• 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!

NPR chief executive quits over hidden camera video

I haven't attacked O'Keefe at all. Yes, execs have been caught with their hand in their cookie jar, saying and doing some stupid things. But until someone can destroy the credibility of NPR's journalistic ethics themselves, it is irrelevant.

NPR has destroyed "the credibility of NPR's journalistic ethics" themselves. They didn't need help.

Do I think that NPR possesses a slight liberal bias? Yes (however i should also humbly opine that reality also possesses a slight liberal bias, and that's not just my own opinion). But NPR does a much better job than the vast majority of other national news organizations at presenting the facts and a fair representation of both sides of an issue.

I don't agree but that's probably no surprise. IMO NPR is heavily bias toward the left and has been for some time now.

Local PBS broadcasts are excellent though. I do support my local station and donate money.
 
This wasn't about the money... It had absolutely nothing to do with anything... Geez...

Something just tells me if he had accepted it there would be a movement of people saying NPR is funded by terrorists... that's all. Yes, you and I are reasonable so we know those people would be crazy, but the movement would exist.

It was about the partisan, blatantly anti-conservative beliefs expressed in public by an executive of NPR, which as a publicly funded organization, is supposed to be politically neutral. If NPR didn't receive government funding, nobody would have lost their job and this would have been nothing more than another one of the thousands of examples over the years, of the liberal bias in the American media.

As I have asked you before, is he not entitled to have his own political beliefs separate from the entity he works for? How does the beliefs of one person change the beliefs of an organization? Do you listen to NPR? If you did, I think you'd find why this whole scenario is so funny.

And if NPR didn't receive government money no one would have lost their jobs? What?

So, he was quitting his job at NPR before this tape went public? Really..... I didn't know that.

Even if that is the case, it doesn't change a damned thing.

Yes, he was going to some other company. He now is no longer going to that company either. Basically, him sharing his political leanings with O'Keefe has cost this man his career for a bit. I'm sure he'll rebound, I am not worried about it, but the continued attack on NPR is getting old.
 
Probably because liberals are not interested in attack politics the same way conservatives appear to be. I, personally, enjoy listening to a nice broadcast that highlights both the ups and downs of the situation, has no screaming, and no blaming. But that's just me.


What? :lamo:lamo:lamo You have got to be joking here.....Liberals are vicious on the radio....Take for example, please listen....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2-2DZ27U9U


Is that the only place the scientists get donations from? If you could prove that NPR changed their view because of Soros' donation, that would be something. However, if a group of scientists pops up out of no where with a claim that is contrary to popular belief and it is found that they were funded by a source that holds a stake in the findings... well, I think you can see the issue.

I call double standard.

These things happen. I honestly don't know who any of these people are. I don't listen to pundits.

Ok.


j-mac
 
How? They didn't even take the money! You didn't post one damn time on the Walker "punked tape" (which by the way was unedited[/b]), and he actually tried to squeeze more money out of the guy he was talking to. NPR did not take the money. This CEO was quitting the job and spoke candidly about his beliefs. I'm appalled that you think he can't have opinions.

*Edit:

By the way, this is the third topic on this worn out subject.


The recording of Walker proved nothing except that he is who he says he is. Where did he try to squeeze money out of the fake Koch? If you listened to the unedited tape, you know he said nothing wrong.

Also someone showed on another thread that Schiller had no plans tp quit until after he was punked.
 
The recording of Walker proved nothing except that he is who he says he is. Where did he try to squeeze money out of the fake Koch? If you listened to the unedited tape, you know he said nothing wrong.

Also someone showed on another thread that Schiller had no plans tp quit until after he was punked.

Well that person has no idea what they are talking about:

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller Resigns After Board Decides She Should Go : The Two-Way : NPR
" 'Ron Schiller has informed us that, in light of the controversy surrounding his recent statements, he does not feel that it's in the best interests of the Aspen Institute for him to come work here,' [an institute] spokesman said in a statement to The Cutline."

That is a quote from someone at the Aspen Institute, the organization that Schiller was leaving NPR to join. Wow, that was easy to find? It doesn't change anything. Whether quitting or not, he is entitled to his own off-the-record opinion just as anyone else is.
 
No, you don't understand. O'Keefe didn't "expose" ACORN. He edited footage to create an apparent crime where there was none. ACORN employees did not help a "prostitute" set up a brothel for underage girls. I'm shocked people still aren't aware of this. The house the "pimp" (who was actually pitched as her boyfriend and wore a dress shirt and tie, not the pimp outfit) and prostitute were supposedly trying to get a loan for was pitched as an escape from prostitution for said underage girls. Additionally, the "tax evasion" advice given was to... always pay taxes on any income. Not really sure what defiinition of "evasion" you guys use, but that doesn't fit mine.

Thing is, when evidence of this is shown, conservatives still don't believe it. It's really amazing.

You're forgetting there was more than one Acorn tape and that Acorn did get defunded.

War: ACORN sues Breitbart, O’Keefe, and Giles « Hot Air
Amazing. In one fell swoop, the lawsuit (a) gives Fox a reason to keep covering the story, (b) presents a thorny legal issue that’ll attract media to the scandal who might not otherwise have touched it, and (c) makes ACORN look like they’re trying to punish people who exposed taxpayer-funded corruption. Which, of course, they are.
Remember, Bertha Lewis told CNN she was grateful to O’Keefe et al. for rooting out those “few bad apples,” but as the boss reminds us, shooting the messenger is the ACORN way. Here’s her gratitude:
ACORN, taking a break from its apology tour, said today that it’s filing suit against James O’Keefe, Hannah Giles and Andrew Breitbart’s Breitbart.com.
The complaint: “The video and audio footage was taken without the knowledge of Williams and/or Thompson and in violation of Maryland’s Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code §§ 10-402(a) and 10-410, which requires two party consent to all electronic surveillance. Violation of the law is a felony, and entitles parties whose rights were violated to sue.”
 
What? So you give no credit to the fact that they turned down 5 million from a shady donor? Also, this man can't have political ideas of his own separate from the company he works for? And I'm sorry, but this statement makes no sense:



You realize that it's like a 50/50 split in this country right? If you think his opinions of the Tea Party is ridiculous, I look forward to seeing you all over this board sticking up for the ridiculous attacks against liberals as well. In fact, there is no way you could listen Rush Limbaugh who grossly judges liberals daily.

Did they turn down the fake 5 million or was it never really offered? From the video it seemed Schiller was trying to say all the right things to get the donation.
 
NPR has destroyed "the credibility of NPR's journalistic ethics" themselves. They didn't need help.

Unless someone destroys the credibility of a journalist working for NPR (i.e. they lied or fabricated a story Janet Cooke-style, or management intentionally ordered them to introduce bias or spin into the material they broadcast), then their credibility still stands.
 
Last edited:
So had they accepted the money you would not be attacking them for it? Just wondering.



That appears to be correct. I never knew that. I always thought it was like 40% conservative, 40% liberal, 20% independent, but it's more like 40% conservative, 40% independent, 20% liberal.



Right, so you stick up for them when you agree with them. However, liberals get attacked daily by the most famous of conservative pundits. I hear nothing from conservatives. In fact, the meanest, most attack-like conservative shows are their most popular shows.

Yet, NPR, a non-profit news organization is under attack? Why? Let's be honest here, it was under attack well before this video came out as well. What has NPR ever done to negatively affect conservatives? And why does this CEO not have the right to have his own political views?[/QUOTE]

For me it was the George Soros donation and then Juan getting the boot within a few days. Also their affiliation with CAIR and them being the possible reason for him getting fired.
Now this...it's time to defund them.
 
Did they turn down the fake 5 million or was it never really offered? From the video it seemed Schiller was trying to say all the right things to get the donation.

I believe they turned it down. That's the news I heard. If you have some conspiracy theory that they didn't, any evidence would be fine.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that he was hosting what he hoped were donors in an official capacity of NPR.

Now that's a decent point that I would concede to. Ethically it would be inappropriate for him to discuss his own political views with potential donors.
 
I believe they turned it down. That's the news I heard. If you have some conspiracy theory that they didn't, any evidence would be fine.



Now that's a decent point that I would concede to. Ethically it would be inappropriate for him to discuss his own political views with potential donors.

why would that be wrong, ethically? don't politicians espouse their views every day?
 
Unless someone destroys the credibility of a journalist working for NPR (i.e. they lied or fabricated a story Janet Cooke-style, or management intentionally ordered them to introduce bias or spin into the material they broadcast), then their credibility still stands.

If you don't think NPR is bias then OK. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Juan Williams is a perfect example of liberal bias over at NPR.
 
As I have asked you before, is he not entitled to have his own political beliefs separate from the entity he works for? How does the beliefs of one person change the beliefs of an organization?

First, he was representing NPR at that meeting and wasn't there as a private citizen...

Second, in my opinion, he had to know that what he was saying wouldn't be a big deal to his superiors should it get back to them...

Third, after the Williams firing NPR was widely condemned from both sides of the isle, and based on the fact that other NPR journalists had engaged in the same independent, personal opinion speech on other networks throughout the years without repercussions, suggested his firing was based on NPR managements' dislike for Fox News (aka, conservative media and opinion) and not on anything Williams said. It was obvious based on their actions, their programming and what Williams, a self described liberal democrat, divulged about the political leanings of the organization, that NPR did have a political bias/agenda...

When you combine this tape with the Williams firing and years of liberal bias accusations, it not only jeopardized NPR's public funding, but it also jeopardized their 501c non-profit, tax exempt status with the IRS, so they had to fire the executive and the head honcho to try and convince the public that they weren't politically biased, and wouldn't tolerate anyone who embraces such a partisan perspective.

So, to answer your question... Yes, he's entitled to his own political beliefs, but he's not entitled to express such highly partisan and derogatory political opinions, as a representative of a non-partisan, publicly funded media organization.


And if NPR didn't receive government money no one would have lost their jobs? What?

If this would have been a "for profit" commercial media outlet like CBS or CNN, his words wouldn't have jeopardized the network financially, or discredited the objectivity of the network any more than they already are... Therefore, the likelihood is nobody would have been fired, especially since the man wasn't even a journalist.

You really don't get this, do you?
 
Now that's a decent point that I would concede to. Ethically it would be inappropriate for him to discuss his own political views with potential donors.

It may or may not be unethical for him to talk about politics at work I don't know.

If his opinion was Conservatives and the Tea Party are wrong on 0bamacare, or that the Stimulus worked, I don't think we'd be discussing him or his opinions right now.

It's the ridiculous nature of his comments that has brought attention upon himself and rightly so. If he wasn't a lefty loon there would be no story and O'keefe would have wasted a lot of time setting this thing up. I wonder if O'keefe knew beforehand that he would get these types of comments from this guy?
 
If you don't think NPR is bias then OK. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Juan Williams is a perfect example of liberal bias over at NPR.

I didn't say that NPR isn't biased (In fact I said it leaned liberal a few posts back, but I believe any news organization inherently possesses bias), only that their journalistic excellence is still intact. What happened at the management level with Williams and Schiller are unrelated to how well NPR actually does its reporting.

And for the record, I was totally against the Williams firing and how they handled it, but afterwards he DID come back on NPR shows in order to give his side of the story, and I feel for him. I think they should have had a healthy debate before they decided to whether or not to fire him. None of this takes away from the fact that I personally believe Williams' comments to have been stupid, or that Williams himself is still a liberal.

As an organization, NPR itself is not above self-criticism, which I find to be extremely rare among news organizations. On the drive to school this morning, I was listening to their morning show and they had a healthy debate about the things that Ron Schiller said and Vivian Schiller's resignation.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say that NPR isn't biased (In fact I said it leaned liberal a few posts back, but I believe any news organization inherently possesses bias), only that their journalistic excellence is still intact. What happened at the management level with Williams and Schiller are unrelated to how well NPR actually does its reporting.

And for the record, I was totally against the Williams firing and how they handled it, but afterwards he DID come back on NPR shows in order to give his side of the story, and I feel for him. I think they should have had a healthy debate before they decided to whether or not to fire him. None of this takes away from the fact that I personally believe Williams' comments to have been stupid, or that Williams himself is still a liberal.

As an organization, NPR itself is not above self-criticism, which I find to be extremely rare among news organizations. On the drive to school this morning, I was listening to their morning show and they had a healthy debate about the things that Ron Schiller said and Vivian Schiller's resignation.

Fair enough SB75.
 
Fair enough SB75.

Thanks Ron, I try to be as fair as possible. I call a spade a spade, and I criticize when it's warranted and give credit where it's due. I think most people on this forum recognize the fact that I always make an effort to be fair and not be hypocritical, despite the fact that I'm a solid liberal and still have personal biases.
 
Thanks Ron, I try to be as fair as possible. I call a spade a spade, and I criticize when it's warranted and give credit where it's due. I think most people on this forum recognize the fact that I always make an effort to be fair and not be hypocritical, despite the fact that I'm a solid liberal and still have personal biases.


The only contention I have is that outlets like NPR are more than "slightly" bias, to think that they try and say they aren't I think leaves reasonable people to surmize that they openly lie to the public.

j-mac
 
The only contention I have is that outlets like NPR are more than "slightly" bias, to think that they try and say they aren't I think leaves reasonable people to surmize that they openly lie to the public.

j-mac

ksu_aviator posted this in another thread

543-3.gif


According to audience approval-disapproval, NPR is probably about as nonpartisan as it gets when it comes to bias in major media outlets, outside of the WSJ.
 
ksu_aviator posted this in another thread

543-3.gif


According to audience approval-disapproval, NPR is probably about as nonpartisan as it gets when it comes to bias in major media outlets, outside of the WSJ.


You know what I see there? I see that liberals love their outlets, and Repubs love thiers...But you know what is glaring? The only conservative outlet in any shape is FOX, ALL the others seem to have a liberal lean to one degree or another. But yet FOX must be silenced eh? Not saying you want to but this is what I see the mindset of our more radical members.

j-mac
 
You know what I see there? I see that liberals love their outlets, and Repubs love thiers...But you know what is glaring? The only conservative outlet in any shape is FOX, ALL the others seem to have a liberal lean to one degree or another. But yet FOX must be silenced eh? Not saying you want to but this is what I see the mindset of our more radical members.

j-mac

The WSJ has a conservative lean yet is one of the most respected newspapers out there. All in all though, I think this is just more evidence about how unreliable in general cable news is. Now I personally think Fox does the public a disservice by advocating a certain agenda and a skewed narrative, but admittedly this could also apply to other news outlets in general. I don't support silencing or dismantling any of them, I only believe that people need to stick to news sources that are accurate, and are as faithful to reality as possible, more than anything else.
 
The WSJ has a conservative lean yet is one of the most respected newspapers out there. All in all though, I think this is just more evidence about how unreliable in general cable news is. Now I personally think Fox does the public a disservice by advocating a certain agenda and a skewed narrative, but admittedly this could also apply to other news outlets in general. I don't support silencing or dismantling any of them, I only believe that people need to stick to news sources that are accurate, and are as faithful to reality as possible, more than anything else.

I like the shotgun effect. In addition to FOXNews, I also watch MSNBC, LINK TV, And listen on XM to Patriot, XM LEFT, FoxNewsTalk, C-SPAN, and what ever I find interesting. But you'd think from some in here that I only listen to Rush, Hannity, and FOX. It should also be noted that although the WSJ is definately right leaning in their OP ED pages, their hard news comes just like any other outlet, from a liberal lean.


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom