Juan Williams: Now it's time to defund NPR

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2011 7:18 PM GMT
    http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/150925-williams-now-i-want-them-to-defund-npr

    Even after they fired me, called me a bigot and publicly advised me to only share my thoughts with a psychiatrist, I did not call for defunding NPR. I am a journalist, and NPR is an important platform for journalism.

    But last week my line of defense for NPR ran into harsh political realities. Rep. Steve Israel (D- N.Y.) chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a fundraising letter with the following argument for maintaining public funding of NPR:

    “They [Republicans] know NPR plays a vital role in providing quality news programming — from rural radio stations to in-depth coverage of foreign affairs. If the Republicans had their way, we’d only be left with the likes of Glenn Beck, Limbaugh and Sarah Palin to dominate the airwaves.”
    With that statement, Congressman Israel made the case better than any Republican critic that NPR is radio by and for liberal Democrats. He is openly asking liberal Democrats to give money to liberal Democrats in Congress so they can funnel federal dollars into news radio programs designed to counter and defeat conservative Republican voices.

    Rep. Israel has unintentionally endorsed every conservative complaint about NPR as a liberal mouthpiece. And to me, as a journalist, it is also a statement of why NPR’s troubled management team has turned its fundraising efforts into a weapon to be used against its essential product — top quality, balanced reporting. No journalist should have to work with one finger in the political winds, anxiously waiting to see if Democrats continue to be pleased with what they hear on NPR as a counter to what they don’t like hearing from Rush Limbaugh.

    But, wait, there might be one better argument for ending federal funding of NPR.

    NPR’s top fundraiser, Ron Schiller, was caught on tape recently saying explicitly that “in the long run…[NPR is] better off without federal funding.”

    In fact, Rep. Israel might have added spice to his fundraising appeal directed at liberal Democrats by quoting Schiller’s praise of liberal Democrats. “In my personal opinion,” Schiller says on the tape, “liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives.”

    Betsy Liley, the director of institutional giving at NPR, is also heard on the tape saying that liberal billionaire George Soros has made it his business to subsidize NPR with as little fanfare as possible — that is to say to do it secretly.

    Liley’s revealing comment and Schiller’s arrogance are instructive because they provide a window in to the culture of elitism that has corroded NPR’s leadership. They're willing to do anything in service of any liberal with money. This includes firing me and skewing the editorial content of their programming. If anyone challenges them on this point, they will claim with self-righteous indignation to have cleaner hands than the rest of the news media who accepts advertising revenue or expresses a point of view.

    I'm not just talking about conservatives but also the far left, the poor — anybody who didn't fit into leadership's marketing design of NPR as the elitist voice of comfortable, liberal-leaning, highly educated, upper-income America.

    As for Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), it was not until he saw the secretly recorded videotape of NPR executives that he understood the extent of political bias at NPR. “Of all the data that we’ve seen, we still had not absorbed the culture of NPR until we saw the video of that dinner.” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor added: “Why should we allow taxpayer dollars to be used to advocate one ideology?”

    That dinner tape and the Democrat’s fundraising letter set the table for a totally partisan vote, with Republicans voting in opposition to public funding of NPR and Democrats voting for it. Last Thursday, 228 Republicans voted to defund NPR while seven Republicans joined with 185 Democrats to preserve it. The effort was largely symbolic as there is hardly any chance the Democrat-controlled Senate will go along with the House on this one. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is a huge NPR fan. When I was host of NPR’s afternoon talk show he once called me up to tell me how much he enjoyed an interview with soul singer Al Green. Sen. Reid is going to defend public radio.

    The Democrat in the White House, President Obama, issued a statement of opposition to the House vote but stopped short of promising to veto any budget that eliminates NPR funding. And the White House did not make the case for why NPR deserves funding.

    Before NPR top executive Vivian Schiller resigned, her goal for NPR was to increase federal support to create an American version of the British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC]. The BBC, which also began as a radio news service, is funded by a mandatory licensing fee paid by all British subjects. It is essentially a tax set by Parliament every year to support a national news operation.

    At the moment the government funding for NPR is only one of many sources of revenue and a very small one in the grand scheme. Arguably, the appropriators of federal dollars are more important to the local affiliates who depend on that money to buy public broadcasting programming. To my mind, this is the underlying problem that connects the hidden camera episode and the funding issue.

    Journalists should not be doing news to please any donors — private citizens, political parties or government officials — out of fear of losing funding.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2011 8:16 PM GMT
    It would be interesting to note just how much funding NPR/PBS receive from the federal government. Still contributions from the public are their biggest funding source.

    The question is does the government have an interest to maintain in funding NPR when it is not needed?

    http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2011 8:21 PM GMT
    Juan Williams violated his contract with NPR and was warned about it repeatedly. He's a stunning douche bag and Uncle Tom, who is also apparently without shame. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2011 8:25 PM GMT
    carminea saidIt would be interesting to note how much funding NPR/PBS receive from the federal government.


    The calculations are messy. According to the former CEO, it got about 10% of its budget from the Federal government:

    http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/07/ceo-vivian-schiller-defends-npr-against-budget-cuts/

    National Public Radio, renamed NPR under Schiller's watch to reflect its broader reach online, gets just 10 percent of its budget from the federal government. But it uses that money, she said, to leverage support from listeners, corporate underwriters and philanthropic foundations and individuals. [...] Democratic lawmakers have trotted out Big Bird to help preserve the $430 million the network receives annually


    But this is a bit misleading - I believe the $430 million is actually the entire budget devoted to all forms of public broadcasting (if you look elsewhere some claim it's as little as $5M). But within these budgets that are paid to local public stations, they also pay programming fees back to NPR. So it's really not an easy calculation. Juan Williams however refers to direct federal funding.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2011 8:27 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidJuan Williams violated his contract with NPR and was warned about it repeatedly. He's a stunning douche bag and Uncle Tom, who is also apparently without shame. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Except others violated the same terms of their contracts without the same consequences. Hence the claims of double standard and leaving NPR open to claims that he was fired for his views, not because of what he did.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2011 8:28 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    carminea saidIt would be interesting to note how much funding NPR/PBS receive from the federal government.


    The calculations are messy. According to the former CEO, it got about 10% of its budget from the Federal government:

    http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/07/ceo-vivian-schiller-defends-npr-against-budget-cuts/

    National Public Radio, renamed NPR under Schiller's watch to reflect its broader reach online, gets just 10 percent of its budget from the federal government. But it uses that money, she said, to leverage support from listeners, corporate underwriters and philanthropic foundations and individuals. [...] Democratic lawmakers have trotted out Big Bird to help preserve the $430 million the network receives annually


    But this is a bit misleading - I believe the $430 million is actually the entire budget devoted to all forms of public broadcasting (if you look elsewhere some claim it's as little as $5M). But within these budgets that are paid to local public stations, they also pay programming fees back to NPR. So it's really not an easy calculation. Juan Williams however refers to direct federal funding.

    The npr website, the link I noted above, shows that "While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce." It puts the governmental/state/local gov. funding at 5.8% FY08.
    http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2011 8:31 PM GMT
    carminea saidThe npr website, the link I noted above, shows that "While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce." It puts the governmental/state/local gov. funding at 5.8%.
    http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html


    I have to imagine that this is also a misleading number - otherwise why would they bother fighting so hard to maintain 5.8% of funding? They could just ask someone like Soros to cut a cheque or any number of wealthy foundations which I'm sure they'll do if funding gets cut off.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2011 8:36 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidJuan Williams violated his contract with NPR and was warned about it repeatedly. He's a stunning douche bag and Uncle Tom, who is also apparently without shame. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Are you familiar with his contract to be able to make such a statement? He claims he did not violate any terms of his contract, so how can you know otherwise? Furthermore, I recall him stating he was an Analyst, whereas Nina Tottenberg was a Reporter, who made highly biased statements. No problem with her because her bias was the "correct" bias.

    Again, contract specifics please.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2011 8:39 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidJuan Williams violated his contract with NPR and was warned about it repeatedly. He's a stunning douche bag and Uncle Tom, who is also apparently without shame. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Agreed. Anything Juan Williams says about NPR, having been fired by them for his unethical journalistic conduct, is clearly worthless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2011 8:40 PM GMT
    LOC said HR 1076 Prohibits federal funding to organizations incorporated for specified purposes related to: (1) broadcasting, transmitting, and programming over noncommercial educational radio broadcast stations, networks, and systems; (2) cooperating with foreign broadcasting systems and networks in international radio programming and broadcasting; (3) assisting and supporting such noncommercial educational radio broadcasting pursuant to the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967; (4) paying dues to such organizations; or (5) acquiring radio programs by or for the use of a radio broadcast stationthat is a public broadcast station as defined in the Communications Act of 1934.

    So programming from one station to the next that no private business or citizen is willing to fund can not be shown.
    How much money can the government really save from the paltry sum that NPR says it gets from the CPB?

    It does seem that while the NPR may get 5.8% from CPB, it's member stations also receive funding from the CPB. This probably is not counted among the 5.8%, and thus is probably a significant sum.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Mar 21, 2011 9:57 PM GMT
    carminea said
    LOC said HR 1076 Prohibits federal funding to organizations incorporated for specified purposes related to: (1) broadcasting, transmitting, and programming over noncommercial educational radio broadcast stations, networks, and systems; (2) cooperating with foreign broadcasting systems and networks in international radio programming and broadcasting; (3) assisting and supporting such noncommercial educational radio broadcasting pursuant to the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967; (4) paying dues to such organizations; or (5) acquiring radio programs by or for the use of a radio broadcast stationthat is a public broadcast station as defined in the Communications Act of 1934.

    So programming from one station to the next that no private business or citizen is willing to fund can not be shown.
    How much money can the government really save from the paltry sum that NPR says it gets from the CPB?

    It does seem that while the NPR may get 5.8% from CPB, it's member stations also receive funding from the CPB. This probably is not counted among the 5.8%, and thus is probably a significant sum.



    Its not much money(federal dollars). But thats not the point. The leadership there seemed fairly deliberate in there treatment of Juan Williams. So much so the CEO not only fired him, but she opined about talking with his psychiatrist.
    ( Did she expect love letters from the public about that comment?)
    What did happen was she received high fives from her liberal friends.


    Apparently your a a racist if you a man of color and dare speak outside your place within the liberal left. ( A load and shrill minority whose day has come and gone)

    The sum total at the end Juan Williams is left standing and NPR is a puddle on the floor after its board fired the CEO.

    Let someone like Soros Mrs Kerry or Ariana Huffington donate money for there programming.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2011 10:40 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidJuan Williams violated his contract with NPR and was warned about it repeatedly. He's a stunning douche bag and Uncle Tom, who is also apparently without shame. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Are you familiar with his contract to be able to make such a statement? He claims he did not violate any terms of his contract, so how can you know otherwise? Furthermore, I recall him stating he was an Analyst, whereas Nina Tottenberg was a Reporter, who made highly biased statements. No problem with her because her bias was the "correct" bias.

    Again, contract specifics please.


    I'm familiar with the reporting on his contract as well as the claim made by NPR management and corroborated by several sources that he was repeatedly warned that his comments were going beyond the scope of what he was permitted to say as a representative of NPR.

    In Tottenberg's case, I'm only familiar with a few of her statements and who among us didn't wish that Jesse Helms would get AIDS?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2011 10:42 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    carminea said
    LOC said HR 1076 Prohibits federal funding to organizations incorporated for specified purposes related to: (1) broadcasting, transmitting, and programming over noncommercial educational radio broadcast stations, networks, and systems; (2) cooperating with foreign broadcasting systems and networks in international radio programming and broadcasting; (3) assisting and supporting such noncommercial educational radio broadcasting pursuant to the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967; (4) paying dues to such organizations; or (5) acquiring radio programs by or for the use of a radio broadcast stationthat is a public broadcast station as defined in the Communications Act of 1934.

    So programming from one station to the next that no private business or citizen is willing to fund can not be shown.
    How much money can the government really save from the paltry sum that NPR says it gets from the CPB?

    It does seem that while the NPR may get 5.8% from CPB, it's member stations also receive funding from the CPB. This probably is not counted among the 5.8%, and thus is probably a significant sum.



    Its not much money(federal dollars). But thats not the point. The leadership there seemed fairly deliberate in there treatment of Juan Williams. So much so the CEO not only fired him, but she opined about talking with his psychiatrist.
    ( Did she expect love letters from the public about that comment?)
    What did happen was she received high fives from her liberal friends.


    Apparently your a a racist if you a man of color and dare speak outside your place within the liberal left. ( A load and shrill minority whose day has come and gone)

    The sum total at the end Juan Williams is left standing and NPR is a puddle on the floor after its board fired the CEO.

    Let someone like Soros Mrs Kerry or Ariana Huffington donate money for there programming.



    The psychiatrist comment was fucked up and Schiller should have paid the consequences for it. That doesn't mean that Williams was any less of a douche bag.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Mar 21, 2011 11:07 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidJuan Williams violated his contract with NPR and was warned about it repeatedly. He's a stunning douche bag and Uncle Tom, who is also apparently without shame. icon_rolleyes.gif



    I would have to agree. Juan Williams will suck up to anyone who will have him on their show. He's particularly Kiss-ASSish whenever he is a guest on "The O'Reilly Factor"... it's really hard to watch him pucker up and kiss O'Reilly's ass.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Mar 21, 2011 11:33 PM GMT
    Well what other metric do we have in the media.?

    Dan Rather was complacent with and seemed to tacitly endorse a fictitious news story about President Bush.

    Rather was not fired on the spot , nor was it suggested he see a psychiatrist. He stayed on for months at CBS.

    But NPR pulls some sort of unpublished and undisclosed violation of his contract as a reason for termination.

    NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard maintained that: "Williams tends to speak one way on NPR and another on Fox."[8]

    ^ a b "'Juan Williams, NPR, and Fox News'". NPR Ombudsman (blog). NPR. February 11, 2009. http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2009/02/juan_williams_npr_and_fox_news_1.html. Retrieved 2010-08-04.

    ( taken from wikipedia, as the comment was wiped from npr's website several weeks ago.)

    inst Juan a commentator? why is so worried about free speech and it being wiped out by losing funding, why should they be judging what he say?

    after Juan was fired the VP who fired him resigned, then the CEO was reprimanded.

    This doesn't seem like an organization worth spending one dime of the taxpayers money.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2011 11:43 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 saidJuan Williams violated his contract with NPR and was warned about it repeatedly. He's a stunning douche bag and Uncle Tom, who is also apparently without shame. icon_rolleyes.gif

    I would have to agree. Juan Williams will suck up to anyone who will have him on their show. He's particularly Kiss-ASSish whenever he is a guest on "The O'Reilly Factor"... it's really hard to watch him pucker up and kiss O'Reilly's ass.

    I can't disagree more emphatically. I have seen him over the years on O'Reilly's show, and he has frequently disagreed with O'Reilly very strenuously at times. I guess the thing he is now guilty of, which has elicited in my opinion a grossly unfair characterization, is he and O'Reilly happen to have the same opinion of NPR.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2011 11:52 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidJuan Williams violated his contract with NPR and was warned about it repeatedly. He's a stunning douche bag and Uncle Tom, who is also apparently without shame. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Are you familiar with his contract to be able to make such a statement? He claims he did not violate any terms of his contract, so how can you know otherwise? Furthermore, I recall him stating he was an Analyst, whereas Nina Tottenberg was a Reporter, who made highly biased statements. No problem with her because her bias was the "correct" bias.

    Again, contract specifics please.


    I'm familiar with the reporting on his contract as well as the claim made by NPR management and corroborated by several sources that he was repeatedly warned that his comments were going beyond the scope of what he was permitted to say as a representative of NPR.

    In Tottenberg's case, I'm only familiar with a few of her statements and who among us didn't wish that Jesse Helms would get AIDS?

    I think I've seen probably the same reporting as you. I think from all parties involved, there is agreement that there was some displeasure about Williams being on Fox, and that was discussed on a few occasions. But whether there were any contract violations was only stated as an opinion. I don't recall anyone with specific knowledge of the contract making any statements about his actions vis-a-vis specific provisions of the contract.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Mar 21, 2011 11:57 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 saidJuan Williams violated his contract with NPR and was warned about it repeatedly. He's a stunning douche bag and Uncle Tom, who is also apparently without shame. icon_rolleyes.gif

    I would have to agree. Juan Williams will suck up to anyone who will have him on their show. He's particularly Kiss-ASSish whenever he is a guest on "The O'Reilly Factor"... it's really hard to watch him pucker up and kiss O'Reilly's ass.

    I can't disagree more emphatically. I have seen him over the years on O'Reilly's show, and he has frequently disagreed with O'Reilly very strenuously at times. I guess the thing he is now guilty of, which has elicited in my opinion a grossly unfair characterization, is he and O'Reilly happen to have the same opinion of NPR.



    I agree with you...When Juan Williams was with NPR, he would go head to head with many people on the air -- O'Reilly, Hannity, whoever. But he has changed since he got fired from NPR...it made him more of a suck up.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 22, 2011 12:05 AM GMT
    I really don't understand Juan Williams's point that elitism has corroded the NPR. What type of balance is the NPR supposed to strike? Is it so wrong for them to think that certain ideas are so far-fetched that they are not worth entertaining? If the NPR wants to present the news in a respectable fashion with commentary that is framed in rationality and logic, is it their fault that it contradicts what you get with Fox News?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2011 12:09 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    socalfitness said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 saidJuan Williams violated his contract with NPR and was warned about it repeatedly. He's a stunning douche bag and Uncle Tom, who is also apparently without shame. icon_rolleyes.gif

    I would have to agree. Juan Williams will suck up to anyone who will have him on their show. He's particularly Kiss-ASSish whenever he is a guest on "The O'Reilly Factor"... it's really hard to watch him pucker up and kiss O'Reilly's ass.

    I can't disagree more emphatically. I have seen him over the years on O'Reilly's show, and he has frequently disagreed with O'Reilly very strenuously at times. I guess the thing he is now guilty of, which has elicited in my opinion a grossly unfair characterization, is he and O'Reilly happen to have the same opinion of NPR.



    I agree with you...When Juan Williams was with NPR, he would go head to head with many people on the air -- O'Reilly, Hannity, whoever. But he has changed since he got fired from NPR...it made him more of a suck up.

    I don't see him sucking up to anyone now. He and O'Reilly and Hannity just happen to have the same view of NPR.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 22, 2011 12:37 AM GMT
    But, wait, there might be one better argument for ending federal funding of NPR.

    BUT WAIT ....... icon_cool.gif

    Remember Shirley Sherod?
    Just like the Shirley Sherod tape

    That tape was heavily edited so much so that it Completely changed the meaning and context of what Mr Schiller said

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/npr-sting-tape-analysis-editing_n_835384.html

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/analysts-npr-video-edit-executive-mislea

    The context was left on the cutting room floor:
    Even if you approve of undercover reporting, says Scott Baker at The Blaze, "editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead" cross the line. For instance, when Schiller labels Tea Partiers "seriously racist people" — one of the tape's most publicized statements — it sounds as if he's voicing his own opinion. But, as the raw footage reveals, "he is largely recounting the views expressed to him by two top Republicans." This doesn't excuse Schiller, but it sheds more light on the situation.

    http://theweek.com/article/index/213142/were-the-npr-sting-tapes-misleadingly-edited

    So Dude .....
    This was amateur yellow journalism at best
    and worst of all you're perpetuating it because you're not looking at the WHY they're saying or doing it

    Again ... just because you Wish it were so ... ? Doesn't Make it so icon_neutral.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2011 2:33 AM GMT
    GQjock saidBut, wait, there might be one better argument for ending federal funding of NPR.

    BUT WAIT ....... icon_cool.gif

    Remember Shirley Sherod?
    Just like the Shirley Sherod tape

    That tape was heavily edited so much so that it Completely changed the meaning and context of what Mr Schiller said

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/npr-sting-tape-analysis-editing_n_835384.html

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/analysts-npr-video-edit-executive-mislea

    The context was left on the cutting room floor:
    Even if you approve of undercover reporting, says Scott Baker at The Blaze, "editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead" cross the line. For instance, when Schiller labels Tea Partiers "seriously racist people" — one of the tape's most publicized statements — it sounds as if he's voicing his own opinion. But, as the raw footage reveals, "he is largely recounting the views expressed to him by two top Republicans." This doesn't excuse Schiller, but it sheds more light on the situation.

    http://theweek.com/article/index/213142/were-the-npr-sting-tapes-misleadingly-edited

    So Dude .....
    This was amateur yellow journalism at best
    and worst of all you're perpetuating it because you're not looking at the WHY they're saying or doing it

    Again ... just because you Wish it were so ... ? Doesn't Make it so icon_neutral.gif


    I think it is remarkable that arguments like these are made despite the fact the original tapes have always been made available. The quotes pulled certainly are within context - perhaps minimized to a certain extent by statements made before and after but they are accurate. It's too bad other journalists do not release full reels of the interviews they do - and this I think is to the credit of James O'Keefe and Breitbart for setting a standard of transparency that others in the industry do not follow.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2011 3:57 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    GQjock saidBut, wait, there might be one better argument for ending federal funding of NPR.

    BUT WAIT ....... icon_cool.gif

    Remember Shirley Sherod?
    Just like the Shirley Sherod tape

    That tape was heavily edited so much so that it Completely changed the meaning and context of what Mr Schiller said

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/npr-sting-tape-analysis-editing_n_835384.html

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/analysts-npr-video-edit-executive-mislea

    The context was left on the cutting room floor:
    Even if you approve of undercover reporting, says Scott Baker at The Blaze, "editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead" cross the line. For instance, when Schiller labels Tea Partiers "seriously racist people" — one of the tape's most publicized statements — it sounds as if he's voicing his own opinion. But, as the raw footage reveals, "he is largely recounting the views expressed to him by two top Republicans." This doesn't excuse Schiller, but it sheds more light on the situation.

    http://theweek.com/article/index/213142/were-the-npr-sting-tapes-misleadingly-edited

    So Dude .....
    This was amateur yellow journalism at best
    and worst of all you're perpetuating it because you're not looking at the WHY they're saying or doing it

    Again ... just because you Wish it were so ... ? Doesn't Make it so icon_neutral.gif


    I think it is remarkable that arguments like these are made despite the fact the original tapes have always been made available. The quotes pulled certainly are within context - perhaps minimized to a certain extent by statements made before and after but they are accurate. It's too bad other journalists do not release full reels of the interviews they do - and this I think is to the credit of James O'Keefe and Breitbart for setting a standard of transparency that others in the industry do not follow.


    This is without a doubt the most ridiculous thing you've ever written here. That you could excuse the stunning lies and manipulation that make up the O'Keefe/Brietbart "oeuvre" is really scary.