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

(WillStG) wrote:

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

I'd be pleased if Fox would follow the example set here.

"Luke Kaven" wrote in message
...
(WillStG) wrote:

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

I'd be pleased if Fox would follow the example set here.

So would I, and I'm sure they would were it to ever happen. I've not yet
witnessed Fox doing to an interviewee what Terry Gross did to O'Reilly. Want to
present your evidence they have? I'm no big fan of Bill O'Reilly, but I've yet
to witness him bringing in a person under false pretense. Same goes for Hannity
& Colmes.

John

In article ,
(WillStG) wrote:

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.

What a crock of **** this whole thing is.

O'Reilly is a contentious asshole. He intentionally stirs up hate
wherever he goes.

I'd love for someone to show me where NPR agreed not to discuss certain
topics with BOR. If they said they wouldn't bring up his reviews then
did, that's one thing.

If they interviewed BOR about something that had nothing to do with him,
that's another thing. But they interviewed him about things people said
ABOUT HIM, which makes it entirely appropriate to me. Why shouldn't he
have to face the music about the reactions he purposely engenders?

Perhaps Terry should have simply asked the questions then told Bill to
"SHUT UP" when he tried to answer.

That would probably be a tactic more BOR supporters would condone.

CT

"Charles Thomas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(WillStG) wrote:

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.

What a crock of **** this whole thing is.

O'Reilly is a contentious asshole. He intentionally stirs up hate
wherever he goes.

So that justifies what Terry Gross did? And please provide your evidence that
O'Reilly "intentionally stirs up hate wherever he goes." Just because you don't
like what he says doesn't make him a hateful person. I could very easily use the
same argument against you.


I'd love for someone to show me where NPR agreed not to discuss certain
topics with BOR. If they said they wouldn't bring up his reviews then
did, that's one thing.

You'd do well to read Dvorkin's entire report. He covered that.


If they interviewed BOR about something that had nothing to do with him,
that's another thing. But they interviewed him about things people said
ABOUT HIM, which makes it entirely appropriate to me. Why shouldn't he
have to face the music about the reactions he purposely engenders?

Because he was brought there to discuss his book? Or does this fall under the
"O'Reilly is a contentious asshole" so anything goes?

Doesn't look like Fox will be suing NPR for using "fair and balanced" any time
soon, eh? g

John

In article ,
"John LeBlanc" wrote:

So that justifies what Terry Gross did?

It's YOUR contention she did something wrong. I listened to the entire
interview and all I heard was BOR getting really ****ed off over
something that wasn't that big of a deal. I heard a bully who couldn't
take it when things got much less contentious than the average "Factor"
interview.

Your take is different, but I think you'd do well to realize that it's
because of your political bias that you feel he was wronged. I can
certainly admit that the reason I didn't hear anything Gross said as
inappropriate may be partly influenced by the fact that I can't stand
O'Reilly. But I doubt it. ;-)

If they said they wouldn't bring up his reviews then
did, that's one thing.
You'd do well to read Dvorkin's entire report. He covered that.

I did read it, and I don't recall a section where he said that Gross had
agreed not to ask O'Reilly certain questions. Perhaps I missed it? I
did read the part where they said "Bill O'Reilly was invited on Fresh
Air IN PART because of his new book" (emphasis mine). Does that mean
it's the only thing allowed to be discussed?

Doesn't look like Fox will be suing NPR for using "fair and balanced" any time
soon, eh? g

If they did I'm sure it would go just as well as the last time they
tried it.

CT

Charles Thomas

It's YOUR contention she did something wrong. I listened to the entire
interview and all I heard was BOR getting really ****ed off over
something that wasn't that big of a deal. I heard a bully who couldn't
take it when things got much less contentious than the average "Factor"
interview.


No Charles, it's _National_Public_Radio's_ opinion that Terry Gross did
something wrong. At this point, your argument is with no one other than NPR.
The NPR Ombudsman says in his professional judgement they breached Journalistic
ethics and were unfair to O'Reilly, they are judging themselves. It his gig to
judge such things. NPR knows Terry Gross screwed up, it's just you who lacks
the objectivity, moral clarity or education in the subject to understand why
that is.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you're not a professional in the
ethics of journalism.

