Via Breitbart, "NPR reportedly refused to air a radio interview with former Breitbart Senior Editor MILO despite verbal and written assurances to the contrary because he 'sounded too reasonable.'"
ADDED: Newsweek examines whether NPR is silencing Milo but doesn't get very far:
Yiannopoulos said he believes McEnroe and WNPR “were expecting a low-rent troll — someone who would assure the broadcaster’s ossified audience that anyone sympathetic to the president must be a redneck or an idiot.”...On whether they are silencing Milo, they are silencing themselves. That gives free rein to all who want to say NPR was flummoxed by the troll who wouldn't troll on cue but spoke rationally about the value of a troll.
[The NPR interviewer Colin] McEnroe did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did a producer who worked on the Yiannopoulos interview and communicated with members of his staff. A representative for NPR, which rented studio space in New York City to WNPR for the interview, noted that it has nothing to do with McEnroe’s show.
“I am waiting to hear back from WNPR when they’re expecting to air this interview,” the press representative said.
पोस्ट्स
३०४ टिप्पण्या:
304 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»But, of course.
Why aren't Rush or Hugh Hewitt entitled to the same free government funds NPR receives?
He's not a troll. He does zingers.
He does droll.
"He's not a troll."
I'm just adopting the word that he uses. I'm not accusing him of being a troll (and that therefore certain consequences should follow).
A droll is a voiced troll.
When the talking heads become the news...
...it can't be a good thing for the peasants.
Milo is a rare interview because he is very entertaining. PBS is stuck between a truth rock and a narrative hard place.
Milo is clearly a genius. I used to laugh at the idea of him being Trump's press secretary, as he used to joke, but it actually seems like a good idea. Can you imagine it? A gay, quick-witted British arch-conservative who would make mincemeat of any reporter. He wouldn't even have to try hard. The downside is he publicly defended gay pederasty and his loud, outrageous persona might drown out the message the administration wants to convey.
If he's not a troll, is he a provocateur? Is there a difference?
Adam Carolla had the same thing happen to him, might even be the same station... oh, look, I just went to see if I could look it up and it was already talked about in the Brietbart article on the Milo thing. The article about the Carollla interview is pretty decent http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2014/06/15/adam-carolla-ko-npr/
I'm guessing that there is no transcript.
Why are my tax dollars being spent on State Radio and Public TV?
What is the purpose of government subsidized media? What was the original justification for developing our own version of TASS and Izvestia?
Milo summed it all up towards the end, explaining the Dem's coalition will disappear when Milo is heard by the gays, blacks and women who will then suddenly find out how badly they have been tricked into voting for Dems while getting nothing from them.
Ergo: silencing Milo is the most important thing NPR can ever do.
Possibly a case of Kabuki theater disruption -- when the designated wack job refuses to act the part.
If that is the case here, NPR missed an opportunity. In reality, people are far more interested in odd events -- man bites dog, etc. -- than another rehash of the same old story.
The question is whether the goal is actual conversation or further confirmation of what is already believed.
Francisco D said...Why are my tax dollars being spent on State Radio and Public TV?
...and thousands of thermo-nuclear weapons.
PBS... The other mainstream media.
Pro-democrat hack news is 100% narrative, 100% of the time.
NPR didn't get the narrative they wanted - so down the memory hole it goes.
I used to listen to some decent public radio stations. KUWS out of Superior and WOJB from the Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation for example when they do local programming.
You realize the liberal side of public radio when you listen to statewide shows the have callers. Conservatives are known as "these guys". Such as "these guys are so corrupt" "These guys are for the rich".
I did have a problem when a public radio host was calling for a boycott of Rush Limbaugh advertisers. Basically government radio was trying to shut down the opposition media.
Or the interview was always intended to be played at a later date, Milo knows this, and is trolling them, for real.
Oh, Breitbart is going to trickfuck themselves with this craptastic story.
WHO SAYS THAT THIS WAS AN "NPR" INTERVIEW AT ALL?
"WNPR" is not NPR. It's a public radio station in Connecticut.
Colin McEnroe doesn't work for NPR; he's a staffer at the Connecticut station, who has an interview show.
The posting of this story, first in the hysterical mode of Brietbart, and then in the uncritical fashion of Althouse is an embarrassment.
Every single comment on this page whining about NPR/PBS funding is going to be ridiculous; embarrassing. NPR will release a statement before this day is over confirming this in calm and measured language.
What a bunch of amateurish hack idiots at Breitbart.
NPR never created, edited or controlled this story.
What contempt I have, for all of this.
Or the interview was always intended to be played at a later date, Milo knows this, and is trolling them, for real.
With people like Milo or Ann Coulter....trust but verify.
I hate NPR sometimes. It's not that their left bias is bad compared to other news outlets -- they're more fair than CNN or MSNBC, for example -- it's knowing that I have to pay for their programming whether I listen or not. The non-political stuff is almost more infuriating. Why am I paying for an idiot reporter to travel around the country doing uninteresting (but "quirky" or something) human interest stories?
"The posting of this story, first in the hysterical mode of Brietbart, and then in the uncritical fashion of Althouse is an embarrassment."
This.
When asked for comment, MILO said...
The subject of the article is the source for the article.
Chuck, I heard NPR had a secret meeting to collude with the Russians.
I'm so old, I remember when Colin McEnroe was funny. One of his books had the all-time great title: Lose Weight Through Great Sex with Celebrities (the Elvis Way). It was hilarious. But it was also published back in the 1980s, and he apparently decided to move in a different direction, careerwise.
Milo should file an FOIA suit.
Every conservative should show up for a media interview with his own recording media, openly or not. That's been true for a long time, but especially now.
Adam Carolla did an NPR interview a couple of years ago. Part of it was a gotcha question intended to make him look racist. It backfired making them look stupid. Interview was never aired.
I for one am glad that we have lifelong Republicans and members of the GOP Establishment ready and waiting to defend Leftwing media like NPR from the awful depredations of the deplorables on the Right.
Not that Chuckles is defending NPR of course.
I don't think Milo minds being called a troll; there's an advertisement for his book on the metro in the DC area (I was shocked that there was one), where the ad calls him a troll, and I assume he had some part in approving the ad.
NPR: Can't allow harshing the mellow of The Narrative.
I typically think it's good form not to quarrel with someone who agrees with you, and there likely is not much daylight between Milo and myself on the issue of "social justice." That said, I cannot stand the guy. He may fly the alt-right banner, but his primary message seems to be me, me, me. His incessant references to sex with black men as armor against charges of racism is particularly pathetic and embarrassingly juvenile.
p.s. Milo is undoubtedly a troll, and while his political views are most probably genuine, like all trolls his primary mission is attention-seeking self-aggrandizement.
@Althouse -- Your lead-in to the Newsweek quote misstates a key bit of information. Newsweek says that the interview took place with an "NPR station" and correctly refers to the WNPR throughout.
