Facebook+Gibbs?

The New York Times published this article a couple days ago about how Facebook is looking to hire Robert Gibbs, the former White House Press Secretary, to help manage their communications.


Facebook is doing this because of their increase in popularity and want to be able to communicate better what their policies are and who they are.  Additionally, Gibbs would seem like a good choice because of his Washington experiences and his communication credentials.


Also, Washington is still trying to figure out internet privacy issues and security, and Facebook probably thinks that Gibbs would be a perfect go-between with all his government connections.


This Washington Post quote brings up a different side, “Facebook has grown too big too fast and needs to be closely watched,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. “All Gibbs would be doing if it is true he is going to Facebook is selling his connections to the White House while it is in the crosshairs of privacy concerns around the world.”  

More on NPR

The House voted 228-192 today to stop federal funding for NPR.  Only Republicans voted for the bill, many of whom are opposed to the liberal leanings of the radio station and feel that it should pay for itself.  

One of the reasons many oppose the bill is because federal funds let public radio operate in really remote places.

Chances are, this Bill will not pass in the Democratic controlled Senate.

Doesn't it make sense that at this point NPR should be funding itself, not using government funds? They would still be able to use federal funding for operating expenses, so it's not as if they would be cut off entirely.

More here.

Reactions to the Schiller Situation

In this New York Times article/blog, Brian Stelter discusses how Ronald Schiller, one of NPR's fund-raising executives was secretly recorded by James O'Keefe which included him saying things like "The Republican party has been 'hijacked' by the Tea Party" and that Tea Party supporters are "seriously racist, racist people."

Stelter continues to write that Schiller was unaware he was being recorded, and that Schiller qualified most statements by saying that they were his opinion, not NPR's.

While this is essentially a non-issue, because Schiller is leaving NPR for the Aspen Institute, this got me wondering.

First of all, is it even legal to set someone up in the way that O'Keefe did, hoping to get controversial statements out of Schiller? O'Keefe was secretly recording him, and then published the recordings.  This can't be legal.

Additionally, while NPR would probably have fired Schiller if he wasn't already leaving, Schiller made it clear that these were his opinions, not the network's. Does this make any difference? Most reporters have a bias in their writings, so why is it wrong that Schiller made this statement?
I know he represents the network, but what's wrong with him expressing his opinion especially once he makes it clear that they are his own?

Any thoughts?

The Wisconsin Protests

In This New York Times article, Paul Krugman tries to compare the demonstrators in Wisconsin to those in Cairo, Benghazi, and other Middle East cities. The liberal media is trying very hard to paint public unions in a positive light, and there is no better way to achieve this than to make the demonstrations out to be a heroic attempt to preserve democracy.

This comparison is not very feasible. States that have had overly friendly relations with public unions (Illinois, New Jersey) are faced with growing debt and yawning budget gaps. Demanding that unions accept scaled back benefits is a logical political move. In this light, the demonstrators in Madison cease to be freedom fighters akin to protesters in the Middle East, and merely workers intent on keeping benefits that states cannot afford.

Reactions to "The Television War"

I was just going over the reading ("The Television War") for tomorrow's class and was struck by something interesting.

On the one hand, many are upset by the media using live footage from war, but on the other hand a lot of the footage is actually sanitized. 

I don't understand why we need this footage broadcasted at all.  There are so many negatives: family members wondering if they're watching the death of their loved one, the way you can watch the war and then switch the channel to see what's on MTV? The whole thing is kinda sickening. 

I know that people like to know what's going on, but I feel like putting toned down or graphic war footage on TV trivializes events and is not really necessary