Support WhoWhatWhy
FRESH TAKES | news, content and perspective you might not find elsewhere

NPR Scandal: The Real Story, Please

You’ve undoubtedly heard about the turmoil at National Public Radio, where first a top fundraiser and then the chief executive have resigned, clearly under pressure. The issue: “inappropriate” comments made to bogus potential donors, purportedly Muslims but actually agents in a right wing activist sting with hidden cameras.

As reported by the New York Times:

In the midst of a brutal battle with Republican critics in Congress over federal subsidies, NPR has lost its chief executive after yet another politically charged embarrassment.

Vivian Schiller, who joined NPR two years ago, offered her resignation to the public radio organization’s board late Tuesday, half a day after a conservative filmmaker released a video that showed one of NPR’s fund-raising executives disparaging Republicans and Tea Party supporters in a conversation with people posing as prospective donors….

What did the NPR fundraisers actually say? We only know from these edited excerpts. Few people probably will watch even these, which were cherry-picked to make NPR look bad.  Still fewer are likely to view the complete unedited footage, which James O’Keefe – the Right’s video hit man—has not offered, and which the board of NPR apparently has not demanded.

The result is that they—and we—are judging in the dark.   We have no idea regarding the context of the statements in question, and the extent to which the NPR officials were baited or entrapped.  We also have no idea regarding other statements they might have made that would make them look better.

According to the edited footage, the NPR executives did make critical comments about Republicans and Tea Party supporters. But some things to keep in mind:

We do not hear the lead-up from the agents in the sting, so we don’t know exactly why the NPR executives are talking about these subjects, or what exactly they were responding to. Just a guess: the Muslim-donor impersonators may have baited them with a question about why NPR is under attack from these interests, and why minority groups such as theirs should support an outlet that offends those critics.

By the way, how outrageous is it to suggest that the Tea Party includes elements with a dim view of people of races different from their own?   Is not the obsession with President Obama’s nationality itself a clue?   That’s not to say all Tea Party supporters hold such views.  But a fair number?  For a news organization the test should be empirical, and not political correctness (which is an odd standard for the Right now to be asserting.)  The question is not whether NPR executives said something, but whether what they said is grounded in truth.

In fact, when I watch some pro-Israel demonstrations, I sometimes see participants expressing intolerant if not racist views. The question for a journalist would be: how much of a movement is motivated by such views? If it seems to loom large, it should be reported—and commented upon.

It’s also a good bet that the NPR executives were being invited, tacitly or explicitly, to say why Muslims should consider the network to be fair minded.  That’s likely why you see them in the footage nodding and remarking sympathetically. But you will also notice that they explain as well that some Jewish groups like their coverage while others do not.  In that context they state clearly their intention to be fair to all.

The released excerpts actually are pretty mild, especially considering that they presumably are the most embarrassing extracts that Mr. O’Keefe could offer from a long lunch. The NPR fundraisers are on a sales call. Naturally their inclination is to be polite. More so because NPR could be on the verge of losing all of its federal funding. If that happens, hustling for dollars is the only alternative. The enemies of NPR know this, but don’t emphasize the very real bind the network is in.

There will continue to be revelations, and we can expect them to reflect negatively on the radio network. For example, a new story just emerging involves a taped follow-up telephone call after the lunch. In it, NPR’s senior director of institutional giving is asked if she can arrange for this potential donation to be treated as anonymous, and says that she believes this to be possible. The O’Keefe pretend-Muslim operative says that they want to be shielded from a government audit. That might sound sinister, but a lot of donors, for various reasons, prefer to be anonymous, and to avoid incurring audits.  (At least with this audio-taped conversation, unlike the “hot” video, we get to hear the whole thing—and if we bother to listen all the way through, we encounter an NPR executive who sounds pretty cautious and responsible.)

The ultimate failure here, though, is on the part of NPR, yet not in the way its critics charge.  The failure has been to do the first and most basic thing a news organization is supposed to do—get the story and get it out. The NPR board should have insisted on seeing the entire unedited tape of the lunch meeting.  It should also find out who, ultimately, is behind this hit job and what purposes it serves. You can bet that the answer has something to do with entrenched interests who do not like any kind of non-Fox reporting, even of the tepid sort that increasingly defines an embattled and defensive NPR.

If the facts do show real improprieties by its executives, fine: show them the door.  But at least then their removal would be based on what actually occurred. Not on an edited and tendentious version of that event, nor on the irrational mob reaction to the headlines.  Plus, we listeners would know the whole story too.  And isn’t that why NPR is supposed to exist: to explain things, nuances and all?

 

Image Credit:  (wikimedia.org)


Comment Policy:
Keep it civil. Keep it relevant. Keep it clear. Keep it short. Identify your assertions as fact or speculation. No typing in ALL-CAPS. Read the article in its entirety before commenting.

Note: As a news site dedicated to serious inquiry, not a bulletin board, we reserve the right to remove any comment at any time, especially when it appears to be part of an effort to push a deceptive, unscientific, false or narrow ideological line. Posts that scapegoat by ethnicity, gender, religion or nationality will also be removed.
  • Jedsmith

    Finally a heroic whistleblower who shows us the moral, political and financial corruption that inevitably occurs in government funded public services. /sarcasm off.

  • Dtread7000

    Your valiant attempt to expose the truth is commendable. I don’t think we can ever really know “what happened” but you get the closest to that. Keep it up!

  • Lesliegriffith

    Thank goodness for your reporting Russ.

  • Cawilliamson2001

    I applaud you for your thoughtful analysis. “Get the story and get it out.” And there’s no doubt that there is a “real” story in there. But I think it can be summed up more succinctly. Except for Nancy Pelosi, no one has any balls when it comes to dealing with the Tea Party, the majority of whom are overtly bigoted. This baffles me. It is once again “The Emporer Has No Clothes” and it once again illustrates how weak kneed the media ultimately is when confronted with a group of loud mouthed extremists.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you, again, Russ.

    I wonder whether this thread might be a venue to show the problem we all have with religion creating division among people. Here it flares up, unquestioned. At least it is fair to say that religion contributes to the “irrational mob reaction” as you’ve described. I think along with getting the story and getting it out, the information should be shared in the context of the basic human condition and struggle for a dignified life. When we find out who and why on this hit job, will it help disillusion the reader of religion?

  • getnews

    i saw the first video posted by “Project Veritas” on YouTube…i found myself agreeing with most of what Mr Schiller said … eventhough taken out of context… this is obviously the rightwing’s lame attempt to counter what was done on the fake phone call placed to Gov Walker of WI by the reporter posing as one of the Koch brothers….significant difference here is the baiting nature of the questions…and that the “undercover reporters” do not reveal their real identity … Schiller did say he was speaking as an individual at one point … based on this one tape, i don’t see why he was fired …

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Atlas/1348584059 John Atlas

    Check out my exclusive story at the New Jersey Star Ledger. NPR executives withdraw their resignations. Read the story at: http://blog.nj.com/njv_john_atlas/2011/03/npr_executives_withdraw_their.html

    • http://www.whowhatwhy.com Russ Baker

      Truth in advertising about Mr. Atlas’s piece–he does not actually have a story about withdrawn resignations. It’s a literary device to make a point.

    • Anonymous

      Bogus with a capital B

  • PeterB

    Good comments, Russ. Amazing how NPR caved in the face of the latest edited ambush interview from O’Keefe. Obama and the Dems allowed O’Keefe/Breitbart to facilitate their craven take-down of ACORN without any investigation or proof of wrongdoing, then (initially) got snookered by the Sherrod vid. Why don’t they crack down on O’Keefe and lock him up for violating privacy laws??

  • Brianmpa

    Hi Russ,
    Great questions about this story – can we get the whole story please? NPR, though, has been a sell-out for years now. As a major corporate media player, it too has become a CNN or NBC, or ABC sell-out to the political class and corporate power. I, for one, can no longer listen to NPR. It’s reporters and editorswith their fawning stories about the Pentagon and the Obama White House is too much for my digestive system to take. They have gotten their cumuppance for their corporate behavior that leaves all of us ignorant of the facts and context we need to truly understand what is happening to our country and society.

    • planckbrandt

      it is more evidence of the corporate owner donor coup against America

  • Anonymous

    NPR apologist

  • Pingback: LT Saloon |  NPR Scandal: The Real Story, Please

  • Reginald Thornton

    Fascinating. A lengthy defense of NPR in this sting, and only one mention each of the words “Israel” or “Jew(ish).” As with the other apologists, NPR is found innocent for ultimately not taking the money. No one- not even NPR’s own press release-slash-apology- no one is suggesting they passed because of the funder’s anti-semitic request. WhoWhatWhy is emblematic of this.

  • Mab151

    I have no problem with NPR, but they should just not have government
    funding and then can say and do whatever they want. Maybe made sense
    50 years ago when there were a couple network stations only, but now
    with a zillion TV and radio stations out there, it’s long past time to
    save those dollars.

    • planckbrandt

      Those zillion TV and radio stations are owned by the same 8 corporations. Clearchannel alone owns 1800…controlled by Bain. There is a big reason for us to have publicly funded media with transparency and official policies in place.

  • Pingback: Russ Baker: NPR Scandal Reversal: The Raw Footage Shows Something Else | Blog Of The Year

  • Jimmadison89

    NPR don’t need the money from government anyway only get about 6% or so of their total need get that elsewhere, then say what you want solution!

    • planckbrandt

      they get their money from corporations.

  • Gollymolly446

    What is all this frockin’ obsession with comparing Jews to things? Try Buddhist or Quakers or something new.

  • Pingback: NPR Scandal: The Real Story, Please | Our End of the 'Net

More in Criminal Justice, Fresh Takes, Our Investigations (149 of 824 articles)