As Chuck points out, it is Breitbart that incorrectly conflates NPR and WNPR (repeatedly throughout their article). Even the "NPR Station" terminology is fairly misleading.
Your NPR tag is also incorrect, except as a nod to Breitbart's incorrect framing.
His incessant references to sex with black men as armor against charges of racism is particularly pathetic and embarrassingly juvenile.
Sure, I get that but that is because you are "on his side". To the left, that revelation is like kryptonite. It shuts down their main weapons of charges of homophobia and racism. Leaves the average lefty/progressive stammering...
Althouse, I think you have some commas where you don't need them. Also, I question your use of ellipses
I thought everyone doing an interview like that had learned to take their own recording by now..
First rule of NPR, is there is no NPR. It's a myth, a shadow. It's like talking about the wind. There is no wind, there are merely particles moving about in the air.
To say you feel the wind is simplistic, as what you are feeling is air particles that may, in a manner of reductionist thinking, be said to contribute to the phenomena of windiness.
"NPR never created, edited or controlled this story.
What contempt I have, for all of this."
I know right, Marshall of Vichy Michigan? Why can't they be more like your favorite "news" programming from Rachel Maddow.
E
His incessant references to sex with black men as armor against charges of racism is particularly pathetic and embarrassingly juvenile.
7/19/17, 11:27 AM
J. Farmer, I find those references wearisome too, but we are not his intended audience. I think he's not only trying to refute charges of racism but also the common belief among younger people that conservatives are uptight prudes who want to make church mandatory, outlaw gays, and put women in "A Handmaid's Tale" dresses. That's nonsense, of course, but that's the stereotype the media and academia has put out there. A crude, flamboyant gay who is also conservative causes much cognitive dissonance between the ears of leftists and infuriates them all the more.
I'd prefer a more well-spoken, less vulgar president too - but Trump is what I have, and I recognize that part of his success is due to his vulgarity and willingness to say things other pols will not. So it is with Milo - he is a crass attention seeker, but he gets attention that a mild-mannered, discreet Log Cabin Republican would not.
Incidentally, there is a vid of a very young, earnest, dark haired Milo on a British talk show going up against Boy George on the subject of gay marriage. He used to be much more subdued. I think he came to America and realized subdued wasn't going to cut it.
Milo makes substantial arguments for free speech. The left hate that.
Francsico D: What is the purpose of government subsidized media? What was the original justification for developing our own version of TASS and Izvestia?
The original justification (see also BBC) was that publicly-funded media, free of the need to compete commercially and fall in line with the interests of private sponsors, would be "neutral" and even-handed, not subject to the bias and distortion of commercial media.
Yes, I know. Stop laughing.
Error has no rights. Haven't you learned this by now.
Here's the WNPR site:
http://wnpr.org/
Scroll to the bottom to see the affiliations, then type "Colin McEnroe" into the search bar.
He sure likes talking about himself.
Who made the video? WNPR or MILO?
@exiledonmainstreet:
I take your point completely, but I still think it is wide of the mark. To take just one counterexample: Jared Taylor. The man is absolutely loathed by pretty much everyone in "respectable" political and media circles. He is impossibly convivial and mild-mannered, but he does the tiresome daily work necessary to build a political movement and bring people into its fold. I think that kind of work will far outlast Milo's preaching-to-the-choir dog and pony shows.
Were the speaker here on the fringe left, it is very easy to imagine Althouse's response: She'd point out that the only evidence that we have is the speaker's claim to be squelched, and she'd note bitingly that it is in the speaker's very own interests to have been squelched, to have things end up this way, with both the interview let out in full under their control and another occasion of being the censorship victim.
The cruel neutrality aspiration is tough, especially when you're increasingly smitten by one side of the neutral line. Professing cruel neutrality, on the other hand, comes very cheap.
All sorts of personal attacks on me.
And not one word of detailed explanation about the relationship -- or lack thereof -- between "NPR" and "WNPR."
As Mark Twain said -- and he really did say this one -- “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”
I don't care what the Milo-loving, Breitbart-loving, Trump-sympathetic world thinks. I don't care what fans, or haters, of NPR think. I just want to be right.
Hey Chuck, my brother pays taxes to the state government of Connecticut. I'm just complaining for him.
The use of the NPR logo in that featured video is, I think, potentially illegal. It is certainly wrong, and journalistic malpractice to have used it.
I am surprised at the way that Althouse failed to employ her skepticism radar for this story. She should have known better. If there is an explanation for linking this matter to "NPR," I am all ears.
McEnroe's podcasts are available on the npr.org website, and I presume that many of his shows are picked up and aired by other NPR affiliate stations. http://www.npr.org/podcasts/381443459/the-colin-mc-enroe-show
This is a common practice in public broadcasting. For example, "This Old House" wasn't a "PBS" show, it was produced by WGBH Boston, the Boston member station of PBS. "Car Talk" was produced by WBUR, one of 3 Boston NPR member stations, but distributed nationally by NPR. Is "Car Talk" not an "NPR" show? Please.
"His incessant references to sex with black men as armor against charges of racism is particularly pathetic and embarrassingly juvenile."
It is, I think, meant to make the other side uncomfortable, by going where they (or most of that side active in politics) will not, as one-upmanship on the field of degeneracy. I.e., he is willing to be more bizarre than they are, call and raise.
I don't think its armor against racism, it is taking the high ground (such as it is) in a contest where the more perverse has moral authority over the less, a contest in a hellish field.
That the world, or this part of the world, is ruled by such a backwards hierarchy of virtue is absurd but true. Part of his point I suspect is to play up the absurdity of this situation.
@Todd:
It shuts down their main weapons of charges of homophobia and racism. Leaves the average lefty/progressive stammering...
I get that that's the goal; I just don't think it's very effective. Gay people who don't tow the gay identity politics line are considered self-loathing gays. Ditto for Jewish people who are critical of Israeli policy. I don't think you win against ad hominem attacks by being a different kind of hominem.
If WNPR is balking at broadcasting the interview, do you think it could be that they have already been scooped by Milo on his youtube channel, by Newsweek on their on website, and perhaps a bunch of other organizations?
What worth is this now to WNPR? Who owned the rights to the interview once Milo took off his headphones and sunglasses?
When Colbert is crude and vile - hey no problem. He's on the correct team.
J. Farmer, I had never heard of Jared Taylor until I read your comment and I consider myself fairly well informed about rising conservative "stars." Doesn't that kind of prove my point?
It is depressing to think that crudity trumps a quiet, thoughtful approach - but alas, here we are. Look up some old videos of "Meet the Press" from the 1960's, or even the Nixon-Kennedy debate and marvel at how much more responsible adult those people seem. Even the ones talking absolute bullshit.
WNPR.org is powered by the WNPR news staff as well as NPR’s global news service, bringing its award-winning, in-depth coverage of arts, health, education, politics, business, and science to its website and on-air programming.
Marshall of Vichy Michigan is just outraged that the state run propoganda is being critisized. Then he spergs out "chucksplaining" to Althouse about how he knows better than her what she should feel and write.
That NPR (or any other news organization) would give prior assurance that an interview will be broadcast sounds like 100% grade A bullshit to me. If it is in writing, I will believe when it is published. Otherwise, I call bullshit.
@exiledonmainstreet:
J. Farmer, I had never heard of Jared Taylor until I read your comment and I consider myself fairly well informed about rising conservative "stars." Doesn't that kind of prove my point?
I am not talking about rising conservative stars. The alt-right's fight is as much with modern conservatives as it is with the left. Conservatism has been bastardized by the GOP and is pretty much a hollow shell of itself, left advocating only corporatism and incessant militarism.
It is depressing to think that crudity trumps a quiet, thoughtful approach - but alas, here we are. Look up some old videos of "Meet the Press" from the 1960's, or even the Nixon-Kennedy debate and marvel at how much more responsible adult those people seem. Even the ones talking absolute bullshit.
Precisely why people who consider themselves conservative should resist with every fiber of their being the incessant downward pull of an increasingly juvenile culture.
"And not one word of detailed explanation about the relationship -- or lack thereof -- between "NPR" and "WNPR.""
Chuck, as a self-described "republican", why do you deny the easily verifiable relationship between WNPR and NPR? You could have checked out the website for WNPR and seen that it is connected with NPR. And yet, you did not. You preferred to attack conservatives instead with false claims. Why?
Here is the North Texas public radio site:
www.kera.org
Here is the Connecticut public radio site:
wnpr.org
If you are, like Chuck, ignorant of how public radio in the U. S. organizes and distributes itself, scroll through either site, in particular the section Programs, to understand syndicated public radio broadcasting.
"I don't think you win against ad hominem attacks by being a different kind of hominem."
The point is not to "win" against the other side, assuming that the other side in this case is a gang of pro or semi-pro political activists (one "wins" against that lot by taking away their money), but to upset the rank and file, and to throw them off-balance, and make them look absurd - or highlight their essential absurdity.
There is a reason his tour drew such a reaction, and it is not because of his political opinions.
This is a bizarre man playing in a bizarre game against a bizarre establishment, that has somehow convinced most of the rest of the actual establishment, the commanding heights of western civilization, that they have overriding moral authority simply because they are perverted.
That there is so much at stake in that strange struggle is just a symptom of the general degeneracy.
And really, you people should look into how the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which is a different entity from NPR) works before bitching about how the government is wasting your money. The federal government does not directly fund NPR.
Freder - MILO sounded totally reasonable in the interview, yet it was not aired. Why is NPR so scared for their listeners to hear this guy? Why are YOU scared?
@buwaya:
I suppose it's entirely possible that Milo is playing some kind of highlight-the-contradictions, three-dimensional chess. Or I think he could just be a self-obsessed self-promoter who likely will not have much of an effect in the grand scheme of things. I'm always open to changing my mind with new information. I'll wait and see. And of course, I'll always advocate for Milo's (and anyone else's) right to speak. I just don't have much hope for the Milo crowd. Ben Shapiro reaches a similar audience, and while I have my own issues with Shapiro's war-mongering, I think he is a much better interlocutor against the SJW crowd than Milo.
McEnroe says "This is NPR" at the beginning of the interview, so he thought it would be syndicated through NPR.
How many believe NPR will be a slouch to not use cut-outs like any propaganda machine should for deniability to convince its patrons/gullible fools who keep funding it?
And really, you people should look into how the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which is a different entity from NPR) works before bitching about how the government is wasting your money. The federal government does not directly fund NPR.
From www.npr.org
"Public Radio and Federal Funding
Stations receive support from many sources, including:
listener contributions,
corporate sponsorship,
in-kind and direct support from universities (when licensed to a college or university),
foundation grants and major gifts,
grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
in some cases, state and local governments
Federal funding is essential to public radio's service to the American public. Its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR.
Public radio stations receive annual grants directly from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) that make up an important part of a diverse revenue mix that includes listener support, corporate sponsorship and grants. Stations, in turn, draw on this mix of public and privately sourced revenue to pay NPR and other public radio producers for their programming.
These station programming fees comprise a significant portion of NPR's largest source of revenue. The loss of federal funding would undermine the stations' ability to pay NPR for programming, thereby weakening the institution.
Elimination of federal funding would result in fewer programs, less journalism—especially local journalism—and eventually the loss of public radio stations, particularly in rural and economically distressed communities.
On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments."
The bolding is original.
The Left is totally off the deep end.
They should want to listen to Milo, hear his schtick, and refute it, if possible.
But they would rather silence or ignore opponents, rather than debate them.
Sad!
"I suppose it's entirely possible that Milo is playing some kind of highlight-the-contradictions, three-dimensional chess.'
Actually, he has said so, that this is what he is up to, repeatedly.
This does not preclude being a self-obsessed self-promoter, or perhaps this is even a requirement for this role.
"Ben Shapiro reaches a similar audience, and while I have my own issues with Shapiro's war-mongering, I think he is a much better interlocutor against the SJW crowd than Milo."
Shapiro and co. are boring.
J. Farmer said...
Precisely why people who consider themselves conservative should resist with every fiber of their being the incessant downward pull of an increasingly juvenile culture.
7/19/17, 12:22 PM
I feel you brother!
That said, he who plays by the Marquess of Queensberry rules while the other side is using MMA rules AND has a switch-blade AND has a gun AND has poison darts and both sides know that is the match-up, will be at a distinct disadvantage. At least the loser can be proud that he "fought the good fight" while the winner drags his corpse through the streets.
Chuck and Freder have me convinced . The Federal Government does not waste money. The Deplorable commenters are too stupid to believe really good smoke screen excuses. Trillions of dollars in DC Swamp slush fund grants are not wasted at all.
Now back to blocking Milo from being heard. That is worth lots of money.
Blogger Hyphenated American said...
"And not one word of detailed explanation about the relationship -- or lack thereof -- between "NPR" and "WNPR.""
Chuck, as a self-described "republican", why do you deny the easily verifiable relationship between WNPR and NPR? You could have checked out the website for WNPR and seen that it is connected with NPR. And yet, you did not. You preferred to attack conservatives instead with false claims. Why?
What does my being a Republican have to do with the facts of this controversy? I'll help you out: Nothing.
If Milo Yiannopoulos is a "conservative," I am going to have to take a break to wash my hands. And Breitbart is "conservative" in the same way that NAMBLA is "progressive."
So now with those prelilminaries out of the way, let's grind on your assertions about NPR and Connecticut public radio station WNPR. The Milo claim is that "NPR is preventing the broadacast. What is the evidence for that? When did NPR start producing or editing the Colin McEnroe program? I am not talking about hosting podcasts on a website. I am talking about producing and editing the programming. Determining what gets aired, on Colin McEnroe broadcasts. What is the evidence?
WNPR operates like other public radio stations all across the country. Those stations hire, produce and edit their own programming, when they are not airing NPR News programming, for which they pay.
Now, I understand; lots of stupid people can't make that distinction. Rush Limbaugh has done it in the past. Breitbart is prone to doing it. Conflating "public radio" and "NPR" and "PBS" and all the rest. I understand that people make that mistake. But it's still a mistake.
"All Things Considered;" "Morning Edition;" "Weekend Edition Saturday/Sunday." All produced, edited and staffed by employees of NPR.
Colin McEnroe doesn't even freakin' work for NPR!
Add that public radio stations have FCC bandwidth allocations (a reserved FM spectrum), which is an enormous asset in the radio universe.
Ossified troll shit is the bitcoin of the realm, discuss.
Milo is Hitchens' replacement. Debate him at your own risk.
I bet Hitchens would be banned now if he were still around.
Chuck: "What contempt I have, for all of this."
Here, Chuck. Have some of mine too.
"I bet Hitchens would be banned now if he were still around."
I agree. I'm not sure what side he would be on, exactly, but he would doubtless have said something, at some point, to set the university/NPR/twitter/Facebook mob on him.
Milo has a definite goal - he wants to bring down the SJWs at American universities. He is willing to fight this battle for the next 20 years.
What is Ben Shapiro's goal other than being another conservative pundit?
God, such a target rich environment for Milo. Depaul, Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Evergreen State College! Wowzers, he must be like a pig in mud.
"Wowzers, he must be like a pig in mud.'
It takes a pig to fight in the mud. But in mud it must be.
@buwaya
You didn't hear about the atheist+ kerfluffle?
@buwaya and @todd:
You both seem to hold the same view of Milo, so I will dress my comment to both of you...
Milo's act, while it may piss off all the right people, I don't think is going to amount to much in the grand scheme of things. Again, could end up being totally wrong, but it's what I believe after witnessing Milo in action for many years, first as the enfant terrible of British political TV and now in the US. Compare Milo to another rhetorical bomb thrower: Ann Coulter. I think she is much more successful at not just ruffling the right feathers (fun but ultimately inconsequential) but also helping to build and sustain a political movement.
And really, you people should look into how the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which is a different entity from NPR) works before bitching about how the government is wasting your money. The federal government does not directly fund NPR.
I know how to test that theory.
His incessant references to sex with black men as armor against charges of racism is particularly pathetic and embarrassingly juvenile.
And yet... effective. Milo's strength is he understands the enemy.
"The downside is he publicly defended gay pederasty"
We can split hairs about this all we want, but he was speaking mostly about his own experiences and not in terms of a blanket statement about what should happen to young gay men.
The response to his words was an overreaction.
I think Milo is correct about CPAC. There are plenty of conservatives who still hate gays and don't want any of them in the conservative movement, because Leviticus. Get over your hate Jesus-freaks.
It was a smear job, they did hurt him financially and he is suing Simon & Schuster for millions. I hope he wins.
Alex is under the impression Milo is an atheist. He has called atheism stupid.
"If Milo Yiannopoulos is a "conservative," I am going to have to take a break to wash my hands."
Sounds like ole Chucky boy and his lifelong partner in monogamy Palmula Handerson had a particularly vigorious session today.
There are plenty of conservatives who still hate gays and don't want any of them in the conservative movement, because Leviticus.
The biggest problem with social conservatives is they, too, want to use the heavy hand of the State to enforce their own beliefs. I think their better efforts would be served at the community/church/service organization level.
Add that public radio stations have FCC bandwidth allocations (a reserved FM spectrum), which is an enormous asset in the radio universe.
Bullshit. The spectrum on the left end of the dial (for those of you who still remember what a radio dial looks like) is reserved for community and non-commercial stations. Which is why your local NPR station is surrounded by college and Christian stations.
"Compare Milo to another rhetorical bomb thrower: Ann Coulter."
Coulter has insanely limited appeal to larger audiences. She's not as entertaining nor as interesting.
And it is not an "asset". Assets are things you own, not rent, which is how the public airwaves work.
Apparently NPR doesn't get or need the fungible money from the U.S. Govt. So great, good all around when the funding that doesn't support them disappears. Listener support all the way.
They should want to listen to Milo, hear his schtick, and refute it, if possible.
That's the problem: they can't refute it. They're not smart enough.
Assets are things you own, not rent, which is how the public airwaves work.
Who rents these out?
We paid for the interview. We own the interview...or should!
Chpt7"PUBLIC Broadcasting" http://amzn.to/1NJBcpJ
This is definitely something that screams for an Executive Order. Public funds? Public copyright!
Why am I paying for an idiot reporter to travel around the country doing uninteresting (but "quirky" or something) human interest stories?
Why am I paying for Paula Poundstone and a bunch of other people I don't recognize to play word games on the radio?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_Wait..._Don't_Tell_Me!
Rachel Maddow took a shit
Then gave her mother 40 licks
When she'd seem what she had tongued
She gave her sister 41
A member of National Public Radio ( NPR ), American Public Media (APM), and Public Radio International (PRI), WNPR is one of the leading news stations in the public radio The WNPR news department originates in-depth news reports on issues and events of importance to Connecticut – such as technology and the environment – that frequently are broadcast nationally on NPR.
I know how to test that theory.
It is a fact, not a theory. CPB grants mainly prop up NPR member stations in rural or underserved areas. CPB receives about $450 million from the federal government. If you think that yanking CPB funding will kill NPR you are mistaken. The NPR station West Bumfucked, WY (and lots of other rural and poor areas), might have to go off the air, but the major stations like WHYY, KCUR, WNYC, etc. receive less than 5% of their funding from the CPB. They will just have to extend their fund drives. Same goes for public television.
Regarding the WNPR / NPR mixup. Consider WEEI, Boston's local sportstalk station as an analogy. WEEI is an ESPN affiliate. However its local programming is produced by WEEI, not by ESPN. Local criticisms of ESPN got so heated that at one point ESPN banned its on-air talent from appearing on WEEI, its Boston affiliate.
WNPR is an NPR affiliate. However NPR does not produce WNPR's local shows.
Freder, having called bull shit and shown to be wrong on the Fake News thread now comes here to declare bull shit again. Past failures are not predictive of future failures, said every investment house ever.
NPR and PBS exist to give sinecures in exchange for pumping out leftist propaganda.
Ann Coulter has immense appeal to huge audiences. She is a National Treasure.
Who rents these out?
The FCC.
Congress ignores Trump’s call to cut funding for NPR, PBS, NEA, NEH.
Of course they did. Useless fucks. Bears repeating.
I wonder how much MILO paid them not to broadcast the interview.
If you think that yanking CPB funding will kill NPR you are mistaken
I don't want to kill NPR. I just don't want to fund them with my tax dollars. And if that means that some subsidized radio stations in rural areas go out of business, so what?
A member of National Public Radio ( NPR ), American Public Media (APM), and Public Radio International (PRI), WNPR is one of the leading news stations in the public radio The WNPR news department originates in-depth news reports on issues and events of importance to Connecticut – such as technology and the environment – that frequently are broadcast nationally on NPR.
And your point is? Don't you know how network affiliation works. And in radio it is even looser than tv.
Hilarious that the interviewer suggests that the market should correct the ideological balance of the media. We need to stop wasting tax dollars on this propaganda outlet for democrats. The white elite don't need subsidized media.
I just don't want to fund them with my tax dollars.
There are a lot of things I don't want to fund with my tax dollars either, but we live in a system where the government is going to fund things some of us don't like.
Milo's only mistake in the interview was not having ready links to articles on Vox, Buzzfeed and other sites that go on about 'white privilege' and racism/sexism. He simply made the assertion, the NPR host went to Vox.com and didn't see any such articles at that moment and thus concluded Milo was lying.
You know it isn't hard.
I just went to Vox and this article was right in the middle:
The age of white Christian America is ending. Here's how it got there.
And here’s what comes next.
by Tara Isabella Burton
FFS....
7/19/17, 12:34 PM
Blogger J. Farmer said...
Ben Shapiro reaches a similar audience, and while I have my own issues with Shapiro's war-mongering, I think he is a much better interlocutor against the SJW crowd than Milo.
Having watched both a number of times, it's easy to agree with you. However I suspect it plays differently to a large section of a younger, more anarchistic crowd. Also, Milo is an entertainer, Ben is not. As repulsive as Milo is at times, I'm happy for him to do what he does. There's plenty of room for it.
Bob Ross, the quintessential public television figure and a genuinely good guy--his show was a creation of the PBS station in Muncie, Indiana. Not NPR.
So cries of "It's a local station, not the national thing idiots!" simply doesn't wash.
--Vance
There are a lot of things I don't want to fund with my tax dollars either, but we live in a system where the government is going to fund things some of us don't like.
True, and politics is about deciding what things the government funds and what it doesn't. Since the legislature, which is ostensibly is controlled by the fiscally prudent small government party (stop laughing), controls the purse strings, one would think that defunding institutions whose main purpose is producing propaganda undermining the party currently in power would be at least an after thought.
You would be wrong though.
I listened to this last night. I found him very reasonable. I feel sure they had believed their own and others rantings about him and expected some great fireworks to exploit. Shame on NPR.
It was a smear job, they did hurt him financially and he is suing Simon & Schuster for millions. I hope he wins.
S&S really blew their own foot off with that one. Not only did they open themselves up to a breach of contract suit, they lost out on their share of a big seller.
Bob Ross, the quintessential public television figure and a genuinely good guy--his show was a creation of the PBS station in Muncie, Indiana. Not NPR.
Because art instruction works so well on RADIO.
The white elite don't need subsidized media.
As I pointed out above, CPB funding is a minor component of the white elite's NPR stations funding. Cutting CPB funding will primarily deprive real Americans in flyover country of "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me" and "Car Talk".
Milo's book, Dangerous, is currently the #1 best seller in Political Humour in Amazon.
I guess Chuck didn't visit the WNPR site. It has NPR written all over it. Connecticut Public Broadcasting, as well. At top and the bottom we definitely do see the familiar NPR symbol. Not NPR? Then NPR should sue for the use of their name.
public radio stations have FCC bandwidth allocations
Exactly. Their privilege is not limited to funding, but includes other tangible and perceived benefits, including an air of legitimacy.
Rockport Conservative said...
I listened to this last night. I found him very reasonable. I feel sure they had believed their own and others rantings about him and expected some great fireworks to exploit. Shame on NPR.
Okay, let's try it this way.
"Shame on NPR."
Shame on who at NPR? Who was the NPR editor or manager that shut down the story. How did they shut it down? When did they shut it down? Was it done out of the NPR headquarters, which is in Washington, DC? Are you sure?
What was the great evidence that Milo, or Breitbart had, regarding NPR action in this case?
NPR . . . spanning the ideological spectrum from A to B.
Then NPR should sue for the use of their name.
And your local Fox or CBS affiliate should be sued for using the Fox and CBS name. You are not very bright.
I've always used the term NPR to refer to the whole big thing.
From Wikipedia:
"National Public Radio... is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization that serves as a national syndicator to a network of 900 public radio stations in the United States.... NPR is a membership organization. Member stations are required to be non-commercial or non-commercial educational radio stations; have at least five full-time professional employees; operate for at least 18 hours per day; and not be designed solely to further a religious broadcasting philosophy or be used for classroom distance learning programming. Each member station receives one vote at the annual NPR board meetings—exercised by its designated Authorized Station Representative ("A-Rep")."
I'm careful in my post title to say I'm just passing on the accusation from Yiannopoulos. I have no idea why they haven't run the interview, but I think the failure to respond to the accusation makes it seem like they really did spike it.
My experience with journalists is that they use you to say what they think you'll say and if you don't they don't use it, or they use just the part that sounds like what they wanted. If you went on live, they don't invite you back. I've had situations where I was invited back again and again and then when I didn't give them what they expected, I was, I felt, blacklisted.
I am in the overlap of the Venn Diagram! Very conservative and listen to NPR!
Rockport Conservative said...
I guess Chuck didn't visit the WNPR site. It has NPR written all over it. Connecticut Public Broadcasting, as well. At top and the bottom we definitely do see the familiar NPR symbol. Not NPR? Then NPR should sue for the use of their name.
"I guess Chuck didn't visit the WNPR site."
You nasty fucking asshole. I did; and here is what anyone will find at www.WNPR.org:
You will find "The Colin McEnroe Show" listed, as a WNPR produced show. You will find the NPR logo at the bottom of the page alongside PRI, APM, PRX and other public radio production company logos. Because the station purchases lots of shows, from outside production outlets. The dipshits at Breitbart simply like to pick on "NPR" because they hear about "NPR" on Tucker Carlson or the old O'Reilly Factor.
I do not see the NPR logo at the top of the page at all.
For a smartass comment, yours was certainly a dumbass effort.
You do not want to give any credence, any amplification, to Breitbart's shitty and stupid reporting in this case, Professor Althouse.
If you refer to the "whole big thing" as NPR when in fact there are real, meaningful, critical differences between the editing decisions of local public radio stations and "NPR," you are making a dreadful error that no lawyer should make.
Sorry, but that's the way it is. I'll get back to you when NPR shoots this whole thing down in a really forceful and irrefutable way.
"Which is why your local NPR station is surrounded by college and Christian stations."
The local NPR stations, unlike these others, are part of an integrated system that carries advertising (image advertising is still advertising) as well as political advertising through the type of slanted content the network distributes.
I.e., its a politico-commercial asset receiving public subsidies of several kinds.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
"And it is not an "asset". Assets are things you own, not rent, which is how the public airwaves work."
I agree, we should take them away.
I don't believe Yiannopoulis at all. Jerk
Vicki from Pasadena
@Bob Loblaw:
And yet... effective. Milo's strength is he understands the enemy.
Effective at what precisely?