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 ,
(WillStG) wrote:

No Charles, it's _National_Public_Radio's_ opinion that Terry Gross did
something wrong.

Point taken.

I don't have to agree with them, however.

CT

From: (WillStG)


You are entitled to your opinion, but you're not a professional in the
ethics of journalism.

Do ethics of journalism include:

From:

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing
illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press
organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of
journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management
and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The
ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or
regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

Thank you for showing us NPR holding itself to a higher ethical standard than
your own employer.

My own unprofessional opinion is that these ethical conventions are being used
here to put a pretty fine point on who has to play fair and who doesn't. My
brief viewings of BOR showed him shouting down anyone who didn't say what he
wanted. That's Empty Chair, too, by any name. And Rush Limbaugh? Those guys
just don't have an Ombudsman.

Opinion? BOR is a bully who couldn't handle getting poked back. Especially by a
girl, in public. Give it a rest.
--Tom Paterson

Like the difference if BOR is talking about Ann Coulter's book or Hillary
Clinton's book. Fair and balanced? LOL!


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

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.

I agree. Bad radio on Terry Gross' and "Fresh Air" part. Just bad, no two ways
about it. She's capable of better work and she knows it.

I think BOR is a windbag and I don't care for his Fox News TV show, however the
Fresh Air episode was just bad radio and I can't think of a better example of
exactly the kind of thing that people like him complain about NPR. Indeed,
NPR's critics are correct on that point.

Let's face it, how many times has Al Franken appeared on various NPR shows
since his last book came out? I can recall at least 6 that I've heard,
including part of one I heard yesterday. None of which were "tough" interviews
either.




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

I can recall at least 6 that I've heard,
including part of one I heard yesterday. None of which were "tough" interviews
either.

The same can be said regarding Ann Coulter on Fox news. have you checked out
her book?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 11:35 PM, John LeBlanc
wrote:

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
I can recall at least 6 that I've heard,
including part of one I heard yesterday. None of which were "tough"
interviews
either.

The same can be said regarding Ann Coulter on Fox news. have you
checked out
her book?


What questions would you have Fox ask Coulter that aren't already
asked?

John



I was trying to get through to CNN when she was on to ask: "What's the
differance between McCarthyisim Denial and Holocaust Denial" .. I haven't
heard anyone ask her that .

OR what the Folks at WWCR asked her that made her walk out of an
interview; "How do you call yourself an American when you are fighting
against our constitution".

I guess she thought wwcr was something like CBN.. WRONG!!

Pat Robertson and his bussiness partner Charles Taylor are far away from
the true christians.






---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A Literacy
Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

"nuke" wrote in message
...
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.

I agree. Bad radio on Terry Gross' and "Fresh Air" part. Just bad, no two ways
about it. She's capable of better work and she knows it.

As a fairly dedicated Fresh Air fan since around the time it started airing on
our local NPR affiliate in 1987, I was surprised and disappointed by the thing.
It just wasn't what I'd come to expect from Terry.

I've listened to NPR in the morning and afternoon for nearly twenty years. I
don't listen every day, and I don't listen to all of it. As to the "liberal
bias" issue, NPR does lean to the left, which is fine by me. Run O'Reilly
through the "what side does it look like he's on" machine, and he leans toward
the right, which is also fine by me. As a reasonable adult, I'm capable of
listening to both sides and making up my own mind, which, I suppose, makes me a
danger to both the far right and the far left wackos.

John

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
I can recall at least 6 that I've heard,
including part of one I heard yesterday. None of which were "tough" interviews
either.

The same can be said regarding Ann Coulter on Fox news. have you checked out
her book?


What questions would you have Fox ask Coulter that aren't already asked?

John

What questions would you have Fox ask Coulter that aren't already asked?

My take on it is that BOR coddles her and it's like a love fest just as they
are saying NPR is with Frankin.





---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

There's nothing wrong with coddling a guest that you like and agree with.
Gross' coddling of Al Franken isn't the issue here, it's 2 no-nos' in the
same interview. The invitation of giving an interview under false pretenses
and then conducting an "empty chair" interview after O'Reilly had left
because of the first no-no.

