Melissa Harris-Perry Walks Off Her MSNBC Show After Pre-Emptions

ROFL the "angry black woman" throwing the race card and then expressing the arrogant

"“I am not hungry for empty airtime,” Harris-Perry wrote in the note."

Well she has been feeding off of it for years

and then

“I care only about substantive, meaningful, and autonomous work. When we can do that, I will return — not a moment earlier.”

to think they'd want her back!

Hilarious.

And when no one else hires her wanna bet she'll blame it on race?

 

Are you seriously calling Gretha Van Susteren a failure? She is the longest on air news person in cable history when you combine her MSNBC and FOX, FOX alone after next year.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you mean a "right" no one has a right to host a show.

- - - Updated - - -

What show did Palin host? And Huckelby hosted a VERY successful and entertaining show as oppose to MHP.

 

She is done. Gone. Forgotten by me today.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/28/media/melissa-harris-perry-msnbc/

 

Yeah I forgot about Greta. That makes two. Next. Still waiting for the answer regarding the generals.

 

Well, that's it then - MSNBC, in letting her go and not acceding to her demands, has proven itself a racist, sexist network. How dare they ignore the Voice of Black Academia, of the New Feminism, of Allegiance to Obama?



#BlackNewscasterLivesMatter

 

From your link:

She also pointedly noted a "dramatic change" in the "editorial tone and racial composition of MSNBC's on-air coverage."

You just knew the race card would be dealt somewhere along the line.

 

When you have no talent, ability or intelligence you always play the race card.

 

She's an ultra-SJW. It was only a matter of time until the marketplace would cause her to erupt into an entitled temper tantrum.

 

Why shouldn't they get grant money if they qualify for it? If they meet a federal need, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to access the money set aside to address that need. That's what federal grants DO.

I already explained what purpose they serve.

You seem to think that NPR is a) not a free-market organization and b) heavily dependent on government. Neither is true.

For one thing, NPR is a voluntary organization of individual radio stations. Nobody forces radio stations to join NPR.

These member radio stations pay NPR for programming -- if they want it. It's a free market: no station is required to carry any particular program, and they're free to either do their own programming as well, or buy programs from other sources. NPR also provides some umbrella services like marketing and the like, just like any other industry association.

Not sure why you would have a problem with that. It's very market-oriented.

Here's the breakdown of public-radio financing:
http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances

NPR gets very little government financing.
-- It gets no direct government funding at all, in terms of its general operating fund.
-- NPR does regularly compete for and win government and private grants for various purposes. All told, these make up about 15% of its budget. These grants are not a general grant to NPR -- they are specific grants, for specific purposes, that NPR must compete for, just like any other entity seeking a grant. And the grant money can only be used for the specific purpose of the grant. They do not fund NPR's general operations.

Member stations get some direct funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB was set up to ensure universal access to non-commercial, high-quality programming -- particularly in areas and populations where the for-profit media is lacking (such as rural areas). But like government grants, the money has to be used for specific purposes -- generally, developing content. It's not just a gift to the stations with no strings attached.

All told, public radio as a whole gets about 5% of its budget from government grants, and another 11% through the CPB. All of which tends to be earmarked to do things the government wants done.

The other 86% comes from private sources -- listeners, corporations, etc.

 

No, it's not.

There are plenty of federal grant programs out there. Research them, fill out an application, and see if you get picked. That's what NPR does.

Agreed. It is also high-quality news coverage. And educational programming.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Your first sentence doesn't seem to have much to do with the second.

Again, not sure what your point is.

Would NPR survive without government grants? Of course.

But that's not the point of the grants. The grants are there for two main reasons:

-- To ensure universal service, particularly in rural areas;
-- To meet certain goals of the granting agencies

So #1, you can't just "eliminate funding for NPR", unless you propose to ban NPR from competing for federal grants.

#2, if you did that, it would be the federal government shooting itself in the foot, since it would no longer be achieving whatever purpose the grants were created for.

#3, the main victims would be rural areas, because the stations that serve such unprofitable populations would have a much harder time affording the programming fees. Which is part of the point of the federal grants -- to ensure universal access to high-quality programming.

 

apparently they did fire her
[video=youtube;jWfJdXDVlQw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWfJdXDVlQw[/video]

 

I can see where Perry would be miffed. If my show were just swept under the blanket, I'd be pissed off.
And yeah, I think you misinterpreted that. She did not play the race card with that second to last statement.