• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The BLAZE Editor: Further Analysis Finds Deceptive Editing In NPR Sting Tape

Sgt Meowenstein

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
757
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This will come as no surprise to some people on here. O'Keefe's NPR tapes have been analyzed, and the result of that analysis is that the tapes were deceptively edited. What may come as a surprise to some is that the people who analyzed the tapes and criticized its selective editing, are editor's of Glenn Beck's The Blaze website. O'Keefe should know he's in trouble when the editors of The Blaze are defending NPR against him.

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.
 
What really cracks me up about this is the NPR execs clearly weren't paying attention concerning FoxNews' other episodes of tape editting, (re: Shirly Sherrod and ACORN kiddie porn). As in both cases, there may have been some elements of truth to what occurred, but unlike Paul Harvey, FoxNews didn't tell, "the rest of the story", in which case NPR did just as both the AG and USDA did: they jumped the gun before really looking into the facts on the matter. And in both cases, someone paid the price for their rash decisions.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
More from New York Times:

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.

And because he was expressing a personal opinion, and not the views of NPR, none of that matters. I understand why you want to ignore this. It makes all of the righties who sounded the conspiracy alarms look like the morons that they are.
 
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.

From The Blaze:
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.

And of course!

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, 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.
 
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?

You mean Scott Baker? He's the guy on the Blaze who wrote this op-ed.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."

That would be called research. Its something the news no longer does.
 
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."

Great idea but I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
You mean Scott Baker? He's the guy on the Blaze who wrote this op-ed.

Scott Baker who used to be employed by Breitbart and now Glenn Beck?
 
Is anyone else more then amused that suddenly Glenn Beck is a good guy to lefties and the NYTimes?

Silly comment.

Using a conservative source when they say something that goes against their side, or really I should say any source that says something that goes against their conceived bias, makes it more reliable or just as reliable as an unbiased source in my eyes because they should be inclined to do everything in their power to spin this to help them. When they come out with stuff that is honest and goes against their obvious bias they should be praised. I know that you're not too stupid to understand this so I'll just assume that you don't want to actually discuss the topic at hand. There's plenty of liberal bashing threads around in here for you to go frolic in. Have fun.
 
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.
 
No more so than cons quoting FDR's statement about public unions.

Yeah that debate was interesting, cons quoting FDR and libs quoting Reagan.
 
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 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.
 
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.
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.

Besides that, You keep saying he called the tea party racists. It's not very clear that he did in the full video. Even the blaze admits that.

PS... your little Soros quip at the end makes you sound like a loon. Adults really shouldn't believe in the boogy-man.
 
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.
 
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.

Well the reason I asked the question was that I didn't really see Beck doing any of the analysis of the video, but this Scott Baker guy (who I have never heard of until today).
 
PS... your little Soros quip at the end makes you sound like a loon. Adults really shouldn't believe in the boogy-man.

I don't know if you mean that you don't believe Soros funds them or are just making fun of me. He is a spooky dude as Beck calls him and I am wary of anyone he funds. However, here's a link to his last known donation to NPR, in Oct. a few days before Juan was fired and during a time Soros was in a real battle with Beck and Fox.

George Soros Buys 100 NPR

With Grant, NPR to Step Up State Government Reporting

NPR has received a $1.8 million grant from the Open Society Foundations to begin a project called Impact of Government that is intended to add at least 100 journalists at NPR member radio stations in all 50 states over the next three years.
 
Back
Top Bottom