The Daily Caller has a video filmed by a group run by James O’Keefe in which the President of the NPR Foundation reveals the blatent biases of NPR and puts to rest any claim that NPR’s news operation is non-political.
O’Keefe’s group presented itself to NPR as a Muslim Brotherhood affiliated organization interested in making a $5 million donation to NPR.
The video truly is amazing. There is so much in here. From the “bitter clinger” type of language about uneducated middle class whites who love their guns, to the silence and nodding agreement when the supposed donors bash Israel and Jewish control of the media.
Truly amazing. The left colluding with the Islamists, on film. But that’s just a wild conspiracy theory, right?
I may have missed things in the video worth mentioning. Please comment, with reference to the time in the video.
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I find it beyond offensive that the fruit of my hard work is forcibly stripped from me to pay the bloated salary of this NPR commie bottom feeder and his creepy commie loving CEO of a wife. It's sick and outrageous that this casual bigotry goes unremarked by the media at large. How can any Republican claim to be concerned about cutting the deficit and still allow NPR to get a single dollar of public funding.
Even if one grants Schilling a bit of wiggle-room because, after all, his job is to get the money, not alienate the donors….
He's STILL a pandering scumbucket.
Bravo guys, well done.
Strange how all the reaction to the funding of NPR is muted this time around compared with the shrieks we heard last time Republicans tried to defund NPR back in the '90s. Sure, we have a few congressmen running 'Save Barney' videos and whatever.
I think the reason for this muted reaction is that they are all holding their breath, terrified Republicans will make a move that would truly kill off NPR, one that I pray Republicans do. NPR needs to be stripped of it's tax-exempt status and forced to compete as a commercial enterprise bearing a full tax load.
Like bugs scavaging for cake crumbs and grease on the counters in the dark– watch them scatter when the light goes on. At least, Juan Williams spoke his opinion honestly and on air (and it wasn't racist, as he overrode his initial concerns and told us why he did.) The NPR top brass don't have even a modicum of Williams' class.
This stood out to me: for an ineloquent speaker who had little to say other than Republicans are bad and our country stupid, O'Keefe sure did go on and on about "anti-intellectualism." Mayhaps he's some kind of expert—
All in all, an excellent All Stings Considered. The producers didn't even have to steal a real person's identity, since NPR was all too eager to list the Muslim Brotherhood among its fashionable donor-clients. Or, would the terrorist org have been listed by name? The light of day can be so inconvenient.
Ummmmm………….
and when Glenn Beck has been telling his viewers that the left is more than willing to climb into bed with those who would do us harm, he was called crazy.
Oops, not O'Keefe in my comment above, but Schiller. I never said I was an intellectual.
O'Keefe produced a fine gotcha.
Incredible journalism.Bravo.
Look at the bright side. He says NPR will be better off without public funding. I'm pretty sure the Republicans will happily make that happen for him.
He nods his head approvingly as he is praised for giving the view of terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. And that comes right after he describes the Tea Party folks as "seriously, racist, racist people." The video is hard to fisk because the entire 11.5 minutes of content is disgusting.
He is beyond loathesome. He is a stereotypical liberal who thinks that anybody who doesn't share his worldview is by definition an intellectually inferior person.
"Well, frankly, it is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without federal funding."
Ron Schiller, NPR, February, 2011
Well okay, Ron. As they say on the new AOL, "You’ve got: NO FEDERAL FUNDING!"
This is just absolutely amazing. Using ONLY SOME of Schiller’s words, and not any of the suggestive interjections by the supposed MB representative, "Ibrahim Kasaam" . . . to whose blatantly outrageous comments Schiller several times nodded in full agreement!
Ron Schiller: "The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in peoples' personal lives and very fundamental Christian, and I wouldn't even call it Christian, it's this weird kind of Evangelical move. . . . The current Republican Party is not really the Republican Party. It's been hijacked by this group — that is — . . . and not just Islamophobic, but really xenophobic.
Basically, they are, they are, basically they believe in sort of white, middle-America, gun toting, I mean, it's scary. They're seriously racist, racist people.
. . .
Now, I’ll talk personally, as opposed to wearing my NPR hat. It feels to me like there is a real anti-intellectual move on the part of a significant part of the Republican Party. In my personal opinion, Liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced, than conservatives.
. . .
