NPR's Ron Schiller ousted after another sting by O'Keefe

[Red Dawn]

You must be very dumb to not realize something like this tarnishes the image of NPR and damages their reputation and credibility as an "unbiased" source of news. Clearly, NPR sees this as well, which is why they are in major damage control mode.

I agree, it seems their credibility is about on par with Fox's.

 

[Tab]

Thank you Juan Willliams and James O'Keefe for helping me to donate to NPR!

 

[jonks]

I agree, it seems their credibility is about on par with Fox's.

Absofriggenlutely NOT. People have opinions. Media outlets have programming. A bias in a person does not equate with a bias in programming. Or, put far more eloquently by the Secular Right:

http://secularright.org/SR/wordpres...he-right-outcome-definitely-the-wrong-reason/

I fail to see the relevance of an NPR employee’s off-air criticism of the Tea Party to the question of NPR’s federal funding or its liberal bias. Conservatives can easily prove liberal bias by analyzing the content of the programming. And it is in that arena alone that liberal bias matters. Does anyone really think that no NPR employee finds the Tea Party racist, or, equally importantly, that no NPR employee should find the Tea Party racist? The public is not entitled to a particular political belief system among the recipients of tax payer dollars, just to the scrupulously fair airing of all views.

CSPAN’s hosts for Washington Journal are impeccably even-handed in their questioning of liberal and conservative guests. Despite the regular, predictable, and paranoid ranting of conservative callers accusing CSPAN of stiffing conservative entities and individuals, CSPAN is absolutely balanced in its coverage of political viewpoints. But it could well be that some of its hosts believe that the Tea Party is racist, or that Obama is a socialist. Who cares? In believing so, they would merely reflect positions that are present in the public.

Conservatives should make their case against NPR based on objective evidence of programming decisions. If they can’t do so, what one employee says in a semi-private conversation is of no import. The only question relevant to public support of a media or any other institution is what the recipients of those funds do in performing their public duties. What they believe is irrelevant. It should be possible to act objectively and fairly regardless of one’s political position—at least we should act as if that were possible. But to exploit this recent ambush suggests otherwise.

 

[PokerGuy]

Thank you Juan Willliams and James O'Keefe for helping me to donate to NPR!

I have no problem with people donating money to NPR, it's your money, feel free to give it to crappy organizations all you want.

I have a problem with my money going to crappy organizations.

 

[PokerGuy]

Absofriggenlutely NOT. People have opinions. Media outlets have programming. A bias in a person does not equate with a bias in programming. Or, put far more eloquently by the Secular Right:

http://secularright.org/SR/wordpres...he-right-outcome-definitely-the-wrong-reason/

Those people live in a fantasy world if they think it's possible for people to keep their personal views out of the final product completely. If you have 99% of people with a particular world view in an organization, it's going to be in the product, whether objectively measurable or not. That's just common sense.

The only way you're going to have balanced programming is if you have a balanced staff with differing views. That's why most main stream media leans left, and why fox leans right. They are full of people who have a particular view.

 

[jonks]

Those people live in a fantasy world if they think it's possible for people to keep their personal views out of the final product completely. If you have 99% of people with a particular world view in an organization, it's going to be in the product, whether objectively measurable or not. That's just common sense.

The only way you're going to have balanced programming is if you have a balanced staff with differing views. That's why most main stream media leans left, and why fox leans right. They are full of people who have a particular view.

There are too many stories to count between fox and msnbc demonstrating bias, or at least what seems a consistent stationwide consensus on message. This does not exist at NPR. Ruling out all bias is not possible, even from the judiciary. But if there's blatant bias at NPR, in the programming is where it matters, not the opinions of employees.

 

[abaez]

http://wonkette.com/440468/glenn-becks-website-reveals-npr-lunch-video-was-edited-to-ruin-npr

Only Glenn Beck’s reporters at his website, The Blaze, bothered to watch the unedited footage and note that the various bombshells in the video were taken out of context (the opinions of others made to look like the opinions of Schiller, for example) and that Schiller’s pro-Republican statements were (obviously) all cut out of the video released by O’Keefe.

There’s a lot more of this on The Blaze: eight sections of raw video with written commentary by a video producer from the website. She finds numerous instances of editing to make Schiller sound like he’s replying to completely different statements (a bemused reaction to something about restaurant reservations is made to look like a response to implementing sharia law worldwide), and she also finds sections where the audio has clearly been switched from another part of the video, as well as the complete removal of many instances of Schiller and his colleague praising either Republicans or the Fox News audience.

 

[jonks]

http://wonkette.com/440468/glenn-becks-website-reveals-npr-lunch-video-was-edited-to-ruin-npr

not surprising, he's done the same things over and over. stupid people are stupid, perception is king.

 

[werepossum]

http://wonkette.com/440468/glenn-becks-website-reveals-npr-lunch-video-was-edited-to-ruin-npr

Hmmm. All praise to Glenn Beck then. Just another reason why this should be a non-issue.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Looks like NPR is starting to get it.

http://www.current.org/audience/aud1105schardt.html

"After working in many parts of public radio — both deep inside it and now with one foot inside and one foot outside — I believe there's an elephant in the room. There is something that I'm very conscious of as we consider this crisis that I'd like to speak to.

We have built an extraordinary franchise. It didn't happen by accident. It happened because we used a very specific methodology to cultivate and build an audience. For years, in boardrooms, at conferences, with funders, we have talked about our highly educated, influential audience. We pursued David Giovannoni's methodologies. We all participated. It was his research, his undaunted, clear strategy that we pursued to build the successful news journalism franchise we have today.

What happened as a result is that we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite. "Super-serve the core" — that was the mantra, for many, many years. This focus has, in large part, brought us to our success today. It was never anyone's intention to exclude anyone.

But we have to accept — unapologetically — that this is the franchise we've built.
We have to look at this because the criticisms that are coming at us — whether they're couched in other things — do have some legitimacy. We must, as a starting point, take on board some of this criticism. Before we can set a path, we have to own this.

One choice, at this transformational moment, is to say, "We are satisfied with what we are doing. We — in radio — are providing 11 percent of America with an extraordinary service." If this is our choice, we need to carefully consider whether we warrant public funding and, if so, what the rationale would be.

Another choice is to say, "We have cultivated and built an extraordinary infrastructure of interconnected stations that's now adopting networked digital technologies. More important, we have created a culture of human beings who — in this building, at stations, and in my constituency of hundreds of producers — are fluent in a particular craft rooted in an idealism of service. Individuals whose intention at every step is to contribute to the greater good. Ours is a human endeavor. That is what differentiates us. This is what is at stake. This is what we must preserve."

I believe we need to say, in this moment, "You're right. We are not satisfied, either. Now that we have achieved this huge success over a 30-year incubation period, we now are poised to commit ourselves to translate and bring what we have to everyone in America. Within the next five years, seven years — we set the timetable. We are absolutely committed to serving — truly — and speaking in the voices — truly — of 80 percent or 90 percent of the public." We set our numbers."

- Sue Schardt (Director of the Association of Independents in Radio and a member of NPR's board)

 

[davmat787]

Looks like NPR is starting to get it.

http://www.current.org/audience/aud1105schardt.html

"After working in many parts of public radio — both deep inside it and now with one foot inside and one foot outside — I believe there's an elephant in the room. There is something that I'm very conscious of as we consider this crisis that I'd like to speak to.

We have built an extraordinary franchise. It didn't happen by accident. It happened because we used a very specific methodology to cultivate and build an audience. For years, in boardrooms, at conferences, with funders, we have talked about our highly educated, influential audience. We pursued David Giovannoni's methodologies. We all participated. It was his research, his undaunted, clear strategy that we pursued to build the successful news journalism franchise we have today.

What happened as a result is that we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite. "Super-serve the core" — that was the mantra, for many, many years. This focus has, in large part, brought us to our success today. It was never anyone's intention to exclude anyone.

But we have to accept — unapologetically — that this is the franchise we've built.
We have to look at this because the criticisms that are coming at us — whether they're couched in other things — do have some legitimacy. We must, as a starting point, take on board some of this criticism. Before we can set a path, we have to own this.

One choice, at this transformational moment, is to say, "We are satisfied with what we are doing. We — in radio — are providing 11 percent of America with an extraordinary service." If this is our choice, we need to carefully consider whether we warrant public funding and, if so, what the rationale would be.

Another choice is to say, "We have cultivated and built an extraordinary infrastructure of interconnected stations that's now adopting networked digital technologies. More important, we have created a culture of human beings who — in this building, at stations, and in my constituency of hundreds of producers — are fluent in a particular craft rooted in an idealism of service. Individuals whose intention at every step is to contribute to the greater good. Ours is a human endeavor. That is what differentiates us. This is what is at stake. This is what we must preserve."

I believe we need to say, in this moment, "You're right. We are not satisfied, either. Now that we have achieved this huge success over a 30-year incubation period, we now are poised to commit ourselves to translate and bring what we have to everyone in America. Within the next five years, seven years — we set the timetable. We are absolutely committed to serving — truly — and speaking in the voices — truly — of 80 percent or 90 percent of the public." We set our numbers."

- Sue Schardt (Director of the Association of Independents in Radio and a member of NPR's board)

Hmmm, sounds almost exactly what I was getting at in post #165:

I was thinking, why doesn't NPR have a real soul searching as to what a National Public Radio truly should be. Most people have a problem with our primary news sources, maybe NPR should analyze this problem, and try a different approach.

Aim for a new standard.

I wish them luck. In fact if they can do this, I will vote to fund an equivalent TV station.

 

[Thump553]

I hope this new standard isn't a dumbing down of NPR but it sure sounds like it would be. NPR is one of the few US media outlets where you almost never hear Charlie Sheen/Brittany Spears/Lindsey Lohen etc. type "news."

After all we don't want to turn all of our MIT's, Yales, etc. into community colleges because only X% of the population can handle their rigorous courses, do we?

 

[werepossum]

Looks like NPR is starting to get it.

http://www.current.org/audience/aud1105schardt.html

"After working in many parts of public radio — both deep inside it and now with one foot inside and one foot outside — I believe there's an elephant in the room. There is something that I'm very conscious of as we consider this crisis that I'd like to speak to.

We have built an extraordinary franchise. It didn't happen by accident. It happened because we used a very specific methodology to cultivate and build an audience. For years, in boardrooms, at conferences, with funders, we have talked about our highly educated, influential audience. We pursued David Giovannoni's methodologies. We all participated. It was his research, his undaunted, clear strategy that we pursued to build the successful news journalism franchise we have today.

What happened as a result is that we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite. "Super-serve the core" — that was the mantra, for many, many years. This focus has, in large part, brought us to our success today. It was never anyone's intention to exclude anyone.

SNIP

I believe we need to say, in this moment, "You're right. We are not satisfied, either. Now that we have achieved this huge success over a 30-year incubation period, we now are poised to commit ourselves to translate and bring what we have to everyone in America. Within the next five years, seven years — we set the timetable. We are absolutely committed to serving — truly — and speaking in the voices — truly — of 80 percent or 90 percent of the public." We set our numbers."

- Sue Schardt (Director of the Association of Independents in Radio and a member of NPR's board)

I don't believe that NPR should be publicly funded. But this is a very frank admission of NPR's shortcomings, which gives me hope that it can be an important and successful not-for-profit organization making an important contribution to non-partisan, non-biased news reporting as well as its regular programming.

 

[sandorski]

You must be very dumb to not realize something like this tarnishes the image of NPR and damages their reputation and credibility as an "unbiased" source of news. Clearly, NPR sees this as well, which is why they are in major damage control mode.

Seriously? I guess it's not surprising that you would perceive this as a nonissue...here's 20 people who think otherwise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031005897.html
Dear Listeners and Supporters,

We, and our colleagues at NPR News, strive every day to bring you the highest quality news programs possible. So, like you, we were appalled by the offensive comments made recently by NPR's now former Senior Vice President for Development. His words violated the basic principles by which we live and work: accuracy and open-mindedness, fairness and respect.

Those comments have done real damage to NPR. But we're confident that the culture of professionalism we have built, and the journalistic values we have upheld for the past four decades, will prevail. We are determined to continue bringing you the daily journalism that you've come to expect and rely upon: fair, fact-based, in-depth reporting from at home and around the world.

With your support we have no doubt NPR will come out of this difficult period stronger than ever.

Thank you,

Robert Siegel
Michele Norris
Melissa Block
Renee Montagne
Scott Simon
Liane Hansen
Guy Raz
Michel Martin
Neal Conan
Susan Stamberg
Nina Totenberg
Linda Wertheimer
Daniel Zwerdling
John Ydstie
Richard Harris
Tom Gjelten
Howard Berkes
Mike Shuster
Laura Sullivan
Lynn Neary
Jacki Lyden
Mara Liasson
Cokie Roberts
John Burnett

Did the "Controversial Video" really change your Opinions about the NPR? Do the subsequent Stepping Down and Letter by NPR employees Improve your Opinions of NPR?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Did the "Controversial Video" really change your Opinions about the NPR?

No.

Do the subsequent Stepping Down and Letter by NPR employees Improve your Opinions of NPR?

Yes.

 

[caddlad]

I hope this new standard isn't a dumbing down of NPR but it sure sounds like it would be. NPR is one of the few US media outlets where you almost never hear Charlie Sheen/Brittany Spears/Lindsey Lohen etc. type "news."

After all we don't want to turn all of our MIT's, Yales, etc. into community colleges because only X% of the population can handle their rigorous courses, do we?

So much of this.

NPR is one of the few sources of actual journalism. In depth stories and probing interviews not soundbites and Sheenism's.

 

[davmat787]

Did the "Controversial Video" really change your Opinions about the NPR? Do the subsequent Stepping Down and Letter by NPR employees Improve your Opinions of NPR?

Does the letter and subsequent signatures change your opinion?

 

[davmat787]

Indepth strories and probing interviews not soundbites and Sheenism's.

I think this is something we all can agree on.

 

[sandorski]

Does the letter and subsequent signatures change your opinion?

moot

 

[davmat787]

moot

Why, because you don't see a problem with NPR, even though most of NPR apparently does? Then so are your questions. Lame.

At least you didn't say mute, for whatever reason I find that very annoying, and I am no grammar nazi.

 

[Craig234]

There are too many stories to count between fox and msnbc demonstrating bias, or at least what seems a consistent stationwide consensus on message. This does not exist at NPR. Ruling out all bias is not possible, even from the judiciary. But if there's blatant bias at NPR, in the programming is where it matters, not the opinions of employees.

Fox and MSNBC is an utterly false equivalency. Their standards are far different.

MSNBC has bad incidents; they are very rare, and their quality is not nearly comparable to Fox.

Fox is a propaganda network. It literally has ideological direction, talking points issued to staff, coordination with Republican leadership, an owner who gave *$1 million dollars* to Republicans in a stealth contribution that was leaked last election (with his public donations far smaller and to both parties to LOOK non-partisan).

You are better than to add your voice to spreading that false myth.

 

[Craig234]

Thank you Juan Willliams and James O'Keefe for helping me to donate to NPR!

Kudos! Hopefully more will do so - and push to increase their funding.

 

[Craig234]

Commentary by Bill Moyers - who for the right's information, was the key or at least a key person who led to the creation of PBS and NPR - and one of his writers:

Come on now: Let’s take a breath and put this NPR fracas into perspective.

Just as public radio struggles against yet another assault from the its long-time nemesis -- the right-wing machine that would thrill if our sole sources of information were Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and ads paid for by the Koch Brothers -- it walks into a trap perpetrated by one of the sleaziest operatives ever to climb out of a sewer.

First, in the interest of full disclosure: While not presently committing journalism on public television, the two of us have been colleagues on PBS for almost 40 years (although never for NPR). We’ve lived through every one of the fierce and often unscrupulous efforts by the right to shut down both public television and radio. Our work has sometimes been the explicit bull’s eye on the dartboard, as conservative ideologues sought to extinguish the independent reporting and analysis they find so threatening to their phobic worldview.

We have come to believe, as so many others have, that only the creation of a substantial trust fund for public media will free it from the whims and biases of the politicians, including Democratic politicians (yes, after one of our documentaries tracking President Clinton’s scandalous fund-raising in the mid-90s, the knives were sharpened on the other side of the aisle.)

Richard Nixon was the first who tried to shut down public broadcasting, strangling and diverting funding, attacking alleged bias and even placing public broadcasters Sander Vanocur and Robert MacNeil on his legendary enemies list. Nixon didn't succeed, and ironically his downfall was brought about, in part, by public television's nighttime rebroadcasts of the Senate Watergate hearings, exposing his crimes and misdemeanors to a wider, primetime audience.

Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich tried to gut public broadcasting, too, and the George W. Bush White House planted partisan operatives at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in an attempt to challenge journalists who didn’t hew to the party line.

But what's happening now is the worst yet. Just as Republicans again clamor for the elimination of government funding and public broadcasting once more fights for life, it steps on its own oxygen line. The details are well-known: how NPR’s development chief Ron Schiller stupidly fell into a sting perpetrated by an organization run by the young conservative hit man James O’Keefe, a product of that grimy underworld of ideologically-based harassment which feeds the right’s slime machine. Posing as members of a phony Muslim group, O’Keefe’s agents provocateurs offered NPR a check for $5 million -- an offer that was rejected.

But Ron Schiller couldn’t leave it there. Unaware that he was speaking into a hidden camera and microphone, and violating everything we’re told from childhood about not talking to strangers, he allowed the two co-conspirators to goad him into a loquacious display of personal opinions, including his belief that Tea Partiers are racist and cult-like. As the record shows, more than once he said he had taken off his "NPR hat" and was representing himself as no one other than who he is. His convictions, their expression so grossly ill advised in this instance, are his own.

Ron Schiller’s a fundraiser, not a news director. NPR keeps a high, thick firewall between its successful development office and its superb news division. The "separation of church and state" -- the classic division of editorial and finance -- has been one of the glories of public radio as it has won a large and respectful audience as the place on the radio spectrum that is free of commercials and commercial values.

If you would see how this integrity is upheld, go to the NPR website and pull up any of its reporting since 2009 on the Tea Party movement. Read the transcripts or listen to its coverage -- you will find it impartial and professional, a full representation of various points of view, pro and con, Further, examine how over the past few days NPR has covered the O’Keefe/Schiller contretemps and made no attempt to cover up or ignore its own failings and responsibilities.

Then reverse the situation and contemplate how, say, Fox News would handle a similar incident if they were the target of a sting. Would their coverage be as "fair and balanced" as NPR’s? Would they apologize or punish their outspoken employee if he or she demeaned liberals? Don’t kid yourself. A raise and promotion would be more likely. Think of the fortune Glenn Beck has made on Fox, spewing bile and lies about progressives and their "conspiracies."

And oh, yes, something else: Remember what Fox News chief Roger Ailes said about NPR executives after they fired Fox contributor Juan Williams? "They are, of course, Nazis," Ailes told an interviewer. "They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism. These guys don’t want any other point of view." When the Anti-Defamation League objected to the characterization, Ailes apologized but then described NPR as "nasty, inflexible" bigots.

Double standard? You bet. A fundraiser for NPR is axed for his own personal bias and unprofessionalism but Ailes gets away scot free, still running a news division that is constantly pumping arsenic into democracy’s drinking water while he slanders public radio as equal to the monsters and murderers of the Third Reich.

Sure, public broadcasting has made its share of mistakes, and there have been times when we who practice our craft under its aegis have been less than stalwart in taking a stand and speaking truth to power. We haven't always served well our original mandate to be "a forum for debate and controversy," or to provide "a voice for groups in the community that may be otherwise unheard," or helped our viewers and listeners "see America whole, in all its diversity." But for all its flaws, consider an America without public media. Consider a society where the distortions and dissembling would go unchallenged, where fact-based reporting is eliminated, and where the field is abandoned to the likes of James O'Keefe, whose "journalism" relies on lying and deceit.

We agree with Joel Meares who, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, expressed the wish that NPR had stood up for themselves and released a statement close to the following: "Ron Schiller was a fundraiser who no longer works for us. He had nothing to do with our editorial decision making process. And frankly, our editorial integrity speaks for itself. We’ve got reporters stationed all over the world, we’ve won all sorts of prizes, we’ve got an ombudsman who is committed to examining our editorial operations. If you think our reporting is tainted, or unreliable, that’s your opinion, and you’re free to express it. And to look for the evidence. But we will not be intimidated by the elaborate undercover hackwork of vindictive political point-scorers who are determined to see NPR fail."

That’s our cue. Come on, people: Speak up!

Let's take his encouragment, and contact Congress to say we want a strong PBS and NPR - services for the public, supported by the public.

The reason the right's leadership hates them is simple: they want to control the media, so privatized propaganda paid for by the wealth has an ever-larger dominance of public opinion. These quality services, serving only the public when they work as set up and not the powerful interests, are a threat to corrupt power.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Fox and MSNBC is an utterly false equivalency. Their standards are far different.

*Of course* they are, 'cause Liar234 said so! All hail the all-knowing, all-seeing Liar234!

 

[FuzzyBee]

Commentary by Bill Moyers - who for the right's information, was the key or at least a key person who led to the creation of PBS and NPR - and one of his writers:



Let's take his encouragment, and contact Congress to say we want a strong PBS and NPR - services for the public, supported by the public.

The reason the right's leadership hates them is simple: they want to control the media, so privatized propaganda paid for by the wealth has an ever-larger dominance of public opinion. These quality services, serving only the public when they work as set up and not the powerful interests, are a threat to corrupt power.

Well, Michael Winship *is certainly* a center-based person. Is this where you get your "buh-buh-but Bush" talking points?