Freder Frederson said...
I just don't want to fund them with my tax dollars.
There are a lot of things I don't want to fund with my tax dollars either, but we live in a system where the government is going to fund things some of us don't like.
7/19/17, 1:19 PM
The issue is that they are going to "fund things some of us don't like" per their mandate (the Constitution) versus funding stuff cause some one some where wants them to. They are "required" to fund some things regardless of who likes it. They should not be funding other things regardless of who likes it. See how that works?
as well as political advertising through the type of slanted content the network distributes.
Have you ever listened to some (not all) of the Christian radio stations, they have a definite political agenda.
Blogger Chuck said...
"You do not want to give any credence, any amplification, to Breitbart's shitty and stupid reporting in this case, Professor Althouse."
Chuck is not and never has been a conservative. He is always on the other side.
We should try to get Milo residency in West Virginia so he can run for senator there and replace the traitor capito.
Achilles, are you saying that I am wrong, and that NPR made a broadcasting decision to kill the Milo interview on WNPR?
Because if you are saying anything else, I don't care.
Call me wrong, and prove it, or shut up.
I've always used the term NPR to refer to the whole big thing.
Pretty shocking statement from someone who should care about accuracy and precision in language.
J. Farmer,
There is method in the madness.
"Milo's act, while it may piss off all the right people"
This is part of the point. Its meant to hold these people up to ridicule, and encourage the troops.
"I don't think is going to amount to much in the grand scheme of things."
No idea, tbd, much stranger things have happened. History is weird, and would never pass muster as a fictional plot.
"Compare Milo to another rhetorical bomb thrower: Ann Coulter."
Not as effective, Coulter, and a different market. She sells to a certain type, Yiannopoulos to another.
Building a movement is not the point, really, not as a matter of organization. Its not organization that's needed.
The issue, in the college system, is one of the existence of an institutional/hierarchical hegemony. This is held together by an implicit perception of power - that is, one must agree with, or pretend to agree with, the local powers that be in order to get along, even just socially, and moreso professionally. Open opponents will suffer the consequences. However, as Yiannopoulos and Coulter and a fair number of others have figured out in the Gamergate business, there is a latent critical mass of students there, and maybe professors too, that disagree, sometimes intensely, with that hegemony.
The point of being there and doing that is to, for one, to show that the hegemony has no power to prevent them from doing the worst that the hegemony threatens. And second to draw such crowds that can start a preference cascade - that the latent critical mass becomes an actual critical mass, by the process of taking heart from their own numbers. If Yiannopoulos can do what he does in spite of the maximum rage of the opposition, and if those sympathetic to that message understand that they are not alone and powerless, then you have a movement.
On the power of a preference cascade - I saw one, once, on August 31, 1983, and it was an amazing thing. The day of Ninoy Aquino's funeral, everyone expected it to be sparsely attended. Few were in the habit of bucking the dictator, or even seeing to. To stick your head out was to, perhaps, not be arrested, but to be a target, to lose employment, to be boycotted, to lose business, and to be harassed by the agencies of the state.
But that day a great number of people independently came to watch the procession, initially of family and friends and "known" opposition figures. In that country you simply cannot prevent a funeral procession. Just to watch, on sidewalks, by the side of the road, from balconies and rooftops, hundreds and thousands and then millions came out. Just to watch. When these millions saw each other watching, not the funeral but the crowd, each other, they started to join the procession.
12 hours after the start of the funeral there was an opposition movement, not because anyone organized it, but because a huge lot of people felt free to create one.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
"Have you ever listened to some (not all) of the Christian radio stations, they have a definite political agenda."
How much Federal tax money do I give those stations each year?
McDonald's should never be called McDonald's because each is a separately owned franchise. Refer only to the franchisees.
Who at McDonald's spiked the McRib? Precisely who did that? Who hid the secret sauce? Where is the recipe hidden?
And if you can't answer those questions, then you are just forwarding the shitty, stupid reporting of Breitbart, you stupid fucking mendacious ass hole.
Signed,
fopdoodle
I've always used the term NPR to refer to the whole big thing.
If Chuck farts, it's technically Chuck's anus which is farting, not Chuck. The fart cannot fairly be attributed to Chuck.
My experience with journalists is that they use you to say what they think you'll say and if you don't they don't use it, or they use just the part that sounds like what they wanted
And in your experience with journalists did they ever promise you that your interview would be published or broadcast?
Cutting CPB funding will primarily deprive real Americans in flyover country of "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me" and "Car Talk".
I think they will manage to struggle through that, somehow.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/npr-is-graying-and-public-radio-is-worried-about-it/2015/11/22/0615447e-8e48-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html?utm_term=.8a244b0e9737
Can't imagine why.
Ralph L said...
I wonder how much MILO paid them not to broadcast the interview.
***************
If I were you, and believed what you claim to be true, I would wonder more why NPR took the money.
Birkel said...
McDonald's should never be called McDonald's because each is a separately owned franchise. Refer only to the franchisees.
What an idiotic comparison.
It might have been a better one, if the "McDonald's" restaurants in your imagination could serve anything they wanted, be it spaghetti or tacos or General Tsao's Chicken, or ham sandwiches. And McDonald's headquarters in Oak Brook had no say in what was served as long as it wasn't poisonous.
As Professor Althouse knows, there is a vast subspecialty in the law, for franchising. Textbooks, law school courses, specialty law firms, continuing legal education courses; and public radio affiliates are not franchises.
I listened to the entire clip. Milo did well with the questions and in asserting his points. Don't know why it wouldn't be aired other than a leftist numbskull trying to wipe it out so he didn't have a bad dream.
And to answer the unasked question - why care about college kids?
The simple answer is history.
Every ideological movement begins there.
That's the high ground of the culture, and culture is upstream of politics. The conservative problem is they haven't got that high ground, and no amount of political organization will take it.
Blogger Chuck said...
Oh, Breitbart is going to trickfuck themselves with this craptastic story.
WHO SAYS THAT THIS WAS AN "NPR" INTERVIEW AT ALL?
******************
First words out of the interviewer's mouth to start the interview:
"Joining us from NPR studios in New York City...."
The guy uses NPR property to conduct an interview for NPR, and Chuck tries repeatedly to offer a distinction without a difference.
Q EFFIN D.
The original justification for publically funding NPR and PBS was to provide "uplifting" programming that for profit media outlets wouldn't. This was considered of particular importance because there were a limited number of broadcast outlets.
These days with cable and satellite and the internet and podcasts and the history channel and hgtv and two food channels and Sesame Street being sold to HBO and etc, etc, etc that justification is now obsolete. Clearly that funding could be used for some other purpose. But for some reason, people on the left act like a vampire confronted with a garlic adorned crucifix whenever the possibility of defunding NPR and PBS comes up.
It is a puzzelment.
I appreciate that a fopdoodle comes when called.
In New Mexico the McDonald's offer red or green. Nowhere else do they offer such.
Participation may vary by location.
Fopdoodles like to spout off at the mouth about things while sounding sophisticated and erudite inside the fopdoodle head. Distinctions that defend Leftist institutions are always important. Analogies that make fopdoodles look foolish cannot be tolerated. One side always gets the benefit of doubt and the other, not.
Would one expect a fopdoodle to act otherwise?
"But for some reason, people on the left act like a vampire confronted with a garlic adorned crucifix whenever the possibility of defunding NPR and PBS comes up. "
PBS is one of the mass of NGO's that offer employment to political operatives of the Democratic party. There are a large number of these of various sizes. Planned Parenthood is one, all environmental organizations are part as well, and it goes down to any number of local semi-charities semi-activist groups. These employ hundreds of thousands of political operatives, a political army in being, ultimately financed by the Fedgov and other levels of government, or indirectly by private entities with interests and business before the government.
Its all one piece, a whole industry of political machinery, the home and sinecure of a whole tribe, or caste.
Its no wonder that PBS, PP, and etc. are defended with such fanaticism.
Jay Elink said...
...
First words out of the interviewer's mouth to start the interview:
"Joining us from NPR studios in New York City...."
The guy uses NPR property to conduct an interview for NPR, and Chuck tries repeatedly to offer a distinction without a difference.
That is a journalistic convention. All broadcasters do it. It identifies the exact locality of the interview. "Joining us from..."
WNPR -- the Connecticut public radio station -- was renting the New York studio for the interview, from (the national, unrelated) NPR.
Then you go on to say "the guy uses NPR property to conduct an interview for NPR..."
As I say, the studio was rented. And you are just lying, when you claim that it was an "interview for NPR." It wasn't. It was an interview for WNPR-Connecticut. "The Colin McEnroe Show." And as I have stated repeatedly, Colin McEnroe doesn't work for NPR.
This would be akin to someone quoting one of my comments on this blog's pages, and attributing it to "the Althouse blog."
Chuck,
Pimples and cancer. Keep them in perspective.
@buwaya:
I do not mean this in an offensive way, but I really cannot comprehend what point you're trying to make. So let me just ask you for a straightforward example: how does Milo's work lead to actual positive change in American society?
@buwaya:
And to answer the unasked question - why care about college kids?
The simple answer is history.
Every ideological movement begins there.
The shift is already happening and predates Milo. Milo is simply capitalizing on it. Millenials, as a group, are already much more likely to identify as conservatives than Baby Boomers or Gen Xers were at their age, and more high school seniors identify as conservative than any ever did in the 1980s, the supposed boom years of the young conservative.
I thought it was clear -
The objective is to start a preference cascade in academia, so that conservatism is freed, there, to come out of the closet and push back against the ideological hegemony.
buwaya:
Too true! The reason Governor Walker of Wisconsin faced such criticism for Act 10 was his identification of the Leftist institutions supported by state tax dollars and he pursued a strategy to uproot them. Largely he was successful in pausing the negative feedback loop whereby pressure/interest groups got concessions from government, donated to and lobbied for the politicians that then agree to fund the pressure/interest groups. Governor Walker saw that the system was rigged for his opponents and diminished his opponents' power. That was why Governor Walker was my preferred presidential candidate in 2016.
The Deep State is designed to provide virtuous (to the recipient of the largesse) feedback that assures future Deep State victories. The mechanisms must be discovered and destroyed. Otherwise, the inevitable cannot be resisted.
My short hand for that is devolve power away from the centralized government.
"The shift is already happening and predates Milo."
The moment the crack started was Gamergate. But the door is certainly not yet open.
all environmental organizations
Even Ducks Unlimited?
How much Federal tax money do I give those stations each year?
Irrelevant, buwaya's original assertion (ie., lie) was that the FCC had carved out a portion of the spectrum for NPR. When I pointed out that this was not true, he then implied that NPR's use of that portion of the spectrum was illegitimate because of political viewpoint. That is just bullshit, many of the non-NPR stations on the non-commercial portion of the spectrum have a definite political bent.
The local McDonald's sells lobster rolls. Is that a Maine thing, or something new?
@buwaya:
The moment the crack started was Gamergate. But the door is certainly not yet open.
How do you choose that as when "the crack started," and what is your evidence for this?
And I deliberately use "come out of the closet".
What Yiannopoulos et al want is the equivalent of the Stonewall riots.
He has put it that way.
"Joining us from NPR studios in New York City...."
A few seconds later, he says "This is NPR."
As always, Milo was interesting. Thanks for posting the interview. I'm in the "Fox" age demographic, but I think he's awesome anyway.
Leftists go crazy against him which I always enjoy. It reveals so much.
Campy, fabulous, over-the-top gays are fine with the left but ONLY when they tow the party line. He brings that to light extremely well.
@buwaya:
What Yiannopoulos et al want is the equivalent of the Stonewall riots.
He has put it that way.
Wouldn't the "equivalent of the Stonewall riots" be violent, destructive rioting on campuses? That does not seem like a particularly conservative way of bringing about change.
"How do you choose that as when "the crack started," and what is your evidence for this?'
I have none. This is an impression, from keeping my near on the ground, as much as an old guy like me can track the opinions of teenage boys (my last teenager, though no longer, is a girl.)
I suppose someone could, say, track the timeline of ideological messaging of Youtube celebrities like Pewdiepie. A difficult task I am glad to leave to someone else.
The crack started at the moment of the Big Bang when a butterfly flapped its wings.
Pedantry is boring; it does not facilitate communication to force one side toward precision. The reader or listener must invest too.
"That does not seem like a particularly conservative way of bringing about change."
No, that was played up as the police acting unjustly, and creating martyrs. The reaction in Berkeley was just the sort of thing he was looking for. If he hadn't been sidetracked this would have been escalated.
And it isn't conservative, it is revolutionary.
Wouldn't the "equivalent of the Stonewall riots" be violent, destructive rioting on campuses? That does not seem like a particularly conservative way of bringing about change.
Are you seriously contending that the right never participates in violent, destructive rioting?
@Birkel:
If someone is going to make a statement like "The moment the crack started was Gamergate," it's not pedantry to ask them to justify that statement. I don't even know what "the crack" is. The entire point of this back and forth is for me to get a better understanding of the point that buwaya is making so I can give a response. There is no use in responding to a point I do not fully understand.
"Are you seriously contending that the right never participates in violent, destructive rioting?"
Not traditionally, depending on the definition of "the right" of course.
If you want to stretch a point, the "right" generally went for controlled, deliberate destructive behavior, however widespread, under orders.
@buwaya:
And it isn't conservative, it is revolutionary.
Exactly! And the central insight of conservatism is that you should be extremely skeptical of revolutionary movements.
@Freder Frederson:
Are you seriously contending that the right never participates in violent, destructive rioting?
No, but if there's a particularly salient case you wish to bring up, I'd be more than happy to give a response.
Ralph L said...
"Joining us from NPR studios in New York City...."
A few seconds later, he says "This is NPR."