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
What questions would you have Fox ask Coulter that aren't already
asked?

My take on it is that BOR coddles her and it's like a love fest just as
they
are saying NPR is with Frankin.





---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

The invitation of giving an interview under false pretenses
and then conducting an "empty chair" interview after O'Reilly had left
because of the first no-no.

I'm converted to being a republican now. Thanks for helping me see the light.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

WillStG wrote:

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/
snip
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 disagree strenuously. As a LISTENER I want to know what it was that scared
BOR so badly he left the room rather than respond to what was to be read.
It was NOT a question for him to respond to anyway, it was simply a
statement in a magazine article. He chose to leave, but it was HIS CHOICE.
The chair was empty because he knew what was coming and ran away; hence, it
was NOT unfair of Gross to read the piece to the audience. It's not like he
refused to come on the show and she went ahead and did the interview. THAT
would be the definition of "empty chair interview."

The ombudsman missed the mark on this one.

BTW, go to the website http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/ and read the
ENTIRE piece. Will's excerpt is more than slightly self-serving. Basically,
it says that Terry should have known BOR would be a lout.

snip

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

snip

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families
by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever
hope to do.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting
those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped
view of this country.

snip

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of
respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE
FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.

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

"MikeK" wrote in message
...

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

What was your problem with this transcript?

John

Go get 'em, Bill! Oh wait... I'm not supposed to like this... :-)

"Luke Kaven" wrote in message
...
"John LeBlanc" wrote:
"Luke Kaven" wrote
(WillStG) wrote:

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

I'd be pleased if Fox would follow the example set here.

So would I, and I'm sure they would were it to ever happen. I've not yet
witnessed Fox doing to an interviewee what Terry Gross did to O'Reilly.
Want to
present your evidence they have? I'm no big fan of Bill O'Reilly, but
I've yet
to witness him bringing in a person under false pretense. Same goes for
Hannity
& Colmes.

John

Transcript of O'Reilly's ambush interview with Jeremy Glick follows.
He tells his subject repeatedly to shut up and then terminates the
interview prematurely without giving the interviewee a chance to
defend himself.

The O'Reilly Factor 2-4-03

O'REILLY: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised
to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade
Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the
USA itself of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched
with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the
thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes
of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama
City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick,
whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center.
Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible." I'm
surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the
families who signed...

JEREMY GLICK: Well, actually, that's not true.

O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement?

GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also
involved.

O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who
signed this advertisement.

GLICK: As an individual.

O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was
surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the
United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.

GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral
equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to
back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that
you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I
feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting
the voices of Afro- Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually,
somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our
current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited
a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily,
economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the
alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of
thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to
support...

O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why
it's surprising.

GLICK: ... escalating...

O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal
position in this society, which you're entitled to.

GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see,
even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I
don't think your father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was
illegitimate.

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a
terrorist nation as you are.

GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

GLICK: What I'm saying is...

O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in
Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and
escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a
hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government
in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

GLICK: Maybe...

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

GLICK: Well, OK.

O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

GLICK: But you do care because you...

O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

GLICK: ... to rationalize...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from
domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families
by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever
hope to do.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting
those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped
view of this country.

GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On
September 14...

O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

GLICK: On September 14...

O'REILLY: Here's the record.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan
to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in
Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who
were...

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you --
that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who
was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed
unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of
respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE
FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of
respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE
FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.

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


Glick knew what he was brought there to talk about.

Why thank you :-) It wasn't meant to try to make you a republican, I could
care less. I was just trying to illustrate the point, as a matter of fact
politics don't really have a lot to do with it, or at least they shouldn't.

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
The invitation of giving an interview under false pretenses
and then conducting an "empty chair" interview after O'Reilly had left
because of the first no-no.

I'm converted to being a republican now. Thanks for helping me see the
light.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message
...


O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of
respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE
FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.

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


Glick knew what he was brought there to talk about.

I think that's the point: he was brought there to talk about it, but was
never allowed to fully explain his position. He was attacked by Bill early
in the interview and was never allowed to continue his explanation. When he
continued to attempt to clarify his position--rightfully so, IMO--Bill
simply cutoff the interview.

I used to be a big O'Reilly fan. I watched his show as often as possible for
a couple of years, but after a while I got tired of his attitude. I suppose
I still agree with him about 75-80% of the time, but I still can't handle
watching his show any longer.

John

"nmm" wrote in message ...

I was trying to get through to CNN when she was on to ask: "What's the
differance between McCarthyisim Denial and Holocaust Denial" .. I haven't
heard anyone ask her that .

The fact that you'd even ask that question tells me how much you know about
McCarthy and that era of history. Get your news from MTV, do ya...


OR what the Folks at WWCR asked her that made her walk out of an
interview; "How do you call yourself an American when you are fighting
against our constitution".

Well, anyone can ask another any unfounded question they want, can't they? For
instance, I can ask you why you're such an America-hating, pro-Communist,
Jew-bashing, African American-hating racist, but that'd be sort of stupid,
wouldn't you agree?

John

"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.

I can ask you why you're such an America-hating, pro-Communist,
Jew-bashing, African American-hating racist, but that'd be sort of stupid,
wouldn't you agree?

What the **** does this have to do with anything?

Only BOR get's to ask these kinds of questions?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"John LeBlanc" wrote:
As to the "liberal bias" issue, NPR does lean to the left,
which is fine by me. Run O'Reilly through the "what side
does it look like he's on" machine, and he leans toward
the right, which is also fine by me.

Fine by me too. O'Reilly actually has some decidedly "non-right" opinions too.
He's kind of quirky on a lot of issues. Probably more a mix of
right-leaning-libertarian on a lot of stuff.

As a reasonable adult, I'm capable of
listening to both sides and making up my own mind,
which, I suppose, makes me adanger to both the
far right and the far left wackos.

Indeed.

I gotta say 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.



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

: 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.

Maybe it's just the talented ones we should expect that from.

































"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

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.

If you are serious about an exchange of ideas, you are best served when
you don't unduly anger or insult your conversation partner. Bill could
stand to keep this in mind as well...

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

In article w82lb.598505$Oz4.602531@rwcrnsc54, "John Neiberger"
wrote:


I think that's the point: he was brought there to talk about it, but was
never allowed to fully explain his position. He was attacked by Bill
early
in the interview and was never allowed to continue his explanation. When
he continued to attempt to clarify his position--rightfully so, IMO--Bill
simply cutoff the interview.

I used to be a big O'Reilly fan. I watched his show as often as possible
for a couple of years, but after a while I got tired of his attitude. I
suppose
I still agree with him about 75-80% of the time, but I still can't handle
watching his show any longer.

John

He used to be far more interesting to watch because he'd usually let the
other viewpoint get expressed even if he jumped down the person's throat
afterwards. Now it's a crapshoot whether he'll let them get anything
resembling a complete thought out of their mouths. It's far better to
see somebody win or lose in a fair fight. So, while I agree that his
journalistic integrity has suffered with the show's increasing
visibility, I still don't think that justifies Terry's conduct. It may
not have been a major breach, I'll agree, but I still can't say that
past poor behavior on his part excuses poor behavior on hers.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

(WillStG) wrote in message ...
Charles Thomas

It's YOUR contention she did something wrong. I listened to the entire
interview and all I heard was BOR getting really ****ed off over
something that wasn't that big of a deal. I heard a bully who couldn't
take it when things got much less contentious than the average "Factor"
interview.


No Charles, it's _National_Public_Radio's_ opinion that Terry Gross did
something wrong. At this point, your argument is with no one other than NPR.
The NPR Ombudsman says in his professional judgement they breached Journalistic
ethics and were unfair to O'Reilly, they are judging themselves. It his gig to
judge such things. NPR knows Terry Gross screwed up, it's just you who lacks
the objectivity, moral clarity or education in the subject to understand why
that is.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you're not a professional in the
ethics of journalism.

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

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.

ospam (Tom Paterson)
Do ethics of journalism include:

From:
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing
illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press
organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of
journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management
and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.
The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or
regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

Thank you for showing us NPR holding itself to a higher ethical standard than
your own employer.

My own unprofessional opinion is that these ethical conventions are being used
here to put a pretty fine point on who has to play fair and who doesn't.

