- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 1,497
- Reaction score
- 757
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Further Analysis Finds Deceptive Editing In Sting Tape, As NPR Gains An Unlikely Defender
Last week, a Project Veritas "sting" operation directed at National Public Radio cost some NPR executives their jobs. Beginning with Senior Vice President for Fundraising Ron Schiller, who was depicted on tape disparaging the Tea Party movement and suggesting that NPR should move away from federal funding (a position with arguable merit, but probably very unpopular at NPR), the fallout eventually cost NPR CEO Vivian Schiller her job as well.
That's sort of the NPR way: when one of the humans under their employ gets in trouble for expressing their opinions, everyone starts panicking and people start getting fired. Further analysis of the original video, however, demonstrates the wisdom of the old maxim, "act in haste, repent in leisure."
Glenn Beck-branded website The Blaze may seem an unlikely defender of NPR, but when the site's editor, Scott Baker, and video production specialist, Pam Key, examined the raw footage, they found "questionable editing and tactics" and reported them all out. The observations they make in their analysis include the following:
-- The video "does not explain how the NPR executives would have a basis to believe they were meeting with a Muslim Brotherhood front group," and indeed "includes a longer section of description that seems to downplay connections of the MEAC group to the Muslim Brotherhood as popularly perceived."
-- The video is edited to make it appear that Ron Schiller "is aware and perhaps amused or approving of the MEAC['s]" advocacy for Sharia law, but Schiller's "Really? That's what they said?" remark is actually made in reference to "confusion" involving the "restaurant reservation."
-- Schiller is actually complimentary of Republicans, and prefaces his criticism of the Tea Party by indicating that it's his own opinion, not NPR's. (Plenty of conservatives and Tea Party activists have averred that NPR has treated them fairly.) Baker also finds footage in which Schiller and director of institutional giving Betsy Liley express a hesitancy to disparage the "education of conservatives" and defend "intellects of Fox News viewers."
NPR's Dave Folkenflik and Mark Memmott add their own reporting to this:
Al Tompkins, a senior faculty member for broadcasting and online at the Poynter Institute, says to David that he tells his children there are "two ways to lie. One is to tell me something that didn't happen. And the other is not to tell me something that did happen." After comparing O'Keefe's edited tape to the longer version, "I think that they employed both techniques in this," Tompkins says.
One "big warning flag" Tompkins saw in the shorter tape was the way it made it appear that Schiller had laughed and commented "really, that's what they said?" after being told that the fake Muslim group advocates for sharia law. In fact, the longer tape shows that Schiller made that comment during an "innocuous exchange" that had nothing to do with the supposed group's position on sharia law, David reports.
Tompkins also says that O'Keefe's edited tape ignores the fact that Schiller said "six times ... over and over and over again" that donors cannot buy the kind of coverage they want on NPR.
Per Memmott, Project Veritas' James O'Keefe continues to maintain that their video is "very honest." It's easy to see why: the effects of his "sting" operation manifested themselves in several public firings, so he can couch his claims -- however dubious they may be -- in the fact that NPR's response was a de facto acceptance of the video's premise.
Which is why organizations like NPR shouldn't freak right the hell out and start firing people until all the facts are known. Had NPR just waited, they'd have Ron Schiller and his perfectly protean opinions on the Tea Party headed to the Aspen Institute, and Vivian Schiller citing the Project Veritas video's content and NPR's own coverage as a demonstration of NPR's editorial integrity. But they decided to go in a different direction.
Glenn Beck's Web Site Questions Attack on NPR - NYTimes.com
The report criticizes editing techniques used to paint a harsher portrait of Ronald Schiller, the NPR executive who was captured on the video calling Tea Party members racists. It suggests that the complete video footage, while not exonerating Mr. Schiller, presents his views in a context that lessens the impact of his most critical comments.
The editor of The Blaze, Scott Baker, who identified himself as “a conservative Evangelical Christian,” said he examined the video because as a longtime television journalist, he has fundamental questions about the ethics of journalists misrepresenting themselves while seeking to expose an individual or organization. In addition, he said, he and the video editor he worked with, Pam Key, had “concerns about how previous videos were executed” by Mr. O’Keefe.
Mr. O’Keefe gained notoriety in conservative circles in 2009 for a video purporting to show improprieties by the Acorn organization. Those videos were later found to be heavily slanted in editing.
Mr. Baker said the NPR videos were similarly slanted, citing six instances when the raw video showed Mr. Schiller’s statements were either taken out of context, edited to show him in the worst light, or cleansed of statements that could have been seen as more conciliatory to Republicans and conservatives.
He also cited two instances when the video was edited in a way to eliminate whatever was being said at those moments.
In a telephone interview, Mr. Baker said he questioned whether it was proper for any journalist to go undercover to get a story unless it dealt with the potential for serious personal jeopardy, citing efforts to catch child predators, for example. He said he had reservations about efforts conceived with a purpose to wreck the career of an individual or undermine an institution that the journalist did not like.
While Mr. O’Keefe has been labeled a political trickster by some, Mr. Baker noted that Mr. O’Keefe labels himself a journalist.
It doesn't change what he said about NPR not needing the funding or the things he said about the tea party. It doesn't change what he said about there not being enough elites. What an arrogant dickhead.
It doesn't change what he said about NPR not needing the funding or the things he said about the tea party. It doesn't change what he said about there not being enough elites. What an arrogant dickhead.
6. Does NPR need federal funding?
Let’s look now at one of the other sections most featured in news reports about the original video — the comments about federal funding for NPR.
Schiller says that NPR, “in the long run,” would be better off without federal funding and that most of the stations would survive a loss of such funding. The implication is that Schiller does not believe federal funding for NPR is important. In the raw video, however, Schiller explains the risk to local stations in more detail and why NPR is doing “everything we can to advocate for federal funding.”
You may also have seen a section of the video where Schiller describes liberals as more educated than conservatives. But the raw video shows a section where Schiller is hesitant to criticize the education of conservatives and the other executive, Betsy Liley, is outspoken in her defense of the intellects of Fox News viewers. Would it have been fair to include the broader range of the executives statements? The impression of the original video, that the execs were only hostile toward Republicans and conservatives, is incorrect.
NPR exec Ron Schiller does describe Tea Party members as “xenophobic…seriously racist people.”
This is one of the reasons why he no longer has a job!
But the clip in the edited video implies Schiller is giving simply his own analysis of the Tea Party. He does do that in part, but the raw video reveals that he is largely recounting the views expressed to him by two top Republicans, one a former ambassador, who admitted to him that they voted for Obama.
Anyone that watches these videos and thinks this guy did anything wrong simply because they edited the **** out of it is a moron...
Is anyone else more then amused that suddenly Glenn Beck is a good guy to lefties and the NYTimes?
Funny, I don't remember anyone suggesting that the footage might have been unfairly edited in any of several threads on the topic here at DP.
Seems like everyone is being pretty subjective about this so-called editing....just assuming what this analysis shows is correct -- just as many on the right assumed what they saw was correct.
This should probably be settled in a court of law, if true. We've got to stop letting sensationalist reporters "make the news" and ruin people's lives and careers.
I figured it would be the case all along since this is the theme that always happens when an O'keefe video comes out. Its the same story every time :shrug: only the names are changed.
It occurs to me that maybe our news outlets need to have a policy that says something like, "Unless we see the entire video, we won't report it."
It occurs to me that maybe our news outlets need to have a policy that says something like, "Unless we see the entire video, we won't report it."
You mean Scott Baker? He's the guy on the Blaze who wrote this op-ed.
You mean Scott Baker? He's the guy on the Blaze who wrote this op-ed.
The BLAZE is Glenn Beck's gig friend. Welcome to reality.
Is anyone else more then amused that suddenly Glenn Beck is a good guy to lefties and the NYTimes?
Is anyone else more then amused that suddenly Glenn Beck is a good guy to lefties and the NYTimes?
No more so than cons quoting FDR's statement about public unions.
From The Blaze:
And of course!
Anyone that watches these videos and thinks this guy did anything wrong simply because they edited the **** out of it is a moron, and that goes to all of the people at NPR that fired this guy too. My only possible conclusion that I can draw from this is that the conservatives that believe this video without realizing that it has been edited past the point of reality really don't care about the truth. They don't mind if they follow liars, which makes me curious as to why you, BarB, have said that it's the liberals that are without morals. Take a look in the mirror sometime.
I agree with you. I don't think NPR should get public funding. With that said, everyone, conservative and liberal, should be able to tell James O'keefe to jump off a bridge next time he does one of these things. He's dishonest.I was for defunding NPR long before this little episode. The country is broke. They can get advertizers or donors just like everyone else.
They employee all liberals as far as I can tell. The unedited version gave more context, but that's all. He called the tea party racists, he said there weren't enough elites. He's an arrogant bastard who probably didn't deserve to be let go.
However, these days there is no need for goverment funded radio or TV. Plus, we can't afford every little pet project anymore. Let Soros up his contributions. NPR and PBS will be fine.
You mean Scott Baker? He's the guy on the Blaze who wrote this op-ed.
Yep. If Scott Baker did something scummy, it would be all about "Glenn Becks Blaze" "Glenn Beck's employee"
However, I give Kudos to the NYT for giving Beck some credit. I don't know how the rest of the media is handling it, but I hope as fair as the NYT.
PS... your little Soros quip at the end makes you sound like a loon. Adults really shouldn't believe in the boogy-man.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?