OT: What’s the deal with NPR?

[Jim Jones]

Why are many upset with the government funding NPR’s reporting and coverage? The following NPR correspondents reporting on the Tuscon shooting of a Congresswoman may explain why many believe they should no longer receive government funding.

Hit the listen link to hear her narrate the story.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/12/132865098/in-tucson-a-sigh-of-relief-from-latino-community

Across America, Latino Community Sighs With Relief

I wasn’t the only person on Saturday who rushed to her Android when news came of the Tucson shooting. I wasn’t looking however to read about what had happened. My auntie had already filled me in — “Someone tried to murder una representante. People have been killed,” she’d reported. What I wanted to know was the killer’s surname.

My eyes scanned the mobile papers. I held my breath. Finally, I saw it: Jared Loughner. Not a Ramirez, Gonzalez or Garcia.

It’s safe to say there was a collective sigh of brown relief when the Tucson killer turned out to be a gringo. Had the shooter been Latino, media pundits wouldn’t be discussing the impact of nasty politics on a young man this week — they’d be demanding an even more stringent anti-immigrant policy. The new members of the House would be stepping over each other to propose new legislation for more guns on the border, more mothers to be deported, and more employers to be penalized for hiring brown people. Obama would be attending funerals and telling the nation tonight that he was going to increase security just about everywhere.

In short, the only reason the nation is taking a few days to reflect on the animosity in politics today is precisely that the shooter was not Latino.

It’s painfully ironic that a gay Latino man came to the aid of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the storm of gunfire. Daniel Hernandez, an intern with the congresswoman, ran to Rep. Giffords and helped to stop the bleeding. If a judge hadn’t blocked provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070 law, the intern’s surname would have easily qualified him as a target for police under different circumstances on Saturday. As Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, Ariz., told reporters: “The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous, and unfortunately Arizona has become sort of the capital.”

I admit sadly that it was only after I saw the shooter’s gringo surname that I was able to go on and read the rest of the news about those who lost their lives on Saturday and those who, like Rep. Giffords, were severely wounded. I admit also that I felt some small relief in knowing that at least this shooting wouldn’t be used as a reason for yet another backlash against immigrants, or at least that’s what I’m hoping. In this political climate, it’s hard to tell.

[briansd1]

CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic.

Nearly all portfolios were affected by the financial crisis.

As you say, governments spent based on bubble projection, now is the time to spend based on recession projections.

Allan is right. Governments promised too much and can’t pay the benefits.

What do you propose other than raising taxes?

Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut services. Those are really the only solutions.

[briansd1]

CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic.

Nearly all portfolios were affected by the financial crisis.

As you say, governments spent based on bubble projection, now is the time to spend based on recession projections.

Allan is right. Governments promised too much and can’t pay the benefits.

What do you propose other than raising taxes?

Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut services. Those are really the only solutions.

[briansd1]

CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic.

Nearly all portfolios were affected by the financial crisis.

As you say, governments spent based on bubble projection, now is the time to spend based on recession projections.

Allan is right. Governments promised too much and can’t pay the benefits.

What do you propose other than raising taxes?

Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut services. Those are really the only solutions.

[briansd1]

CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic.

Nearly all portfolios were affected by the financial crisis.

As you say, governments spent based on bubble projection, now is the time to spend based on recession projections.

Allan is right. Governments promised too much and can’t pay the benefits.

What do you propose other than raising taxes?

Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut services. Those are really the only solutions.

[briansd1]

CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic.

Nearly all portfolios were affected by the financial crisis.

As you say, governments spent based on bubble projection, now is the time to spend based on recession projections.

Allan is right. Governments promised too much and can’t pay the benefits.

What do you propose other than raising taxes?

Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut services. Those are really the only solutions.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic. . . [/quote]

brian, part of this “topic” is that when pensions were “enhanced” at the City and County level here in SD, the employee contributions not only became mandatory but employees who were already contributing to the “system,” in addition to employees just beginning to contribute had 2-3x as much taken from their paychecks as “retirement contibutions” than under the old plan. The “Class C” employees (all forms of public safety workers) begin contributing at younger ages as their earliest eligible regular retirement age is set at 50 (instead of 55) and so the removal of 2-3x their previous contributions out of their paychecks hit them harder and younger.

Much of the money invested in a local public sector employee’s pension (percentage depends on age and retirement “tier”) is actually the employee’s own money with which they have no say on how it is invested.

That’s what a lot of the public doesn’t seem to understand. Beginning at age 45, these non-safety public employees under a newer “enhanced” retirement system also don’t have a choice as to how much is deducted and/or how much this contribution is raised every year (on their birthdays).

