PDA

View Full Version : Multiculturalism and Islam



Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-04-2014, 09:02 AM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/multiculturalism_and_islam.html

September 2, 2014

Multiculturalism and Islam

By Robert Klein Engler

Recently, the Hindustan Times ran an article noting that the Nalanda University has reopened after being destroyed 800 years ago. “… the new university took off with only two schools -- the school of ecology & environmental studies and the school of historical studies, seven faculty members and 15 students.”
We learn later in the article that Nalanda University was dealt its final blow in 1193 AD. Bakhtiar Khilji, a Muslim general of Qutbuddin Aibak, set out to uproot Buddhism in Northern India. “The Turkish invaders set ablaze and destroyed the huge library of the university, said to rival one at Luxor in Egypt.”




Muslims destroying a university may come as a shock to many professors in the West today, for it flies in the face of the multiculturalism they profess. It is too ironic to imagine multiculturalists supporting the very culture that would destroy them.

Can Muslims be multiculturalists? At its core, Islam does not allow for freedom of religion, yet this freedom would be considered one of the core principles of the multiculturalism we hear professed.

At the center of Islam is Mecca in Saudi Arabia. There are no Christian churches or Jewish synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The only religion allowed in Saudi Arabia is Islam. Christian activities, practices, books, and symbols are forbidden. This restriction is enforced by the religious police, the mutawa’een.

You’d think that in a multicultural world, nations should at least expect parity. If Saudi Arabia can fund and build a mosque in Chicago, then Catholics ought to be able to fund and build a church in Mecca.

What we find instead, is that if a Chicago Catholic wants to attend Mass in Saudi Arabia, then she has to do so in secret, usually in a private home. In Chicago, a Muslim can worship in public, and even openly preach against the society that welcomes him.

The logic of multiculturalism may demand parity, but you’ll be waiting ’til hell freezes over for Muslims in Mecca to be logical about multiculturalism.

Fortunately, unlike 800 years ago, students in the United States don’t have to worry about Muslims destroying our universities, at least for now. There is another logic at work. The universities are destroying themselves by allowing the ideology of multiculturalism over the values of patriotism.

Consider the interview of Professor Colleen Ward conducted by Mervin Singhas at Victoria University in New Zealand. Her views on multiculturalism are not too different from most university professors in the United States.

Professor Ward claims, “My thinking… is influenced by Professor John Berry from Queens University in Canada… I am in total agreement with him when he talks about a multicultural society being one that has three primary features… it is culturally diverse but that diversity is appreciated and positively valued.”

“Secondly, that all cultures, all ethnic or ethno-cultural groups in a society are able to a very large extent maintain their traditional cultural heritage and language… And thirdly, all of the ethno-cultural groups within a nation are able to participate in a fair and equitable way in that society.”

Then we learn a most startling fact from the professor. “Here’s where I would… say multiculturalism hasn’t failed in France, Germany and the UK. They’ve never had it. It’s never been tested.”

Never been tested? Has multiculturalism ever been tested in Saudi Arabia? The Saudis haven’t had multiculturalism, either, yet Professor Ward is blind to that cultural insight.

It is not only in the universities teaching about multiculturalism that we are blind. The blindness runs through many Western governments.

Writing in academia.edu, Ghassan Hage, of the University of Melbourne claims, “I want to concentrate on the case of Australia’s cultural policy toward immigrants to argue that Muslim immigrants in the West have become ‘the ungovernable’ of the multicultural governmental apparatus.”

Recently, German Chancellor Angela Merkel challenged the professors of multiculturalism and their supporters in the governmental apparatus. Chancellor Merkel told the young conservatives of her Christian Democratic Union that Germany’s attempt to create a multicultural society where people “live side by side and enjoy each other,” has “failed, utterly failed.”

Could it be that multiculturalism has failed because multiculturalism isn’t practical? The downfall of the multiculturalist is like the downfall of the glutton: someday he will eat a poison he cannot digest.

It may be too late to be practical and turn our cultural gluttony around. The bill for multiculturalism’s banquet is coming due.

Pat Buchanan realizes that soon there will be none left to pay what we owe. “Old Europe is dying,” Buchanan writes, (the United States, too?) “and the populist and nationalist parties, in the poet’s phrase, are simply raging “against the dying of the light.”

What many university professors refuse to see is that relativism is an intellectual exercise, not a way of life. No multicultural society in human history has ever survived. Multicultural societies have always been dominated by societies with a singularity of belief and purpose.

Many who profess multiculturalism also defend their ideas by making others feel guilty. “See, they argue, “We are better persons by being all-inclusive.” But the truth is multiculturalism does not make us better. It makes us weaker.

The next time you see the black flag of ISIS held high in the desert, think of Professor Colleen Ward and her lectures on multiculturalism. The warriors of ISIS may not have heard professor Wards’s lectures. If they have taken her course, then they’ve failed the exam. Or maybe the warriors of ISIS know it’s all nonsense.

The warriors of Islam know the enemy can be vanquished because the enemy is weak. The enemy is weak because of their belief in multiculturalism. The belief of ISIS is one and simple. “Allahu Ackbar!”

Robert Klein Engler lives in Omaha, Nebraska. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A Winter of Words, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.


Recently, the Hindustan Times ran an article noting that the Nalanda University has reopened after being destroyed 800 years ago. “… the new university took off with only two schools -- the school of ecology & environmental studies and the school of historical studies, seven faculty members and 15 students.”

