"John LeBlanc" wrote in message
...

"MikeK" wrote in message
...

THIS is ethical, responsible journalism? Where was Glick's ombudsman?

What was your problem with this transcript?



That O'Reilly basically told Glick to shut up. He asked questions, then did
not let the interviewee respond. Mostly O'Reilly told the INTERVIEWEE what
he thought, rather than actually conducting an interview. Obviously BOR's
fans like him to be overbearing and yell at people, but he could at least
PRETEND to be a journalist.

"WillStG" wrote in message
...

Perhaps they just aspire to higher standards than you do...


NPR obviously aspires to higher standards than Fox...hell, I think everyone
here does, too.

Where does one reach the fox channel Ombudsman for comments on some of
their shows, they have one don't they?

Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, the Ombudsman at National Public Radio, criticizes NPR
for unfairness and unethical behavior regarding Terri Gross's interview with
Bill O'Reilly.

http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/
October 15, 2003
excerpt.

"But by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and
curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the
interview to develop.

By the time the interview was about halfway through, it felt as though Terry
Gross was indeed "carrying Al Franken's water," as some listeners say. It was
not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about his book. It was
about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon. That's a legitimate subject for
discussion, but in this case, it was an interview that was, in the end, unfair
to O'Reilly.

The "Empty Chair" Interview

Finally, an aspect of the interview that I found particularly disturbing: It
happened when Terry Gross was about to read a criticism of Bill O'Reilly's book
from People magazine. Before Gross could read it to him for his reaction,
O'Reilly ended the interview and walked out of the studio. She read the quote
anyway.

That was wrong. O'Reilly was not there to respond. It's known in broadcasting
as the "empty chair" interview, and it is considered an unethical technique and
should not be used on NPR.

I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview. It may have
illustrated the "cultural wars" that seem to be flaring in the country.
Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some,
in NPR's liberal media bias. "

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

"MikeK" wrote in message
...

Obviously BOR's
fans like him to be overbearing and yell at people, but he could at least
PRETEND to be a journalist.


I thought the argument was that he *is* a pretend journalist. g

I may or may not have mentioned this, but I'm no great fan of Bill O'Reilly. I
purchased his new book at Sam's Club because I thought $14 was a decent amount
to pay for research on the issue. I did my best to get through the first
chapter, but it was pretty painful. Maybe it's a cultural thing; I'm not from
his neck of the woods.

John

Where does one reach the fox channel Ombudsman for comments on some of their
shows, they have one don't they?

We're a private company, not a public institution like NRP. But you
could try Eric Berne, host of "Fox News Watch". It's a weekend panel show that
criticizes the media, including FNC. The panel is bi-partisan and Eric Berne is
also IIRC on the NewsCorp board, I think he has clout if there are real ethical
violations you wish to address. I have seen some issues of balance get
addressed after being directed to him. I have been interested in such things
long before FNC was even a blip on your radar screen, I have been here for over
7 years.

You can find contact info on the Fox News Web site. Many of our shows,
O'Reilly, Cavuto and others also read email on air. IMHO they take viewer
feedback seriously. But know what you're talking about before you decide to
write Eric Berne unless it's about his program, please.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

"Altasrecrd" wrote in message
...
: ode (nuke)

one thing I find uncomfortable in the music/arts world is this
expectation on some people's part that if you are creative and involved
in
artistic endeavors you are required to participate in left-wing political
parroting as well.

I think most people expect artists to be too smart to be Republicans.

I also think a lot of artists are the most shallow self seeking people in
existence. And I don't know why anyone would equate them with "smart" as far
as it pertains to wisdom.

On 2003-10-20 said:
"MikeK" wrote in message
THIS is ethical, responsible journalism? Where was Glick's
ombudsman? What was your problem with this transcript?
IT wasn't an interview, it was a public attack. I don't respect the
"empty chair interview" and never heard the NPR piece, but I don't
respect any interviewer that does that kind of job either. Even if
you disagree with a subject responsible "fair and balanced" journalism
means that you try to let the interview subject speak for himself
before you pull out the guns.

SO this is the new amss media. Talk about a cesspool, this is it.
Oops I forgot, it's just supposed to be "entertainment product."

REgards,



Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote in message
newsthlb.198924$%h1.192690@sccrnsc02...
"Altasrecrd" wrote in message
...
: ode (nuke)

one thing I find uncomfortable in the music/arts world is this
expectation on some people's part that if you are creative and involved
in
artistic endeavors you are required to participate in left-wing
political
parroting as well.

I think most people expect artists to be too smart to be Republicans.

I also think a lot of artists are the most shallow self seeking people in
existence. And I don't know why anyone would equate them with "smart" as
far
as it pertains to wisdom.



Your statement about artists might be rephrased to say, "I also think that a
lot of people named Hunt are the most shallow self-seeking...blah blah blah"
and it would be just as silly.

Steve King

(Scott Dorsey)

I would agree with you completely, if a substantial part of NPR's funding
actually did come from the government. Thirty years ago, it sure did, but
these days it's such a small part of their budget that I wonder why they don't
just give it up completely so that folks stop bugging them about it.

So how can you tell how much they get from where Scott? They aren't
exactly transparent about such things as far as I can tell. I downloaded their
report for FY 2002 and they mention "50.11 million dollars in grants and
contributions", but nowhere I can find on their website on in the glossy promo
of a report exactly how much of that is Government sourced monies/from the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.


And that "Corporation For Public Broadcasting" is clearer on their site
about such financial matters, it is mandated by law to spend 95% of it's
revenue on basically PBS and NPR and it is a $2.2 _billion_ dollar a year
operation. They got $300,000,000 in FY 2000 in federal appropriations, plus
$42,358,000 a year in federal grants, $59,834,000 from local governments and
$322 million from State governments.

http://www.cpb.org/pubcast/#who_pays

As a side note one thing that bugs O'Reilly is that Bill Moyers will
not release info about how much money he makes on the side from the programming
he produces with CPB / PSB /NPR money. I have to agree with O'Reilly that
that's very shady, and truth be told that Mr. O made an issue of this is the
backstory behind this whole dustup.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

(WillStG)

I downloaded their
report for FY 2002 and they mention "50.11 million dollars in grants and
contributions", but nowhere I can find on their website on in the glossy
promo
of a report exactly how much of that is Government sourced monies/from the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Why does this not sound like someone that votes "Independent"?

And why are right-wingers afraid to come out of the closet? Is it like the
Klan, where they know they should feel guilty about it?

































"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
- Hermann Goering

You mean artists like Leonardo di Venci or perhaps Galileo? Or perhaps John
Lennon, who obviously couldn't hold a tune much less paint nor write books
nor have pertinent political opinions simply by virtue of his too shallow
egotistical world viewpoint?

Wisdom isn't a shoe made strictly for one set of people and you will find
evidence of self-centered, egotistical people in all walks of life who may
or may not exhibit any level of wisdom. But, by and large, it is the freer
thinking individuals that have probably brought mankind further along the
road to social evolution than dyed in the wool participants of some other's
plan.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote in message
newsthlb.198924$%h1.192690@sccrnsc02...
"Altasrecrd" wrote in message
...
: ode (nuke)

one thing I find uncomfortable in the music/arts world is this
expectation on some people's part that if you are creative and involved
in
artistic endeavors you are required to participate in left-wing
political
parroting as well.

I think most people expect artists to be too smart to be Republicans.

I also think a lot of artists are the most shallow self seeking people in
existence. And I don't know why anyone would equate them with "smart" as
far
as it pertains to wisdom.

The difference isn't whether one is going to get gagged or not on Bill
O'Reilly. It's a given you will get no chance to talk if your line is
different than his, and will get plenty of time and pampered handling if
your line is the same as his. That's not been the problem within this
discussion and it's a bad example because we know this goes on all the time.

The problem as I saw it and first spoke up about it is that I expect more
out of Terry Gross than to pull this type of attack on Bill O'Reilly. She
should be above that and apparently NPR's Ombudsman agrees with me.

Part of the problem is with Bill, no doubt, and wussing out of the interview
wasn't the strength of character he likes to tout himself as having, but
another part of the problem is that Bill truly wasn't asked any questions
about his book, and I'm sure that this program was booked because of his
book tour contractual requirements. So, to him, the time taken didn't serve
to help him alleviate himself of his contractual requirements and it was
simply setting himself up for more criticism about his personal views and
his Fox News talk show than about his book. Again, had Terry invited him on
to talk about his show, I'm sure that O'Reilly would have turned the invite
down. Does anyone actually WANT to attend their own intervention?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Luke Kaven" wrote in message
...
"John LeBlanc" wrote:
"MikeK" wrote in message

THIS is ethical, responsible journalism? Where was Glick's ombudsman?

What was your problem with this transcript?

John

The interviewee was gagged and never allowed to speak on his own
behalf. The chair wasn't empty, but it may as well have been if the
subject is prevented from speaking.

"John LeBlanc" wrote in message
...
I thought the argument was that he *is* a pretend journalist. g

I may or may not have mentioned this, but I'm no great fan of Bill
O'Reilly. I
purchased his new book at Sam's Club because I thought $14 was a decent
amount
to pay for research on the issue. I did my best to get through the first
chapter, but it was pretty painful. Maybe it's a cultural thing; I'm not
from
his neck of the woods.

John


Actually, Bill O'Reilly is no journalist at all, and it's unfortunate that
he's associated with a news network because it gives a certain type of
legitimacy to the concept that he is a journalist. A secondary, but just as
unfortunate result is that real journalists are more and more making
commentary with their reports, which is truly sad for American journalism.

And, again, I am no O'Reilly fan, but I hold him up to no notion of
journalistic integrity, regardless of whether he's won awards or not. He
may have been a journalist at one point, but he's stepped outside of the
dividing lines with a deliberateness that belittles his previous
experiences.

I would never support any efforts of Bill O'Reilly simply because I couldn't
find it in myself to believe that there aren't ulterior motives for any of
his actions. His abuse of the American Red Cross in it's normal operations
of spreading donations out to cover the 10s of thousands of disasters it
works on year after year was appalling, all to the "chant" of unfair and
using the opportunity to bash basically good human beings who happened to be
liberal artists because of their participation in charities as if they had
control over the distribution of received donations was unquestionably the
worst exhibition of a mean spirited streak running the entire gamut of this
person's life. That he has such a large audience comprised of far right
viewers concerns me no end as to the overall knowledge of the average person
and so I would not choose to ever purchase a thing that would give one penny
to O'Reilly. He earns more than enough from his barking dog viewing public.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.

ojunk (Altasrecrd)
Why does this not sound like someone that votes "Independent"?

