NPR producer defends choice of former AHSA shill as 'gun rights advocate'

[Trebor]

Here the follow up to my story on NPR picking a former AHSA blogger to be a 'gun rights advocate' on a recent show.

NPR producer defends choice of former AHSA shill as 'gun rights advocate'

"After outrage over a NPR program that featured a “false flag” anti-gun blogger as a “gun rights advocate,” a NPR producer today confirmed the show specifically sought out a gun owner who supported magazine ammunition capacity restrictions to speak for "2nd Amendment supporters."

 

[Zanad]

sick.....

I can understand a mistake but this is just wrong.

 

[heeler]

Very interesting.
Perhaps it's time NPR stood on it's on two feet without the help of the ever pressed tax payers of this nation.

 

[Slotback]

Spot on heeler.

 

[JohnBT]

But NPR provides fair and balanced news reporting. I read it right here on THR.

 

[Larry E]

National People's Radio is so vehemently anti-gun that I would NOT believe anything they said about guns, or for that matter a lot of other things.

 

[sig228]

A little history on AHSA for those who are interested:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=232&issue=011

 

[Guns and more]

NPR producer defends choice of former AHSA shill as 'gun rights advocate'

Sorry, I stopped reading after "NPR".

What do you expect from the DNC's press office? The truth? Get serious, this is all about winning.

 

[rfwobbly]

National People's Radio is so vehemently anti-gun that I would NOT believe anything they said about guns, or for that matter a lot of other things.

Owing to a long morning and evening drive back in the 70's, I was an early listener to both "Morning Sedition" and "All Things Taken Out Of Context". I can tell you this attack on guns and the NRA is not new. It's been with them from the beginning. And this reporting style is standard policy.

When black men had their "Million Man March" which the Park Service estimated at 1/2 million, they discussed it for over a week. (BTW the Park Service took so much heat over their counting of the MMM, that they no longer estimate crowds.) Several years later when that Christian organization had a larger crowd in Washington to pray for families and our country, NPR's "expert commentator" on the subject was the leader of National Organization of Women (NOW). And of course it was only covered for about 10 seconds.

End their funding now !!

 

[rellascout]

People should really get their facts straight before calling for the removal of funding for NPR.

How many of my tax dollars go to NPR?
NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government. Less than two percent of the budget is derived from competitive grants from federally funded organizations such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation, and National Endowment for the Arts.

They get ZERO funds directly from the federal govt. They apply for an win grants from CPB, NSF, Departments of Education and Commerce and NEA. These grants made up about 2% of their annual revenues in 2009. You can make an argument that they need to be excluded from receiving the grants but that is an entirely different issue and much more complicated since their removal cannot be arbitrary or discriminatory.The majority of their funding comes from listeners IIRC about 66% and then about 25% from corporate sponsors. The reality is that NPR serves the people who pay for their service the listener who donated money.

There is also no evidence that any "federal" money via grants was used to produce or fund this program. If you don't like NPR don't listen to them. Don't give them $$$ and go back to your news outlet of choice. The reality is that there is no "objective" news outlet. If you think there is I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you. LOL

 

[Shear_stress]

There is also no evidence that any "federal" money via grants was used to produce or fund this program. If you don't like NPR don't listen to them. Don't give them $$$ and go back to your news outlet of choice. The reality is that there is no "objective" news outlet. If you think there is I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you. LOL

Thank you. Fox spends days after the shooting with non-stop "if it bleeds, it leads" coverage of gun! gun! gun! and no one cares. NPR does one crappy show and people fall over themselves to crow that it confirms their preconceived notions about a news outlet they know nothing about in the first place. We now live in a media environment where we can choose to go through our entire day never hearing an opinion that challenges our own. Newflash, folks: if you are never at odds with your news source, your source is not balanced.

That said, that On the Point episode was completely unfair. Listening to it will burst capillaries in the brains of anyone who is a fan of reasoned opinion.

 

[rellascout]

That said, that On the Point episode was completely unfair. Listening to it will burst capillaries in the brains of anyone who is a fan of reasoned opinion.

IMHO it was a horrible discussion. The employment of several Strawman posing as gun rights advocates was transparent.

I do however believe them when they say that there are many NRA members who would not oppose a reinstatement of a mag capacity ban. Not all gun owners are of one mind and in lock step with NRA leadership.

I am a member of the NRA but disagree with a lot of their approach to protecting my rights.

 

[Nushif]

Newflash, folks: if you are never at odds with your news source, your source is not balanced.

That there is a great sentence.

But NPR is pretty bleeding heart ... and this is coming from a guy on the deep left.

 

[Art Eatman]

Polly Ticks.