We learn later in the article that Nalanda University was dealt its final blow in 1193 AD. Bakhtiar Khilji, a Muslim general of Qutbuddin Aibak, set out to uproot Buddhism in Northern India. “The Turkish invaders set ablaze and destroyed the huge library of the university, said to rival one at Luxor in Egypt.”

Muslims destroying a university may come as a shock to many professors in the West today, for it flies in the face of the multiculturalism they profess. It is too ironic to imagine multiculturalists supporting the very culture that would destroy them.

Can Muslims be multiculturalists? At its core, Islam does not allow for freedom of religion, yet this freedom would be considered one of the core principles of the multiculturalism we hear professed.

At the center of Islam is Mecca in Saudi Arabia. There are no Christian churches or Jewish synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The only religion allowed in Saudi Arabia is Islam. Christian activities, practices, books, and symbols are forbidden. This restriction is enforced by the religious police, the mutawa’een.

You’d think that in a multicultural world, nations should at least expect parity. If Saudi Arabia can fund and build a mosque in Chicago, then Catholics ought to be able to fund and build a church in Mecca.

What we find instead, is that if a Chicago Catholic wants to attend Mass in Saudi Arabia, then she has to do so in secret, usually in a private home. In Chicago, a Muslim can worship in public, and even openly preach against the society that welcomes him.

The logic of multiculturalism may demand parity, but you’ll be waiting ’til hell freezes over for Muslims in Mecca to be logical about multiculturalism.

Fortunately, unlike 800 years ago, students in the United States don’t have to worry about Muslims destroying our universities, at least for now. There is another logic at work. The universities are destroying themselves by allowing the ideology of multiculturalism over the values of patriotism.

Consider the interview of Professor Colleen Ward conducted by Mervin Singhas at Victoria University in New Zealand. Her views on multiculturalism are not too different from most university professors in the United States.

Professor Ward claims, “My thinking… is influenced by Professor John Berry from Queens University in Canada… I am in total agreement with him when he talks about a multicultural society being one that has three primary features… it is culturally diverse but that diversity is appreciated and positively valued.”

“Secondly, that all cultures, all ethnic or ethno-cultural groups in a society are able to a very large extent maintain their traditional cultural heritage and language… And thirdly, all of the ethno-cultural groups within a nation are able to participate in a fair and equitable way in that society.”

Then we learn a most startling fact from the professor. “Here’s where I would… say multiculturalism hasn’t failed in France, Germany and the UK. They’ve never had it. It’s never been tested.”

Never been tested? Has multiculturalism ever been tested in Saudi Arabia? The Saudis haven’t had multiculturalism, either, yet Professor Ward is blind to that cultural insight.

It is not only in the universities teaching about multiculturalism that we are blind. The blindness runs through many Western governments.

Writing in academia.edu, Ghassan Hage, of the University of Melbourne claims, “I want to concentrate on the case of Australia’s cultural policy toward immigrants to argue that Muslim immigrants in the West have become ‘the ungovernable’ of the multicultural governmental apparatus.”

Recently, German Chancellor Angela Merkel challenged the professors of multiculturalism and their supporters in the governmental apparatus. Chancellor Merkel told the young conservatives of her Christian Democratic Union that Germany’s attempt to create a multicultural society where people “live side by side and enjoy each other,” has “failed, utterly failed.”

Could it be that multiculturalism has failed because multiculturalism isn’t practical? The downfall of the multiculturalist is like the downfall of the glutton: someday he will eat a poison he cannot digest.

It may be too late to be practical and turn our cultural gluttony around. The bill for multiculturalism’s banquet is coming due.

Pat Buchanan realizes that soon there will be none left to pay what we owe. “Old Europe is dying,” Buchanan writes, (the United States, too?) “and the populist and nationalist parties, in the poet’s phrase, are simply raging “against the dying of the light.”

What many university professors refuse to see is that relativism is an intellectual exercise, not a way of life. No multicultural society in human history has ever survived. Multicultural societies have always been dominated by societies with a singularity of belief and purpose.

Many who profess multiculturalism also defend their ideas by making others feel guilty. “See, they argue, “We are better persons by being all-inclusive.” But the truth is multiculturalism does not make us better. It makes us weaker.

The next time you see the black flag of ISIS held high in the desert, think of Professor Colleen Ward and her lectures on multiculturalism. The warriors of ISIS may not have heard professor Wards’s lectures. If they have taken her course, then they’ve failed the exam. Or maybe the warriors of ISIS know it’s all nonsense.

The warriors of Islam know the enemy can be vanquished because the enemy is weak. The enemy is weak because of their belief in multiculturalism. The belief of ISIS is one and simple. “Allahu Ackbar!”

Robert Klein Engler lives in Omaha, Nebraska. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A Winter of Words, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.

Leftist/liberal ideology promotes this Multiculturalism rot as a sneaky and clever way to weaken their opposition-- American patriots, Capitalism , Conservatism and Christians.
Islam allied with these scum because scum stick together to destroy a common enemy. Yet totally clueless(classless too) American appeasers
defend Islam either out of ignorance and/or fear. Most often in my opinion it is both at play.
Cowardly little asshats that think they are clever on their damn deception.
Such Americans actually engage in treason because they aid an enemy that is actively attempting to destroy the nation, enslave its citizens. As traitors they too have something coming!!!
I suspect a list of such people is being drawn up for the day(if we prevail) justice can be measured out!
Just in case, being a good citizen Ive made my own little list. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh:--Tyr

Baba Booey
09-04-2014, 10:26 AM
It's an interesting topic, can Islam tolerate multiculturalism but americanthinker is wholly incapable of an objective opinion on this subject matter.

Just reading through that stuff reeked of wingospheric bullshitism.

Drummond
09-04-2014, 11:19 AM
It's an interesting topic, can Islam tolerate multiculturalism but americanthinker is wholly incapable of an objective opinion on this subject matter.

Just reading through that stuff reeked of wingospheric bullshitism.

More precisely, Islam USES multiculturalism ..

In my country, Islamists use multiculturalism to insist that they're accepted ... otherwise, they cry 'RACISM' very, very, loudly.

But they have no interest whatever in the INTEGRATION which multiculturalism requires. That's the difference.

Islamists trade on others' naivety for their own ends - to establish separate communities. To insist that THEIR ways predominate. Once their presence involves sufficient numbers of Muslims ... so they become more demanding, to the point where they work for outright dominance.

Walthamstow, E17, London, saw enough numbers of them established for the more militant of them to declare it a 'Sharia Controlled Zone'. They had no actual RIGHT to do this -- no legality existed to permit such a thing. But they tried it, all the same.

This is the reality. It's an invasive creed, ultimately demanding dominion over EVERYONE.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-04-2014, 05:45 PM
It's an interesting topic, can Islam tolerate multiculturalism but americanthinker is wholly incapable of an objective opinion on this subject matter.

Just reading through that stuff reeked of wingospheric bullshitism.

Objective opinion ? or did you mean appeasing opinion or moderate opinion?
So you deny points made in the article because you claim bias coming from the source . :laugh:
I guess I now need to quote from a muslim site to prove what?
How unbiased they are? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:-Tyr

Baba Booey
09-04-2014, 06:32 PM
Objective opinion ? or did you mean appeasing opinion or moderate opinion?
So you deny points made in the article because you claim bias coming from the source . :laugh:
I guess I now need to quote from a muslim site to prove what?
How unbiased they are? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:-Tyr

Sorry, no - I mean objective opinion.

americanthinker is a wingnut rag that caters to RW bucket carriers. They blog/print what their audience wants to hear.

So I consider it with a jaundiced eye, and because it's an interesting topic I don't want the liberal rags version to offset it, I want something truly objective.

Unfortunately, it's not part of this discussion.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-04-2014, 07:10 PM
Sorry, no - I mean objective opinion.

americanthinker is a wingnut rag that caters to RW bucket carriers. They blog/print what their audience wants to hear.

So I consider it with a jaundiced eye, and because it's an interesting topic I don't want the liberal rags version to offset it, I want something truly objective.

Unfortunately, it's not part of this discussion.




"RW bucket carriers", never heard of such, perhaps you can define that term..-Tyr

Baba Booey
09-04-2014, 07:13 PM
, never heard of such, perhaps you can define that term..-Tyr

Sure.

Anyone of RW ideology who blindly subscribes to the crap that RushBeck, americanthinker, Brietbot sites churn out on a regular basis that has little or no factual value but gets wingnuts all in a lather.

Our MSM and subsidies are successful for a reason, they give the people what they want regardless of objectivity or factuality. Journalism is dead but rhetoric sells tea, gold and food insurance.

Baba Booey
09-04-2014, 07:17 PM
Sure.

Anyone of RW ideology who blindly subscribes to the crap that RushBeck, americanthinker, Brietbot sites churn out on a regular basis that has little or no factual value but gets wingnuts all in a lather.

Our MSM and subsidies are successful for a reason, they give the people what they want regardless of objectivity or factuality. Journalism is dead but rhetoric sells tea, gold and food insurance.

Yeah, add thinkprogress and huffpo to that mix also.

Want real objective reporting? Go to NPR, they're one of the few close to objective reporting sources available in the states anymore.

Might need to take your rose colored glasses off first and actually tune in though. Just steer clear of programs like alternative radio and democracy now.

Tune into Car Talk on Saturdays though, best fucking show on radio period!

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-04-2014, 09:31 PM
Yeah, add thinkprogress and huffpo to that mix also.

Want real objective reporting? Go to NPR, they're one of the few close to objective reporting sources available in the states anymore.

Might need to take your rose colored glasses off first and actually tune in though. Just steer clear of programs like alternative radio and democracy now.

Tune into Car Talk on Saturdays though, best fucking show on radio period!

NPR? Surely you jest!
That's a joke right????

Gaffer
09-04-2014, 10:17 PM
Yeah, add thinkprogress and huffpo to that mix also.

Want real objective reporting? Go to NPR, they're one of the few close to objective reporting sources available in the states anymore.

Might need to take your rose colored glasses off first and actually tune in though. Just steer clear of programs like alternative radio and democracy now.

Tune into Car Talk on Saturdays though, best fucking show on radio period!

NPR? And you call the others ring wing nuts? The MSM is the new TASS news agency and huffpo is so far left they can't see the right. NPR stands right beside them along with the NYT. Maybe you think NYT is a good source as well?

Baba Booey
09-05-2014, 07:23 AM
NPR? Surely you jest!
That's a joke right????

Nope.

Most of the hardcore conservatives I know who are objective might imply the same thing but after asking them to listen to the news segments, most of them agree.

I really doubt you ever really listened to it to be honest, your reaction is pretty cookie cutter right from the wingosphere and most wingnuts are too busy soaking them up some Brietbot because that's all they want to hear.

There is no unbiased media sources, in MSM it's a matter of what degree of bias is present. Yahoo news, Reuters are basically churning out stories for the most part, not a whole lot of bias there. FauxNews's reporting is pretty straight forward also but their opinion shows are just full of mindless RWNJ rhetoric. Most of them, not all. Cavuto has a fairly intelligent show.

And it's funny, people are institutionalized into this mindset. You can take a list of issues - abortion, taxes, regulation, healthcare, legislation, Wall St., climate change - make a list of a hundred or so different sociopolitical issues and with a large degree of accuracy I can take any random wingnut on this or any other forum and check off where they stand on it.

Our MSM severely lacks objectivity because collectively we don't want truth, reality, objectivity - we want to be mentally masturbated.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-05-2014, 08:20 AM
Nope.

Most of the hardcore conservatives I know who are objective might imply the same thing but after asking them to listen to the news segments, most of them agree.

I really doubt you ever really listened to it to be honest, your reaction is pretty cookie cutter right from the wingosphere and most wingnuts are too busy soaking them up some Brietbot because that's all they want to hear.

There is no unbiased media sources, in MSM it's a matter of what degree of bias is present. Yahoo news, Reuters are basically churning out stories for the most part, not a whole lot of bias there. FauxNews's reporting is pretty straight forward also but their opinion shows are just full of mindless RWNJ rhetoric. Most of them, not all. Cavuto has a fairly intelligent show.

And it's funny, people are institutionalized into this mindset. You can take a list of issues - abortion, taxes, regulation, healthcare, legislation, Wall St., climate change - make a list of a hundred or so different sociopolitical issues and with a large degree of accuracy I can take any random wingnut on this or any other forum and check off where they stand on it.

Our MSM severely lacks objectivity because collectively we don't want truth, reality, objectivity - we want to be mentally masturbated.

For a complete moderate which you now seem to imply you are you sure toss the term "wingnut" around a lot but never use the term leftwingnutjob-(LWNJ).

Yet you did use this one--

"RWNJ rhetoric."
and this one

"FauxNews's "
and this one

"Brietbot"

Sho' seems one sided to me but hey maybe being such a fair and totally impartial person leads you to criticize the rightwing nutjobs more , right?:laugh:-Tyr

Baba Booey
09-05-2014, 08:32 AM
For a complete moderate which you now seem to imply you are you sure toss the term "wingnut" around a lot but never use the term leftwingnutjob-(LWNJ).

Yet you did use this one--

and this one

and this one


Sho' seems one sided to me but hey maybe being such a fair and totally impartial person leads you to criticize the rightwing nutjobs more , right?:laugh:-Tyr

When in Rome...

:laugh:

Trust me, if there were libwhacks here shitting the bed with crackpot stories quoted from the KOS or whatever my ire would swing that way too.

Baba Booey
09-05-2014, 08:37 AM
I have a bit of a peeve about objectivity. I've been a political forum junkie for a long time now and nothing annoys me more than someone who just takes any rag source and cites it as gospel and argues the shit out of it.

And maybe it's me but I've developed a knack for spotting bullshit, I can spot it from Pluto and I'll be the first to question accuracy.

I don't see many people doing that, they just take anything that's published from virtually any source at face value.

This is how dumbed down we've become as a society, no wonder we're being taken advantage of by our elected representatives.

Gaffer
09-05-2014, 08:59 AM
I have a bit of a peeve about objectivity. I've been a political forum junkie for a long time now and nothing annoys me more than someone who just takes any rag source and cites it as gospel and argues the shit out of it.

And maybe it's me but I've developed a knack for spotting bullshit, I can spot it from Pluto and I'll be the first to question accuracy.

I don't see many people doing that, they just take anything that's published from virtually any source at face value.

This is how dumbed down we've become as a society, no wonder we're being taken advantage of by our elected representatives.

I have listened to NPR. Many times in fact, because it was the only station I could get in where I was. They have a very left wing bias in all of their reporting. They report and they decide. They are also selective on what they report on.

Baba Booey
09-05-2014, 09:09 AM
I have listened to NPR. Many times in fact, because it was the only station I could get in where I was. They have a very left wing bias in all of their reporting. They report and they decide. They are also selective on what they report on.

Sorry, I don't think you do. Or you're just succumbing to the wingosphere's demonization of it, one or the other.

I'm picking both actually. If you're going to tell me that AmericanThinker is objective and NPR is not, sorry - you have very little political credibility with me. And that's ok, no big deal. I'll just discount and/or basically disregard your opinions, kinda like how I'm doing here. I prefer paying attention to folks that are objective. Listening to people just regurgitate blather they hear on RW rags... meh, not very intellectually satisfying but considering the opinions of someone who's objectivity I trust, yeah - I'll pay attention to the latter every day.

And, by "selective" I'm guessing that you mean they don't just report on stuff RWNJ's want to hear, they cover a broader spectrum of issues.

So cool, if unobjective robotic rhetoric is your thing, knock yourself out.

Baba Booey
09-05-2014, 09:13 AM
That might have been a little harsh but sometimes people wake up after a good slap in the balls, but most often they don't.

This is the reason why I lost faith in our nation a long time ago.

Gunny
09-05-2014, 09:15 AM
I have listened to NPR. Many times in fact, because it was the only station I could get in where I was. They have a very left wing bias in all of their reporting. They report and they decide. They are also selective on what they report on.

The entire media is crap. Journalism 101: Catch the reader's attention. Nothing like an inflammatory topic to do that. State the topic in your first paragraph and support it in subsequent paragraph's. Use wording to lead the reader to the conclusion you wish the reader to come to. The conclusion will be dictated by company policy or the editor will throw your crap back in your face and tell you to re-write it.

As time has gone on, catch the reader's attention has gotten worse and more sensationalist because you have different companies in competition for the reader's attention.

I don't trust ANY single media source. I watch both Fox and CNN. You pick out the facts that appear in BOTH. Te truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Baba Booey
09-05-2014, 09:17 AM
The entire media is crap. Journalism 101: Catch the reader's attention. Nothing like an inflammatory topic to do that. State the topic in your first paragraph and support it in subsequent paragraph's. Use wording to lead the reader to the conclusion you wish the reader to come to. The conclusion will be dictated by company policy or the editor will throw your crap back in your face and tell you to re-write it.

As time has gone on, catch the reader's attention has gotten worse and more sensationalist because you have different companies in competition for the reader's attention.

I don't trust ANY single media source. I watch both Fox and CNN. You pick out the facts that appear in BOTH. Te truth lies somewhere in the middle.

^^This

Drummond
09-05-2014, 12:48 PM
I have listened to NPR. Many times in fact, because it was the only station I could get in where I was. They have a very left wing bias in all of their reporting. They report and they decide. They are also selective on what they report on.

Amazing. If I, on my side of the Pond, know that NPR is Left wing, how come there are those on the American side, who don't ???

Perhaps our friend has a response to THIS, then ....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/12/npr-hosts-employees-here-are-overwhelmingly-liberal-were-not-biased


In response to this week's shameful exposure of bias at NPR, a couple of its hosts on Friday had an on air discussion about whether or not the radio network does indeed have a political leaning.

Shortly after "On the Media" host Bob Garfield said, "If you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and all of the member stations, you would find an overwhelmingly progressive, liberal crowd," Ira Glass of "The American Life" maintained the outlet had no left-wing bias whatsoever (audio follows with partial transcript and commentary):

BROOKE GLADSTONE, ‘ON THE MEDIA’ CO-HOST, NPR: About 25 years ago, I was asked to do a piece, “Is NPR Biased to the Left?” And I couldn’t find a metric to apply to the question in order to answer it.

IRA GLASS, ‘THE AMERICAN LIFE’ HOST, NPR: I don’t know the methodology somebody would use, but I feel like public radio should address this directly, because I think anybody who listens to our stations knows that what they’re hearing is mainstream media reporting. We have nothing to fear from a discussion of what is the news coverage we’re doing.

I couldn’t find a metric. I don’t know the methodology somebody would use.

Maybe that's part of the problem - these so-called journalists don't know how to determine bias in reporting.

How about first taking a look at a week's worth of programming and simply adding up the number of real conservative and liberal guests as well as Republican and Democrat guests? The qualifier "real" means that folks like New York Times columnist David Brooks and former CNN contributor Kathleen Parker don't count because they are by no means conservative.

Despite there being far more ways to measure bias, this would at least be a good start if NPR was serious about doing such an examination.

But the best was yet to come as another host made quite an admission moments later:

GLASS: As somebody who works in public radio, it is killing me that people on the right are going around trying to basically rebrand us saying that it’s biased news, you know, it’s left-wing news, when I feel like anybody who listens to the shows knows that it’s not, and we are not fighting back. We’re not saying anything back. I find it completely annoying, and, and I don’t understand it.

BOB GARFIELD, ‘ON THE MEDIA’ CO-HOST, NPR: Okay, so this gets back to not only Brooke’s problem, finding a metric to report on this story, but it’s especially difficult when you and I both know that if you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and all of the member stations, you would find an overwhelmingly progressive, liberal crowd. Not uniformly, but overwhelmingly.

So, according to Garfield, the landscape of all the people that work for and are affiliated with NPR is overwhelmingly liberal. This didn't seem to phase Glass in the slightest:

GLASS: Journalism in general, reporters tend to be Democrats and tend to be more liberal than the public as a whole. Sure. But that doesn’t change what is going out over the air, and I feel like let’s measure the product.

That bears repeating: "Reporters tend to be Democrats and tend to be more liberal than the public as a whole...But that doesn’t change what is going out over the air."

Isn't it amazing that liberal media members almost universally believe this fallacy? Despite their political views, who they vote for, and what issues they support, they think they're totally impartial in their reporting.

Gunny
09-05-2014, 12:54 PM
[QUOTE=Drummond;702935]Amazing. If I, on my side of the Pond, know that NPR is Left wing, how come there are those on the American side, who don't ???

Perhaps our friend has a response to THIS, then ....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/12/npr-hosts-employees-here-are-overwhelmingly-liberal-were-not-biased

[quote]In response to this week's shameful exposure of bias at NPR, a couple of its hosts on Friday had an on air discussion about whether or not the radio network does indeed have a political leaning.

Shortly after "On the Media" host Bob Garfield said, "If you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and all of the member stations, you would find an overwhelmingly progressive, liberal crowd," Ira Glass of "The American Life" maintained the outlet had no left-wing bias whatsoever (audio follows with partial transcript and commentary):

BROOKE GLADSTONE, ‘ON THE MEDIA’ CO-HOST, NPR: About 25 years ago, I was asked to do a piece, “Is NPR Biased to the Left?” And I couldn’t find a metric to apply to the question in order to answer it.


IRA GLASS, ‘THE AMERICAN LIFE’ HOST, NPR: I don’t know the methodology somebody would use, but I feel like public radio should address this directly, because I think anybody who listens to our stations knows that what they’re hearing is mainstream media reporting. We have nothing to fear from a discussion of what is the news coverage we’re doing.


I couldn’t find a metric. I don’t know the methodology somebody would use.


Maybe that's part of the problem - these so-called journalists don't know how to determine bias in reporting.


How about first taking a look at a week's worth of programming and simply adding up the number of real conservative and liberal guests as well as Republican and Democrat guests? The qualifier "real" means that folks like New York Times columnist David Brooks and former CNN contributor Kathleen Parker don't count because they are by no means conservative.


Despite there being far more ways to measure bias, this would at least be a good start if NPR was serious about doing such an examination.


But the best was yet to come as another host made quite an admission moments later:

GLASS: As somebody who works in public radio, it is killing me that people on the right are going around trying to basically rebrand us saying that it’s biased news, you know, it’s left-wing news, when I feel like anybody who listens to the shows knows that it’s not, and we are not fighting back. We’re not saying anything back. I find it completely annoying, and, and I don’t understand it.


BOB GARFIELD, ‘ON THE MEDIA’ CO-HOST, NPR: Okay, so this gets back to not only Brooke’s problem, finding a metric to report on this story, but it’s especially difficult when you and I both know that if you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and all of the member stations, you would find an overwhelmingly progressive, liberal crowd. Not uniformly, butoverwhelmingly.So, according to Garfield, the landscape of all the people that work for and are affiliated with NPR is overwhelmingly liberal. This didn't seem to phase Glass in the slightest:

GLASS: Journalism in general, reporters tend to be Democrats and tend to be more liberal than the public as a whole. Sure. But that doesn’t change what is going out over the air, and I feel like let’s measure the product.

That bears repeating: "Reporters tend to be Democrats and tend to be more liberal than the public as a whole...But that doesn’t change what is going out over the air."


Isn't it amazing that liberal media members almost universally believe this fallacy? Despite their political views, who they vote for, and what issues they support, they think they're totally impartial in their reporting.

It DOES depend on what you are listening to. IIRC, they have some objective shows. A lot of it is left wing crap. However, it's no more crap than listening to Hannity, Beck or Limbaugh. The problem here in the US, is the sheeple believe those op-ed pundits speak the truth and for the masses, when in fact, they are inflammatory personalities trying to keep interest up using fear as a key motivator, so they'll have a show an audience and an income.

Drummond
09-05-2014, 01:18 PM
It DOES depend on what you are listening to. IIRC, they have some objective shows. A lot of it is left wing crap. However, it's no more crap than listening to Hannity, Beck or Limbaugh. The problem here in the US, is the sheeple believe those op-ed pundits speak the truth and for the masses, when in fact, they are inflammatory personalities trying to keep interest up using fear as a key motivator, so they'll have a show an audience and an income.

I've heard almost nothing from Beck ... a couple of broadcasts from Limbaugh ... and maybe a dozen or more from Hannity. Time also was (I now don't have the facility for it) when I watched Hannity & Colmes on Fox News, via Sky satellite.

Limbaugh, I agree, is something of an acquired taste. Bombastic, yes, but I do like some of his stuff. I can't usefully comment on Beck. As for Sean Hannity ... now, THERE, is one commentator who talks a great deal of sense !! I like his programmes. I thoroughly enjoyed one of his, when he laid into Anjem Choudary.

In fact, here's a video of it ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ruP76lyZto

Choudary had it coming, and Hannity delivered .. over here, Choudary gets much better treatment (and way more airtime) than he could ever deserve. I always want to cheer in response to much of that interview.

I don't regard Hannity as inflammatory. Rather, I like his balance, his straight talking, and his willingness to take on the trash that most deserve it. If I were an American and a more frequent viewer (or listener), I don't doubt I'd be a fan of his.

Hannity with Coulter ... always a treat to watch ....

Gunny
09-05-2014, 01:29 PM
I've heard almost nothing from Beck ... a couple of broadcasts from Limbaugh ... and maybe a dozen or more from Hannity. Time also was (I now don't have the facility for it) when I watched Hannity & Colmes on Fox News, via Sky satellite.

Limbaugh, I agree, is something of an acquired taste. Bombastic, yes, but I do like some of his stuff. I can't usefully comment on Beck. As for Sean Hannity ... now, THERE, is one commentator who talks a great deal of sense !! I like his programmes. I thoroughly enjoyed one of his, when he laid into Anjem Choudary.

In fact, here's a video of it ...


Choudary had it coming, and Hannity delivered .. over here, Choudary gets much better treatment (and way more airtime) than he could ever deserve. I always want to cheer in response to much of that interview.

I don't regard Hannity as inflammatory. Rather, I like his balance, his straight talking, and his willingness to take on the trash that most deserve it. If I were an American and a more frequent viewer (or listener), I don't doubt I'd be a fan of his.

Hannity with Coulter ... always a treat to watch ....

I have no idea who that idiot with granny's doily on his head is. Hannity is a GOP mouthpiece. And in case you've missed it, a lot of conservatives feel betrayed by the GOP and won't vote for them. Ann Coulter is a hack too. She makes her money out of sensationalizing and exaggerating everything the left does.

Now trust me, I don't like the left one bit, but I expect them to act like idiots. What I REALLY don't like is people claiming they represent me acting just like those on the left they are criticizing.

Drummond
09-05-2014, 01:49 PM
I have no idea who that idiot with granny's doily on his head is.

You're very fortunate, then. Choudary is an Islamic rabble-rouser. He played his part in trying to declare a part of London a Sharia-controlled zone. The BBC has interviewed him several times. He was a founder of a now-outlawed Islamic pressure group, one that tried to arrange Islamic protests at the very time and at the very location where corpses of British servicemen, returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, were receiving public tributes at Wootton Bassett.

He was said to have been a teacher of one of the terrorists who butchered Drummer Lee Rigby to death on a Woolwich street, in broad daylight.

And he once tried to organise a mass pro-Islamic rally outside the White House.


Hannity is a GOP mouthpiece. And in case you've missed it, a lot of conservatives feel betrayed by the GOP and won't vote for them.

Be that as it may, if given a choice between a Hannity interview and propaganda from Michael Moore, guess which of them I'd think I should respect WAY more than the other ??


Ann Coulter is a hack too. She makes her money out of sensationalizing and exaggerating everything the left does.

And that's a BAD thing ? Besides, DOES she exaggerate ? Hers may be a sensationalist style .. but there's also a certain cutting wit to her that I enjoy.


Now trust me, I don't like the left one bit, but I expect them to act like idiots. What I REALLY don't like is people claiming they represent me acting just like those on the left they are criticizing.

You overlook one important consideration. The Left lacks reputability. But the Right is chock full of that. Some would say that you should fight fire, with .... fire.

--- By the way, I noted FJ's 'thanks' of your post. His choice, of course .. but yet more proof of FJ's willingness to applaud criticism of the Right.

But then, this is a truth long since proven. Just mentioning it in passing.

Baba Booey
09-05-2014, 02:04 PM
Amazing. If I, on my side of the Pond, know that NPR is Left wing, how come there are those on the American side, who don't ???

Perhaps our friend has a response to THIS, then ....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/12/npr-hosts-employees-here-are-overwhelmingly-liberal-were-not-biased



You do know the difference between programs and news reporting, right?

Ira Glass is a program host.

This really isn't a difficult concept, I pointed this out several times now. The news reporting segments, just don't pay attention to Democracy Now, etc. Go back and re-read, maybe the dots will connect.

Or maybe not.

Thanks for trying though, maybe you'll have better luck next time.

Gunny
09-05-2014, 02:10 PM
You're very fortunate, then. Choudary is an Islamic rabble-rouser. He played his part in trying to declare a part of London a Sharia-controlled zone. The BBC has interviewed him several times. He was a founder of a now-outlawed Islamic pressure group, one that tried to arrange Islamic protests at the very time and at the very location where corpses of British servicemen, returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, were receiving public tributes at Wootton Bassett.

He was said to have been a teacher of one of the terrorists who butchered Drummer Lee Rigby to death on a Woolwich street, in broad daylight.

And he once tried to organise a mass pro-Islamic rally outside the White House.



Be that as it may, if given a choice between a Hannity interview and propaganda from Michael Moore, guess which of them I'd think I should respect WAY more than the other ??



And that's a BAD thing ? Besides, DOES she exaggerate ? Hers may be a sensationalist style .. but there's also a certain cutting wit to her that I enjoy.



You overlook one important consideration. The Left lacks reputability. But the Right is chock full of that. Some would say that you should fight fire, with .... fire.

--- By the way, I noted FJ's 'thanks' of your post. His choice, of course .. but yet more proof of FJ's willingness to applaud criticism of the Right.

But then, this is a truth long since proven. Just mentioning it in passing.

I doubt FJ's thanking my criticism of the right. Could be he appreciates objectivity. By the political standards set in the US today, I'm as conservative as it gets. If I can't criticize those who claim to speak for me, especially when they don't, what right do I have to criticize others?

I think I kind of made it clear I expect the left to look like idiots. I DON'T expect those that claim to speak for me to look as bad as the other side. You tell me: what's the difference between people blindly following the Democratic party and the people who blindly follow the GOP? NONE of them know what they're voting for. Last time I blindly followed someone I came home with one less Marine. THAT ain't playing for a vote anymore. It ain't funny, and the hacks on BOTH sides can go to Hell. Now go ahead and ask me how I REALLY feel.

I understand you have a different perspective on things, and I most certainly am not one to try and squash your opinions. You are entitled to yours. Allow me mine without dragging FJ into it or making it personal. I don't post with FJ in mind. I have no idea how politics work where you live and don't pretend to. It's easy for me to read American posters because i can easily see where they're coming from. You, not so much.:laugh: We don't have to agree, but if you make it any more personal, I'm out.

I'm a conservative, not a Republican. There's a difference.

Gaffer
09-05-2014, 02:13 PM
As I said, I've listened to National Progressive Radio in the past. I don't do it any more. I'm sure they haven't changed except to move a little farther left of what they use to be.

American Thinker is a bunch of different writers contributing to one site. It's predominately right wing. I prefer that, so I guess baba and me will never talk much or be in agreement. I'm a Tea Party guy myself. I want to see the GOP changed back to a conservative party. Which would be much better than trying to get a third party into a primary position to run against the socialists.

Drummond
09-05-2014, 02:17 PM
You do know the difference between programs and news reporting, right?

Ira Glass is a program host.

This really isn't a difficult concept, I pointed this out several times now. The news reporting segments, just don't pay attention to Democracy Now, etc. Go back and re-read, maybe the dots will connect.

Or maybe not.

Thanks for trying though, maybe you'll have better luck next time.

Why should I feel the need to care about the exact categorising of a brand of broadcast ? What does that ultimately matter ?

Rather more to the point is to what extent there's a discernible truth to be acknowledged.

The link makes this clear: back in 2011, NPR was evidently under fire for its substantial Left-wing bias. And it was clearly the case - and considering the extent of it, how can you say that it's not true today ? - that this bias was OVERWHELMINGLY shared by NPR staff.

That speaks for itself.

To suppose, in any case, that such bias could be so rife, and so overwhelmingly dominant among its staff, and yet this would NOT seep through into their broadcasting content ... is surely ludicrous.

Gunny
09-05-2014, 02:22 PM
As I said, I've listened to National Progressive Radio in the past. I don't do it any more. I'm sure they haven't changed except to move a little farther left of what they use to be.

American Thinker is a bunch of different writers contributing to one site. It's predominately right wing. I prefer that, so I guess baba and me will never talk much or be in agreement. I'm a Tea Party guy myself. I want to see the GOP changed back to a conservative party. Which would be much better than trying to get a third party into a primary position to run against the socialists.

About 5-6 years ago, I got stuck doing service with a guy who'd listen to everything. Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, NPR. We'd be riding along making fun of all of them. I take them all with a grain of salt. They are pundits. Sensationalists. They want an audience more than anything else so they can keep their shows. They don't care what they have to distort to do it. They don't care that they lie and people believe them. Got to keep those ratings high.

Meanwhile back at the ranch ... our government is slowly taking away our Rights.

Drummond
09-05-2014, 03:02 PM
I doubt FJ's thanking my criticism of the right. Could be he appreciates objectivity.
Thanks, Gunny .. I enjoyed that one !! Reminder: this is FJ we're mentioning .. far and away the best laugh I've had all day !! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:


By the political standards set in the US today, I'm as conservative as it gets.

:clap::clap:


If I can't criticize those who claim to speak for me, especially when they don't, what right do I have to criticize others?

I'm not following. Where have I said that you can't offer such criticism ?

I have my opinion of Hannity, and he's way better than many others I could mention. I've listened to interviews of his I'm in total agreement with.


I think I kind of made it clear I expect the left to look like idiots. I DON'T expect those that claim to speak for me to look as bad as the other side.

It's in the eye of the beholder .. and much depends on individual context.


You tell me: what's the difference between people blindly following the Democratic party and the people who blindly follow the GOP?

Again, context matters. But, off the top of my head ... those who blindly follow the Dems might be so blinded by propagandist fantasy that they would much rather, as a matter of choice, BE deluded, and want the delusion to triumph, to the exclusion of all realism.

Those who follow the GOP may instead believe in the rule of law, &/or the worth of certain principles which Americans, AS Americans, can recognise as having a familiar character. The worth of the individual. Of enterprise. Of Constitutional principles, which I do not believe that the GOP has entirely turned its back on !!

The GOP may be a much watered-down version of what it once was, but even AS that, aren't they preferable to the Dems ?


NONE of them know what they're voting for. Last time I blindly followed someone I came home with one less Marine. THAT ain't playing for a vote anymore. It ain't funny, and the hacks on BOTH sides can go to Hell. Now go ahead and ask me how I REALLY feel.

... yeah, OK .. ;)

Seriously .. purely as a matter of commonsense tactics, isn't it sensible to vote for the side that is better than the other - even if you think it is not MUCH better - then, once the worse lot have been ousted, work towards reform from within ? Much better that, than continuing to give the worse people victories, & risking the further fracturing of the side you want to see undergo reform ?


I understand you have a different perspective on things, and I most certainly am not one to try and squash your opinions. You are entitled to yours.

Much appreciated.


Allow me mine without dragging FJ into it or making it personal. I don't post with FJ in mind. I have no idea how politics work where you live and don't pretend to. It's easy for me to read American posters because i can easily see where they're coming from. You, not so much.:laugh: We don't have to agree, but if you make it any more personal, I'm out.

OK, I get what you're saying.

I don't blame you for not posting with FJ in mind !

And it's a fair point .. there must be big differences between how politics works on each side of the Pond .. here, I'd guess, political correctness dominates far more, is more deeply ingrained. We are much the poorer for that.

I know it's not the point you had in mind to make, but I think I've an important point to offer all the same ... and it's this ...

Great differences or not, the UK has one important lesson to teach the US. Think of it as a 'before and after' comparison: the UK, as it is right now, having gone through entire generations of Socialist social engineering, is ... what ?

Are we in a good or bad shape ? In what ways ?

Is the US, which has had no such extensive period of Socialist domination, still powerful, still proud, still possessing the spirit which can allow it to emerge as much the stronger and much the more reputable a Society ? Does it have a spirit of freedom, a capacity to control its destiny, which has been eroded from us, here in the UK ?

I think that study of the UK can enable Americans to be forewarned about what COULD happen, if Socialism has a future in the US. You can see from our example what you may be in for, if lessons aren't drawn from the comparison.


I'm a conservative, not a Republican. There's a difference.

I'm sure there is.

And I have a strong hope and belief that the Republicans can undergo reform for the betterment of you all. I hope that's true, because if not, then all America will know is varying degrees of decline, rather than an outright recovery.

fj1200
09-05-2014, 04:26 PM
--- By the way, I noted FJ's 'thanks' of your post. His choice, of course .. but yet more proof of FJ's willingness to applaud criticism of the Right.

Wow, I'm not even in this thread and I can make you look like an hypocritical hack with an active imagination. You make this agenda stuff so easy. Sweet!