What a shock! Trump blocks Schiff's memo

[_Gunnar]

Ceeboo, much of the best and strongest evidence supporting what I said about Trump comes from his own stupid mouth and tweets. He seems constitutionally incapable of avoiding making a fool of himself and contradicting himself. This has been abundantly pointed out by many, and is becoming obvious to even a small, but steadily increasing number of even those who voted for him. That you still fail to see this is frankly astounding to me! My views on Trump, as you well know, is not just my own personal fantasy. It is a view held by many, if not a growing majority of people, including even a substantial and increasing minority of Republicans and conservatives, as I already said. The fact remains that his public approval rating is the lowest of any other President it this stage of his Presidency. Even Fox News is becoming increasingly critical of him and beginning to distance themselves from him.

[_Ceeboo]

Ceeboo, much of the best and strongest evidence supporting what I said about Trump comes from his own stupid mouth and tweets. He seems constitutionally incapable of avoiding making a fool of himself and contradicting himself. This has been abundantly pointed out by many, and is becoming obvious to even a small, but steadily increasing number of even those who voted for him. That you still fail to see this is frankly astounding to me! My views on Trump, as you well know, is not just my own personal fantasy. It is a view held by many, if not a growing majority of people, including even a substantial and increasing minority of Republicans and conservatives, as I already said. The fact remains that his public approval rating is the lowest of any other President it this stage of his Presidency. Even Fox News is becoming increasingly critical of him and beginning to distance themselves from him.

Gunnar,

I have no idea what you are going on about here.

My comments to you were a direct reply to your quote (Quoted again below)
I don't support Trump - I never have - So I don't sycophantically do anything like you imagine in your fantasy - and I don't think my morality or my cognitive abilities should be included in your fantasies - they are your fantasies, use your morality and your cognitive ability.

That people like....................... Ceeboo still sycophantically support this narcissistic clown implies a lot about either their morality or cognitive abilities or both

[_Gunnar]

Ceeboo, I apologize for mistakenly getting the impression that you support Trump. Finding that you don't and never did is of great relief to me and restores much of my previously held good opinion of you. My main point about Trump remains, though. He is an immoral, willfully corrupt and dishonest and a misogynistic narcissist who will do and already has begun to do a great deal of long lasting harm to our democracy. He is a laughing stock all over the world who has already seriously damaged American prestige and respectability in the world.

[_subgenius]

More to the point, it isn't state media in the context which I used the term. That refers to when the government exerts direct editorial and financial control over a media entity for purposes of disseminating pro-regime propaganda. NPR being partially funded by the government isn't that.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck.....

You say stuff like this because "collage imagination" - whereas you glean a few facts from google, npr, op-eds - and then conjure up some sort of "how it must be" because it just makes darn good sense to the cogs between your ears.

The events of the Schiller regime at NPR disagree with you here....and I am sure you are quite resolved with the taxpayer funded lobbying efforts by NPR.

A 2004 FAIR study concluded that "NPR’s guestlist shows the radio service relies on the same elite and influential sources that dominate mainstream commercial news, and falls short of reflecting the diversity of the American public

Pew Research Center poll found that liberals outnumber conservatives in the media by some 5 to 1

So, yeah - we get that NPR editorial/financial is not under government control/influence - how do we know? because NPR says so....oh ok.


In the “overwhelmingly” liberal bubble that is NPR, executives were appalled at Juan Williams comment to Bill O’Reilly that ““When I get on a plane … if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried, I get nervous.”

This was so bigoted, in their view, that they had to fire Mr. Williams. In a statement explaining why they did it, NPR said: Williams’ words “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

But these same sensitive liberal souls let Nina Totenberg, NPR’s Legal Affairs correspondent, go on a Sunday talk show each week and spout all sorts of liberal nonsense. Who could forget her shot at then Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, a comment for which she later apologized. If there was “retributive justice,” in the world, Ms. Totenberg said, Jesse Helms would “get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

[_EAllusion]

So, yeah - we get that NPR editorial/financial is not under government control/influence - how do we know? because NPR says so....oh ok.

Please show where anyone said that NPR isn't state media because NPR says so. Thanks in advance.

Once again you've refused to cite your sources, but if you actually did, it might help explain why you made this unsupported, false assertion. So let me help you out:

https://bernardgoldberg.com/no-liberal- ... t-ask-npr/

In that article, there is a reference to Ira Glass insisting that NPR does not have liberal bias, which is then warped into the supposed case of lack of bias at NPR is NPR's say-so. But that has nothing to do with what was said in this thread. Maybe you think I'm Ira Glass.

As for your argument that NPR is state media, meaning the government exerts direct editorial control over its contents, you don't cite any evidence that this is true. Rather you rely on a single anecdote of liberal bias at NPR. The anecdote, as told by right-wing media critic Bernie Goldberg, misleadingly leaves out facts, so that part should be first cleared up. Juan Williams wasn't fired simply for saying he feels fear when he sees Muslims (or rather, someone stereotypically dressed in Islamic fashion) getting on an airplane with him. Rather, he was fired because he defended this as a justified prejudice, like arguing that it is reasonable to feel fear if a black man sits next to you on the bus. Nina Totenberg's wishing AIDS via transfusion upon Helms or his loved ones were made 15 years prior in response to Jesse Helms arguing in favor of cutting AIDS research funding because AIDS is a disease of gays engaging in immoral behavior.

Let's say we agree that the fact that Williams was fired and Totenberg merely had to issue an apology is solid evidence of liberal bias at NPR. Kinda dubious, but let's grant it. I already claimed that NPR has a center-left bias myself. Such a claim is not proof of it functioning like state media. It isn't even evidence of the thing you are trying to show. But I guess that's what happens when you google a right-wing source arguing for liberal bias rather than addressing the question at hand. In fact, if you wanted to show NPR was state media, you'd be better off trying to show how it is biased towards Republicans as they are the ones who have total control of the federal government.

Likewise, pointing out that media members are more likely to be liberal than conservative doesn't actually tell you if and how the content of their media is biased. The fact that a food critic for your local paper is liberal might have zero impact on how that paper reports the news, in fact. We're to take it at face value that liberal media members inexorably leads to deep liberal bias in reporting in the article you plagiarized by refusing to cite, but that doesn't necessarily follow. Take, for example, the fact that major media outlets, including NPR, have published dozens of detailed pieces in the past year that have the theme "Trump voters still like Donald Trump." These pieces have the side-effect of reinforcing the social acceptability of supporting Donald Trump and proselytizing the arguments for doing so. Nothing like them has ever occurred for a Democratic president. Ever. Why? One part of the answer might be that the idea of supporting Donald Trump is so foreign to these liberal journalists that they report on the phenomenon like it is an anthropological investigation. Another part might be that they were so blind-sided by Trump actually winning that they are trying to make up for it by overcorrecting in focusing on the people who support Trump. Regardless, it is a clear right-wing bias in reporting that is being produced by journalists more likely to be liberal. It isn't obvious that liberal journalists automatically mean liberal content. More is needed to make the case. And if you successfully make that case, you aren't even establishing the point necessary to disagree with what you are responding to. So, awesome job all around Subs.

[_Maksutov]

I am increasingly amazed at how some on this forum can continue to support Trump, despite the increasingly obvious fact of his misogyny and racism and history of dishonesty in his business dealings, plus the no longer uncontroversial facts that he is the most openly corrupt and self-serving President we have ever had (which he and cohorts hardly even try to hide anymore), the most willfully and proudly ignorant (especially about science, math and history), the most obviously incompetent individual who was ever elected to that office and so notoriously a pathological liar that his own lawyers fear the prospect of his being subject to having to testify under oath because of the high probably that he will perjure himself.

That people like Markk, Subgenius, Bach, Majax and even Ceeboo still sycophantically support this narcissistic clown implies a lot about either their morality or cognitive abilities or both--none of it good! If Trump has any redeeming qualities at all, I am not aware of them!

I haven't seen Ceeboo say that. And I don't think of Markk as a sycophant. The other 3...you're probably understating it.

[_canpakes]

A 2004 FAIR study concluded that "NPR’s guestlist shows the radio service relies on the same elite and influential sources that dominate mainstream commercial news, and falls short of reflecting the diversity of the American public

Aside from the irony of FAIR complaining about 'elite' sources, could you, mr. subs, give us a definition on what this word actually indicates aside from being a meaningless term designed to favorably color a conclusion about the speaker's POV to a particular audience, absent any actual thinking?

[_EAllusion]

A 2004 FAIR study concluded that "NPR’s guestlist shows the radio service relies on the same elite and influential sources that dominate mainstream commercial news, and falls short of reflecting the diversity of the American public

Aside from the irony of FAIR complaining about 'elite' sources, could you, mr. subs, give us a definition on what this word actually indicates aside from being a meaningless term designed to favorably color a conclusion about the speaker's POV to a particular audience, absent any actual thinking?

I looked up the study Subs refused to properly cite. Apparently, just this one time Subs has no problem citing an explicit left-wing source so long as he doesn't actually have to cite it.

Essentially, it found that a lot, about half, of NPR's quoted sources are either current or former representatives of the government, professional experts, and, to a much lesser extent, business leaders. This is in contrast to workers, students, non-expert members of the public, and interest groups. Subs provides zero case that the fact that NPR interviews a lot of current and former government officials when reporting on the government or that they interview a lot of experts on topics when reporting on those topics means they are state media. We're just supposed to assume that booking and quoting elite sources is a bad thing and specifically a bad thing that implies NPR is basically Bagdad Bob.

Subs, in all probability not even reading the original source, left out some other key points that contradict what he argues:

https://fair.org/extra/how-public-is-public-radio/

Though elite sources made up a majority of sources, the study actually found a substantial increase in the number of non-elite sources featured. Workers, students, the general public, and representatives of organized citizen and public interest groups accounted for 31 percent of all sources, compared to the 17 percent found in 1993.

The increase comes largely in the general public category. These are “people in the street” whose occupations are not identified and who tend to be quoted more briefly than other sources—often in one-sentence soundbites. More than a third (37 percent) of general public sources were not even identified by name—appearing in show transcripts as “unidentified woman No. 2” and the like. General public sources accounted for 21 percent of NPR sources.

Spokespeople for public interest groups—generally articulate sources espousing a particular point of view—accounted for 7 percent of total sources, the same proportion found in 1993. Though not a large proportion of NPR’s sources, public interest voices were still about twice as common on NPR as on commercial network news, according to a FAIR study published in 2002 (Extra!, 5-6/02) that found that such sources made up only 3 percent of voices on network news shows.

Public interest voices on NPR reflected a wide range of opinion, from conservative groups like the National Right to Life Committee and Texas Eagle Forum to progressive groups like MoveOn.org and Code Pink. Types of organizations represented included political organizations, charitable foundations, public education groups and human rights and civil liberties advocates. Eighty-seven percent of public interest sources appeared in domestic policy stories.

Sources identified as workers on NPR programming in June accounted for 2.3 percent of overall sources and 1.8 percent of U.S. sources. But spokespersons for organized labor were almost invisible, numbering just six sources, or 0.3 percent of the total. Corporate representatives (6 percent) appeared 23 times more often than labor representatives.

...

That NPR harbors a liberal bias is an article of faith among many conservatives. Spanning from the early ’70s, when President Richard Nixon demanded that “all funds for public broadcasting be cut” (9/23/71), through House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s similar threats in the mid-’90s, the notion that NPR leans left still endures.

News of the April launch of Air America, a new liberal talk radio network, revived the old complaint, with several conservative pundits declaring that such a thing already existed. “I have three letters for you, NPR . . . . I mean, there is liberal radio,” remarked conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan on NBC’s Chris Matthews Show (4/4/04). A few days earlier (4/1/04), conservative columnist Cal Thomas told Nightline, “The liberals have many outlets,” naming NPR prominently among them.

Nor is this belief confined to the right: CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer (3/31/04) seemed to repeat it as a given while questioning a liberal guest: “What about this notion that the conservatives make a fair point that there already is a liberal radio network out there, namely National Public Radio?”

Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.

Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition, 6/26/03).

Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each.

Senators Edward Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller and Max Baucus were the most frequently heard Democrats, each appearing four times. No nongovernmental source appeared more than three times. With the exception of Secretary of State Powell, all of the top 10 most frequently appearing sources were white male government officials.

Yes, Subs cribbed a quote about a study because he thought it supported his case for liberal bias at NPR. That study explicitly says the claim that NPR is biased towards liberals is unfounded and unsupported in their data. Also notice that the uncited quote Subs is using implies the study finds that NPR has the same source mix as mainstream commercial news. The study says the opposite and credits NPR for being more inclusive, just not inclusive enough to their preferences. The mendacity of the quote hinges on saying "uses the same sources" meaning that if there is any overlap at all, we can say they draw from the same well. Even one interview with a member of the government would've sufficed to make that quote work.

All around A+ for dishonesty.

[_Gunnar]

I am increasingly amazed at how some on this forum can continue to support Trump, despite the increasingly obvious fact of his misogyny and racism and history of dishonesty in his business dealings, plus the no longer uncontroversial facts that he is the most openly corrupt and self-serving President we have ever had (which he and cohorts hardly even try to hide anymore), the most willfully and proudly ignorant (especially about science, math and history), the most obviously incompetent individual who was ever elected to that office and so notoriously a pathological liar that his own lawyers fear the prospect of his being subject to having to testify under oath because of the high probably that he will perjure himself.

That people like Markk, Subgenius, Bach, Majax and even Ceeboo still sycophantically support this narcissistic clown implies a lot about either their morality or cognitive abilities or both--none of it good! If Trump has any redeeming qualities at all, I am not aware of them!

I haven't seen Ceeboo say that. And I don't think of Markk as a sycophant. The other 3...you're probably understating it.

My apologies to Ceeboo and Markk , and I agree that I probably understated in the case of the other three! Their mendacity and/or naïveté concerning the realities of Trump and the current GOP administration and plutocratic hierarchy are simply astounding!

[_EAllusion]

The redacted memo is out:

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig00/ ... -sd002.pdf