Tom, you ignorant unprofessional wuss. G 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?


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 Tue, Oct 21, 2003 4:02 AM, John LeBlanc
wrote:
"nmm" wrote in message news:BBBA1C55-
...

I was trying to get through to CNN when she was on to ask: "What's
the
differance between McCarthyisim Denial and Holocaust Denial" .. I
haven't
heard anyone ask her that .

The fact that you'd even ask that question tells me how much you
know about
McCarthy and that era of history. Get your news from MTV, do ya...


Because Revisionists are like Ann Coulter are trying to make out
McCarthy as a "good guy" , and other revisionists like Ernst Zundel
are trying to say there was no holocaust. If you don't see the
parallel , i might as well be talking to a brick wall. Persecution of
people being a "bad" thing; Ethics and Morality aren't your fort=8E.


How bout the more relevant parallels between the witchhunts for
terrorists, and the witchhunts for communists. Or the forced labour
camps of Aushwitz, and the forced labour camps of Palestinians.

The Naazi show trials before WW2 looked a lot like the HUAC hearings,
what a coincidence.



OR what the Folks at WWCR asked her that made her walk out of an
interview; "How do you call yourself an American when you are
fighting
against our constitution".

Well, anyone can ask another any unfounded question they want, can't
they?

What is unfounded about asking someone how they claim to be a
'patriotic' American, yet want to destroy the "inalienable rights"
given to their fellow citizens? So why did the state legisalature in
Alaska pass an act sayting that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional?



For
instance, I can ask you why you're such an America-hating, pro-
Communist,
Jew-bashing, African American-hating racist, but that'd be sort of
stupid,
wouldn't you agree?

John


I Agree that your post is pointless antagonisim, Yes.

Are you trying to call me something or are you just calling yourself
stupid, you are not clearly expressing yourself.


n


---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A
Literacy Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 5:03 PM, WillStG wrote:
Mike, just how is expecting fairness and ethical behavior from tax-
payer
funded institutions "self-serving"?


Strange how almost every other country in the world has managed to do this;
BBC, ORTF, DW, CBC, ABC (Australia).

The thing is Reagan struck down the laws in America that said equal time
must be alloted to oppsing viewpoints on editorial comment. All of a
sudden America created a whole news fiction industry.





---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A Literacy
Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

(EggHd)
My take on it is that BOR coddles her and it's like a love fest just as they
are saying NPR is with Frankin.

Well when Ann Coulter crosses her legs on the set it reminds me of this
movie... Ummm, nevermind.

The difference between the NPR and Fox News Channel of course is that FNC
is independently owned and operated, and so is entitled to have any kind of
opinion programming and editorial political POV it wishes.

NPR on the other hand, is funded with Government public money, and so for
them to exibit partisan and left leaning bias is simply outside their mandate
as a tax-payer funded insitution. If they were private it wouldn't be that big
a deal (except for the lying and unethical behavior), but it's unfair to force
the public to support them financially if they can't go beyond their own
political 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

NPR on the other hand, is funded with Government public money, and so for
them to exibit partisan and left leaning bias is simply outside their mandate
as a tax-payer funded insitution.

I can agree with the entire post
..


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

MikeK
BTW, go to the website http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/ and read the
ENTIRE piece. Will's excerpt is more than slightly self-serving. Basically,
it says that Terry should have known BOR would be a lout.

Mike, just how is expecting fairness and ethical behavior from tax-payer
funded institutions "self-serving"? They did this on the public dime, so the
public has a right to take notice. And did it escape your attention that I
included the link exactly so people could read the whole article on the NRP
website?

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

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 wrote:

Mike, just how is expecting fairness and ethical behavior from tax-payer
funded institutions "self-serving"? They did this on the public dime, so the
public has a right to take notice. And did it escape your attention that I
included the link exactly so people could read the whole article on the NRP
website?

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.

I think this is a shame, and I think a government-sponsored broadcasting
organization would be a good idea if, like the BBC, it could be built in a
way to be comparatively independant of the current administration and have
a clear mandate to support the arts. But NPR, much as it has raised the
level of broadcasting in this country, ain't no BBC. It's not even All-India
Radio.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."