He’s back.
Right-wing activist James O’Keefe‘s latest “work” is an undercover video that shows representatives from a fake Muslim charity trying to make a $5 million donation to NPR. The “Muslim” donors-to-be meet with two NPR development officers. In the ensuing conversation, as all the media coverage explains, one of the two–Ron Schiller–expresses critical views of Republicans and the far-right Tea Party.
Schiller is an NPR fundraiser, with no journalistic role there.While it wasn’t wise to share his personal views at a lunch, it is the sort of thing that people do all the time. So why does anyone care about this? Because O’Keefe–and countless other right-wing critics–want to show that NPR is a bastion of left-wing propaganda. They can’t do that by studying the content of NPR‘s broadcasts, but they can get a fundraiser to make disparaging comments about Tea Party conservatism–and, in so doing, force out NPR CEO Vivian Schiller.
The political motivation behind the hidden camera sting is clear enough–to spark more discussion about NPR‘s supposed bias, at a time when Republican politicians are looking to eliminate funding for public media. As an L.A. Times editorial put it (3/11/11):
National Public Radio long has attracted complaints from conservatives that it has a liberal tilt. By seeming to confirm that view, a senior NPR fundraising official has provided the network’s critics with undreamed-of ammunition. More than ever, NPR needs to remember its obligation as a recipient of government funds to be balanced and nonpartisan.
This is exactly what O’Keefe and those like him want. But anyone writing about what the video “seems to confirm” should hold themselves to a higher standard. Do the conservative criticisms of NPR‘s “liberal tilt” have any evidence to back them up?
FAIR’s2004 study of NPR, which looked at 2,334 quoted sources in 804 stories on four leading programs, provides one such examination (Extra!, 5-6/04)–and found nothing like that:
Elite sources dominated NPR‘s guestlist. These sources–including government officials, professional experts and corporate representatives–accounted for 64 percent of all sources.
Current and former government officials constituted the largest group of elite voices, accounting for 28 percent of overall sources, an increase of 2 percentage points over 1993. Current and former military sources (a subset of governmental sources) were 3 percent of total sources.
Professional experts–including those from academia, journalism, think tanks, legal, medical and other professions–were the second largest elite group, accounting for 26 percent of all sources. Corporate representatives accounted for 6 percent of total sources.
And on partisanship:
Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources–including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants–Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.
If NPR‘s main news shows have a bias, it is toward the elite.
The hidden camera video dwells on NPR‘s coverage of Israel/Palestine, with the “Muslim” donors cheering “National Palestine Radio” for being critical of Israel.This is a common argument heard from conservatives. So what’s the evidence? Seth Ackerman looked at coverage of deaths on either side of the conflict (Extra!, 11-12/01):
During the six-month period studied, NPR reported the deaths of 62 Israelis and 51 Palestinians. While on the surface that may not appear to be hugely lopsided, during the same time period 77 Israelis and 148 Palestinians were killed in the conflict. That means there was an 81 percent likelihood that an Israeli death would be reported on NPR, but only a 34 percent likelihood that a Palestinian death would be.
There are plenty of other examples that demonstrate NPR is not a left-wing outlet: Undercounting anti-war protests, a softball interview with Dick Cheney, distorted framing of the Mideast as being “calm” when only Palestinians are dying, a correspondent urging Israeli “retaliation” against Palestinians, hosting a “liberal media” discussion between conservatives Bernard Goldberg and William McGowan and two mainstream reporters, hosting healthcare “debates” between two former politicians who were both working for the health insurance industry, and allowing far-right bomb thrower David Horowitz to malign progressive historian Howard Zinn in an obituary piece. Just to name a few.
What about NPR‘s response to the controversy? Bill Moyers and Michael Winship write:
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!
Some of NPR‘s most prominent reporters and hosts did speak out–and they sent a very different message. In “An Open Letter from Journalists at NPR News,” they wrote:
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.
The letter adds, “Those comments have done real damage to NPR.”
That is beyond doubt. But the damage is made much worse by a media that treats O’Keefe’s “scoop” as if it reveals anything important.
O’Keefe’s big “get” is that a fundraiser will tell a prospective donor some of what he thinks he might want to hear. The fact that mainstream media have devoted so much attention to O’Keefe’s sting is proof that the corporate media aren’t that liberal at all.
Just last night they had a segment about the Wisconsin anti-union legislation and the had a Republican state senator on to talked for a good 5 minutes spouting anti-union nonsense, and to my shock they gave no counter points, questioned nothing, and HAD NO FOLLOW-UP with any union supporters. It was absurd. They didn’t have a Democratic state senator on, the head of any of the unions on, the head of national unions on, nothing…
Peter, Moyers and Winship speak of “editorial integrity”, yet you’ve just made a compelling case for the opposite.
The Vulcan in me would appreciate an explanation of that seeming contradiction.
And these NPR reporters and hosts talk about “respect” – for what largely amounts to the nationwide equivalent of the White Citizens Councils?
(Of which my daddy was a member way back when, and if he were around today, I have no doubt he’d find his way to Tea Bagdom.)
But beyond that, what’s unfathomable to me is that when some group offers you five million dollars, you don’t check ’em out? You don’t ask for some lit, or a website, or something?
That’s asking for trouble. And boy howdy, they got it, didn’t they?
I am nobody’s conservative, and never have been. However, the way in which NPR reports on Israel is most certainly biased. Whenever possible, the Israelis are referred to as the Jews. Not all Israelis are Jewish. When was the last time you heard the Palestinians referred to as the Muslims? That bias exists, not matter how many deaths NPR reported on whichever side of the issues. Like it or not, language matters.
As far as this mess with Mr. O’Keefe is concerned, he is one voice, he misspoke egregiously and did what will probably be long-lived damage to NPR. He provided red meat where there was none.
The claim that NPR refers “whenever possible” to Israelis as “the Jews” is patent nonsense. What they, and the rest of the media, do refer to frequently is “Jewish settlements”, because that’s precisely what they are – racist housing developments where people of a certain religion or ethnicity are not welcome. And of course they refer to the “Jewish state,” because that’s precisely how Israel refers to itself (thereby slandering world Jewry by implicitly involving them in the crimes of Israel).
As far as the “donation,” there’s one thing I don’t understand – why did the fundraiser refuse it? That’s what I saw reported, which seems utterly preposterous. If I work for an organization that needs money, and somebody offers me money that isn’t stolen or drug money, I’m taking it.
Rational Revolution–I heard that segment too! Robert Seigel was doing the interviewing. Absolutely dreadful. There whole coverage seemed committed to the idea that this was a little spat between the Democrats and the Republicans, and the protests were not of much importance. A perfect reminder of why I don’t give them anything during their fundraising drives.
What I can’t understand is why it should be considered a virtual crime for anyone at NPR, especially someone who is not an on-air personality, to express an opinion in private. As far as I can tell, it seems to be perfectly okay with Faux News if their talking heads say, on the air in prime time, the most foul things about anyone who does not hold the extreme far right views they are apparently paid to promulgate, including calling groups or individuals or the president racist.
Faux News megalo-personalities can even host political rallies and promote them on the air. Can you imagine the uproar if an NPR personality promoted their personal political â┚¬Ã…“grass rootsâ┚¬Ã‚ rally on air? Just to be safe, NPR people couldn’t even attend John Stewart’s rally, much less cover it, less they appear the least bit liberal or otherwise tainted (though I don’t believe NPR or any other media enforced any such stricture against Glenn Beck’s ego party).
The real crime is that O’Keefe is given media attention while being allowed to continue committing serial crimes with hidden cameras and fraudulent scenariosâ┚¬Ã‚¦
Yeah, I used to listen to NPR for a long time–until about 2004 or so, when liberal talk radio started it’s ascent. NPR started to really piss me off, what with it’s constant sucking up to the Right (remember the Clinton imbroglio?), but it seemed to get really, really worse after Dubya was “elected.” I haven’t listened for at least five years now, and I don’t miss it. It was getting bad then, and I know it’s awful now. Like so much of Corporate Media (and it is Corporate Media), they are scared shitless of the Right, and try to appease them at every turn. Either that, or many (most) of the folks who work there have internalised the mission statement and purpose of the status quo. A real bummer–there’s probably no chance to “rescue” NPR or the rest of “Public” broadcasting from the demagoguery and predations of the Right. Another good idea for our democracy killed by the right wing, out of stupidity and spite and greed.
“Editorial integrity”,my foot. If Joel meares has listened to nPR’s major news shows for the last ten years how can he claim “editorial integrity”? Or that the ombud is “committed to eaminig our Editorial operations”/ Unless it’s to insure that they square with WallSt. or the Pentagon.Unless Congress adopts FAIR’s prescription or something similar to it ,to solve the funding crisis, I honesly don’t care if NPR is starved of its funding. There’s nothing to preserve. I love public radio. Where is it?
Dana and Tim S: FB friend me. Ronald G. Linville
Excuse me, but let’s look the truth in the eye and talk about the elephant in the room. NPR is biased? So what ? Fox is biased, as are most of the media outlets run by the right. The right has no problem with the bias of Fox or other right wing news outlets. So this is just one more false case made by the right, with an underlying motive.
It’s just another ruse by the right with another agenda they refuse to be honest about. Their agenda, as we all know, is to stop public funding of news that’s based on facts,that tells the truth and in doing so, exposes the right for what it is, propagandistic fascism.
So what’s next? The right is going to after the few left wing news outlets that are still in business, until they’ve silenced every voice but their own?
Are we really going to stand for this??
One might think that NPR, in it’s response, instead of being totally defensive, might have considered aggressively pointing out that the “prankster” who tricked them is someone who’s been discredited previously, was involved in a break-in at a congresswoman’s office, should probably be in jail by now instead of continuing to run amok — and that all that is more significant than the fact that their fundraiser was unwise in his remarks.
And one might think that the media, in covering this story, might also have focused more on the disreputable prankster and less on the NPR dupe. (And by the way, was that NPR dupe so off the mark in attributing racism to al least some members of the Tea Party?)
“That’s our cue. Come on, people: Speak up!”
“Speak up” for yourself, Mr Hart.
I stopped supporting NPR when they stopped broadcasting Michael Harrington’s commentaries in the 1980’s. They have only moved hard-right since then easily equaling FOX in their enthusiasm for the invasions and brutality in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I thought that Mr. Schiller expressed a rather moderate characterization of the Tea party extremists.
NPR is like the Democratic party. They want to offend as few liberals as possible, while still managing to maintain a cozy relationship to the Corporate money stream. And it works pretty well for them. I know many who call themselves liberals who will support NPR and vote for Democrats because they don’t feel like they have any other options. They have a good argument… but it’s that very mindset that keeps the “center” constantly moving towards the right.
I don’t listen to NPR, and I don’t care what they say to anyone on secret tapes.
And yes, Mr. Barr, the Tea Party, as a group, is obviously racist. So is the Republican Party. The notion that that cannot be said out loud is absurd.
Both NPR and PBS are corporate loving phonies!
to call this weasel a conservative activist is a gift to breitbart and his little gangsters.
emily rooney called him the same on pbs’s greater boston show, and her news guests all generally were ready to shame npr for the undercover rightwing thuggery effects and for their handling of juan williams before that.
if public radio/tv can’t call this shenanigans a nasty,low-life trick, as it was, and if they can’t defend their own employees, don’t you have to ask why?
in any case, public broadcasting has become more than useless in my view, is already corporatized to a sickening level, and it looks like just another case of privatizing public assets.
now that cpb and pbs are already in the hands of the rightwing, taking away federal money will just make it easier for them to do whatever they want with our airwaves.
the people “running the show” for our public broadcasting system need to be investigated.
if they’re all rightwing zealots at the top, which i suspect they are, then this latest little show put on by “conservative activists” is hardly the main story, and is just another distractor from the biggest stories of all which are not being shown on any tv station in an intelligent format.
these “conservative activists” , like karl rove himself, should be arrested and prosecuted for all the harm and suffering they cause to thousands of innocent and good people- for years now!
It’s absolutely not true that NPR refers to Jewish Israelis as “the Jews”. That is a phrase I notice because it frequently (not always) says something about how that person feels about Jews. NPR reporters seem to use the term Jews when it is relevant to the story, for example, when talking about relations between Jews and Arabs in a particular town or something (and no, it’s not anti-Semitic to use Arab and Jew as counterparts because they are both terms for ethnic groups, not just religions).
I agree that NPR should call this what it is…a guy with no editorial power at NPR airing his opinions at the wrong time. Maybe he was pandering to the guys. He probably already had his new job lined up and may not have been trying to be as professional as he should. Or maybe he was always like that. Who cares? People are allowed to have personal opinions and there is no reason to think that he influences or reflects an editorial bias.
In retrospect FAIR should have emphasized that O’Keefe is completely duplictitous and unreliable. Thanks to Glenn Beck, we know the relevance of that to this case as well as all the others: http://wonkette.com/440468/glenn-becks-website-reveals-npr-lunch-video-was-edited-to-ruin-npr. It says loads about the ‘liberal bias’ of NPR that it was Glenn Beck, not NPR, that broke the news that NPR had been punked.
Today the NY Times comically claimed that the 430 million NPR receives (about, oh… 1/70th of one percent of the federal budget?) is important to those trying to trim the deficit: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/masters-of-deception/
Remember when all the air waves were considered “public?” When they didn’t belong to anybody, but to everybody? What a long time ago that seems now…
I’m thinking about the up side if NPR and PBS are defunded by the repuglicans in Congress. I feel bad about the cultural hit that PBS will take, However, if the progressives will just step in and start to fund NPR and PBS seriously – perhaps we can turn them into the ‘liberally biased’ channels that the Repugs accuse them of being. Perhaps NPR can AT LAST start telling the truth about FOX propaganda – and about being forced to bring war lords on the programs in order to not appear to be against the wars of aggression our country has waged – in order to control world oil and in order to keep our military industrial complex in the big bucks. What a DELIGHT it would be to have truly left wing programming that stretched across the country and enlightened the hinterlands about the fact that SOCIALISM is a GOOD thing and that unregulated Capitalism is an evil and brings out the worst in people. What a pleasure to hear Noam Chomsky lecture to the nation about what is happening to our country. What a pleasure to hear a nationwide castigation of the Pam Geller’s and Peter King’s and Gov, Walker’s in our country – who destroy the best values that American is built upon. Perhaps the perspective the left should have is: Get NPR and PBS out from under the clutches of the conservatives!!!
I forgot to mention – now that I’ve navigated the passwords and such – that it would have been great if some talk show host had asked Juan Williams how he would feel if some NPR guest said – quite honestly and benignly – that he just couldn’t help feeling uncomfortable whenever a person of color – a black man especially – sat next to him on a plane – even in first class. He just couldn’t nap comfortably fearing that the black seatmate next to him (no matter how well-dressed his seat mate was) would be trying to steal his wallet and his cash – or whatever else was left unattended.
And I wondered, how Roger Ailes would have reacted if one of the blond bombshell commentators on Bill O’Reilly’s program were to admit in a moment of candor, that she could NEVER feel comfortable on a plane sitting next to some big, old, obese, rich guy – even in first class, because she always expected to get pawed or pinched whenever she closed her eyes. Would Ailes mind if blondie said that she knows there must be some nice old rich guys but she can never help being totally uncomfortable sitting next to a big, obese rich guy, knowing that the old blimp will always get around to a heavy-breathing, foul smelling come-on sometime before the trip is over!
Nice, Mary Lou, nice. The reason NPR doesn’t defend itself against the predations and lies of the the sociopath Right is because it fears them. The fight, as it were, went out of NPR and “public” media a long time ago, at least since they started to beg the Corporate world for money. Of course the CEO resigned (immediately!)–that’s how liberals roll. Cave immediately, even with the truth on your side, because above all, don’t piss off the sociopaths. God only knows what they might say, and who wants to have Rush Limbaugh take your name in vain, even if only for one news cycle?
Unfortunately, NPR is tool old, ossified, and comprised of too many NE/Intellectual types.
Don’t get me wrong about the statement about NE intellectual types. I have found working with people from the NE that are educated, there is a certain arrogance towards the rest of the country they don’t see.
They also don’t like confrontation. They are living in a world where they walk on eggshells when crap is being thrown at them.
Frankly, they need to find some progressive from places like Texas, Oklahoma, and yes California that aren’t afraid to stab a finger in the eye of Faux news once in awhile.
Stop rolling over NPR. We get your ‘unbias’ and your ‘niceness’ rather well. Me thinks you need to roll up your sleeves and throw a few punches back at the bast#rds….
Remember who is funding the call to get government out of public radio and tv. Who is paying the Republican army? They would love to see any sort of fairness mandate (such as it is) lifted. Without government input we’re more likely to see Rush in there than Chomsky.
It’s not government support that keeps NPR from being able to say anything liberal, much less fear of Rush. It’s corporate funding. This is why the CEO has to resign immediately and everyone there needs to walk on eggshells. They can’t afford to offend their big sponsors. Ordinary people may be able to replace most of the government input (which is relatively small), but no amount of public support could ever replace the corporate bucks that have made NPR the giant that it is.
I propose that the word “breitbart” become a verb meaning “to distort” or “to misrepresent.”
I propose that the word “o’keefe” become an adjective meaning the opposite of “okay.” For example: “Is it okay, or is it o’keefe?”
If anything, NPR has bent backward NOT to be biased towards the Left. If anything they have started tilting towards the right. But thank God, they are not FOX–where opinon passes as fact, and entertainment passes as news!
This is typical for FOX–just last week three rich White people were on a opinion show claiming that Rich people should pay less taxes because they provide all the jobs. According to one right wing rich guy–10% of the richest people pay 30% of all taxesQ He looked hurt and pained because of his tax burden. And forgetting to mention the fact that his people already make 90% of all wealth, sharing just 10% for all of the rest of the 90% of Americans. And guess what, corporate America is not generating employment, either. They are laying people off in the aggregate.
Then one of them states, “oh lets face it, America is not like other countries–everybody has their big screen TV!” Oh come on! How can this even pass as the news when all of the evidence as well as common sense (a recession, homelessness, forclosures) scream that this talk show was a misrepresentation and an outright lie. (And three commentators, right wing, medium right wing, and very, very right wing! A liberal commentaor to provide balance? IN YOUR DREAMS!
If TV anchors are that ignorant and out of touch, they don’t deserve to be on TV or radio! NPR in my opinon is the only network that deserves government funding. Its not perfect, it is tilting toward the right with all other media in America, but it is our best hope right now–NPR brings the others to shame! NPR STAND UP FOR YOURSELF!
Whether catching people on the right, or the left with their “pants down”-the goal has to be to CATCH these rascals showing their true spots.It was a great sting.I love these” actors”taking it upon themselves to put some egg on the face of some very deserving people. Today it was NPR execs. Tomorrow it could be Sarah Palin.Bill from Mars or Rush.Lesson learned is a simple one.Keep it clean boys and girls.Always somebody watching these days.
James O’Keefe shames Rutgers University with each of his disingenuous “exposes”.
okeefe is a fraud and should be jailed for his slander. has anything he produced stood the test of scrutiny and not been shown to be heavily edited and a fraud? why the “liberal” media takes anything he does seriously is beyond me.
Ron and Ob
Slander /defamation of character is an interesting charge. Problem is if Okeefe is telling the truth(shown through a video or tape),the charge is null and void.Now if he edited the tape, he will be charged.My bet is he did not.And will not…be charged.This is an easy one.He is now under heavy scrutiny.We will soon see if it was a clean sting or not.
Even Glenn Beck’s website wrote the tapes were edited and things were taken out of context
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/
Edited as in….. to change content.Editing out 10 minutes talking about how is your big mack is not editing.As of now there are no Charges.It is sticking. Obviously.They were fired
Here’s one example of what the Blaze found
The narrator notes that the MEAC website includes this phrase: â┚¬Ã…“We must combat intolerance to spread acceptance of Sharia across the world.â┚¬Ã‚Â
After saying that the MEAC website advocates the â┚¬Ã…“acceptance of Sharia,â┚¬Ã‚ the video cuts to the NPR exec saying, â┚¬Ã…“Really? That’s what they said?â┚¬Ã‚ The cadence is jovial and upbeat and the narration moves on. The implication is that the NPR exec is aware and perhaps amused or approving of the MEAC mission statement. But when you look at the raw video you realize he was actually recounting an unrelated and innocuous issue about confusion over names in the restaurant reservation.
Yeah I have seen the cuts,and some are lets say misleading.I have also seen the whole tape.It is one of those things where duplicity was not needed.They convicted themselves.Hence they were released.
Schiller really didn’t say anything outrageous……
For example, right before he made the comment that teabaggers tend to be racist and xenophobic he said “Now I’ll talk personally, as opposed to wearing my NPR hat….I grew up a Republican, and am proud of that, even though I’ve voted mostly Democratic lately. I like the Republican Party in terms of fiscal conservatism and the fact that the Republican Party of old really believed that government has no role in personal lives, in family lives, and that government is really about other things.”
Kevin Drum asks the right question “Why should it be a fireable offense for an NPR executive to take a political position in a private conversation.”
When did the GOP turn into the PC police?
When their feelings get hurt, of course.
And don’t forget, Schiller had already announced he was leaving NPR before this deceptive tape was released.
As for CEO Schiller [no relation], if we fired every boss in the country for the sin of hiring somebody who says things someone else finds stupid or offensive, we wouldn’t have anyone running anything.
Following searching at the time and effort that you have put on your blog and the detailed facts that you have posted, i like it.