NPR fallout from conservative activist sting


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 187 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

NPR chairman says board asked CEO to step down


1. In what context was this said? The guy is entitled to his opinion. I really don't get why this is a problem.
2. What does this have to do with the CEO?
3. The timing on this is...interesting.
3. Hidden cameras and wire-tapping to look for "gotcha" moments: Is this really the road we want to go down? Politics is a dirty enough business.


I'm a little confused- which Schilling quit exactly? One or both?


Freehold DM wrote:
I'm a little confused- which Schilling quit exactly? One or both?

Both. The guy on tape yesterday, the CEO this morning.


bugleyman wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
I'm a little confused- which Schilling quit exactly? One or both?
Both. The guy on tape yesterday, the CEO this morning.

They aren't related, right? I don't see why the CEO would step down unless they're in cahoots somehow- which isn't impossible, mind.

I also have issues with O'Keefe's(sp) methods.


bugleyman wrote:
1. In what context was this said? The guy is entitled to his opinion. I really don't get why this is a problem.

This was said a mock fund-raising meeting. As for the opinion thing, well NPR showed with the Juan Williams situation, you are not actually free to your opinion if you want to work for them.

bugleyman wrote:
2. What does this have to do with the CEO?

Well, the CEO was responsible for firing Juan Williams. This upset many conservatives who have started talking about cutting funding to NPR. This fund-raising guy says NPR doesn't really need government money and conservatives (at least the tea-party related ones) are ignorant, racist, and gun-totting. Not exactly the kind of thing that is going to make those people change to supporting your organization.

Due to the CEO's past history the board thought she wouldn't be able to effectively change opinion of conservatives. Basically her bad history made her incapable of dealing with this newest situation.

bugleyman wrote:
3. The timing on this is...interesting.

Certainly it is related to trying to pull government money from NPR.

bugleyman wrote:
3. Hidden cameras and wire-tapping to look for "gotcha" moments: Is this really the road we want to go down? Politics is a dirty enough business.

Well as long as each side is using it, the other side has to as well.

Freehold DM wrote:
I'm a little confused- which Schilling quit exactly? One or both?

Both. The male Schilling, the fundraising guy, was going to leave to a new job, he has moved that up to leaving right now. The female Schilling, the CEO, got forced out by the board today.

The other NPR employee in the video has been put on leave last I heard.

Scarab Sages

No, they are not related. Vivian Shiller was the CEO, and the board of directors accepted her resignation in light of the embarassing comments made by the other Shiller (whose first name escapes me at the moment.

That gentleman was already planning on leaving when he made his comments to O'Keefe's cohorts. He was then placed on administrative leave and later fired or resigned (can't remember which).

Another NPR exec, who was also at the recorded meeting, has been placed on administrative leave as well. No clear reason why, but part of the reason might have been when she laughed after the undercover reporters (for lack of a better term) jokingly referred to NPR as National Palestinian Radio.

As for O'Keefe's tactics: I've got no problem with giving people enough rope to hang themselves with, which seems to be essentially what he's done.

Edit: Kinda, sorta ninja'd by Pres Man

Scarab Sages

O'Keefe is a tool. He has a history of taping and heavily editing things for his political gain. He's a liar.

Take the ACORN tapes. No one was charged because the DAs came out and said that what was shown on tv and what was on the actual UNEDITED tapes were two different things.

So with this newest "sting", I think there will be more to it.


pres man wrote:
As for the opinion thing, well NPR showed with the Juan Williams situation, you are not actually free to your opinion if you want to work for them.

Which was a total crock of s*@! in and of itself. However, there is a difference between knowingly going "on the record" and being recorded surreptitiously.

Frankly, I think things like this (and the bogus call to the governor of WI) are over the line. YMMV.


Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Take the ACORN tapes.

I never understood the outrage. It seemed exactly like taping a McDonald's employee committing a crime, and then accusing McDonald's of being complicit.

Huh?


Aberzombie wrote:
As for O'Keefe's tactics: I've got no problem with giving people enough rope to hang themselves with, which seems to be essentially what he's done.

I'd be all for this, but he's doctored stuff before to make people sound like they said things they didn't say. Sorta kinda like what Sanahkt said above.

Liberty's Edge

I wonder how many people outraged at O'Keefe's methods have copies of Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 sitting on their shelves...

Scarab Sages

Haven't seen either one.


Cuchulainn wrote:
I wonder how many people outraged at O'Keefe's methods have copies of Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 sitting on their shelves...

Not I. But I really don't see what one has to do with the other. Moore has certainly edited the crap out of his stuff over the years(the only work he did I enjoyed was Looking For Whatshisface), and he's been rightfully called out for it by his detractors. So should O'Keefe.


I prefer this one.

Scarab Sages

Last I looked Michael Moore hasn't been arrested for a felony. James O'Keefe has (reduced to a misdemeanor). I still don't know what to call what O'Keefe attempted to do with the female CNN reporter.

Liberty's Edge

Freehold DM wrote:
Not I. But I really don't see what one has to do with the other. Moore has certainly edited the crap out of his stuff over the years(the only work he did I enjoyed was Looking For Whatshisface), and he's been rightfully called out for it by his detractors. So should O'Keefe.

I have no beef with anyone who can call it down the middle.

The reason I brought up Michael Moore is because there are MANY people out there who will defend his work to the last - claiming that he is a "brilliant documentarian," however when O'Keefe uses the exact same methods (just for the "other team") those same people become outraged at his "dirty tricks."

I hate double standards.


Cuchulainn wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Not I. But I really don't see what one has to do with the other. Moore has certainly edited the crap out of his stuff over the years(the only work he did I enjoyed was Looking For Whatshisface), and he's been rightfully called out for it by his detractors. So should O'Keefe.

I have no beef with anyone who can call it down the middle.

The reason I brought up Michael Moore is because there are MANY people out there who will defend his work to the last - claiming that he is a "brilliant documentarian," however when O'Keefe uses the exact same methods (just for the "other team") those same people become outraged at his "dirty tricks."

I hate double standards.

I don't think Moore is without his moments of brilliance- Looking for Whatshisface was an excellent work. But I think he started to buy into his own PR a bit around the time of Farenheit 911(for me, the jury is still out on Bowling for Columbine due to my own experiences in and around the time of high school) and went off the rails a bit. Just how far off the rails he went is a matter of individual opinion(and opinion alone). On the whole, I think we as human beings need to be more respecting/accepting of the intelligence of those who disagree with us- to do otherwise is to essentially give the debate to the other person wholesale.


Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Last I looked Michael Moore hasn't been arrested for a felony. James O'Keefe has (reduced to a misdemeanor). I still don't know what to call what O'Keefe attempted to do with the female CNN reporter.

Which doesn't mean his portraying things inaccurate in this case. Yes, we should take a critical look and not trying to be drawn in to creative cutting of the film (I believe another guy involved put 2 hours of footage up on his site), but as they say, even a broke clock is right twice a day.

The guy on the video hasn't denied what was shown on the video, though he did say he made a mistake for saying much of it (or at least getting caught saying it).

Scarab Sages

When it comes to O'Keefe and his pals (Lila Rose, Andrew Breitbart, etc...) I want to see the entire thing unedited.

And like Freehold said, Moore has bought into his own hype. I haven't seen anything he's done since Canadian Bacon which was funny as hell. The previews for his "documentaries" alone were enough to turn me off.

A big difference is that O'Keefe calls himself an investigative journalist; Michael Moore does not.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Take the ACORN tapes.

I never understood the outrage. It seemed exactly like taping a McDonald's employee committing a crime, and then accusing McDonald's of being complicit.

Huh?

The outrage was expressed by people who have been long looking for a excuse to destroy the organisation.

Why you may ask? In addition to the services it provided ACORN was very big on getting voters to register in distressed urban areas. By demographics those voters tend to vote Democrat significantly more than Republican.


bugleyman wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Take the ACORN tapes.

I never understood the outrage. It seemed exactly like taping a McDonald's employee committing a crime, and then accusing McDonald's of being complicit.

Huh?

The malarkey pulled by O'Keefe in regards to the ACORN non-scandal?

DEMONSTRATABLY EDITED and proven as hoaxes.

While people like to kvetch about Michael Moore, there's also a distinctive difference between mis-attributing statements to employees and patently lying about what you did, and splicing bits together to get a response that fits your political slant. ESPECIALLY when one gets a hold of the full tape and sees exactly what was edited out.

All I've seen of Moore's work is Capitalism - a Love Story, so I'm no fan; what I want to know is what's been done that is comparable, or explicitly had any measure of comparable impact as that trumped up mound of excrement that O'Keefe passes off as 'journalism'.

And let's not forget what O'Keefe attempted regarding Senator Landrieu's office.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cuchulainn wrote:


The reason I brought up Michael Moore is because there are MANY people out there who will defend his work to the last - claiming that he is a "brilliant documentarian," however when O'Keefe uses the exact same methods (just for the "other team") those same people become outraged at his "dirty tricks."

I hate double standards.

Actually the double standards are your own. Moore never misrepresented himself or pretended to be someone he wasn't in the filming of his documentaries, and his cameras were never hidden. His approach has none of the rank dishonesty, distortion, and outright deception that O'Keefe and his cronies use

Liberty's Edge

Nope. No distortion on Michael Moore's part. [/sarcasm]

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cuchulainn wrote:
Nope. No distortion on Michael Moore's part. [/sarcasm]

What distortion? Carpet Bombing DID kill thousands of Vietnamese civillians over the course of the war, that's an accepted historical fact. That's what carpet bombing is designed to do, you're not looking at surgical strikes, you're going Atlanta on your target when you employ that strategy. While the bomber noted in that article did perform a heroic defense in downing a fighter on it's own, that really has no relevance to the overall fact of it's missions.


Cuchulainn wrote:
Nope. No distortion on Michael Moore's part. [/sarcasm]

It the gravity field generated by his mass that does that.

Liberty's Edge

So you only read the first part, as opposed to noting that there are multiple entries about both Bowling for Columbine and F-911 on the page.

Whatever. Not interested in getting into a flame war over this.

I see little difference between O'Keefe's methods and Moore's, and you disagree. 'Nuff said.


Cuchulainn wrote:

So you only read the first part, as opposed to noting that there are multiple entries about both Bowling for Columbine and F-911 on the page.

Whatever. Not interested in getting into a flame war over this.

I see little difference between O'Keefe's methods and Moore's, and you disagree. 'Nuff said.

We can disagree without being disagreeable.

Scarab Sages

Cuchulainn wrote:
I see little difference between O'Keefe's methods and Moore's, and you disagree. 'Nuff said.

Big difference between a documentarian/film-maker (Moore) and a journalist (O'Keefe).


bugleyman wrote:

3. Hidden cameras and wire-tapping to look for "gotcha" moments: Is this really the road we want to go down? Politics is a dirty enough business.

This -- how about all the tapes they made that shows people doing exactly what people are supposed to be doing?

Or are we to ignore all the times it was done "right" for the few times it was done wrong?

Anyone want to argue that point with me? I'll give them a list of "forgiveness" that they can then suck on from the other side, and point them to the argument that "BP oil spill only happened once and we shouldn't shut down the deep water drilling over one incident."


(de-Lincolning for sensitive topics)

The comments made by the fund-raising exec about the Tea Party and conservatives are tame. I'm not saying they're true, but they are really tame compared to what you see across media and in the public dialog, and on private news channels.

He basically called the far right in the US gun-toting racists.

I don't believe everyone on the far right is a gun-toting racist, but there are, in fact, some gun-toting racists on that far right. Many of them are proud of it. Gun-toting racist liberals may exist, but they would be — by definition — less frequent given the liberal stance on gun control.

So on the one side, we have a news corporation (Fox) who mirthfully level far more disparaging remarks on a weekly if not daily basis. Somebody from NPR admits some bias about the far right (who are gunning for their jobs) and somehow this is a scandal? Frankly, I would consider it more shocking if you told me that an NPR exec didn't think that about the far right.

Liberty's Edge

Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Cuchulainn wrote:
I see little difference between O'Keefe's methods and Moore's, and you disagree. 'Nuff said.
Big difference between a documentarian/film-maker (Moore) and a journalist (O'Keefe).

If I changed the word "methods" to "tactics" in my quote above, would that clarify my opinion?

What they refer to themselves as professionally isn't the point. It's the whole "give the audience part of the truth and lead them to a predetermined conclusion" thing.

Scarab Sages

It wouldn't make a difference. With a documentary, I expect Michael Moore to slant things or outright lie. O'Keefe, in the guise of being a journalist, is expected to keep more to the facts. Instead, he has perpetuated more lies and political spin than Moore has.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Now where am I going to get sound tax advice about importing and housing under age hookers?

ACORN as a whole may not have been doing this, but the reaction to wholesale close down the organization and reorg under a different name was done quickly enough that the action led to belief that it wasn't so uncommon.

It's like the Linda Sherrod who was fired for a snippet of a conversation, the one from the agriculture dept? It was so easy for them to believe that one of their own people would say something that rascist, she was immediately fired. No investigation, just fired. Then when the entire tape came out it was "oh my bad. Breitbart is teh debil!!".
He did it on purpose. Was that douche baggery? Indeed it was.
Was the reaction over the top? Indeed it was.
It also gave the impression it isn't uncommon.

Scarab Sages

ACORN had it's funding pulled BEFORE the full investigation was finished. When some of the dems tried to stop the republicans, they were accused of shielding a terrorist/communist/criminal organization. Now that the facts are out, have the republicans or O'Keefe or Faux News apologized for LYING? No.

The White House was already under fire from the ACORN fall-out. Did they overreact? Yes. They even apologized for it. But did Faux News and the republicans. Only in by denying they even called for her firing.

I would have some some advice about asking republicans, but your question was more about girls not about being in the closet.


toyrobots wrote:

(de-Lincolning for sensitive topics)

The comments made by the fund-raising exec about the Tea Party and conservatives are tame. I'm not saying they're true, but they are really tame compared to what you see across media and in the public dialog, and on private news channels.

He basically called the far right in the US gun-toting racists.

I don't believe everyone on the far right is a gun-toting racist, but there are, in fact, some gun-toting racists on that far right. Many of them are proud of it. Gun-toting racist liberals may exist, but they would be — by definition — less frequent given the liberal stance on gun control.

So on the one side, we have a news corporation (Fox) who mirthfully level far more disparaging remarks on a weekly if not daily basis. Somebody from NPR admits some bias about the far right (who are gunning for their jobs) and somehow this is a scandal? Frankly, I would consider it more shocking if you told me that an NPR exec didn't think that about the far right.

Here's the difference. Fox doesn't get public funds. NPR claims to be unbiased, which is impossible, and they take money from the very same people that they look so poorly upon.

Here's an idea, if you have to get money from someone, it probably is not a good idea to suggest that they are ignorant gun-totting racists.

Let me say, nobody is surprised by what the guy said, nobody. Him saying, "I didn't mean it." Is a bunch of bunk, he meant it, he just didn't mean to say it on tape.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
I would have some some advice about asking republicans, but your question was more about girls not about being in the closet.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean...

But I'm going to assume you're trying to call Repubs "gay", which is very immature and insensitive.

Scarab Sages

I was replying to this:

Kryzbyn wrote:
Now where am I going to get sound tax advice about importing and housing under age hookers?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sanakht Inaros wrote:

I was replying to this:

Kryzbyn wrote:
Now where am I going to get sound tax advice about importing and housing under age hookers?

I was correct then.

Thanks!


pres man wrote:

Here's the difference. Fox doesn't get public funds. NPR claims to be unbiased, which is impossible, and they take money from the very same people that they look so poorly upon.

Here's an idea, if you have to get money from someone, it probably is not a good idea to suggest that they are ignorant gun-totting racists.

Let me say, nobody is surprised by what the guy said, nobody. Him saying, "I didn't mean it." Is a bunch of bunk, he meant it, he just didn't mean to say it on tape.

Here's an idea, Pres, read this before you start declaring it's OK to pillory all of NPR for what one guy -- who has nothing to do with the news and reporting division -- said.

{clears off a nice spot on the wall in preparation to pound her head}

Scarab Sages

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
pres man wrote:

Here's the difference. Fox doesn't get public funds. NPR claims to be unbiased, which is impossible, and they take money from the very same people that they look so poorly upon.

Here's an idea, if you have to get money from someone, it probably is not a good idea to suggest that they are ignorant gun-totting racists.

Let me say, nobody is surprised by what the guy said, nobody. Him saying, "I didn't mean it." Is a bunch of bunk, he meant it, he just didn't mean to say it on tape.

Here's an idea, Pres, read this before you start declaring it's OK to pillory all of NPR for what one guy -- who has nothing to do with the news and reporting division -- said.

{clears off a nice spot on the wall in preparation to pound her head}

I knew there was more to it.


pres man wrote:

Here's the difference. Fox doesn't get public funds. NPR claims to be unbiased, which is impossible, and they take money from the very same people that they look so poorly upon.

Here's an idea, if you have to get money from someone, it probably is not a good idea to suggest that they are ignorant gun-totting racists.

At the same time, it's an organization. I don't know of anyone who works at any organization governmental or otherwise that remains unbiased against people who are trying to dismantle that organization.

Organizations have an esprirt d'corps, and it would be downright strange if there were no resentment at NPR aimed at the people who would like to see NPR starved. You may be one of those people, I suppose.

NPR runs (in part) on federal funding. So the individual employees of NPR are not allowed to resent the people who would take that funding away? Yes, it's bias. It is the unavoidable bias you see at every institution ever.


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
pres man wrote:

Here's the difference. Fox doesn't get public funds. NPR claims to be unbiased, which is impossible, and they take money from the very same people that they look so poorly upon.

Here's an idea, if you have to get money from someone, it probably is not a good idea to suggest that they are ignorant gun-totting racists.

Let me say, nobody is surprised by what the guy said, nobody. Him saying, "I didn't mean it." Is a bunch of bunk, he meant it, he just didn't mean to say it on tape.

Here's an idea, Pres, read this before you start declaring it's OK to pillory all of NPR for what one guy -- who has nothing to do with the news and reporting division -- said.

{clears off a nice spot on the wall in preparation to pound her head}

I glanced through it, I might go back and read it in more depth. Frankly seems a lot of distraction, "Oh yeah, well what about Fox!" Who the frak cares about Fox? Fox is not getting government money. If Fox wanted to have Fred Phelps on 24-7 it wouldn't make one lick of difference about how NPR is being examined. NPR takes public funds. NPR has an internal bias, and despite the claims of the author, it did show up in their cover of tea-parties and their candidates. Now, they are certainly less biased than MSNBC, that is a fact. They probably are in line with CNN (Fox is also biased, just so nobody claims I am suggesting they are not).

Again, if you are going to insult people who have to vote on your funding, then be prepared for them to not support you. "Oh, I an ignorant gun-totting racist? Really? Ok, well I guess I'm too ignorant to vote to give you money any more. Stupid old me. Excuse me I have to go shoot some folks."

But that was the financial folks! Yeah, and the finances are being effected, see how that works. Nobody is going after the news groups, the fact that the financial folks screwed up their jobs is what is cause them a problem.

EDIT: Two more thoughts.
1. The difference here is that we saw what NPR execs think of groups of citizens, not just individual politicians (treated Clinton or Nixon poorly).
2. NPR does not need government money. They have repeatedly said that it is a very small portion of their budget. Even the guy in the video admits that they would probably be better off without it. A few rural stations might lose service, but I would wager many of the people there are the ignorant gun-totting racists that NPR looks down on, so them losing an NPR station is probably not a great a loss.


At a more basic level, I am surprised people fall for this kind of tactic. I am amazed how many people do not consider technology and how it can be used (for better or worse). It will come to the day, where you have to sign a non-disclosure agreement just to say hello to someone.


Uchawi wrote:
At a more basic level, I am surprised people fall for this kind of tactic. I am amazed how many people do not consider technology and how it can be used (for better or worse). It will come to the day, where you have to sign a non-disclosure agreement just to say hello to someone.

Let me ask you this then:

If I have someone stalk you for days at end, and then delibrately set you up for an "innocent" meeting that I then purposefully tape (secretly) and edit to make you look bad you won't "fall for it" right?

You never make mistakes, especially not in public, or express an opinion someone might find objectionable?


pres man wrote:
stuff

Geez, Pres, ONE guy at NPR shoots of his mouth in a moment of stupidity, and you still want to throw the whole organization under the bus? That makes as much sense as blaming all Alaskan voters for Palin getting elected.

I've worked in different jobs, and invariably, at least one group of customers or individuals or rival company got under my skin enough that -- horrors! -- I made some dumbass quip or two without thinking in an unguarded moment. Would you condemn all my co-workers and all the good products/services they produced for my foot-in-mouth incident(s)?!

A lot of elected officials say stupid s*+! on a daily basis. Should I throw them all out for what a few bad apples do?!

Careful Pres, your house looks like it has a lotta glass walls...


pres man wrote:
NPR does not need government money. They have repeatedly said that it is a very small portion of their budget. Even the guy in the video admits that they would probably be better off without it. A few rural stations might lose service, but I would wager many of the people there are the ignorant gun-totting racists that NPR looks down on, so them losing an NPR station is probably not a great a loss

Wait -- where did the organization NPR say any such thing?

Or are you going to imply that one person happens to represent the entire organization with a single comment?

Because if that's the case I'm throwing Fred Phillips as the shining example of baptists everywhere, Sarah Palin as the example of female republicans everywhere (nice choice since she's a quitter), and President Bush as an example of all male republicans everywhere that are not represented by Dick Cheney.

Also:

BP represents all Oil companies, the Oil spill represents everything BP does, the right to life crowd are all represented by those that bomb abortion clinics, and Glenn Beck and Ron Paul represent conservatives the USA over.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Because if that's the case I'm throwing Fred Phillips as the shining example of baptists everywhere, Sarah Palin as the example of female republicans everywhere (nice choice since she's a quitter), and President Bush as an example of all male republicans everywhere that are represented by Dick Cheney.

+1

Liberty's Edge

The Blaze, Glen Beck's own peeps, say the video editing done by O'keefe is questionable.

Context is fun.


Studpuffin wrote:

The Blaze, Glen Beck's own peeps, say the video editing done by O'keefe is questionable.

Context is fun.

Now I would not whole up micheal moore as the best example of journalism -- but when Glenn Beck can't hold up O'keefe's videos I don't trust him at all either (I don't like Glenn Beck -- but I do have a bit of respect for him).

1 to 50 of 187 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / NPR fallout from conservative activist sting All Messageboards