and oranges, it's apples and organ grinders.
(continued) While it's true that I've attempted to show that "conservatism" isn't a coherent philosophy, ethic, or set of values, you've resisted addressing that larger question while in turn refusing to even acknowledge reactionary Repug- for the sake of civility, Republican, shortcomings and abuses while expecting me to defend everything Presidents Obama and Clinton have ever done. That's dishonest.
" "I'll take my blood pressure over your knee-jerk dismissiveness, sense of entitlement and deliberate narrow-mindedness any day."
Again, you need to come with examples that we can discuss, mellifluous, not just your preconcieved notions of what I think." -- This was a characterization based on my repeated observations of your vituperative nonsense over time, not a preconceived notion.
ecgberht:
A fair post. And you are right to decry ad hominem attacks against yourself. I personally believe SCOTUS made a huge error in the precedent they have established via its Citizens United decision: the Constitituion provides for the principle that any power or right not defined specifically for the Fed or the State is automatically the right of the individual; there was no such provision for a group of citizens i.e. a company or corporation. Creating a new right for a group/company/corporation is "activism" at its insidious height.
One note, though: please don't use the word "entitlement" in a put down or in a context that demeans the person who has "entitlement".
The word means that a person is entitled to use or have something. When I buy a ticket to an NFL game, the ticket indicates I am "entitled" to attend the game and sit in a particular seat etc.
So it goes, if a citizen pays into a government system and follows all the rules, especially over a lifetime, the person is "entitled" to whatever the law says he/she gets ...... limited defined health care, a bit of small income for the remainder of life, a tiny death benefit, perhaps a stipend for minor children left behind and so on.
Hi LibVet,
To clarify, that was me that was decrying ecgberht's sense of entitlement. Some entitlements are earned, as you noted, but some are not. My feeling is that ecgberht expects to be treated with respect and deference that he/she doesn't merit and courtesy that he/she doesn't extend to his/her opponents. I don't think my remarks about his/her individual posts were ad hominem at all; and my observations about conservatism in general were certainly no more ad hominem that the broad brush that ecgberht uses to demonize "liberals" (I'd like to see the term defined beyond people who believe that some government regulation is useful and others the writer disagrees with) and "liberalism".
What's true is where I begin by trying to point out non-sequiturs in "conservative" iterations, I wind up spending too much time parrying with posters who apparently have no interest in genuine debate or honest exchange and I tend to get more worked up about it than I should.
LibVet wrote:
"If public funding continues to be cut from NPR and survives because it receives private money, then examine the source of that money."
If that happens, then swell. I'm not even that concerned about the source. The point is, it won't be coming from the FG.
"Crazed cookie cutter conservatives (gosh I love alliteration) including those who blog here claim that only liberals listen to NPR and only liberals contribute to NPR, then by their own reasoning/ravings, the programming bias fits those who support it. Right?"
I don't know who says that "only liberals listen to NPR and only liberals contribute to NPR". I don't believe that's true. I do believe that NPRs programming is biased to the left - not as bad as some others - and have posted studies that demonstrate that.
"By extension, if the programming fits its supporters, then isn't that "free speech" which conservatives bash others with in campaign contribution discussions?"
The difference is private contritution vs. public funding, LibVet, that's all. If it's private contribution, NPR can air what it wants.
" e.g. 4 to 1 ratio in outside money propping up Scott Walker"
As someone else has said here, (in essence) Dems smelled a loser (as did the President) and stepped back. Nothing wrong with that. It's politics. I also believe that donation rules were different for Walker because he was the candidate up for recall, the purpose being to make recall difficult to overturn the will of the voters whether a Republican or a Democrat. I don't have the reference for that or the energy to research it but I believe that is the case - at least in WI.
"To clarify, that was me that was decrying ecgberht's sense of entitlement. "
Hey mell! Thanks for clarifying that - you still haven't demonstrated it, but at least you cleared up who misused the term. Appreciate it.
mellifluous wrote:
"That's a lie and you lie habitually"
Please point to one example and I'll do my best to answer your charge.
"Conversely, I've attempted to address points you've made and answer specific questions you've asked. The effort hasn't been reciprocated, so I'm unlikely to waste my time anymore. "
OK, this is where you run away. Got it.
"Then you come back with an irrelevant further question. "
Irrelevant? I don't think so. Hypothetical? Absolutely.
"Your question about Michael Moore, Mormonism and Mitt Romney isn't even apples and oranges, it's apples and organ grinders."
Sorry if you are unable to see the connection, mellifluous. The purpose of the hypothetical was to try to get you to think past the end of the CU v FEC. SCOTUS hears individual cases, but it does not make narrow rulings. That's not its purpose. That's what we have lower courts for. The court has to consider the broader implications of their rulings. That's why the hypothetical is relevant. As I have posted here before, SCOTUS making a narrow ruling in this case, leaves such hypotheticals which are bound to become reality at some point as a sloppy, unresolved mess. The decision of the court was in concert with the founders with respect to speech; allow everything.
"you've resisted addressing that larger question while in turn refusing to even acknowledge reactionary Repug- for the sake of civility, Republican, shortcomings and abuses while expecting me to defend everything Presidents Obama and Clinton have ever done. That's dishonest."
No, because President Obama and President Clinton are not political parties. There is a broad spectrum of thought in the Republican party - how could I possibly address that? Or defend it? When there are actually Republicans that disagree with each other. And I have not asked you to "defend everything PResidents Obama and Clinton have ever done" - in fact, I listed some specifics, something you seem loath to do.
"This was a characterization based on my repeated observations of your vituperative nonsense over time, not a preconceived notion."
Long on characterization, short on specfics once again, mell.
@rogerk " I guess the left bias is in the DNA of many NPR broadcasters."
As a Jew, you should probably refrain from accusing people of having undesirous "attitudes" embedded in their DNA. Ive heard thats lead to trouble before in the past.