Well , to me, this is representative of the thing that I – I guess I am most disturbed by and disappointed by in this country, which is that the educated, so-called elite in this country is too small a percentage of the population of the country so that you have this very large uneducated part of the population that carries these ideas . . . It’s much more about anti-intellectualism than it is about political type. Because a university also by definition is considered in this country to be liberal, even though it’s not at all liberal; it’s liberal because it’s intellectual . . . pursuit of knowledge and that is traditionally something the Democrats have funded and Republicans have not funded, so."
And on and on he blurts . . . ooooops! I think this is what they call "the smoking gun!
You, sir, will now get your wish, Ron Schiller . . . sooner than you think!
No more taxpayer funding for NPR!
Schiller's unsolicited and nasty attack on the Republican Party, and on a widely-varied group of Republicans in general, has to absolutely bring to an end ALL their federal funding, even if you considered just the part where he still had his tin-foil NPR hat on!!
I'd also add that "his and hers" resignations will simply not suffice. That is it. The uber-partisan infection at NPR obviously runs way, way too deep.
Never mind Elmo . . . a crack team of St. Bernards could not save this clown!
Breathtaking is the word that first comes to mind.
This tool nods approvingly to giving a voice to Hamas and Hezbollah just as enthusiastically as he does to the bashing of Israel and supposed Jewish control of the media. He attacks Christians without prompting from the "muslims."
At 3:25 this clown takes off his "NPR hat" … and … boing … look boys and girls, another one just pops up! Again and again, funny clown.
At 4:30 "… the educated, so-called elite, in this country is too small a percentage of the population …"
More $$$ for education in this land dotted with universities and community colleges where you can reinvent yourself at any age in your life?? (Can't do that even in Japan, just ask my wife.)
Why don't we just create a second Department of Education and a second NPR? After all, he's saying intellectual development needs to be funded. (Funny, I thought public libraries performed that service exceedingly well.)
At 7:15, 8;00 he doesn't bat an eye with the "muslim" spewing anti-semitic, anti-Israel canards that would make Louis Farrakahn blush and choke on his arugula salad.
Yet at 10:15 he sits there and has the nerve to castigate Juan Williams. If you saw Juan Williams, you know that he spoke what he truly felt and that it pained him to feel that way.
I could go on and on but my daily chores preclude … How will NPR get out of this one?
I think his comments re: the Republican Party were clearly not referring to the entire Republican party, but to a dynamic within some of it. Likewise, Re: what he said about an anti-intellectual climate– when you attack him for finding it important to present all sides without weighting toward Israel or the Arab states' point of view, well, THAT seems pretty anti-intellectual to me.
The reporters asked leading, racist questions and the NPR people diplomatically responded and diffused. What on earth is the problem?
NPR includes silly and wholesome game shows, essays about everyday people doing everyday things amidst cultural and economic changes, science reporting, stories about music legends (jazz, classical, rock and roll), cooking shows, generational stories, a Canadian call in show (which has taught me a little about a massive neighbor I knew nothing about), a call-in car show, and an hour of news that is pretty evenly weighted. WHAT is the friggen' problem?? Daniel Shore? I found him hard to take, but he's been dead a while now.
And why not want a full discussion with all view points, all cultures and politics represented, and even participating? How is this not in keeping with the values of democracy? Preserving our history, and unifying the country?
We have Muslims in this country. The oldest mosque in America is in Iowa! So What! Why should a segment of American's be marginalized (thanks Juan) because of their race? Is it that Israel's safety can't be secured if the US has access to more information than we've had?
@7:40 – 7:54
Muslim poseur: "… the extent to which the Jews really do kinda control the media, or at least certainly the Zionists and the people who have the interest in swaying media coverage toward a favorable direction of Israel. … the Palestine opinion, the Palistinian viewpoint, since NPR is one of the few places that has the courage to really present it, it's kind a joke that we used to call it 'National Palestinian Radio'"
[everyone laughs]
Betsy Livey: "[inadaudible} That's good. I like it."
NPR is already scrambling to recover. This was posted on another conservative site to try to discredit the evidence:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/npr_appalled_by_exec_ron_schillers_comments_in_jam.php
Here's a "funny" comment from the "other" Schiller (no relation, according to NPR) . . . Vivian . . . who is spending her time these days lobbying for continued federal funding "on the air" which is of itself highly questionable because the appearance is that she is using federal funds to lobby for more federal funds!
Says she, it is all just a "perception" problem, this liberal bias thingy! She adds that the "diversity" of funding actually ensures their lack of bias.