Employees who retired under an older, much less generous system and “tier,” such as myself, didn’t have to make these types of ever-growing contributions out of their paychecks.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic. . . [/quote]

brian, part of this “topic” is that when pensions were “enhanced” at the City and County level here in SD, the employee contributions not only became mandatory but employees who were already contributing to the “system,” in addition to employees just beginning to contribute had 2-3x as much taken from their paychecks as “retirement contibutions” than under the old plan. The “Class C” employees (all forms of public safety workers) begin contributing at younger ages as their earliest eligible regular retirement age is set at 50 (instead of 55) and so the removal of 2-3x their previous contributions out of their paychecks hit them harder and younger.

Much of the money invested in a local public sector employee’s pension (percentage depends on age and retirement “tier”) is actually the employee’s own money with which they have no say on how it is invested.

That’s what a lot of the public doesn’t seem to understand. Beginning at age 45, these non-safety public employees under a newer “enhanced” retirement system also don’t have a choice as to how much is deducted and/or how much this contribution is raised every year (on their birthdays).

Employees who retired under an older, much less generous system and “tier,” such as myself, didn’t have to make these types of ever-growing contributions out of their paychecks.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic. . . [/quote]

brian, part of this “topic” is that when pensions were “enhanced” at the City and County level here in SD, the employee contributions not only became mandatory but employees who were already contributing to the “system,” in addition to employees just beginning to contribute had 2-3x as much taken from their paychecks as “retirement contibutions” than under the old plan. The “Class C” employees (all forms of public safety workers) begin contributing at younger ages as their earliest eligible regular retirement age is set at 50 (instead of 55) and so the removal of 2-3x their previous contributions out of their paychecks hit them harder and younger.

Much of the money invested in a local public sector employee’s pension (percentage depends on age and retirement “tier”) is actually the employee’s own money with which they have no say on how it is invested.

That’s what a lot of the public doesn’t seem to understand. Beginning at age 45, these non-safety public employees under a newer “enhanced” retirement system also don’t have a choice as to how much is deducted and/or how much this contribution is raised every year (on their birthdays).

Employees who retired under an older, much less generous system and “tier,” such as myself, didn’t have to make these types of ever-growing contributions out of their paychecks.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic. . . [/quote]

brian, part of this “topic” is that when pensions were “enhanced” at the City and County level here in SD, the employee contributions not only became mandatory but employees who were already contributing to the “system,” in addition to employees just beginning to contribute had 2-3x as much taken from their paychecks as “retirement contibutions” than under the old plan. The “Class C” employees (all forms of public safety workers) begin contributing at younger ages as their earliest eligible regular retirement age is set at 50 (instead of 55) and so the removal of 2-3x their previous contributions out of their paychecks hit them harder and younger.

Much of the money invested in a local public sector employee’s pension (percentage depends on age and retirement “tier”) is actually the employee’s own money with which they have no say on how it is invested.

That’s what a lot of the public doesn’t seem to understand. Beginning at age 45, these non-safety public employees under a newer “enhanced” retirement system also don’t have a choice as to how much is deducted and/or how much this contribution is raised every year (on their birthdays).

Employees who retired under an older, much less generous system and “tier,” such as myself, didn’t have to make these types of ever-growing contributions out of their paychecks.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic. . . [/quote]

brian, part of this “topic” is that when pensions were “enhanced” at the City and County level here in SD, the employee contributions not only became mandatory but employees who were already contributing to the “system,” in addition to employees just beginning to contribute had 2-3x as much taken from their paychecks as “retirement contibutions” than under the old plan. The “Class C” employees (all forms of public safety workers) begin contributing at younger ages as their earliest eligible regular retirement age is set at 50 (instead of 55) and so the removal of 2-3x their previous contributions out of their paychecks hit them harder and younger.

Much of the money invested in a local public sector employee’s pension (percentage depends on age and retirement “tier”) is actually the employee’s own money with which they have no say on how it is invested.

That’s what a lot of the public doesn’t seem to understand. Beginning at age 45, these non-safety public employees under a newer “enhanced” retirement system also don’t have a choice as to how much is deducted and/or how much this contribution is raised every year (on their birthdays).

Employees who retired under an older, much less generous system and “tier,” such as myself, didn’t have to make these types of ever-growing contributions out of their paychecks.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=jpinpb]CAR – Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge on this matter and clarifying it for us. I wish MSM would scratch the surface of the truth in this matter.[/quote]

CAR: Yes, thank you. That was an excellent summary, and thanks for the link as well.

The problem with grappling with issues like this on a blog like this, is that one is inherently limited in responding. To properly lay out the problem in its totality would require far more space and time than we have.

JP is right about the MSM’s unwillingness to delve into this, but, truthfully, you can’t really blame them, either. They fully don’t understand what they’re reporting on, plus they’re limited by time and format.

It is times like these that I really miss in-depth investigative reporting. The LA Times recently released an excellent series of reports on the massive problems that LACCD is experiencing with implementation of their “green” energy building program, along with reportage on wasteful spending, nepotism and just general stupidity within the LA Community College District. It was excellent reporting and very balanced and reminded me of the “old” LA Times that used to rack up Pulitzers by delivering just this kind of news.

We are now so riven by partisanship and taking “sides” that we have to choose between FOX and CNN/MSNBC. In that case, I really don’t have an issue with NPR, in that I believe they do really try to present a thoughtful and incisive approach to the news. Do I believe they should be defunded? I don’t know, but I also don’t like the alternatives, i.e. Beck/Hannity versus Olbermann/Maddow.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=jpinpb]CAR – Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge on this matter and clarifying it for us. I wish MSM would scratch the surface of the truth in this matter.[/quote]

CAR: Yes, thank you. That was an excellent summary, and thanks for the link as well.

The problem with grappling with issues like this on a blog like this, is that one is inherently limited in responding. To properly lay out the problem in its totality would require far more space and time than we have.

JP is right about the MSM’s unwillingness to delve into this, but, truthfully, you can’t really blame them, either. They fully don’t understand what they’re reporting on, plus they’re limited by time and format.

It is times like these that I really miss in-depth investigative reporting. The LA Times recently released an excellent series of reports on the massive problems that LACCD is experiencing with implementation of their “green” energy building program, along with reportage on wasteful spending, nepotism and just general stupidity within the LA Community College District. It was excellent reporting and very balanced and reminded me of the “old” LA Times that used to rack up Pulitzers by delivering just this kind of news.

We are now so riven by partisanship and taking “sides” that we have to choose between FOX and CNN/MSNBC. In that case, I really don’t have an issue with NPR, in that I believe they do really try to present a thoughtful and incisive approach to the news. Do I believe they should be defunded? I don’t know, but I also don’t like the alternatives, i.e. Beck/Hannity versus Olbermann/Maddow.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=jpinpb]CAR – Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge on this matter and clarifying it for us. I wish MSM would scratch the surface of the truth in this matter.[/quote]

CAR: Yes, thank you. That was an excellent summary, and thanks for the link as well.

The problem with grappling with issues like this on a blog like this, is that one is inherently limited in responding. To properly lay out the problem in its totality would require far more space and time than we have.

JP is right about the MSM’s unwillingness to delve into this, but, truthfully, you can’t really blame them, either. They fully don’t understand what they’re reporting on, plus they’re limited by time and format.

It is times like these that I really miss in-depth investigative reporting. The LA Times recently released an excellent series of reports on the massive problems that LACCD is experiencing with implementation of their “green” energy building program, along with reportage on wasteful spending, nepotism and just general stupidity within the LA Community College District. It was excellent reporting and very balanced and reminded me of the “old” LA Times that used to rack up Pulitzers by delivering just this kind of news.

We are now so riven by partisanship and taking “sides” that we have to choose between FOX and CNN/MSNBC. In that case, I really don’t have an issue with NPR, in that I believe they do really try to present a thoughtful and incisive approach to the news. Do I believe they should be defunded? I don’t know, but I also don’t like the alternatives, i.e. Beck/Hannity versus Olbermann/Maddow.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=jpinpb]CAR – Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge on this matter and clarifying it for us. I wish MSM would scratch the surface of the truth in this matter.[/quote]

CAR: Yes, thank you. That was an excellent summary, and thanks for the link as well.

The problem with grappling with issues like this on a blog like this, is that one is inherently limited in responding. To properly lay out the problem in its totality would require far more space and time than we have.

JP is right about the MSM’s unwillingness to delve into this, but, truthfully, you can’t really blame them, either. They fully don’t understand what they’re reporting on, plus they’re limited by time and format.

It is times like these that I really miss in-depth investigative reporting. The LA Times recently released an excellent series of reports on the massive problems that LACCD is experiencing with implementation of their “green” energy building program, along with reportage on wasteful spending, nepotism and just general stupidity within the LA Community College District. It was excellent reporting and very balanced and reminded me of the “old” LA Times that used to rack up Pulitzers by delivering just this kind of news.

We are now so riven by partisanship and taking “sides” that we have to choose between FOX and CNN/MSNBC. In that case, I really don’t have an issue with NPR, in that I believe they do really try to present a thoughtful and incisive approach to the news. Do I believe they should be defunded? I don’t know, but I also don’t like the alternatives, i.e. Beck/Hannity versus Olbermann/Maddow.

[Author]

Posts