the recent firing of Juan Williams at NPR needs a clear examination of what many have said about the unfairness at NPR.
And the examination is this, unlike any other media outlet in the US, whatever the opinion there is, needs to find good-competitive content to get an audience and then be able to attract advertisers, that all requires a lot of hard work, very hard work. there is example after example from the Leno-Obrian fiasco to networks who constantly change aroound hosts to get a better grip in the ratings.
But NPR... dosent pay millions or even thousands on strategists to find ways to compete with good content, they count on federal funding, which is us the taxpayers and foundations to pay their sluggish content and ratings. which even in my hometown nyc they reach a poor 8,000 listeners.
See, by firing Mr. Williams the argument was that NPR stands only for the news and staff should not take any political sides. REALLY? how about that after host are hard liberals, from the local level up to a racist a bigot Tavis Smiley who hates whites and constantly talks about "black power", and Mr. Williams who is black and in no way a conservative gets such treatment.
It's time to defund NPR on every level from local which about 40-50 percent comes from individual funding to foundations that can do really good by giving money to Org. like Red Cross.
As i am on it, i want to take a moment and draw some points between liberals asking companies not to advertise on the Glen Beck program (last summer) and many now voicing that government shouldn't pay NPR. The difference is that Glen beck actually reaches an audience and a big audience, so when liberals ask companies not to advertise on his programs the companies are loosing as well, they wont be on the cutting edge of the market by loosing so many viewers, so the the pressure needs to be so hard on them not to advertise (get it?) but in the case of the sluggish-NPR no one is interested to advertise on a low reaching, low content, biased news agency.
