One-sided WaPo Story Celebrates How Conservatives Achieved Nothing on Juan Williams Firing
On the front of Thursday's Style section, Washington Post reporter Paul Farhi relayed the good news that National Public Radio hasn't suffered financially from its banishment of analyst Juan Williams. The headline was "For NPR stations, a sigh of relief." It seemed inconceivable to the Post that NPR fired Williams to please its left-wing "base" audience.
My first sentence on the firing was "It shouldn't be shocking that as many NPR stations are conducting pledge drives of their liberal audiences, NPR has found a pretext to fire its longtime analyst Juan Williams for an appearance on Fox News.' But conservatives weren't interviewed by the Post. Only public radio people were. This story read like an end-zone dance. Farhi began:
A funny thing happened to NPR stations after the worst publicity fiasco in NPR's history: almost nothing at all.
Public radio outlets across the country braced for the worst from their listeners after NPR fired commentator Juan Williams for remarks he made on a Fox News program in late October.
Instead, contributions poured in:
New Hampshire Public Radio, for example, raised $473,000 during its fall drive, a record amount for the nonprofit organization that runs a statewide chain of stations. The number of people who called or e-mailed saying they would no longer support the organization "wasn't significant," says Betsy Gardella, NHPR's president and chief executive.
Adds Gardella: "I think our takeaway is that our audience is very loyal and really values what we do."
The story is almost the same at WMFE (90.7 FM), the NPR affiliate in Orlando. The station is amid a fund drive this week, and contributions are running "above target," says Jose Fajardo, its chief executive.
Fajardo says he occasionally hears criticism of the Williams episode from people around the city, but that he's heard nothing from state legislators in Tallahassee - a sign, he says, that state funding for Florida's public broadcasters isn't in immediate jeopardy.
Washington's leading NPR affiliate, WAMU (88.5 FM), also received a record amount of pledge dollars in its fall campaign, some $1.7 million. The figure topped the proceeding fall's fundraising drive by about $400,000 and came from about 14,000 contributors, another record for the station.
NPR station executives told Farhi they suspected that people calling in to complain about Williams aren't their "regular contributors" -- which suggests they certainly knew that their core financial supporters would love to see Juan gone. (Of course, this assumes that conservatives aren't "regular contributors" through involuntary government means.)
WAMU got approximately 200 e-mails about Williams in the days after the story broke, says spokeswoman Kay Summers, but then "it dropped down and trickled off" - especially after WAMU host Diane Rehm devoted an hour of her NPR-syndicated program to an interview with Williams.
Several station managers say the angriest responses have been from people who appeared not to be regular contributors, based on their cross-referencing caller and e-mailers' names with databases of donors.
Doesn't this "nothing at all" happy news leave out what might happen in the next Congress? The Post arrived at that idea late in the story, but underlined that station executives always utilize their own taxpayer-subsidized resources to fight hard and fight rough (think Big Bird barbecue analogies) to keep their tax money:
For many years, attempts to cut off federal money to public broadcasting has met extremely stiff resistance. Virtually every congressional district has one or more public stations, and public broadcasters have been adept at rousing their viewers and listeners to support continued funding.
A Republican-backed measure to cut all federal funding for NPR failed in the House in mid-November on an almost straight party vote, 239 to 171. The measure's sponsor, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), has said that NPR has a "liberal bias" and that it is "a luxury we can no longer afford, if we ever could." ["Has said"
Several dozen public TV and radio stations and organizations have teamed on a campaign to rally public support for continued funding. The coalition, which includes NPR, Arlington-based PBS and TV-station operator Maryland Public Television, this week launched a new Web site, 170millionamericans.org, that touts the benefits of continued funding. The Web site's name refers to the estimated number of people who "interact" with public media each month.
That number is comically high if you're talking about regular viewership on PBS or listenership on NPR. (They boast 27.2 million NPR listeners each week, but they're ahem, not about the ratings.) But that 170 million number might be more correct if it considers the total number of American taxpayers robbed to pay for this liberal sandbox. The website (as usual, a project of the lobbying group America's Public Television Stations) just blatantly lies with claims like this:
The rapidly changing media environment is making public broadcasting more and more vital as a source of unbiased news, local cultural programming, and non-commercial educational programs designed to enhance the quality of life of our local communities.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Well, NPR sucker
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:29pm.
In January, when we take back control of our countries purse, we'll see. Watch your backs you stinking thieves!
That may all be good and well
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:55pm.
That may all be good and well but if we don't pass the test before us on pork spending and when the GOP blinked on the Bush tax structure. Well it don't look so good for the home team.
We still have Rhino Cleaning
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:10pm.
There are still pork eaters and rhinos that must be removed. We have to hang in and hold our breaths until January to see if we're totally screwed or if there is hope.
Defunding just made easier
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:36pm.
Congratulations NPR for your successful drive for contributions.
You won't be needing more money from us so when we take away your funding we can just point to your successful contributions from people that support you.
Enjoy your downfall, maybe you all can go work for Huffblow as a "blogger".
umm... I don't want to be a wet blanket, but...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:22pm.
Forgive me if I sound ignorant on this, because I really don't know, being just another dumb canuck and all, eh? so I'll just ask...
Does the POTUS have veto power over funding issues?
If so, couldn't he simply veto any congressional vote in favor of defunding NPR, and then turn it all around, and make the Repubs look bad by saying something like "This is what they're focused on, instead of fixing the economy."
And wouldn't the media then just jump right on that bandwagon?
If I'm right, I don't think defunding of NPR will be that easy -- politically speaking. Too bad! We could have sure used that precedent up here regarding our own beloved CBC (Canadian Broadcorping Casteration) -- Canada's version of NPR.
Tag line? Who needs a stinkin' tag line?
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Next budget year the funding
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:31pm.
Next budget year the funding begins and yes the President can veto but how many times? He does so at his own peril. The House sets the funding.
Cut NPR, CPB and all the affiliates
Submitted by JakeMo on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:50pm.
NPR funding (and funding for all the public station affiliates) is a few lines on a huge budget.
In order to veto the funding cut, Obama would have to veto the entire budget.
I'm sure he'll threaten to veto the budget for much bigger and more controversial issues than NPR funding.
Conservatives have to stick to their guns on defunding NPR. It's impossible to estimate the gains that can be achieved by knocking out one of their most egregious propaganda tools.
(Free speech ain't free if the taxpayers are forced to pay for it)
Record donations? Great!
Submitted by KyWriter on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:54pm.
PBS will have something to operate on when federal funding is yanked. I do like Antiques Roadshow. Gwen Awwful? Not so much.
Virginia trying again
Submitted by Model850 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:58pm.
Virginia (my home) is again talking about eliminating state funding of public broadcasting!
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2010/dec/16/tdmain0...
And as another poster already mentioned, successful fund-raising takes away the argument for government funding being needed.
As a fellow Virginian, I
Submitted by johnsonl on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:06pm.
As a fellow Virginian, I applaud our efforts to end funding for NPR. Since they're doing so well, they won't be needing my tax dollars. It's a shame that we as taxpayers don't get a real say (other than electing our legislators) about where our tax dollars go. I think if we did, we'd see a lot of wealth redistribution schemes, disguised as social welfare programs, go by the wayside. We could close a lot of federal agencies, including the IRS, and get along just fine.
Achievements
Submitted by stanmo42 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:00pm.
Fox didn't fire Juan, ergo they weren't trying to achieve anything. NPR did achieve further polarization of their "product". If they are so much better off financially after the move then they shouldn't need to confiscate tax money from conservatives who really aren't interested in all the one-sided blather.
Much was gained
Submitted by andrew - des moines on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:05pm.
CPB will be considered a leftist government organization by more people thanks to the publicity of Williams' firing. As usual, the WaPo is looking at things through violet-colored glasses.
- With the new congress, expect CPB to be a bargaining chip dems will need to spend political capital to protect.
- Expect future budget increases to be limited or non-existent.
- Expect NPR to be a subject of discussion during FCC hearings as the powers that be at that agency have hinted at forcing independent stations to fork over money to NPR.
Let the FCC go
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:13pm.
and FORK THEMSELVES!
Worked out well for Juan
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:15pm.
Worked out well for Juan also. Now he can be an analyst and commentator and not just a sock puppet for his Liberal masters at NPR.
Public stations rally for public funding. News at 11.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:23pm.
"Several dozen public TV and radio stations and organizations have teamed on a campaign to rally public support for continued funding."
And this is surprising, how? Did anyone really expect PUBLIC stations to call for a dismissal, or even a reduction, of their own PUBLIC funding? That's like expecting politicians to vote themselves a pay cut! It ain't happening!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
They fired Juan Williams
Submitted by dhinged on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:23pm.
They fired Juan Williams because he made a chicken-sh*t bigotted remark about the scary Muslims, but you don't have to believe them.
ANOTHER TROLL
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:26pm.
Damn. NB must have been linked by some lib hell hole that sent the hounds.
Uh huh
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:30pm.
Too bad, for your argument anyways, that the people who fired him said something completely different about their reason for dismissing him. It wasn't the words themselves that got him fired, it's the mere fact that he said ANYTHING, made ANY "commentary" away from NPR, in violation of his contract, that got him fired. He could have make those remarks on NPR itself and he never would have been fired.
But, like you said, you don't have to believe them.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Thanks for weighing in, Achmed
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:34pm.
.
Welcome to NewsBusters, D-hinged troll
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:06pm.
Juan made bigoted remarks about camel-washers? Really?
Since Lockerbie, every single airliner that has been brought down by terrorists was taken down by male camel-washers - half of whose name was Mohammed.
You just go right ahead kidding yourself about the true nature of the camel-washers, you stoopid inbred fool.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Come on, Dave.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:22pm.
You know they don't wash those camels any more than they wash their women. They like'em smelly.
Am I the only one that thinks it, or just the only one that will say it: Juan Williams is a simple minded dolt. His logic in discussions on Fox are absolutely juvenile. Watching him argue his case on Fox News Sunday is like watching a really bad high school debate student.
NPR fired him for a really dumb reason. They should have fired him because he is addled, like all liberals. Oh, wait! They would have to fire all of their people if that were the criteria.
Sorry.
Two reasons…
Submitted by JPR1 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:26pm.
One, much of the “donating-base” was so glad to see him go they have likely upped their contributions.
Two, those that are indifferent probably haven’t been exposed to a legitimate counter-argument revealing the hypocrisy in play. Not that they’d understand one of course.
Funny how in these tough times, all the liberals seem able to tap into their “wealth” and continue to support this pathetically biased operation.
Here also is another example of a liberal having trouble with the definition of an ordinary word. To have achieved clearly implies an attempt has been made. Conservatives made no attempt to send Juan packing.
Fundraising is great?
Submitted by seven on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:27pm.
That leaves more money to buy the children rice cakes. They are starting to look like the Pork sistas. Miss Oprah, Miss Michelle and Miss Regina (Dr Regina Benjamin our chunky surgeon general)(Dr Regina BenjaminRegina
By the way...
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:37pm.
"Several station managers say the angriest responses have been from people who appeared not to be regular contributors, based on their cross-referencing caller and e-mailers' names with databases of donors."
By the way, aren't "donor lists" supposed to be PRIVATE financial information, unavailable to even a station's own employees (outside the financial department anyways)? How did the station managers get a hold of those lists?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Well, Cobra
Submitted by Model850 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:05pm.
Public broadcasting stations, being such good stewards of the contributions they receive, are doing so much more with fewer employees. So station managers also act in the capacity of financial administrators, HR managers, on-air voices, production personnel, and janitors.
That being the case they easily access the records.
: -^ D
Exactly CobraMan…
Submitted by JPR1 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:28pm.
It might be one thing to make a random query here and there and not likely illegal if financial data is excluded. Here, it sounds like they did some significant analysis. If they’re going to use it to support an argument, a little more detail is in order.
Just how angry is “angriest and just how do you define a “regular contributor”? Just how many contributors of any stripe made complaints? Simple stuff like that.
Lets wait and see what happens...
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:04pm.
When the next Congress convenes. There is going to have to be some large and painful cost cutting in D.C. and I can't see CPB and NPR getting away with their public funding intact.
They have unequivocally shown two things: 1) that they are a partisan organization with no tollerance for any points of view or opinions that do not comply with the liberal talking points, and 2) that they are perfectly capable of raising private funds to continue their operation in areas that want it. Therefore people who do not agree with NPR should not be forced to pay for it with their tax dollars.
Defund the CPB and allow the market to determine where the NPR stations stay on the air and where they either go away or have to change their format to survive.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Actually, covservatives did gain from Juan's firing
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:12pm.
The far-left National Proletariat Radio, funded in part by our government-confiscated earnings, showed once and for all just how utterly intolerant the left truly is when it comes to speech with which they do not agree.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
NPR is shocked at its own audience's demographics?
Submitted by ayemossum on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:18pm.
Yeah. Somehow NPR has deluded itself so much that it is "mainstream" that it actually expected a significant portion of its audience to be middle to right. Sure they are. Only when you redefine "mainstream" to be hard-left, then those we call middle-left are thought of as right-wing to them. Big surprise that the hard-left that listens to NPR are unphased by the firing.
Methinks the Washington Post
Submitted by Van Halen on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:21pm.
Methinks the Washington Post celebrates too early!
I haven't forgotten and I have even written my Congresscritter about defunding NPR. Starting day one of the new Congress, I'll be contacting again to remind!
Has anyone else?
Who Cares?
Submitted by averageschmoe on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:29pm.
Who cares? What a surprise. A liberal network has not lost funding from it's liberal viewers? Say it ain't so??????
Wait till January and the
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:49pm.
Wait till January and the Republicans in the House hold the purse strings to public funding.
Justice will be swift if not so painful at first.
Progressive ( actually regressive ) douchebags cannot just keep their filthy mouths shut......for that they will continue to pay.
If us real Americans are suppose to be upset that everything is so honky dorie for these degenerates, then explain to me why the homo's ' ants on a crusifix " display was removed faster than the Ass Clown agreeing to all the Republican's demands last week.
Things are fundamentally changing back to the America us real Americans have known & loved for over 200 years no matter what propaganda the Obama regime including the lame street media spew to the contrary.
Once the Republicans are officially back in power, changes for the good of the entire country, not just the " chosen ones " chosen ones will become more apparent with each passing day.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Justice will be swift?
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 7:52pm.
Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. There's no way NPR funding will be removed, or even cut back.
Remember A.C.O.R.N.? That
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 8:03pm.
Remember A.C.O.R.N.? That funding was cut because of a few short films made by a couple of kids dressed up as a fake pimp & hooker. Only time will tell, but I like the odds and the fact that others, museums, etc. are not only taking notice, but for the first time ( ant exhibit ) action.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Taxpayers have no right to complain?
Submitted by JakeMo on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 6:38pm.
Farhi claims that complaints came from people who are not "regular contributors."
If there's taxpayer funding, every complaint came from a "regular contributor" (aka: taxpayer).
You can't pretend you're taking my money to benefit "public interest" and then tell me I have no right to complain because I didn't send in a separate contribution.
It doesn't matter, no one cares...
Submitted by andrew - des moines on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:22pm.
I posted a similar comment to the one I posted above on the WaPo site over lunch. Despite the fact the counter says five comments, there are still all of three. Compare that to the 40 or so on this NB article. As it becomes more difficult to distribute paper copy, I hope this is a sign of how interested people are in subjecting themselves to the WaPo's stories like this in the future.