Was the NPR video "journalism?"

[TheBigA]

There's a pretty fair discussion of the ethics behind James O'Keefe's NPR video in today's New York Times.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/masters-of-deception/?hp

As the article points out, what's the difference between this video and WikiLeaks? Is there anything wrong with WikiLeaks? Is there anything left to private conversation any more, or is everything on the record and for public use? All good questions to ask. There are no absolutes or answers here either. In the world of free press, there are no real rules except for libel and slander, stealing and copyright. Michael Moore has made a career doing similar things to GM, George Bush and other conservatives. But he doesn't really see himself as a journalist. I'm sure Moore is thinking right now about making a film about O'Keefe or the Tea Party. The sad part to me is all this does is harden opinions on both sides, and furthers the devide between the reds and the blues. No minds are really changed here. Just a few people lose their jobs, and the flames of one side are fanned a little more.

 

[w00t]

If all the undercover/hidden camera investigations that Dateline has done over the years is journalism, this certainly is as well...

 

[TheBigA]

In the case of MSNBC, they were investigating crimes. Nothing in this video was criminal. Embarrassing yes, but not criminal.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

There's a pretty fair discussion of the ethics behind James O'Keefe's NPR video in today's New York Times.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/masters-of-deception/?hp

As the article points out, what's the difference between this video and WikiLeaks? Is there anything wrong with WikiLeaks? Is there anything left to private conversation any more, or is everything on the record and for public use? All good questions to ask. There are no absolutes or answers here either. In the world of free press, there are no real rules except for libel and slander, stealing and copyright. Michael Moore has made a career doing similar things to GM, George Bush and other conservatives. But he doesn't really see himself as a journalist. I'm sure Moore is thinking right now about making a film about O'Keefe or the Tea Party. The sad part to me is all this does is harden opinions on both sides, and furthers the devide between the reds and the blues. No minds are really changed here. Just a few people lose their jobs, and the flames of one side are fanned a little more.

First off the New York Times and Public Broadcasting are like kissing cousins. So any editorial they post supporting PBS comes as no surprise.

Shiller (not Vivian) was caught on tape expressing his views on numerous subjects. We learned directly from the 'horses mouth' that NPR shouldn't rely on government funding; that Republicans are redneck shotgun-toting illiterates; anyone belong to the Tea Party is a bigot. Shall I go on?

In my line of work I've come across a number of public broadcasting executives and supporters who share Mr. Shiller's opinions. On the other hand I've also come in contact with many commercial broadcasters who feel that pub-broadcasters are snobs draining taxpayer dollars from the public till while having the finest state-of-the-art equipment possible and paying exorbitant salaries to top management.

There is no straddling the fence when it comes to this topic.

 

[TheBigA]

First off the New York Times and Public Broadcasting are like kissing cousins. So any editorial they post supporting PBS comes as no surprise.

You obviously didn't read the article. First of all, it's not an editorial, second of all, it doesn't support PBS.

 

[TheBigA]

Glenn Beck's site The Blaze apparently questions the editing of the video, and discovers the comments were taken out of context.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/


In it we learn that Ron Schiller is a Republican, and his quote about the Tea Party is actually quoting other Republicans.

Are we surprised that the video was edited in such a way to make the NPR folks look bad? No. Are we surprised it took a blog run by conservative Glenn Beck to actually do the investigative work uncovering it? Yes. Where are the real journalists and why did no one from the Washington Post or any other reputable place even question the editing of the video? Why was everyone so quick to assume the quotes in the video were as they appeared to be, and then extrapolated that they in fact represented the opinions of NPR News? Who is the joke really on here?

 

[radiorob2.0]

Glenn Beck's site The Blaze apparently questions the editing of the video, and discovers the comments were taken out of context.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/


In it we learn that Ron Schiller is a Republican, and his quote about the Tea Party is actually quoting other Republicans.

Are we surprised that the video was edited in such a way to make the NPR folks look bad? No. Are we surprised it took a blog run by conservative Glenn Beck to actually do the investigative work uncovering it? Yes. Where are the real journalists and why did no one from the Washington Post or any other reputable place even question the editing of the video? Why was everyone so quick to assume the quotes in the video were as they appeared to be, and then extrapolated that they in fact represented the opinions of NPR News? Who is the joke really on here?

I'd like to think of it as Lucy once again pulling away the football Charlie Brown. James O'Keef is Lucy and these idiots keep falling for his heavily edited videos. Before it was broadcast, printed or posted on line someone should have demanded to see the unedited video.

Then there are those who repeatedly played the edited presentation claiming its evidence on why (NPR, ACORN or whatever O'Keef decided to target next) should no longer receive government funding. "Do you want your tax dollars paying for that? For shame!" Their goal doesn't require the unedited video.

It makes you wonder who will be next at the hands of James O'Keef and Windows Movie Maker?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

There is no straddling the fence when it comes to this topic.

Why not? Is that stated in the Bible or something?

If I want to straddle the fence when it comes to understanding this "Animal House" style childish prank, who is going to stop me?

I DO straddle the fence on the funding issue. I am all for reviewing the amount of money that goes into CPB and if appropriate, reducing the funding to a reasonable level. But I have what to me is a compelling justification for at least some Federal money flowing into NPR, PBS and the other stations and program producers. As long as there is ANY Federal money going in there, the private small donors along with the big, big, BIG corporations and foundations know that the Feds are to public broadcasting what the Health Department inspectors are to the restaurant business. When I walk in to buy food and I see that certificate on the wall with the score for their last inspection, I can eat with confidence.

When I know the Congress is looking over the shoulders of public broadcasting and asking what they are doing with the public money, I can give my meager contribution with confidence that I am not giving to the mafia.

 

[musichead1029]

When I know the Congress is looking over the shoulders of public broadcasting and asking what they are doing with the public money, I can give my meager contribution with confidence that I am not giving to the mafia.

I've always believed that one of the primary prerequisites to requiring taxpayers to fund non-essential services like public media, is trust in the appropriators. I'd also heard stubborn rumors that in the face of all evidence, there are still those who actually trust the appropriators.

I feel like I've seen a leprechaun, and two days early yet!

 

[TheBigA]

I'd also heard stubborn rumors that in the face of all evidence, there are still those who actually trust the appropriators.

My point in this discussion has been that the appropriations process is pretty complete. They look carefully at the nuts & bolts of where the peoples' money is spent. Which is a big difference from what was done during the budget chopping process last month. That's why I say if the goal is to defund public broadcasting, there should be hearings on the subject, so the Congress knows what it's cutting.

 

[musichead1029]

My point in this discussion has been that the appropriations process is pretty complete. They look carefully at the nuts & bolts of where the peoples' money is spent.

The process can't possibly be complete when the federal government continues to spend more than it brings in (aka, printing 'funny money').

That's why I say if the goal is to defund public broadcasting, there should be hearings on the subject, so the Congress knows what it's cutting.

As I've tried to emphasize consistently throughout these threads, I believe there is a gathering consensus that the primary goal at this point needs to be adjusting federal spending to appropriate levels. Before we can even entertain what 'appropriate' levels of spending are, we have to reduce expenditures to sustainable levels - where current federal government spending consumes no more than it currently annexes from taxpayers. The easiest way to start this process is to identify and eliminate unnecessary spending - non-essential spending. Individual hearings can't establish sustainable levels of spending. To achieve that goal requires high level action. This is not micro-process - not business as usual. This is simply the beginning of the macro-process of attempting to balance the books at the national level, something we're all required to do in our personal lives. In our individual and family financial dealings, most of us do not imagine that we have a bottomless pocket to pick in pursuit of ever expanding spending.

This is where taxpayer funding of public media hits the spotlight. Under the current budget conditions, it's a poster child for unnecessary spending. If we're successful at achieving sustainable levels of federal spending, then we can entertain the luxury of hearings in pursuit of the definition of 'appropriate' spending. In that phase, we can scrutinize taxpayer funding of public media at our leisure, knowing that, if we choose to pay for part of public media's tab, we'll have real funds to allocate to it as opposed to the current Monopoly script.

 

[TheBigA]

As I've tried to emphasize consistently throughout these threads, I believe there is a gathering consensus that the primary goal at this point needs to be adjusting federal spending to appropriate levels.

That's fine. Appropriations for public broadcasting have been pretty stable for the past 20 years. So don't blame the current deficite on public broadcasting. The government needs to focus on those budget items that have grown disproportionate to the GDP. So hold the line on public broadcasting, and force those departments that are spending beyond their means to trim down to size. That's what families around the country are doing. I think if the government operated that way, we'd be able to control the debt. We are not some third world country. We're very rich, and the American people deserve more for their taxpayer dollars. But it's unfair to ship American tax dollars to other countries during a recession when we're trying to hold the line on spending. We need to continue to invest in our people and our services, and public radio is part of that.

 

[musichead1029]

don't blame the current deficit on public broadcasting.

I haven't and I don't know anyone who does. That's not the point of the defunding proposals.

The government needs to focus on those budget items that have grown disproportionate to the GDP. So hold the line on public broadcasting, and force those departments that are spending beyond their means to trim down to size.

That approach isn't working because every cause, like public media, has its constituency that throws every roadblock possible into the process. This is understandable, but it's also counterproductive. A more effective way to evaluate appropriate spending is to pare back, establish sustainable spending levels and then move forward from there. This treats all non-essential spending equally as a class. It gives each service the opportunity to make its case for taxpayer support in the context of the current budget.

Those who feel entitled to taxpayer support of certain services will have to examine that notion in the context of cost vs benefit. This won't be a pretty process, nor will it make anyone completely happy, but that isn't the point of the endeavor. Jobs will be lost and political careers will be ended whether or not the budget is brought to sustainability. But if the budget isn't moved toward sustainability, those jobs and careers aren't going to return for a long time, if ever. The support and the funds just won't be there.

Again, a public media tax would appear to be easily expendable, for the reasons we've discussed in several threads here, which is why it is one of the first in the spotlight.

 

[TheBigA]

Those who feel entitled to taxpayer support of certain services will have to examine that notion in the context of cost vs benefit.

That's what the appropriations process is all about. And you're right, it isn't pretty, and doesn't typically get news coverage, which may explain why no one seems to know anything about it. But for 43 years, CPB reps have gone to the Hill to explain cost vs. benefit, and for 43 years, they've come away with most of what they asked for. Why? Because both Republicans and Democrats recognize that the benefit is worth the cost. And taxpayer money is better spent on things the voters can see and use, and that employ Americans. All it would take would be a state by state breakdown of how many people would lose their jobs because of this defunding for them to realize the cost vs. benefit.

Again, a public media tax would appear to be easily expendable, for the reasons we've discussed in several threads here, which is why it is one of the first in the spotlight.

Yet it does little to actually solve the very real fiscal problems of this country. All it does is satisfy a very small and vocal minority of conservatives who have a vendetta against NPR. In the light of day, those people will find out that their personal prejudices can't be used to deprive the American public of a useful service. I predict that when this comes to a vote, the full appropriation will be returned to the budget, and we'll move on to far more substantive discussions.

 

[recto101]

I wonder if Juan Williams is behind this hidden camera operation? It got to be Juan Williams of Fox news mainly because he a tirade with NPR management over his statements on Fox news over Muslims.

 

[recto101]

What was Juan Williams response to this?

 

[TheBigA]

I wonder if Juan Williams is behind this hidden camera operation? It got to be Juan Williams of Fox news mainly because he a tirade with NPR management over his statements on Fox news over Muslims.

The video maker said it was specifically built around the Juan Williams thing.

What was Juan Williams response to this?

He's only commented on the edited video, not on the fact that it was edited to make the exec say things he didn't say. And in all the Fox coverage of NPR, the only person who has addressed the fact that the video was faked is Glenn Beck. And give Beck some credit here. He didn't have to support TheBlaze in their study. He could have shut it down. But he didn't.