[Ron] Schiller did say some bad things.... But the short video took them out of context, like a bad reality show, and made them sound worse....Oh, bullshit. If O'Keefe is to blame, NPR should have defended Schiller. It didn't. The full video was there. If it undercut O'Keefe's edit, NPR could have reframed the narrative. Such an effort would have gotten plenty of play in the media. But NPR didn't even try. Of course, O'Keefe put his video together in a strong way to make his point, but he exposed himself to a powerful counterattack... that didn't happen. QED.
The full video hardly clears Schiller....
O'Keefe did post the full video...
By the time anyone scrutinized his NPR video, O'Keefe had already claimed a scalp and framed the narrative....
March 17, 2011
Time columnist says James O'Keefe edited his NPR videos unfairly, but the firings speak for themselves.
This piece from James Poniewozik is quite lame:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
73 comments:
O'keefe's editing was certainly aggressive - more aggressive than one would expect from an "objective" journalist, but certainly more fair than anything one would get from a Michael Moore or Morgan Spurlock.
He didn't put words in Schiller's mouth, and he didn't reverse any meanings. You could argue he removed some slightly mitigating material, but nothing earth-shattering. If Schiller's words were really defensible, he and NPR could have used the full video to do so.
VW "sterm" and some drang
It's just like Sherrod... these people fire without the barest sort of investigation or defending their own people.
Now why would that be? Isn't one's first reaction to be "No. He wouldn't do that" and then therefore try to prove it or disprove it.... but if the reaction is "Of course he did it".. because they all do it.
(I'm at work and skimmed your article, so if i happen to be restating what you just said.. it's just great minds thinking alike)
Don't you mean res ipsa loquitur?
I think the pots are calling the refrigerator black. They should be so circumspect about Sarah Palin's early interviews, or of just about anybody who has been the target of Sixty Minutes. The difference is that O'Keefe also posted the entire episode, which is more that the networks do.
Toy
I didn't need to see O'Keefe's video to know that your typical NPR listener and employee believes I'm a knuckledragging racist because I want to see fiscal responsibility in our government.
O'Keef and Breitbart have learned how to stage-release these things - to draw the enemy into the killing field with a first edit, and unload with more after the first contrived counter attack.
(Ops, the new civility escaped me.)
It's the parts that might yet be unreleased that makes NPR and others skittish.
I think it's a sign of low moral character to blame NPR because they reacted to a lie that was pieced together by O'Keefe.
It seems like the appropriate reaction is to attack O'keefe for lying, rather than those he lied to. Unless you support lying, when it helps your cause. Hence the low moral character.
When's the last time a MSM news organization put its full, unedited video footage of an O'Keefe-style undercover videotaping online? Or, heck, the full, unedited video footage of one of its interviews?
When's the last time a reporter for Time published all the research material that went into a story?
So where's the lie, pb&j?
"Oh Bullshit ..."
Not to mention the fact that James O'Keefe released every single moment of footage so that he could not be accused of editing the footage unfairly ... which is a brilliant tactic.
NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR ... they all engage in deceptive editing ... so they assume everyone else does too. But they won't release their unedited footage so we can make up our own minds.
James O'Keefe did.
Because he's transparent.
And they are not.
Conservatives know EVERY. SINGLE. TRICK. in the Democrat Party playbook, and we're prepared for EVERY. SINGLE. TRICK. in the Democrat Party playbook.
We know, in advance, that we'll be accused of this ... so we wait for the accusation ... and THEN release our unedited footage.
Democrats are playing fucking checkers.
Such as this is why I feel no need to click on the NYT. Evah!
"So where's the lie, pb&j?"
Yes, PB&J do tell.
What was the lie that caused NPR to fire people unfairly to protect their "reputation."
You're alleging that NPR fired people ... jettisoned them ... only because of a lie. That they refused to stand by their people. That they threw liberals under the bus to try to salvage their federal funding ONLY because of a lie.
What was the lie that caused liberals to abandon their OWN EMPLOYEES?
What lie can Republicans use to cause liberals to DISOWN their own?
Gee, I thought liberals were standing for the little guy. What lie caused them instead to throw the little guy to the fucking WOLVES?