"The fact that we have four sources of revenue: Listeners, philanthropy, corporate, and government, helps ensure that public media is not beholden to any one source of revenue," she said. "Indeed, it is through this diversity of funding that we are able to maintain our journalistic independence."
Given the recently departed Ron Schiller's very recent broadside attack against the Republican Party in general, and his spewing of a broad cross-section of specific "stereotypes" about Republicans in particular, there goes her "diversity" argument, right out the window!
According to NPR, which has itself now reported on this tape story Ron departed from NPR just last week.
No word, however, on the fate of the other NPR institutional fund-raiser at the luncheon, and fellow Tea Party and Republican disparager, Betsy Liley.
Here are a few very interesting facts about Vivian that may or may not add some perspective to the overall emerging picture of this NPR controversy.
They are quoted from the NPR website:
. . .
"Prior to joining NPR, Vivian Schiller served at The New York Times Company as Senior Vice President and General Manager of NYTimes.com. Schiller led the day-to-day operations of NYTimes.com, the largest newspaper website on the Internet, overseeing product, technology, marketing, classifieds, strategic planning, and business development.
Previously, Schiller spent four years as Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Discovery Times Channel, a joint venture of The New York Times and Discovery Communications. Schiller launched the network, and under her leadership, Discovery Times Channel tripled its distribution while achieving critical acclaim for its award winning journalistic programming.
Schiller also served as Senior Vice President of CNN Productions, where she led CNN's long-form programming efforts.
. . . ."
Linked: 'Cantor Rips National Public Radio: "Taxpayer Dollars Should No Longer Be Appropriated to NPR"'.
Laurie, are you some paid OFA troll?
No one "marginalized" Muslims in America. They "marginalized" themselves. Do you really think there were NO American Muslims who did not realize that 9-11 was about to happen? Do you think that Nidal Hassan just kept his intentions close to his vest, although he seemed to have attended mosque every Friday?
Why don't you treat your anal/cranial disorder and do a little reseach into the Falls Church, Va. mosque?
And if you think NPR promotes ALL viewpoints, you have your head shoved up your arse so far it is beyond retraction.
Laurie has no problem with this sickening display.
Noted.
@Laurie, in your self-assumed role as control troll in chief on this thread, I think I may have found an appropriate anthem for you!
It certainly would be an excellent anthem for NPR to hum as they try desperately to wiggle there way out of this one!
It's a song that was written by Bennie Benjamin, Gloria Caldwell and Sol Marcus, and first recorded by Nina Simone, way back in 1964, but most believe it was best articulated by Eric Burdon of The Animals . . . in the groups "rocked-up" hit version recorded a year later in 1965 — "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood."
Can you keep a straight face as you continue to try to minimize this PR disaster?
Here . . . this ought to get you started:
"Baby, do you understand me now
Sometimes I feel a little mad
But don't you know that no one alive
Can always be an angel
When things go wrong I seem to be bad
But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
. . . . "
In response to your query: "WHAT is the friggen' problem??" I believe the answer is quite simple . . . the group-think expectation of a bunch of elitist and highly charged partisans (who we now KNOW simply cannot hide their utter contempt for the rest of us) that they can continue to get away with using our tax dollars, even if just from time to time, to promote their obnoxious ideological views at our expense.
@laurie: I find it fascinating that in the planet you live on you think NPR presents a "full discussion with all view points". I guess in your world that phrase automatically excludes conservatives and the tea party, because they are "anti-intellectual".
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the video clearly shows the disdain NPR has for connservatives and the tea party.
But that is not the real point anyway. The point is they are using MY tax money to fund their one-sided discusscions with only the liberal POV. If they want to do that, fine. You can continue to listen to them, and even contribute. Just don't ask me to do that in any way, especially through forced taxation.
Do you really not understand that?
In Laurie's and NPR's Rashomon woldview, there is no real objective truth … no simple good/bad guy dichotomies. Nothing so pedestrian.
Well, except when it comes to Republicans being evil … now that's an objective truth! Even makes for good dinner conversation. And when that peters out … on to Jewish control of the media and the stupidity of Americans!
I'm sure these people instinctively point their pinkies outwards as they lift their teacups while discussing these objective truths.
"NPR … National Palestine Radio? Good show! Jolly funny! Never heard that one before!"
Laurie, you make the case that NPR should be inclusive and I agree. Public media should provide programming that appeals to a diverse public.
However, it is clear from this video that there are segments of the public that they consider beyond the pale. Evangelical Christians and tea party members will not get a hearing on NPR. Evangelical Christians will not get a hearing because they object to abortion and dispute Darwinism. Tea party members will not get a hearing because NPR has decided that they are racists.
The "intellectuals" at NPR should know that all religions object to abortion and dispute Darwinism, including Islam. With the exception of some random signs and statements at tea party rallies, there is no evidence that the tea party platform is racist. I wonder why NPR with their considerable investigative talent don't investigate these claims.
I also enjoy NPR programming (even though I'm Canadian) and I am not an Evangelical Christian or a tea party member (obviously), so I don't have a stake in this. But public broadcasting has the same well documented bias in Canada and Britain with the same results: a very angry segment of the public who object to the very idea of public broadcasting.
Up until this post laurie was successfully masquerading as a well-intentioned but rational liberal free-spirit. Today she appeared to be insane and her intentions seemed malicious. Not too much left going on in her favor anymore, eh?
WOW. There was some response.
Let me pull my head out of my arse long enough to respond.
I was actually fired as an OFA volunteer. So, no, I am not an OFA blogger. (I had too many questions and the young organizer found this disruptive.) I don't hold this against Obama.
I am NOT proclaiming myself above anyone here. Everyone else is stating their opinions, why can't I? Aren't you interested in what 'the enemy' (which seems to be the perception here) what 'the enemy thinks'?
For many many years, the media was FULL of reports about Israel and the Middle East. I always wanted to know why Israel is so important. I understand why it was founded and that it is a democracy. But why has it cost OUR country so much? We didn't charter it. I always wondered why, in a big world, filled with conflict– none of the rest of the world mattered a fraction as much. The press was ALWAYS pro-Israel. I don't know how anyone can claim anything else.
And for that matter, why isn't Jerusalem under a triumvirate of the three religions who have holy sites there??
Science Friday is really all I get very excited about– but the reason I like it is because it is MULTI-GENERATIONAL. I really think that is a very big deal.
I lived in Denmark a long time ago, and they had three state run radio stations and 2 TV stations. I am NOT suggesting that! But on the radio, there would be old people in some rural area singing old folk songs, and an interview of someone on raising pigs, a report on the windmill innovations (that are now all over the US) and so on. There was a lot that seemed so 'quaint' it made me laugh, but I came to understand that it fostered communication across generations and regions. NPR isn't this./ We have a bigger country and a more diverse country. We also have a country where if someone disagrees with you you tell them to put their head up their 'arse.'
So maybe we need another few NPRs… but not less. IMHO
Our entire days are FILLED with someone trying to sell us something. I like being able to take a break from that– and listen to something stupid and wholesome that my mother might be listening to in CA or my son (who's 18) because we all listen occasionally. That's about all the media experience we share– in a media laden world.
I'm embarassed to say I have donated to NPR in the past. And after seeing this tape, I regret ever giving them a cent. They are not "unbiased" as they claim. And then they use my tax dollars to attack my beliefs, shape my beliefs by omitting information or presenting stories such a biased way.
Since I can say as an independent voter they are by no stretch of the imagination "nonpartisan", they need to be cut from the public dole, they can be privately funded, sink or swim on their own!@
If they were truely nonpartisan, I would support giving them public money, but since its pretty clear they are not nonpartisan, they can sink or swim like every other media outlet.
I saw this story on Fox and on some blogs, I doubt any leftleaning media, which is pretty much all of them, will cover this. Its amusing to see how much they cover up not realising people can look up this material on the internet and wonder why the heck these "main"stream media outlet won't cover these stories
Laurie, so you "volunteered" for OFA. How can you "fire" a volunteer? Are you saying you got paid to work for OFA? And doesn't it make you kinda sad to know that you can be so easily pegged by me? Hang up your troll hat. You suck at it.
But I would have thought you would be a good fit for OFA. You don't seem exceptionally bright, and that is the kind of person David Axelrod wants to fill OFA with. You also seem painfully uninformed, just the kind of person that Axelrod recruited to elect the worst president this nation has seen since Woodrow Wilson.
Are you really so clueless that you think only Denmark has radio that has someone on about raising pigs? You lead a sheltered life, I will say that. So read very slowly, and maybe you will understand what I am telling you:
almost all areas have local radio stations. Those stations give local news, report on hog futures, has programs where the local Ag agent is on for an hour, provides local talent, and let's locals call in to discuss a multiple of items. And guess what? None of those stations are funded by the federal government. They are funded with sponsors like Tractor Supply, the local Wal-Mart or grocery store. And if they could not get enough in ad revenue, they would have gone out of business a long time ago. So NPR, with Elmo, can fully fund itself.
Now, toddle on over to HuffingtonPost or DailyKos and tell them how mean conservatives are. Their standards for responses are much lower than they are on this blog.
Did NPR really say that…Amazing what Hollywood can do with virtual actors.
Laurie – what part of 'don't force me to pay for it' don't you understand?
@Shelly Quite honestly, I doubt there is a person on this thread who would object to the idea of a publicly-funded broadcasting station being inclusive and appealing to a diverse audience.
Moreover, I suspect few of the commenters on this thread have any real objections to a good deal of the programming on NPR or PBS, for that matter.
It is, as you generally suggest, a matter primarily of political and social judgments, those informing key portions of their productions – including their news programming — that so thoroughly irks many of us. And, it's also much broader than just anti-Tea Party or anti-Evangelical bias. Interesting that you mention the Canadian view of public broadcasting. We don't want that!
Furthermore, I would add that it has been this way with both NPR and PBS for many decades, and that the inherent bias has persisted, in spite of numerous intelligently articulated objections by public figures and thoughtful social commentators over time.
Until now, the insiders concluded that in the long run they could get away with it through deceit. And they did. But it should also be very obvious from the window of insight that this tape reveals, that the "insider" community at NPR (and I’d add at PBS) is rife with hyper-partisan political bias. The obvious suspicion raised is that those who run those places are a very narrow-minded and prejudiced group of people. Moreover, it is clear they have a social and political agenda that they are driving with regard to certain linchpin subjects, ones that are wholly improper, given the public funding charge of theirs.
In fact, if you read the press account that NPR itself published regarding this tape, they readily admit the problem, but only insofar as related to this tape, saying they were "appalled by the statements made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for."
Oh sure! "Shocked, shocked" they were, in this, their first risible attempt at covering up what is obviously a pervasive problem within their organization! Why, for example, did they not immediately fire Betsy Livey, too? Their reaction was nothing but hypocritical damage control, and everyone knows it!
Finally, I can tell you that both NPR and PBS have harbored this snooty, elitist attitude for decades. Having been required to "spend' my money, through the tax system, to support their obnoxious, anti-Republican, anti-conservative agenda over the years, has been an ongoing source of irritation. And I'm not alone. So I’m personally gratified to see that they finally got caught red-handed, and I will do everything I can to put pressure on my representatives to cut them off at the pass. And, I'm definitely not alone on that one!!
I do not mind have public broadcasting outlets that are willing to stay out of the political thicket, though at a time when budget constraints are front and center, it looks like they are going to be the victims of their own bad timing.
They’ve now gone so far over the line that is high time to cut the organization loose from the public tether for good. Let some other, non-political model come up in its place, or let them go out entirely on their own, without public assistance at all. And then they can harbor their elitist attitudes, spouting whatever nonsense they damn well please!
At this point, a thorough house cleaning and fumigation is absolutely necessary.
Oh. And you folks over at NPR? Watch the swinging doors on the way out!
@laurie:
That's nice that NPR makes you feel good. But in an age of the internet and hundreds of cable channels, satellite radio stations, etc., I have no interest in being forced to pay, through my tax dollars, for a media outlet that, reflected quite well in that little video, looks down upon Christians and tea party activists (they finally met activists they don't like); that sees moral equivalence between our Israeli allies and people who strap bombs to children and saw off heads; and that seems to staffed by people who agree with the old canard that Jews control the media.
There are now untold numbers of radio stations, TV stations, interactive web sites, etc., where you can find the quaintness you so desire. Just don't ask me to subsidize it. You might have had a somewhat arguable argument 20 or 30 years ago. But in today's media-saturated world, you don't.
laurie said,
"So maybe we need another few NPRs… but not less. IMHO"
I was being sarcastic when I said, at 1:18, that maybe we need a second NPR.
I hope I didn't plant some seed.
Liberals don't acknowledge viewpoints different from their own as being real, automatically tossing them in the "so unserious as to be dismissed without consideration" category.
Look at their constant refrain during the healthcare debate- "We're proposing all these things, considering all options except for DOING NOTHING, which is what those nasty Republicans believe in." Of course, that wasn't the case at all. Republicans, most notably Paul Ryan, made lots of proposals- but for liberals, any proposal to do something other than what they wanted to do was immediately put out of mind, becoming a proposal of "doing nothing."
Laurie is typical in this. When she says that NPR presents all views, she means that they present all views she is prepared to acknowledge as real. Differ from her too greatly, and you don't even count.
@Laurie,
I must say I do admire your candor, when you conceded, as you did, above:
"I was actually fired as an OFA volunteer. So, no, I am not an OFA blogger. (I had too many questions and the young organizer found this disruptive.) I don't hold this against Obama."
Just out of curiosity, during the period of time, however brief, that you were operating as an OFA volunteer, were you assigned to post here on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion?
How does it work?
Trochilus, I remember reading (about a year ago) how OFA "volunteers" were doing two things: calling in to disrupt conservative talk shows and posting their stupid stuff on blogs they considered also conservative.
It's astroturfing. Pure and simple, and I doubt if Laurie will be honest about it. So I doubt she will answer your question.
It is all designed to make people think that the majority of Americans support Obama in his endeavor to make us into his Saul Alinsky styled socialist utopia.
@ Retire05:
Denmark's 3 stations are at a national level. US local stations aren't making it no matter what the programming–and being bought up by Sirius, Comcast, Radio One…the staffs slashed and the programming automated.
Public Radio is national, multi-generational, mostly innocuous where someone isn't trying to sell me something. Refreshing. I don't hear a lot of religion on NPR, at least they haven't discussed mine. The guy was pandering to get their 5 Million. And he was (at times)arrogant. Why take it personally?
Do I think people should have to support things they don't agree with? I don't agree with most things taxes support. I can think of a very expensive war that meets that description. But I was surprised to hear in the tape that only ONE PERCENT of their funding comes from the govt. Not much. And I heard him say they would be better off without it, so they didn't have to hear the constant criticism. And that's OK by me.
Why go to the trouble to be so nasty? No, I was never paid by OFA. I like Obama. They wanted to promote the health care bill that had already passed. I thought that was a waste of time. (Obviously, they anticipated what is going on now.) The guy said… why don't you go help the Democratic Party (i.e. go away). So, you have something in common with a young OFA staffer in Iowa. (Most people in the room were 2-3X older than him– so when you toddle down to the senior center you might find some of the others aren't as 'conservative' as you think.)
I've never made any secret that I don't agree with all of the posts here. (I agree with some.) Yes, I'm a Dem but I would prefer to live in a country where we were all independent. I found this site, I found it interesting, I come back to see what people say.
But you, having intelligence superior to my own (not that I care) and being so much better informed (having explored other viewpoints and all) are having a hard time because I've written things you don't like?
________
@Trochilus-
Actually, I just came up with it because I was bored, but now it's like a drug. I checked it multiple times a day. Soon, I'll have to stop, (take heart), but I am having fun, and I just read a great article that Ella8 directed me to.
@ LukeHandCool- It's becasue tehre are so many of everything that having shared is a rarity. Why not lobby NPR to be more inclusive?
@JimAt – I get it. But like I said, Iraq was a bad deal and my children's future was ransomed for it. (Which is nothing, I realize to having lost them there.) My point: we don't always get to choose.
Trochilus-
I just read the transcipt you posted. I agree, it is offensive. It's good he was fired.
Interesting video, but I must say I do not agree with and am appalled at these tactics. These two guys are NOT reporters. They are crooks effectively stealing Ron Schiller's and Betsy Liley's time under false and misleading pretenses to twist words (generally people consider their audience while speaking just as Gov Walker did in the sham phone call from the Koch impersonator) to implicate themselves. That is against the 5th amendment principle to not be compelled to be a witness against oneself.
I have no association with or sympathies towards NPR, but I condemn the methodology involved in this event and do hope the individuals are prosecuted for their involvement in undertaking a dishonest sting operation. This type of activity to gather information is against any and all Libertarian principles of which I am aware.
I do NOT agree with Schiller's characterization of the Tea Party, but I will give him a little benefit (but not much) of the doubt considering who he thinks he's talking to. His opinions concerning Juan Williams firing over 'losing his credibility' should probably now be equally applied to him as he's shown to have no credibility in being able to objectively operate in the NPR "objective" environment.
I loved the sign in the beginning "Project funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act". Does anyone know what they were building there under the guise of "Downtown Business Improvement"?
And for those who don't know, Socialist organizations to include trade and worker Unions have had a long standing relationship with supporting radical Muslims organizations engaging in terrorism. Many support Obama and Obama supports many of them.
Beck's Matthews Mocked Conspiracy Confirmed: Communists, Socialists Working With Muslim Brotherhood
US Socialists & Union Activists Investigated By FBI for Providing Material Support to Islamic Terrorist & International Marxist Groups They Work With
What is strangely ironic is that while they denounce war, they appear to have no qualms with supporting terrorism. Simply amazing.
"But like I said, Iraq was a bad deal and my children's future was ransomed for it."
You're comparing apples to anvils. Iraq was national policy. It was debated. It was voted and acted on by Congress and the President. This is Channel 9 spewing leftist propaganda at my expense.
But just so we're clear, you support me being forced to pay for the infrastructure and the salaries of people who make their living mocking me and despising everything I stand for. People who consider me to be nothing more than a second-class citizen.
And you don't have a problem with me being forced to pay for that.
Got it.
@laurie
I'm really more intrigued by the suspicious institutional reaction by NPR than whether Schiller's statement was offensive.
Of course his statements were offensive!
Several of his statements were deeply reprehensible, including his statements about Republicans in general, and calling Tea Party members "racist, racist people." Apparently once wasn't quite enough for him!
But the real point is that, despite all the denials earlier, one suspects this is exactly how they think over at NPR . . . not just Ron Schiller, who later in the day Tuesday volunteered for a "perp walk" by agreeing that his resignation will be effective immediately, instead of on May 6th.
Just try for a moment to get a handle on the credibility of a guy who says something like Schiller said in his statement, which was meant to supplement the NPR "news" report on Tuesday!
" . . . I made statements during the course of the meeting that are counter to NPR's values and also not reflective of my own beliefs.
. . . . (my emphasis added)
In other words, what?
He was admitting to having been a liar then?
Or, is it that he got caught on tape saying what he really felt, and now he is willing to lie to try to cover it up?
Finally, the blatherings of Frank Koza, above, to the contrary notwithstanding, I'll take Juan Williams word for it . . . "This is how they really feel."
Breaking News
NPR CEO Vivian Schiller Resigns
NPR
I'm surprised that anyone is surprised that these kind of opinions run rampant at NPR.
IMO, NPR has been a purveyor of very slightly left-leaning pablum (think Garrison Keillor), a bit of decent Christian Scence Monitor-like reporting intermixed with a small amount of very hard left "reporting", all packaged to look warm and fuzzy. I'd characterize their stock-in-trade as not usually denigrating the conservative viewss as much as it has been to ignore them and pretend they don't exist. I think their liberal listeners would rather ignore those they disagree with than be intellectually confronted by them. Note Laurie's desire to "listen to something stupid and wholesome". In other words, if it challenges my confortable preconceptions, you know, those ones that allow me to think myself all morally superior and smug than those "anti-intellectual" middle class clingers, I don't want to hear it. So NPR tends to just give a very select set of viewpoints that clips off the right half of the political spectrum. That's what they find sells. It's their niche. It's just totally wrong that taxes are used to subsidize it. After all, if all those erudite liberal listeners are so intellectual and bright, you'd think they make enough money to fund their own electromagnetic Valium.
So really, why are you all surprised? It's a nice "gotcha" moment and all, but surely you knew all this for decades?
Frank Koza: "That is against the 5th amendment principle to not be compelled to be a witness against oneself."
Only if they were from the government. The public at large is free to turn your stupidity against you.
@Jim at — No, I don't think you should have to support that. You are right about apples to anvils. And after this, I doubt you'll have to.
Here is why NPR seems important to liberals like myself. I don't believe that massive corporations (both media corporations and their corporate sponsors) always reflect important principles of the free market. There are massive barriers to entry: vertical monopolies and vastly greater access to capital, differential pricing, and information withheld from consumers. There has been collusion with the highest officials. And that's some low-hanging fruit. Why should we trust them? What is broken that this has taken place??
But they are the sponsors, and their interests seem to come first in our foreign policy. They employ people, sure. But not an increasing number of Americans. Am I unconnected with them myself? No. I've worked for them and I have a 401K.
Over the last decade (again Iraq comes to mind), it was very hard to get more of the story than came from sources that have since been discredited. NPR asked different questions. They didn't always answer them by the way, but at least they posed the questions. I'd guess that this is why they perceive themselves as more intellectual. ( It would be disingenuous to claim it was just this guy; Obviously, he wouldn't have risen to that position if he was at odds with upper management. ) And no, of course, no one should be forced to support it. And after this, I doubt you'll have to.
Will the Internet provide access to those other points of view now? Yes.
With NPR I've had SOME media experience with other generations in my family and in the community that isn't completely vacuous. Sounds like they have the supporters to go on. I knew that the heiress to the McDonald's fortune gave them a fortune that must be an endowment.
But no, no one should have to pay for something that mocks them or with which they deeply disagree. It's why I'd die hungry before I'd eat a Domino's Pizza. Now, maybe you'll never eat another BigMac.
The other shoe has yet to drop on this story…
We've seen the Louis Renault statements from NPR that they are shocked, SHOCKED! to see such goings on in their establishment. That this was an isolated incident. That this was just unserious pandering (as if that's a good thing!). That they always correct such behavior when it's not yanked into the national spotlight (and they have a bridge to sell us as well).
O'Keefe was on Dr. Savage's somehow-able-to-broadcast-without-forced-taxation program last night and basically said that they have a lot more footage to roll out which contradicts all of the above… Right now he's just giving them the opportunity to come clean and be honest, but instead they've chosen to take that rope and hang themselves with all this feeble spinning.
I always love having this argument with liberals who don't quite understand how the free market works:
Big corporations have too much power!
Really what power do they have?
Well, they can like, force us to do stuff, or buy products we don't want!
Really? They can do that? They have mercenaries they'll send to your home if you don't buy the right lightbulbs?
Well, no, they lobby the government to use its power to do that for them!
So the problem is that they use government power?
Yes! So we need to give the government more power to stop them!
And you think that will help? Do you remember the last 2 sentences you spoke? Wouldn't it just be easier to buy from someone else and not support a corrupt business?
Well yeah, but people can't be expected to make informed decisions because they can't get information!
So, that intertubes thing… mostly useless?
Well, people can't read the whole internet.. they might miss something.
So search engines and social media, which tend to circulate stories generally found to be important?
Oh, that's only useful for keeping tabs on lady gaga.
So you're saying there's a demand for some kind of "Consumer Reports" or trusted ranking service which doesn't exist?
Yeah, such a thing might as well not exist because there's no government program to oversee it and keep it "fair"!
So who does this J.D. Powers guy think he is? Taking private money in exchange for offering a service for which there is a demand? No business could function on such a premise!
Well if he takes private money, he can be corrupted!
But if he takes government money he can't?
Right, because only the government is good at DE-funding things which aren't working properly!
So, selling a service which relies entirely on trust in his good name wouldn't discourage him from acting in untrustworthy ways?
Not without being regulated by the government!
What about having competitors that his consumers could choose to trust instead should he stray?
They'd have to be regulated too, so that they all produce an identical service in perfect accordance with the government's priorities, else face sanctions and go out of business!
Right… no possibility of corruption there… obviously government involvement in the private sector is always a good idea!
@laurie There almost seems to me to be a duality in your thinking, such as when you say things like you did in your statement, above, that liberals such as yourself do not trust "massive corporations" including media corporations and their sponsors, but that you will trust NPR because they at least ask the "right" questions.
When recently departed NPR CEO Vivian Schiller chose to publicly attack Juan Williams, and accuse him of questionable ethics back in October ( see the clip embedded by the Professor, at this post here before the election — merely because of his connection to Fox News Channel — do you not think she was responding to pressure from at least some of the string-pullers on her Board, and they in turn from their leftwing supporters and sponsors?
Did you not recognize at the time that she was displaying a cold-blooded willingness, perhaps even enthusiasm, for acting out the role of a thug for hire by doing that? She was not being a Polly Pureheart, or an intellectual, and "asking the right questions."
It seems to me that she was quite willing to try to destroy a fellow liberal's career, simply because he had an audience on FNC as well, and he communicated with them in a way that her bosses saw only as an opportunity by which to undermine him.
CaptainObvious: I am interested in what you're saying, but I couldn't follow it completely. You were quoting things you believe that I am claiming, posing rhetorical questions, and giving answers you do and others you don't believe. And I don't understand some of your figures of speech. I want to let you have that free market argument with me. I need another version, sorry.
Trochlius-
I never said they'd asked the 'right' questions, just different questions.
I actually don't think he should have been fired– but I did think it was risky to give cover to racism toward Arabs as though they are all extremists and threatening. And that it isn't a stretch to think some views would be as offended by that as you are by his disparaging the Tea Party.
I did find the CEO's statement shockingly incoherent– strange that she wasn't better prepared. I don't know enough about the inner machinations of NPR to charge they were acting with malice.
How do you embed links and use italics in your posts?
The above is an argument I've had with several co-workers.
Are you so vain, you probably think this post is about you?