I cannot respond to this for the next couple of hours, because I won't be able to listen to what Ralph L is referring to. I'll be checking on whether it was a (real) NPR newsbreak, where the newscaster routinely says, "This is NPR," or perhaps if what was said was "WNPR," that Ralph heard as "NPR." I don't want to guess too much.
I'll respectfully reserve judgment for later. What was the time-mark of "This is NPR"?
We are discussing matters that are, like clouds, real but imprecise.
Take my example of the funeral march of Benigno Aquino - when, exactly, did it turn from a funeral into an opposition movement? At which hour, and between what street intersections, and which fellow was the first to leave the spectators and attach himself to the procession? Who knows.
My impression, and nobody has better than an impression, is that the first case of large-scale counter-leftist pushback in online media from young men was Gamergate. Nothing like it before, nothing to rank with the online mobs that hounded Matt Taylor about his shirt or Brendan Eich about his political contributions.
Own the pedantry. Never give an inch. That way, people will want to engage with you all the more.
If I didn't understand buwaya's point, I might have said:
GamerGate? Interesting. Do you think that's when the realization that there are a group of people trying to control the culture, the conversation about what is and is not acceptable, first broke into the consciousness of young people who thought their choices in gaming were beyond such petty adult pursuits? It would, potentially, make sense that most of the cultural wars, having been fought long before or about things that did not concern gamers did not break into the collective consciousness of that age group.
Still, I wonder if there were other cracks that might have appeared before. Perhaps the invention of blogging, for example? Or perhaps Glenn Reynolds was onto something with his book about "An Army of Davids" and we are witnessing the devolution of informational control that necessarily leads young people to an individualist perspective.
.....
Let the reader or listener invest. That is a conversation.
Or be a pedant.
J. Farmer, Milo may not be to your taste, but young people who might not pay attention to an older, more sober conservative might listen to him. When I was in my 20's, I found P.J. O'Rourke's books more fun and compelling than listening to William F. Buckley.
My point is that there should be room on the Right for many different voices, some of whom will be more compelling to given individuals than others. There is certainly no shortage of leftists out there. Yet conservatives have a way of looking at their punditry the way leftists look at economics. If people listen to Limbaugh, they won't read Sowell. Milo drowns out Ben Shapiro. But people are capable of learning from more than one source. A young person who starts to challenge his own liberal beliefs because of something Milo says on You Tube might end up seeking deeper thinkers and more serious conservative voices. I didn't stick to reading only O'Rourke.
Milo says himself that conservative writers should not be only Milos, that there are people out there who are more profound and better sources of information.
24 seconds into the video
That is when the interviewer says "This is NPR."
In the case of Yiannopoulos, he was an early band-wagoner in the Gamergate thing.
He made, well, the beginnings of his US reputation on that, being a physical presence in many IRL (In Real Life) manifestations, besides being a presence in Youtube (especially), twitter, etc.
The connection is clear.
We all suffer from the defect of not being teenagers (well, of course). It takes a certain, well, youth, to be up on these deceptively significant matters. But I, at least, try to be young at heart.
@Birkel:
Thanks for the advice.
@buwaya:
We are discussing matters that are, like clouds, real but imprecise.
Except I gave you some pretty basic empirical information that you had no response to. So, I'll repeat:
Millenials, as a group, are already much more likely to identify as conservatives than Baby Boomers or Gen Xers were at their age, and more high school seniors identify as conservative than any ever did in the 1980s, the supposed boom years of the young conservative.
So there seems to be a chicken/egg phenomenon going on here. The pushback from Gamergate could just as easily be the result of a large group of young people already disposed to conservative ideas.
"O’Sullivan’s First Law: An eternal truth” by John O’Sullivan, published in the National Review on October 27, 1989, stated:
“All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.”
Seems to apply to NPR.
J Farmer:
See you didn't even fall for my trap of "are a group of people" and correct my subject-verb agreement.
Progress without progressivism.
"and more high school seniors identify as conservative than any ever did in the 1980s,"
And this data is of what date? Much is hidden behind events.
And the nature of a preference cascade is to make an open expression out of a latent proclivity, which may well have come up in anonymous surveys.
As Yiannopoulos saw, via Gamergate, there was and is a latent but potentially powerful conservative reaction in universities. What is needed is to start the cascade.
@Birkel:
See you didn't even fall for my trap of "are a group of people" and correct my subject-verb agreement.
Sorry, I didn't read that far.
And I do not see young people as disposed to conservative ideas. What I see, rather, is young people resisting what today's squares (Leftists) are pushing on the young people. When it was conservatives pushing on young people in the 1950s, those young people pushed back.
That is what young people do. But they're not more conservative in the sense that those of us still chatting on this thread are. They're resistant to the received Leftist wisdom.
Conservatives still have a lot of work to do to capture younger folks before they drift back to the familiar.
It's cool, J. Farmer. I already know you're kind of an ass hole.
@buwaya:
And this data is of what date? Much is hidden behind events.
More Polarized but More Independent: Political Party Identification and Ideological Self-Categorization Among U.S. Adults, College Students, and Late Adolescents, 1970-2015
Here's the abstract:
In three nationally representative surveys of U.S. residents (N = 10 million) from 1970 to 2015, more Americans in the early 2010s (vs. previous decades) identified as Independent, including when age effects were controlled. More in the early 2010s (vs. previous decades) expressed polarized political views, including stronger political party affiliation or more extreme ideological self-categorization (liberal vs. conservative) with fewer identifying as moderate. The correlation between party affiliation and ideological views grew stronger over time. The overall trend since the 1970s was toward more Americans identifying as Republican or conservative. Older adults were more likely to identify as conservative and Republican. More Millennials (born 1980-1994) identify as conservative than either GenXers or Boomers did at the same age, and fewer are Democrats compared with Boomers. These trends are discussed in the context of social identification processes and their implications for the political dynamics in the United States.
@Birkel:
It's cool, J. Farmer. I already know you're kind of an ass hole.
Sweet of you to say so.
Imagine if you tried to engage.
I wonder if you can.
Chuck said...
Birkel said...
McDonald's should never be called McDonald's because each is a separately owned franchise. Refer only to the franchisees.
What an idiotic comparison.
It might have been a better one, if the "McDonald's" restaurants in your imagination could serve anything they wanted, be it spaghetti or tacos or General Tsao's Chicken, or ham sandwiches. And McDonald's headquarters in Oak Brook had no say in what was served as long as it wasn't poisonous.
7/19/17, 2:44 PM
Dear* Chuck,
You always say you want to be right (not Right but right), but you are so, terribly, WRONG! Many McDs serve foods not on the canonical menu. For instance, many McDs in NYC, in urban areas, offer fried chicken. Maine McDs have lobster rolls.
Perhaps you will retreat into self-parsing but clearly you don't have command of the facts, or maybe you just expressed yourself poorly, hard as that may be to believe**.
* This is a little white lie.
** Sarcasm.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा