Final-cut pro.
March 14, 2011, 4:12 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
Everything you need to know about the latest O’Keefe video sting was explained during the sixth season of The Simpsons:
Wow, looks like Breitbart learned well from the old “60 Minutes” frauds, whose distortions and editing of interviews were notoriously unscrupulous.
Regardless of the editing, the interview simply confirms the long-presumed elitist disdain NPR holds for the conservatives who help pay for their programming.
Oh please, O’Keefe has made the entire video available to the press. If there was explanatory “context” the NYT et al would be all over it. Exactly what part of the Tea Partiers are a bunch of racists and Republicans are anti-intellectual and backword did we not understand. The reality is that conservatives don’t care that they have these opinions at NPR. We know they do. This is just proof. What we do object to is the claim that they are entitled to feed at the public trough while claiming “objectivity.”
Interesting how when some dirtbag (and I use the word intentionally) calls Scott Walker pretending to be one of the Koch brothers and succeeds in nothing more than getting him to talk, it is the political gag of the century. And this guy just dangles some dollar bills in front of some gullible NPR execs and exposes them to be the left wing nuts they are, and suddenly this sort of trikery is shocking and dismaying.
Sean, I’m awfully surprised to see you making the argument “if there were any truth to this, the New York Times would have reported it.” And I’m also surprised to have to tell you that you have too much faith in “the NYT et al.” Exposing O’Keefe as a liar is something they have demonstrated no aptitude for (which is why most people still believe he actually went into an ACORN office dressed in that ridiculous “pimp” costume, for example). The fact that his latest “sting” involves deceptive claims and deceptive editing should surprise no one who’s been paying attention to his track record so far. The fact that “the NYT et al” have not said so is, again, no surprise. The whole operation relies on people taking sides without checking out the goods. In fact, in this case, from what I understand, it was someone attached to a web site belonging to Glenn Beck who first took the trouble of exposing exactly how deceptively these particular videos had been edited, once the raw material was available.
Mollie, yes, commentators at the Beck-related site, The Blaze, are making a lot of friends among “left wing nuts” like Mother Jones and the Columbia Journalism Review.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blaze-scrutiny-of-npr-expose-videos-draws-extensive-media-reaction/
(Schiller, the disgraced fundraiser for NPR, btw, appears to be a conservative who resents the way the Tea Party reflects poorly on the GOP.)
What bothers me most about some comments here is the implication that perceived immoral tactics used by “liberal” media like “60 Minutes” makes it OK for O’Keefe to engage in the same immoral tactics. That’s hardly the moral high ground … and not too long a step from killing abortionists and blowing up their clinics.
“… and not too long a step from killing abortionists and blowing up their clinics.”
Excuse me? Sorry, my head is spinning from that rhetorical leap. Goodness. One moment we are posing as a front group for radical Islam, the next moment we are murdering abortionists?
It’s no more acceptable for O’Keefe to use deceptive tactics (if he did so) than for 60 Minutes to do so. The point is that this post attempted to discredit the fact of NPR liberal bias which was uncovered simply because that knowledge was allegedly obtained via fraudulent means. The moral merits of those means can be debated, but the fact of liberal bias now documented at NPR is undeniable. Far past time to defund CPB.
“Schiller, the disgraced fundraiser for NPR, btw, appears to be a conservative who resents the way the Tea Party reflects poorly on the GOP.”
I actually made a good faith effort to back up this claim, with no success. I know it is somewhat rude to demand it, but given that your claim is wildly counterintuitive, I’m afraid we’ll need some sort of citation. A conservative fundraiser for NPR? Are there also liberal fundraisers for the NRA?
I sure could go for a gummy de milo right about now.
Flanagan, Schiller identified himself as Republican in the full two-hour transcript of O’Keefe’s video. Or, draw your own conclusions from his exact quote: “I grew up a Republican and am proud of that even though I’ve voted mostly Democratic lately.”
In my view, he identified himself as a Republican when he said NPR would ultimately be better off without government funding.
Moreover, Schiller is FUNDRAISER, not a REPORTER or EDITOR, and he made it quite clear that there is a firewall between the fundraising/advertising and editorial wings of NPR.
Yes, my comments about killing abortion doctors took the argument to extreme lengths and lacks nuance. Mea culpa.
But if Hannaway is going to gloat about O’Keefe hoisting the left on its own petard of “undercover” journalism–at least that’s how I construe his comments–that seems to me to be a nod to the tactics of deceit. And if it’s OK to hammer our enemies with the same weapons they use on us, then where does one draw the line in the culture wars? Why NOT killing abortion doctors and blow up clinic workers; they’re killing babies.
In short, such comments lack the moral content I, as a Bad Catholic, try to emulate from the Good Catholics on here.
Have a real nice day!
draw your own conclusions from his exact quote: “I grew up a Republican and am proud of that even though I’ve voted mostly Democratic lately.”
We might draw the same conclusions from the claim from that well-known conservative and member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, Hillary Clinton, that she grew up as a “Goldwater girl.”
Bender, you are, of course, free to assume that anyone who works for NPR but claims to be a Republican is a liar. Whether that’s in line with Church teaching on charity is, of course, debateable. As a Bad Catholic, I would not presume to preach to anybody on this point.
FWIW – I don’t think it’s a sin to be a conservative or a liberal. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that NPR employs people of a conservative bent.
I don’t rejoice when anyone loses their job, particularly in this economy. Whatever Schiller’s title and job description were, I suspect that taking people to lunch and returning to the office with donor check in hand was high up on the list of things he was expected to do. Making oneself agreeable to lunch companions is usually part and parcel of that task. I don’t think he should be fired for whatever it was that he said or that O’Keefe’s editors made him say.
What surprises and disappoints me is the extent to which the Tea Party is feared and loathed. Progressives seem to find in the Tea Party something sinister and unfathomable. I don’t get it.
Beware the Ides of March!!!!
“The nation was left reeling yesterday by the revelation that the presidential election of 2008 was a hoax. The shocking announcement came when White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters that Barack Obama has been working in secret with conservative provocateur James O’Keefe since 2007.”
http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/15/us-stung-by-latest-undercover
“What surprises and disappoints me is the extent to which the Tea Party is feared and loathed. Progressives seem to find in the Tea Party something sinister and unfathomable. I don’t get it.”
Maybe because of the fear and loathing that Tea Partiers exhibit toward progressives and liberals?
I’ve been to the TP rallies locally, and they are a very mixed bag of folks. One or two of them are obnoxious and rude, perhaps, but most are struggling, decent business people who want to see much-needed tax reform in Michigan. I don’t agree with them about a lot of things, but certainly, at the local level, there’s common ground.
At the national level, I can’t say I find the flag waving, tricorn hat wearing, and “take back our country; don’t tread on me” sloganeering particularly appealing. But, then, wearing funny hats and yelling “Hell, no, we won’t go” probably wasn’t appealing to a wide swath of America 40 years ago.
FWIW to Flanagan, who couldn’t conceive of a Democrat fundraising for the NRA, it’s interesting to note that Gabrielle Giffords was a member. I presume she pays dues that raises money for the organization.
Guess I missed it, but where, exactly, was the evidence establishing that the journalistic practices of NPR News are politically biased?? I’d happily go through transcripts of “All Things Considered” and “Morning Edition” line by line sniffing for that ol’ Left-Wing Conspiracy, but I don’t think there’s any there there. Until reportage has been demonstrated to be systematically slanted to the Left, why should I care about some fundraiser’s silly statements? It’s a long-standing truism that journalists tend to be more liberal in their personal political outlooks than the general population–that’s true everywhere (even at Fox!). Without evidence demonstrating what is aired is unduly affected by personal ideology, so what? Seems to me the biggest undue influence on news production comes from market forces, which incline for-profit news toward coverage supportive of a particular (non-left) ideology.
Thank God for James O’Keefe and his brilliant skewering of the far left’s fatuous moonbattery.
Mary, good point. While I have risen to Flanagan’s challenge to prove that Schiller claimed to be a Republican, I wait in vain for his evidence that NPR has a left-wing bias.
However, you need not go through transcripts; NPR already has an ombudsman who investigates charges of bias and reports on them periodically on “Talk of the Nation.” Listeners, even the ones who hate NPR, are allowed to call in and bitch her out. These programs are always lively and thought-provoking.
I doubt, however, that these safeguards our conservative friends; my guess is that they’ll say the ombudsman is a dupe and an apparatchik of National Pinko Radio.
Unlike conservative talk radio, of course, where fat loudmouths make unsubstantiated claims, cry, have no ombudsmen, and screen and reduce callers to dittoheads. I can only assume that’s where thread crappers learn such high-flown insults as “fatuous moonbattery.”
Anyhoo, most of this “discussion,” with the thoughtful exception of my friend Jim Pauwel’s comment, suggests to me that the right holds the left to a far higher standard of conduct and responsibility than it does themselves.
EDIT: I doubt, however, that these safeguards ADD WILL SATISFY our conservative
“I’ve been to the TP rallies locally, and they are a very mixed bag of folks. One or two of them are obnoxious and rude, perhaps, but most are struggling, decent business people who want to see much-needed tax reform in Michigan. I don’t agree with them about a lot of things, but certainly, at the local level, there’s common ground.”
Yes, that’s my impression as well.
“FWIW to Flanagan, who couldn’t conceive of a Democrat fundraising for the NRA, it’s interesting to note that Gabrielle Giffords was a member.”
I think Howard Dean is a hunter as well, isn’t he?
Let me state upfront that I support government funding for NPR and PBS. If any of y’all happened to catch the “Les Miserables” 25th anniversary special that has been running during spring pledge drives on PBS stations this month, then you might have seen me – I’m the dorky-looking guy in the Loyola sweatshirt taking pledge calls during the pledge breaks.
I do think that quite a bit of NPR programming caters to a liberal-leaning audience. At least the programming I listen to semi-regularly, like “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me” and “A Prairie Home Companion”. I’m not a listener to “Living on Earth” but to the extent that I’ve heard it, my impression is that it is written by liberals for liberals on a liberal topic. On the other hand, “Car Talk” strikes me as pretty non-partisan, except for their bias against former wives.
I’m not a regular listener to NPR’s news broadcasts, but the news copy doesn’t strike me as exhibiting a marked bias. My personal impression is that they do select some feature topics that would appeal to a liberal audience. But … that is their audience, so perhaps that is what they should be doing? Whether, as a publicly funded entity, they should be working harder to appeal to a broader audience is an interesting question.
What I like about NPR is that their content seems to be more intelligent and cultured (and calm!) than what is available on Clear Channel radio stations, or divisive (almost all conservative) political talk radio. It may be that people with liberal tendencies (of which I possess one or two) are attracted to that kind of a station.
“My personal impression is that they do select some feature topics that would appeal to a liberal audience.”
An interesting and possibly valid observation; can you offer examples of topics that would appeal to liberals you’ve heard on NPR. Also think that you have to make a distinction–as you have–between entertainment and news (e.g., “Morning Edition” v. “PHC”).
Too bad that “intelligent” and “cultured” can unfortunately be too easily conflated with “liberal.” I fail to see how Prairie Home Companion is designed to appeal to liberals. I guess I missed the Brokeback Mountain subtext on last week’s “Life of the Cowboys.” As others have noted, the argument (such that it is) from politicians has been that NPR/PBS news coverage is systematically politically biased to the Left. I’ve yet to see evidence supporting that claim.
“I guess I missed the Brokeback Mountain subtext on last week’s “Life of the Cowboys.” ”
No, I don’t hear much liberal-targeted humor in “life of the Cowboys” or “Guy Noir, Private Eye” either, for that matter. But Keillor does do bits that take jabs at Republicans from time to time, in his small-town-polite way, and his audience seems to enjoy them. Perhaps to the liberal antennae that’s just mainstream, non-partisan humor.
Jean, I’ll try to listen to the afternoon news package later today and see if it bears out my impression. I haven’t listened to NPR news for some time and don’t have any fresh examples.
“Too bad that “intelligent” and “cultured” can unfortunately be too easily conflated with “liberal.””
Outside of large urban markets, NPR stations seem to be based largely in college towns (just my impression), and a lot of colleges do seem to attract people who are intelligent and liberal.
I suppose, if NPR had a lot of programming that was targeted to appeal to intelligent conservatives, a lot of their current listeners in college towns would stop listening.
“Jean, I’ll try to listen to the afternoon news package later today and see if it bears out my impression. I haven’t listened to NPR news for some time and don’t have any fresh examples”
Ok, reporting back: I was able to listen from 5:30 pm until a little after 6 pm EDT today. Wedged in there among the in-depth report on Bahrain, the interview with Steven Pearlstein, and that NPR specialty, the report on the death of a hip hop artist that nobody (or at least I) had ever heard of, was a sunny little puff piece at 5:45 on a solar energy success story – some guy that seems to have come up with a solar energy collection system that is workable, efficient and economical.
I will crawl out on a limb and predict that such a story appeals to liberal listeners of NPR. :-)
What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nate Dogg was a damn genius. Regulate is one of the most important hip hop songs EVER!!!!!!!!
Mr. Pauwels: Is it possible that a meaningful distinction might be drawn between “political bias” and “appeal”? I wouldn’t conclude a story about NASCAR or country music is necessarily evidence of an ideological slant to the Right, even if such stories might be more attractive to a demographic more likely to vote Republican. And if Republicans (not you personally, of course) have gotten to the point where the mere presence of people talking about alternate energy must be a sign the Lefties are nearby, we’ve got bigger problems than public funding for NPR/PBS. Regardless, though I appreciate the effort you put in, I remain unpersuaded that there’s a systematic bias in the stories,and reportage. Cheers!
Abe is my new Commonweal best friend, but please do not read his posts if you are drinking hot coffee.
Jim and Mary, thanks for the back and forth about bias in story selection. There’s an easier way to look at this, which is by going to NPR.org and looking at the titles and thumbnails from yesterday’s “All Things Considered.” I guess you could find some granola in the solar power piece, but Bender and Flanagan would have to tell us whether that’s enough to cut government funding for NPR. Or provide further proof of liberal reportage bias. Still waiting …
Resilience of Japanese people in face of disasters
Hunt for jobs by the long-term unemployed
Review of a book about the wilderness
Pentagon’s proposal to make vets pay more for health care
Some guys who write songs about baseball
Feature on hopes of Libyan rebels
Update on Raymond Davis release
Worries about nuclear power in California
Solar energy
Efforts to cool damaged reactors in Japan
Clinton visits Egyptian protest site
Libyan rebels lose ground
Durbin on stop-gap spending
Florida mayor recalled
Gadhafi forces push east
Remembering Nate Dogg
Hi, Abe, the things I don’t know about popular music would fill the world’s largest book, but my impression to this point is that the terms “Hip Hop” and “importance” should always and everywhere be separated by the phrase “is of no”. :-)
Hi, Mary, I don’t carry a GOP membership card, although admittedly one of my children refers to me as a “Republican in denial”. As I stated already, I don’t think NPR’s news copy exhibits a ton of liberal bias. I do think its audience tends to be liberal, and I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that a lot of their writers, producers and on-air talent are progressive, and so, quite naturally, they come up with some content that appeals to that audience. So I think we’re agreeing.
Conservatives, if they took the trouble, could probably identify five to 10 things that were dumb or offensive about that solar energy story – the one that is top-of-mind is its casual mention of California’s law that 1/3 of its energy must come from renewable sources by 2020. That would be the grist for *a lot* of conservative commentary :-). And of course there is its juxtaposition with the events of the day, i.e. the literal nuclear meltdown in Japan.
And NPR’s liberal bias was news to — who again?