Why must YOU sound so presumptive and condescending? Scott said he would
agree that NPR shouldn't exhibit a political slant since they are publically
funded, but that NPR doesn't receive much federal funding anymore. I tried to
look it up but no clear info is available on the NPR website, you correct me if
I'm wrong and just couldn't find it. But the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting which is the primary government funding source for NPR has it's
financials prominently displayed, and they are required by Congress to spend
95% of their 2.2 BILLION dollar budget on mostly NPR and PBS, that's not all
direct support but that includes providing programming near as I can tell. And
about $900 million of CPB's money is from Government sourcing, federal
appropriations, grants, and also from State and local money.

And why are right-wingers afraid to come out of the closet? Is it like
the Klan, where they know they should feel guilty about it?

At least I bother to do some research before I mouth off, but then you
would say only a "right winger" would care about how public tax money is spent?
That's brilliant Dude, I guess "Left Wingers" don't give an "F" about
financial accountability, huh... And talk about coming out of the closet, I
don't see a real name attached to _your_ posts. Is it because you know you
should feel guilty about making shallow, asinine comments?

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

"Altasrecrd" wrote in message
...

Why does this not sound like someone that votes "Independent"?

What does it mean to "vote Independent"? Is that your way of attempting to
denegrate Will? It may come as a shock to you, but not everyone votes according
to party lines. Some of us actually study issues, compare candidates, and vote
for who we think is likely to do the best job. Assigning labels like
"Independent", "liberal" and "conservative" is mental shorthand, lazy and,
usually, incorrect anyway.

Although most people would call me a "conservative Republican" they would be
incorrect. While I do share some "conservative" positions, I also share lots of
"liberal" positions, too. Depends on the issue and the proposed solution. That's
being an independent thinker, or did your college education strip that choice
from you?


And why are right-wingers afraid to come out of the closet? Is it like the
Klan, where they know they should feel guilty about it?

Not all Klan members feel guilt. For instance, Robert Byrd has never apologized
for his membership and, in fact, praised his history in it.

As for being "afraid to come out of the closet" and "feeling guilty" -- you mean
like someone using the handle "Atlasrecr" rather than his given name? What do
you feel guilty of?

John

From: (WillStG)

Tom, you ignorant unprofessional wuss. G

You soiled yourself in public with that one. If I have displayed a lack of
courage (as I understand the epithet "wuss", a substitute for "pussy", or
"sissy"), drop the infantile name-calling and "give us a link".

That case had ZERO to do with
my employer Fox News Channel - ZERO. To try to make than an indictment of
Fox
News Channel is stupid, just as stupid as parroting the BS propaganda you
read
on a partisan website.

That story had to do with a local Fox affiliate station in Florida.
Even if a Reporter turns out to be right on a story and her Producer was
wrong,
she's not entitled to monetary damages because he called it his waym whether
a
mistake or for whatever reason is what the Court ruling means. Sometimes
news is judgement call, not that I know all the facts about what happens in
every Fox affiliate station in the US (it's more like syndication, they just
buy programming from the mothership). But again, that case had ZERO to do
with Fox News Channel. You get it now?

Yeah, one of your branch offices pulled some **** (putting false words in a
reporter's mouth) and got away with it. My bad-- nope, actually, *their* bad.
Whatever, the gist of the story is that Fox got a judgement that says they
don't have to tell the truth. That doesn't go all the way up and down the line,
is that what you're trying to say while you're trying to intimidate me by
calling me names?

Poor BOR-- he got a taste of his own tactics, ran away from a girl with
everyone on the playground watching, and you jump to his defense. Your
political agenda is showing. "Fairness"?

Since I won't watch BOR past my few moments already endured (curiousity fully
satisfied, "Rush redux"), I was really glad to see the Glick transcript in this
thread.
This is worse than "empty chair", it is "bound and gagged". The BOR dittoheads
get a warm body they can safely dig at while BOR holds the head down. Just like
Rush, partisan crap disguised as "news", "commentary", or worst of all,
"entertainment". Crap. Like name calling instead of disputing issues.

Ah, "Fairness"? Give it a rest, Will.
--Tom Paterson

Jay - atldigi wrote in message ...
Seems like the basic thrust of the thread is that it's OK that Bill was
treated somewhat unfairly because he's not very likeable and he's not
always fair to his guests. Thinking back to grade school, I seem to
remember learning that two wrongs don't make a right.

Regardless of Bill's shortcomings, I would not have approached an NPR
interview quite in the same way Terry did. She could have moved off the
"here's another bad thing somebody said about you" questions after a
while. (This opinion coming from a big NPR fan)

I was actually a little curious about what was in his book as it's not
one I'm likely to buy, but it hardly seemed to come up. I would have
liked to see her give him some thoughtful questions on it's content
rather than talking mostly about others' opinions of him personally.

Did you actually listen to the whole interview, or are you just going
from what you're reading online? Because the vast majority of the
interview *was* him talking about his book. It was only the last 5
minutes (out of about 40) or so that put him under any sort of
pressure at all, and he just spazzed out and walked off.

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:

The difference isn't whether one is going to get gagged or not on Bill
O'Reilly. It's a given you will get no chance to talk if your line is
different than his, and will get plenty of time and pampered handling if
your line is the same as his. That's not been the problem within this
discussion and it's a bad example because we know this goes on all the time.

The problem as I saw it and first spoke up about it is that I expect more
out of Terry Gross than to pull this type of attack on Bill O'Reilly. She
should be above that and apparently NPR's Ombudsman agrees with me.

I guess I'm alone on this, but even as a fan of Terry I *don't* expect
more out of her, because I don't think she's a very good interviewer.
Exhibit A is (dragging this somewhere closer to audio) how Gene Simmons
played her like a vintage P-bass. And while I don't have specifics at my
fingertips, my impression of her interviews with musicians (especially
jazz)
tend to have long stretches of her explaining what she thinks the
musician
is attempting to do, rather than eliciting explanations from the
interviewee.

Its clear to me she is a big and (somewhat) knowlegeable music fan, and
the more the interview is about a subject she is personally passionate
about,
the more she interjects herself and her point of view into the
interview.
I think her behavior with Mr O'Reilly wasn't deliberate, but a byproduct
of
her weakness as an interviewer.

Part of the problem is with Bill, no doubt, and wussing out of the interview
wasn't the strength of character he likes to tout himself as having, but
another part of the problem is that Bill truly wasn't asked any questions
about his book, and I'm sure that this program was booked because of his
book tour contractual requirements. So, to him, the time taken didn't serve
to help him alleviate himself of his contractual requirements and it was
simply setting himself up for more criticism about his personal views and
his Fox News talk show than about his book. Again, had Terry invited him on
to talk about his show, I'm sure that O'Reilly would have turned the invite
down. Does anyone actually WANT to attend their own intervention?

Mr O'Reilly must be stunningly naive or as mind-bogglingly stupid as
the ravenous bug-blatter beast of Trull to accept an invitation to
be interviewed on Fresh Air and not expect the type of treatment he
received.

Man. 2 "professional" interviewers who can't conduct an interview. Maybe
they should hire Gene Simmons as a coach...

Henry Salvia.

--

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.

"Luke Kaven" wrote in message
...
"John LeBlanc" wrote:
"MikeK" wrote in message

THIS is ethical, responsible journalism? Where was Glick's ombudsman?

What was your problem with this transcript?

John

The interviewee was gagged and never allowed to speak on his own
behalf. The chair wasn't empty, but it may as well have been if the
subject is prevented from speaking.

(Tom Paterson)

Tom, you ignorant unprofessional wuss. G

You soiled yourself in public with that one. If I have displayed a lack of
courage (as I understand the epithet "wuss", a substitute for "pussy", or
"sissy"), drop the infantile name-calling and "give us a link".

Well Tom, _you_ said you weren't a professional, did you not? But ok, I m
not not Dan Akroyd and it's not Saturday Night "Weekend Edition News" in 1978 -
so sue me. G

But grow up Tommy boy, it's on you to prove that case had one iota to do
with Fox News Channel. You can't because it doesn't. There is no such thing
as a branch office of Fox New Channel, we do have several bureaus but local Fox
Television Network affiliates are a totally different thing us, and we
certainly have nothing to do with how they run their local stations.

If you don't understand this, it's because you are extremely ignorant on
the subject. But when you parrot criticisms that are total, the burden for the
bullcrap still falls on your head for saying dumb things you can't back up.
Consider it a life lesson, check your facts before you spew.



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Henry Salvia wrote:

[...]
Mr O'Reilly must be stunningly naive or as mind-bogglingly stupid as
the ravenous bug-blatter beast of Trull to accept an invitation to
be interviewed on Fresh Air and not expect the type of treatment he
received.
[...]
Henry Salvia.

Thanks for injecting some much-needed Douglas Adams into the
discussion. [For those who don't remember, the ravenous bug-blatter
beast of Trull is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it thinks that if he
can't see you, you can't see it.] Along those lines, there are some
who could benefit from a trip through the Total Perspective Vortex.

Ford: It's a little like being drunk
Arthur: That doesn't sound so bad.
Ford: Yeah? Ask a glass of water!

Luke

(5016) wrote in message . com...

Will is absolutely right that we expect a higher standard of
journalism from NPR than we do from Fox News. Of course it is easy to
dredge up examples of O'Reilly or any Fox News commentator behaving
abominably - finding instances like this is like shooting fish in a
barrel. But we expect more from NPR. Fox News isn't regulated by any
ombudsman, is entertainment rather than news, and therefore isn't held
to any level of accountability.

NPR shouldn't have O'Reilly on the show at all - everyone I know,
right or left, agrees that this obnoxious blowhard gets enough air
time as it is.


Exactly. That's what separates NPR from Fox: NPR is actually
practicing journalism and self-correcting it. Fox does entertainment
and probably gave Bill hive fives for his "interview" with Jeremy
Glick.

And before someone jumps down my throat for being an NPR supporter,
I'm not. But at least it's journalism.

wrote in message
om...
(5016) wrote in message
. com...

Will is absolutely right that we expect a higher standard of
journalism from NPR than we do from Fox News. Of course it is easy to
dredge up examples of O'Reilly or any Fox News commentator behaving
abominably - finding instances like this is like shooting fish in a
barrel. But we expect more from NPR. Fox News isn't regulated by any
ombudsman, is entertainment rather than news, and therefore isn't held
to any level of accountability.

NPR shouldn't have O'Reilly on the show at all - everyone I know,
right or left, agrees that this obnoxious blowhard gets enough air
time as it is.


Exactly. That's what separates NPR from Fox: NPR is actually
practicing journalism and self-correcting it. Fox does entertainment
and probably gave Bill hive fives for his "interview" with Jeremy
Glick.

And before someone jumps down my throat for being an NPR supporter,
I'm not. But at least it's journalism.

Bill interviewed Jiminy Glick??? I bet that was a riot!!!

On 22 Oct 2003 13:10:04 GMT, (WillStG) wrote:

ojunk (Altasrecrd)
Why does this not sound like someone that votes "Independent"?

Why must YOU sound so presumptive and condescending? Scott said he would
agree that NPR shouldn't exhibit a political slant since they are publically
funded, but that NPR doesn't receive much federal funding anymore. I tried to
look it up but no clear info is available on the NPR website, you correct me if
I'm wrong and just couldn't find it. But the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting which is the primary government funding source for NPR has it's
financials prominently displayed, and they are required by Congress to spend
95% of their 2.2 BILLION dollar budget on mostly NPR and PBS, that's not all
direct support but that includes providing programming near as I can tell. And
about $900 million of CPB's money is from Government sourcing, federal
appropriations, grants, and also from State and local money.


By the way, now that you're not a morning guy, check out what a lot of
that PBS money provides in the morning. That would be . . .

Family friendly Children's Programming. Stay at home Mom stuff.

Soft and gentle. No Kops for Kidz.; Teletubbies instead. I completely
support PBS and do the voiceovers for their local affiliate for free.
PBS is not rich. Most of these stations are held together with baling
wire and twine and a community commitment to provide good free
programming on the "public airwaves."

They don't get a free ride by any means. They really do need your
support, Miller Genuine Draft or Nike cannot BY LAW put ads on the
programs.

FYI


Kurt

"Kurt Riemann

By the way, now that you're not a morning guy, check out what a lot of
that PBS money provides in the morning. That would be . . .

Family friendly Children's Programming. Stay at home Mom stuff.

Soft and gentle. No Kops for Kidz.; Teletubbies instead. I completely
support PBS and do the voiceovers for their local affiliate for free.
PBS is not rich. Most of these stations are held together with baling
wire and twine and a community commitment to provide good free
programming on the "public airwaves."

They don't get a free ride by any means. They really do need your
support, Miller Genuine Draft or Nike cannot BY LAW put ads on the
programs.

Kurt, I have 3 year old, believe me I am _very_ familiar with PBS's
children's programming. And I do like Bill Moyers Journals. But to not be
open about the money he's making with programming he produces is just not
right. I think it's because he makes enough money to not need federal money to
do it at all, but that money provides a lot of funding for his foundation that
funds his political causes. That's just not being straight up. Nobody's
political faith is so sacred and holy that it excuses being anything less when
they're using government money and non-profit status, IMHO.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

I have not heard the NPR interview, to clarify and get that out of the
way, but I fail to see how Hannity & Colmes and BOR are *news*
programs or even how, aside from top of the hour reports, FNC is a
*news* network. I went searching for real news one morning a few
weeks ago, and came across FNC's "brighter, younger, prettier" morning
team with one of them, a blonde-bimbo-ish type, going off on Al
Franken, talking and talking and saying absolutely nothing. She kept
going on literally saying nothing but "He's a liar." for 10-20
seconds, and was nearly foaming at the mouth; may have ended up doing
so but I tuned away as fast as I could. Where the hell was the news? I
half expected an item on PMS to follow, who is running this travesty?

What we really need in these cable times is the power to select what
channels we want and don't want - the thought that my cable
subscription money is going to FNC and all the christian gimme gimme
channels turns my stomach.

BOR is but the latest Morton Downey Jr of broadcasting, and hopefully
soon he will similarly fade into obscurity, along with reality TV.


ObRAP: Sang jingles today into a lovely U87. Engineer first had it
open all the way around to catch 3 of us singing, then closed it up to
one side for my adding some harmonies. What a joy - makes even me
sound good! (DOH!)

I have not heard the NPR interview, to clarify and get that out of the
way, but I fail to see how Hannity & Colmes and BOR are *news*
programs or even how, aside from top of the hour reports, FNC is a
*news* network. I went searching for real news one morning a few
weeks ago, and came across FNC's "brighter, younger, prettier" morning
team with one of them, a blonde-bimbo-ish type, going off on Al
Franken, talking and talking and saying absolutely nothing. She kept
going on literally saying nothing but "He's a liar." for 10-20
seconds, and was nearly foaming at the mouth; may have ended up doing
so but I tuned away as fast as I could. Where the hell was the news? I
half expected an item on PMS to follow, who is running this travesty?

All of the above shows that you have mentioned are talk-shows. None of them
are news programs and aren't intended to be. For instance, Larry King Live
is on the Cable News Network, but is not a news program.

Kurt, I have 3 year old, believe me I am _very_ familiar with PBS's
children's programming. And I do like Bill Moyers Journals. But to not be
open about the money he's making with programming he produces is just not
right. I think it's because he makes enough money to not need federal money to
do it at all, but that money provides a lot of funding for his foundation that
funds his political causes. That's just not being straight up. Nobody's
political faith is so sacred and holy that it excuses being anything less when
they're using government money and non-profit status, IMHO.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy


Kurt, I have 3 year old, believe me I am _very_ familiar with PBS's
children's programming. And I do like Bill Moyers Journals. But to not be
open about the money he's making with programming he produces is just not
right. I think it's because he makes enough money to not need federal money to
do it at all, but that money provides a lot of funding for his foundation that
funds his political causes. That's just not being straight up. Nobody's
political faith is so sacred and holy that it excuses being anything less when
they're using government money and non-profit status, IMHO.



The only problem I have with PBS is that my daughter speaks with an
English accent when she says "Hello" to Teletubbies.
("Helleuu")
----------------------

RE - Bill Moyers

Is there something somewhere that says he HAS to give an accounting?
If not, well, then he doesn't have to.



Kurt Riemann

"Kurt Riemann
RE - Bill Moyers

Is there something somewhere that says he HAS to give an accounting?
If not, well, then he doesn't have to.

I'm sure you agree there are many things that are legal but less than
sterling morally. This at least falls into that category, but given that he
uses government taxpayer funds to Produce his programming that kind of
disclosure seems like it should be required, at least IMO.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

In article ,
(Ellis Dees) wrote:

Did you actually listen to the whole interview, or are you just going
from what you're reading online? Because the vast majority of the
interview *was* him talking about his book. It was only the last 5
minutes (out of about 40) or so that put him under any sort of
pressure at all, and he just spazzed out and walked off

Yes, I listened uninterrupted in it's entirety, and I'm not the only one
who had this impression, including the NPR Ombudsman.

Here's a quote from the Ombudsman:

By the time the interview was about halfway through, it felt as though
Terry Gross was indeed "carrying Al Franken's water," as some listeners
say. It was not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about
his book. It was about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon. That's a
legitimate subject for discussion, but in this case, it was an
interview that was, in the end, unfair to O'Reilly.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

In article ,
Jay - atldigi wrote:

Yes, I listened uninterrupted in it's entirety, and I'm not the only one
who had this impression, including the NPR Ombudsman.

Yes, yes, NPR sold her down the river. We've established this.

CT

(WillStG) writes:

I'm sure you agree there are many things that are legal but less than
sterling morally. This at least falls into that category, but given that he

Yes, we see examples from Bush and Cheney daily.

wrote...
(WillStG) writes:

I'm sure you agree there are many things that are legal but less than
sterling morally. This at least falls into that category, but given that he

Yes, we see examples from Bush and Cheney daily.

2 points for the man from Michigan.

--
Exporting jobs is treason.

Clark '04

Richard

(WillStG) writes:

I'm sure you agree there are many things that are legal but less than
sterling morally. This at least falls into that category, but given that
he...

Yes, we see examples from Bush and Cheney daily.

2 points for the man from Michigan.

Naah, 2 points are for actually addressing the issue or contributing to
the dialogue in a meaningful way. Cheap shots for laughs are like a 1/4
point...


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Yes, I listened uninterrupted in it's entirety, and I'm not the only one

who had this impression, including the NPR Ombudsman.

Here's a quote from the Ombudsman:

By the time the interview was about halfway through, it felt as though

Terry Gross was indeed "carrying Al Franken's water," as some listeners

say. It was not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about

his book. It was about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon. That's a

legitimate subject for discussion, but in this case, it was an
interview that was, in the end, unfair to O'Reilly.

--
Jay Frigoletto

Which is a real shame.

I bought the O'Reilly book in the airport today and had a chance to read a good
portion of it on the plane.

It isn't at all what a lot of his detractor's think. Not by a long shot. In
fact, I think a lot of people on this thread would find it at least
interesting, if not agreeable on many counts.

I wouldn't have bothered had NPR not so totally trashed the guy. The book would
have been well worth a proper interview.

All Terry did was further confirm his assertions about NPR.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

Which is a real shame.

I bought the O'Reilly book in the airport today and had a chance to read a
good
portion of it on the plane.

It isn't at all what a lot of his detractor's think. Not by a long shot.
In
fact, I think a lot of people on this thread would find it at least
interesting, if not agreeable on many counts.

Some of them would rather die a slow death than read this book, solely
because he wrote it.


I wouldn't have bothered had NPR not so totally trashed the guy. The book
would
have been well worth a proper interview.

All Terry did was further confirm his assertions about NPR.

Yeah, too bad most of those people already know about the NPR. They (the
NPR) are just preaching to the choir. Anyone who heard the interview and
hated Bill O'Reilly probably hated him before the interview. They did
nothing really except ruffle a few feathers, they certainly didn't change
any minds.

Okay, I swore I wouldn't get involved in this thread, but here goes:

I am a diehard NPR fan. There, said it, that's out there. I produce a
weekly show for our local NPR affiliate. I am what most people would term a
"liberal." However, don't misperceive that to mean I vote and think in
lockstep fashion according to anyone's dictum. I read and listen to a
variety of sources for news.

For the past several years I have generally enjoyed O'Reilly (as well as
Fresh Air.) I like that he says what he thinks, that he has background as a
teacher, that he likes to poke holes in windbags of all stripes. My only
preconception of him is that he puts spin on issues as much as anyone else,
and that he cuts people off when he wants to disagree with him. This is
true - listen to his "okay, you can have the last word" tags - then he often
goes on to make the final comment after the speaker has had their say.
Nothing wrong with him stating his opinion one more time, but it's
disingeneous to "give someone the last word" then piggyback on top of it
going out to commercial. So he is thus no more a sainted virgin than most
other show hosts.

Terry Gross does a good job of poking holes in windbags, too. She does it
differently, though, by quietly asking persistent questions and not letting
up. I didn't hear the Franken interview, but I have heard her plenty of
times pursuing an issue to the discomfort of the guest. Good for her, and
O'Reilly too, for doing that stuff.

So - I downloaded an MP3 of this famous interview to decide for myself what
was going on. I heard both of them doing what they do. O'R started off
with a rude chip on his shoulder from the outset. He was in lecture mode,
and was patronizing and condescending. He put on his very best --if you
don't agree with me like any right-thinking American then there's something
wrong with you---hat. Who can possibly argue with anyone who says that?

I did NOT hear Gross focus on Franken throughout the interview, and in fact
I heard her ask O'R lots of questions about who he is and how he came to be,
just like she always does. Sure she had an agenda - what show host doesn't?
- and the agenda I heard was "how come you are so controversial and why do
you think you are always right and exempt from people pointing that out to
you?" This is the kind of thing O'R asks about all the time,except he just
tells them they're pinheads, so she was committing no major sin in my book.

Then the end of the show - what exquisite radio! O'R starts ranting about
the listeners knowing what's happening and this is NPR, what did one expect,
bla bla bla, then walks off in a huff. To my ears he had a tantrum meltdown
and gave NPR, Gross, and Fresh Air much more power and credence than if he
had just answered her questions and engaged in conversation with her. I
thought he was going to start talking about black helicopters and
secular-media conspiracy theories. He brought this reaction on all by
himself.

Then there's the famous "empty-chair" questioning technique that Gross
supposedly pulled on him at the very end. She asked him a question, which
she couldn't get through because he blustered his way off the show, then
capped the interview off by finishing the question she had already started
to ask. This was not unfair to my ears, and again, was the kind of thing
that O'R does on a consistent basis, but much more civilly.

My estimation of O'R went down because of the interview, but it was totally
his responsibility. He could have , and SHOULD have, handled it with more
civility and aplomb, and talked about these things with her. I mean, she
wasn't setting traps for him, she was just asking him about contentious
issue that she had observed and thought about, for God's sake. I expected
more of him because I like a lot of what he says and what he stands for, not
because I didn't like him in the first place!

THere. Probably regret I wrote it, but..

Carlos

Carlos Alden

Okay, I swore I wouldn't get involved in this thread, but here goes:

I am a diehard NPR fan. There, said it, that's out there. I produce a
weekly show for our local NPR affiliate. I am what most people would term a
"liberal." However, don't misperceive that to mean I vote and think in
lockstep fashion according to anyone's dictum. I read and listen to a
variety of sources for news.

For the past several years I have generally enjoyed O'Reilly (as well as
Fresh Air.) I like that he says what he thinks, that he has background as a
teacher, that he likes to poke holes in windbags of all stripes. My only
preconception of him is that he puts spin on issues as much as anyone else,
and that he cuts people off when he wants to disagree with him. This is
true - listen to his "okay, you can have the last word" tags - then he often
goes on to make the final comment after the speaker has had their say.
Nothing wrong with him stating his opinion one more time, but it's
disingeneous to "give someone the last word" then piggyback on top of it
going out to commercial. So he is thus no more a sainted virgin than most
other show hosts.

Terry Gross does a good job of poking holes in windbags, too. She does it
differently, though, by quietly asking persistent questions and not letting
up. I didn't hear the Franken interview, but I have heard her plenty of
times pursuing an issue to the discomfort of the guest. Good for her, and
O'Reilly too, for doing that stuff.

So - I downloaded an MP3 of this famous interview to decide for myself what
was going on. I heard both of them doing what they do. O'R started off
with a rude chip on his shoulder from the outset. He was in lecture mode,
and was patronizing and condescending. He put on his very best --if you
don't agree with me like any right-thinking American then there's something
wrong with you---hat. Who can possibly argue with anyone who says that?

I did NOT hear Gross focus on Franken throughout the interview, and in fact
I heard her ask O'R lots of questions about who he is and how he came to be,
just like she always does. Sure she had an agenda - what show host doesn't?
- and the agenda I heard was "how come you are so controversial and why do
you think you are always right and exempt from people pointing that out to
you?" This is the kind of thing O'R asks about all the time,except he just
tells them they're pinheads, so she was committing no major sin in my book.

Then the end of the show - what exquisite radio! O'R starts ranting about
the listeners knowing what's happening and this is NPR, what did one expect,
bla bla bla, then walks off in a huff. To my ears he had a tantrum meltdown
and gave NPR, Gross, and Fresh Air much more power and credence than if he
had just answered her questions and engaged in conversation with her. I
thought he was going to start talking about black helicopters and
secular-media conspiracy theories. He brought this reaction on all by
himself.

Then there's the famous "empty-chair" questioning technique that Gross
supposedly pulled on him at the very end. She asked him a question, which
she couldn't get through because he blustered his way off the show, then
capped the interview off by finishing the question she had already started
to ask. This was not unfair to my ears, and again, was the kind of thing
that O'R does on a consistent basis, but much more civilly.

My estimation of O'R went down because of the interview, but it was totally
his responsibility. He could have , and SHOULD have, handled it with more
civility and aplomb, and talked about these things with her. I mean, she
wasn't setting traps for him, she was just asking him about contentious
issue that she had observed and thought about, for God's sake. I expected
more of him because I like a lot of what he says and what he stands for, not
because I didn't like him in the first place!

THere. Probably regret I wrote it, but..


Ok Carlos, for the sake of discussion lets say you're Terry Gross's
producer for "Fresh Air" rather than the producer of your local NPR show.

When the NPR Ombudsman hands you your head on a platter for being unfair,
unethical and for furthering the impression that NPR has a liberal bias in how
in treats guests, what do you do? Do you just protest that from your point of
view you did no wrong? Do you take a breath and take a couple of weeks to
reflect again on how you view things, and review your basic assumptions in
order to check yourself? Or do you keep quiet but just think internally that
the Ombudsman "sold you out" as someone here who shares your opinion on the
interview has suggested? (Which is the worst possible indictment of NPR I
think, either way you're saying NPR is immoral and unfair, but that accusation
which includes some degree of dishonesty is worse than the first! )

Personally if my professional judgement was so plainly and publically
judged by my own people, I would take time to reflect and reconsider how my
personal poltical bias was affecting my work. And that would require a period
of painful self examination, and the harder it is to see what I did that was
wrong would determine probably how hard that internal work would be.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

(WillStG)
Or do you keep quiet but just think internally that
the Ombudsman "sold you out" as someone here who shares your opinion on the
interview has suggested? (Which is the worst possible indictment of NPR I
think, either way you're saying NPR is immoral and unfair, but that
accusation
which includes some degree of dishonesty is worse than the first! )

Sorry that was an overstatement and a mistake, I should have "either way
you're saying NRP has _behaved unethically_ and unfairly."

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

On 10/24/03 11:35 AM, WillStG eloquently wrote:

Do you just protest that from your point of
view you did no wrong? Do you take a breath and take a couple of weeks to
reflect again on how you view things, and review your basic assumptions in
order to check yourself? Or do you keep quiet but just think internally that
the Ombudsman "sold you out" as someone here who shares your opinion on the
interview has suggested? (Which is the worst possible indictment of NPR I
think, either way you're saying NPR is immoral and unfair, but that
accusation
which includes some degree of dishonesty is worse than the first! )

You know, I really listened for some extreme violations of journalistic
ethics in this broadcast, and, honestly, just heard Terry Gross being Terry
Gross. For the record, I don't mind B.O'R being who he is, either.

But your point is very good, and I would, if I were her, try and see what it
was I might have been missing, especially since my own boss has pointed it
out to me.

In any case, regardless of what I would do if I were her, or what she does
or doesn't do about it, I still come away with the perspective that,
regardless of what idealogy B. O'R represents, he has at least 50% of the
stake in the interview going where it did. To simply point a finger at
Gross and blame her and some fictitious secular-agenda media machine is to
be a victim of the worst sort.

How about B. O'R? Is he going to "take a breath and take a couple of weeks
to reflect again on how (he) view(s) things, and review (his) basic
assumptions in order to check (him)self?" I doubt it, but I didn't hear him
being the innocent lamb being led to the slaughter.

Personally if my professional judgement was so plainly and publically
judged by my own people, I would take time to reflect and reconsider how my
personal poltical bias was affecting my work. And that would require a period
of painful self examination, and the harder it is to see what I did that was
wrong would determine probably how hard that internal work would be.


Will Miho

All well put, Will, and let's hope that anyone who puts themselves out there
as a journalist from any point of view would do the same.

Carlos

In article , Carlos Alden
wrote:

How about B. O'R? Is he going to "take a breath and take a couple of
weeks to reflect again on how (he) view(s) things, and review (his) basic
assumptions in order to check (him)self?" I doubt it, but I didn't hear

I still prefer to strive for a more forthright discourse and not excuse
one person's bad behavior because of another's. Even if Bill doesn't get
it, this doesn't mean that Terry and the rest of us are free to
misbehave. This puts us on the slippery slope to more extreme forms of
the rationalization where it's OK to hold predjudices against and
mistreat the percieved bad guys of the moment.

A common thread in this discussion seems to be "we don't like Bill so
it's OK to treat him badly" and that's an unfortunate rationale.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com