Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller resigns

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OneAdam12
    replied
    10-4, 10-10, 10-15 two times, One WF mileage ...................

    10-24, 10-8

    Leave a comment:


  • 1042 Trooper
    replied
    NPR - Nimrods, Punks and Radicals

    They suck. They are wrong. We are right.

    Discontinue any public funding. Let'm sink or swim like everyone else.

    So says 1042.

    Leave a comment:


  • PABear31
    replied
    [QUOTE=dlo;2682691]not at all. If you think the singular speaks for the group as whole - then Beck (the singular) speaks for the whole just as much as Schiller supposedly does[QUOTE]

    Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I clearly explained that it depends on the circumstances whether or not a speaker speaks for the whole or the singular. It seems very convenient for you to just ignore statements that you don't agree with or that don't make your point.

    [QUOTE]If you expect or predict that a fund raising rep will speak for the group's views -- all the more reason to drop your conclusion about the NPR Board.
    Here was a fund raising representative who specifically stated he was speaking his own opinion, and not for the group
    So by your assessment, he was breaking rank with the official views of NPR[Quote]

    Again you conclusions are exactly the opposite of what I wrote. I'm beginning to believe that you have some trouble with reading comprehension.



    [Quote]actually, I think a commentator who voices opinions is far more in line with the group as a whole, than a fund raiser.
    A fund raiser's job is a financial position. and for organizations that rely heavily on donations, I'd expect them to try and cater to as wide a potential pool of donors as possible
    An opinionator's sole job is to attract viewership with that opinion. And if that's the viewership that Fox wants to attract -- I'd say its very much the positions they want to stand for[QUOTE]

    Yes, a fundraiser is a financial position. However, in order to fulfill his duties a fundraiser is required to represent the group to potential donors by presenting the groups positions. A fundraiser that has opinions contrary to those of the group and expresses those opinions will be unable to fulfill the groups fundraising goals of recruiting donors sympathetic to the groups aims. A fundraiser that lies about the groups positions will also be ultimately unsuccessful because donors will eventually learn of the deceptions and either refuse future donations or demand the return of funds already donated.
    On the other hand the as previously stated, a commentator or columnist's responsibility to his employer is to attract viewers, listeners or readers. A commentators views may or may not agree with the editorial board of the news organization. If commentators/columnists had to be in lock step with the editorial position of the group then how do you explain conservative columnists at the Washington Post or the New York Times or the presence of Alan Colmes and Juan Williams at Fox News.
    Furthermore, if NPR asked Schiller to leave, then they are clearly stating his views are inconsistent with theirs
    On the other hand, Fox continues to employ and promote Beck, and in essence, his opinions and views.



    I don't know what NPR's board thinks. They might feel the same as Schiller. They might not.
    But either way, Schiller shouldn't have been forced out because of his personal opinions.
    Considering that NPR doesn't have even one conservative news analysist on their staff and their editorial stance on every single issue has followed the liberal line, I believe that it is a resonable assumption that their collective opinion of TEA party sympathizes is similar to Schiller's. While his comments about the TEA partiers may have been embarrassing to the board the real issue was his statement that NPR didn't need Federal funding. A fundraiser's responsibility is to raise funds not cost the organization funds. Schiller's statement made him a liability and that is a legitimate reason for his termination. By becoming bellweathers for the opponents of federal funding for NPR both Schillers have become liabilities to the funding streams of the organization. As I said before its all about the money.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlo
    replied
    As usual you are comparing apples and oranges.
    not at all. If you think the singular speaks for the group as whole - then Beck (the singular) speaks for the whole just as much as Schiller supposedly does

    If I attend a fund raising event I expect the organizations representative to inform me of that groups position on the issues I'm interested in. I wouldn't expect a Planned Parenthood rep to tell me that she believed in certain restrictions on abortion, nor would I expect an NRA rep to tell me that he thinks that one gun a month laws are a good idea.
    If you expect or predict that a fund raising rep will speak for the group's views -- all the more reason to drop your conclusion about the NPR Board.
    Here was a fund raising representative who specifically stated he was speaking his own opinion, and not for the group
    So by your assessment, he was breaking rank with the official views of NPR

    Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly anr Fox News' equalivent of a newspaper columnist they do not equate to FNC's editorial board. An editorial expresses the official voice of a news organization while a columnist voices a personal opinion. The responsibility that a columnist is simply to generate revenue by drawing readers, listeners or viewers depending on the medium and nothing more.
    actually, I think a commentator who voices opinions is far more in line with the group as a whole, than a fund raiser.
    A fund raiser's job is a financial position. and for organizations that rely heavily on donations, I'd expect them to try and cater to as wide a potential pool of donors as possible
    An opinionator's sole job is to attract viewership with that opinion. And if that's the viewership that Fox wants to attract -- I'd say its very much the positions they want to stand for

    Furthermore, if NPR asked Schiller to leave, then they are clearly stating his views are inconsistent with theirs
    On the other hand, Fox continues to employ and promote Beck, and in essence, his opinions and views.

    The point I was attempting to make about NPR's board was that given the distinct liberal bias that NPR has long shown it is difficult to see how a majority of that board could not share Schiller's view that the TEA parties are dominated by xenophobic racists, after all you have expressed the same opinion on more than one occasion. Do you think that the NPR's board takes a contrary position to yours?
    I don't know what NPR's board thinks. They might feel the same as Schiller. They might not.
    But either way, Schiller shouldn't have been forced out because of his personal opinions.
    Last edited by dlo; 03-13-2011, 05:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DAL
    replied
    Originally posted by OneAdam12 View Post
    So where did the Schiller's (no relation) go to work so I can start my personal boycott?
    They are unemployed.

    Leave a comment:


  • PABear31
    replied
    Originally posted by dlo View Post
    I see.
    So if you support the notion that the individual speaks for the group as a whole,
    then you'd agree that Fox News, as a whole, believes that the revolution in Egypt was a result of alliances between Marxists and radical Islamists with the intent of spreading a unified Caliphate across the Middle East and eventually to America?
    Because that's what Glen Beck has suggested.
    As usual you are comparing apples and oranges. If I attend a fund raising event I expect the organizations representative to inform me of that groups position on the issues I'm interested in. I wouldn't expect a Planned Parenthood rep to tell me that she believed in certain restrictions on abortion, nor would I expect an NRA rep to tell me that he thinks that one gun a month laws are a good idea. Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly anr Fox News' equalivent of a newspaper columnist they do not equate to FNC's editorial board. An editorial expresses the official voice of a news organization while a columnist voices a personal opinion. The responsibility that a columnist is simply to generate revenue by drawing readers, listeners or viewers depending on the medium and nothing more.

    The point I was attempting to make about NPR's board was that given the distinct liberal bias that NPR has long shown it is difficult to see how a majority of that board could not share Schiller's view that the TEA parties are dominated by xenophobic racists, after all you have expressed the same opinion on more than one occasion. Do you think that the NPR's board takes a contrary position to yours?

    Leave a comment:


  • OneAdam12
    replied
    Originally posted by dlo View Post
    I see.
    So if you support the notion that the individual speaks for the group as a whole,
    then you'd agree that Fox News, as a whole, believes that the revolution in Egypt was a result of alliances between Marxists and radical Islamists with the intent of spreading a unified Caliphate across the Middle East and eventually to America?
    Because that's what Glen Beck has suggested.
    You listen to Beck?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlo
    replied
    Originally posted by PABear31 View Post
    I suspect that Ray8285 is right. The only reason that the Schillers were asked to resign is because their poor choices of words have endangered NPR's funding stream. I doubt that anyone on the NPR board is upset that Ron Schiller thinks of Tea Party supporters as racist thugs. His opinion that NPR doesn't need government funds probably did tick them off. If NPR becomes controversial enough there may be corporate sponsors that rethink their contributions as well as the possible loss of federal funding. Just as in for profit businesses its all about the Benjamins.
    I see.
    So if you support the notion that the individual speaks for the group as a whole,
    then you'd agree that Fox News, as a whole, believes that the revolution in Egypt was a result of alliances between Marxists and radical Islamists with the intent of spreading a unified Caliphate across the Middle East and eventually to America?
    Because that's what Glen Beck has suggested.

    Leave a comment:


  • OneAdam12
    replied
    So where did the Schiller's (no relation) go to work so I can start my personal boycott?

    Leave a comment:


  • PABear31
    replied
    I suspect that Ray8285 is right. The only reason that the Schillers were asked to resign is because their poor choices of words have endangered NPR's funding stream. I doubt that anyone on the NPR board is upset that Ron Schiller thinks of Tea Party supporters as racist thugs. His opinion that NPR doesn't need government funds probably did tick them off. If NPR becomes controversial enough there may be corporate sponsors that rethink their contributions as well as the possible loss of federal funding. Just as in for profit businesses its all about the Benjamins.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlo
    replied
    Originally posted by PABear31 View Post
    Employess of organizations are entitled to their own opinions however when they are acting as a representative of that organization they can be prohibited from expressing that opinion. Oh and by the way you just made the argument the the talking heads at Fox News made after the Juan Williams firing. At the time he made the statement Williams was not representing NPR he was representing Fox News.
    that may be, but Ray8285 suggests that because he has those beliefs or opinions, it implicates NPR as a whole.

    its a valid argument. I thought NPR's firing of Williams was dumb - if those comments were the sole cause
    Although they implied there had been a background of issues with him

    Leave a comment:


  • PABear31
    replied
    Originally posted by dlo View Post
    so.
    an employee of an organization can never have a personal opinion - without implicating the WHOLE organization ?

    that makes absolutely no sense.
    Employess of organizations are entitled to their own opinions however when they are acting as a representative of that organization they can be prohibited from expressing that opinion. Oh and by the way you just made the argument the the talking heads at Fox News made after the Juan Williams firing. At the time he made the statement Williams was not representing NPR he was representing Fox News.

    Leave a comment:


  • PABear31
    replied
    Originally posted by DAL View Post
    Late Tuesday evening, Ron Schiller issued an apology through NPR.

    "While the meeting I participated in turned out to be a ruse, I made statements during the course of the meeting that are counter to NPR's values and also not reflective of my own beliefs," Schiller said in a statement. "I offer my sincere apology to those I offended. I resigned from NPR, previously effective May 6, to accept another job. In an effort to put this unfortunate matter behind us, NPR and I have agreed that my resignation is effective today."
    I can understand someone foolishly making statements counter to your employers values while representingy your employer but making statements not reflective of your own beliefs. Ron Schiller is a liar. He either lied during the speech to the potential donors pandering to them for money or he lied during the apology either way his actions were reprehensible. If I was a member of the board at NPR I would demand his resignation on the basis of his lies.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlo
    replied
    Originally posted by ray8285 View Post
    Doesn't matter who they claim they are speaking for, it was still said and it is still likely to effect programming. Right...fundraisers have no input on programming, because donors NEVER SUGGEST things!!!!
    so.
    an employee of an organization can never have a personal opinion - without implicating the WHOLE organization ?

    that makes absolutely no sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • ray8285
    replied
    Originally posted by dlo View Post
    what you conveniently ignore is that Schiller, in that video, explicitly states: I'm speaking for myself, and not NPR

    And that he was not responsible for content. He was a fundraiser
    Doesn't matter who they claim they are speaking for, it was still said and it is still likely to effect programming. Right...fundraisers have no input on programming, because donors NEVER SUGGEST things!!!!

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 4336 users online. 275 members and 4061 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X