The O'Keefe edit ties together unrelated clips so that the NPR guy is calling the TPers racists, and so on.
In the real tape the NPR guy is saying that some Rs were making the disparaging TPer comments, not himself.
Go to Glenn Beck's website (the blaze) to see all the fabrications. [I love that sentence.]
"Such as this is why I feel no need to click on the NYT. Evah!"
Althouse gets paid by the NYT to link to them. Only reason she would link such a poor information source, I suspect.
The way you fuck them is to click on over ... but don't bother reading the stories.
Just click on all their ads and then close the window. That fucks over their advertisers because their advertisers are paying by the click ... but since you're not buying you're using up the ad budget of their moron advertisers.
Eventually the advertisers will either wise up or go bankrupt.
Whee, Ut vs. 1jpb.
"The O'Keefe edit ties together unrelated clips so that the NPR guy is calling the TPers racists, and so on."
So if this was true, then why did NPR fire these poor people who were taken in by the false editing?
Doesn't NPR stand behind the little guy?
Or do they just fire their employees without really checking to see what the real story is?
If they're doing that to their helpless employees ... then maybe we shouldn't be giving them our tax dollars.
Maybe they treat their own employees too poorly to qualify for our tax dollars and their managers need to attend sensitivity training.
Screw the NYT!
Insty [or somebody else] has proposed the media agree to post 100% of their video interviews as a matter of transparency. Why hasn't any of th old media agreed to do that?
"In the real tape the NPR guy is saying that some Rs were making the disparaging TPer comments, not himself."
Right. The ol' "some people say...but I don't say that" trick.
Some people say that Tea Partiers are the current face of the KKK, but not me. I don't actually believe that. I'm just saying that some people say that.
"Whee, Ut vs. 1jpb."
It's going to be a thrill-ride. Grab your linen and start your grinin'.
"Why hasn't any of th old media agreed to do that?"
Because they're a bunch of Democrat Party propogandists. They'll NEVER agree to that.
Dan Rather was taken down not because he tried to alter the outcome of a Presidential election using forged documents ... but because CBS released those same forged documents onto the internet.
If they had not done that, Dan Rather would still be picking presidents.
The rest of the media took careful notes; you will not see any of their unedited footage, EVER.
Because then we could pick at it and dissect it and put 2 together with 2.
Can't have that.
The media aren't stupid. And they compare notes via Journolist. They realize we are at war and that today we're only using words.
They want to avoid the next phase, because we buy more ammo, so they're trying to win the war NOW.
In the real tape the NPR guy is saying that some Rs were making the disparaging TPer comments, not himself.
In "the real tape" he indicates that he agrees with the sentiment.
Oh, bullshit
I like when you do that.
NPR is trying to reframe the argument to avoid losing federal funding. Everyone knows NPR is in the bag for the Democrats.
Althouse: But NPR didn't even try.
Oh, NPR tried. They didn't mention anything about the incident for about a week, then they did a piece relying on interpretations of the tapes by Glenn Beck. Of course, in the very same piece they tried distancing themselves from Beck, AND the NPR reporter doing the piece admitted having not seen the full tapes.
Very bizarre, but typical for NPR.
Ut,
Over the years I'm sure I've noted that that libs are whiny wimps at least a hundred times.
If you're making this point...I got nutin.
Rev
"In "the real tape" he indicates that he agrees with the sentiment."
Please point out precisely how he expressed this approval you're claiming.
Who cares if NPR is in the bag for the Democrats or not?
Whether they are pro-Democrat, pro-Republican, pro-Green, pro-Libertarian, or totally neutral, it is still retarded that we're spending tax dollars to provide a news network when there are already thousands of news services available to the public.
There was some faint justification for public television back when there were only three networks and a handful of radio stations. But today? Please.
Please point out precisely how he expressed this approval you're claiming.
No.
Rev,
But please, I beg you, please, please, please.....
[See, I've really got this lib thing down.]
The stuff Schiller was telling the fake Muslims was really just liberal conventional wisdom, nothing different from what you'd see in a Frank Rich column or something.
I suspect the real reason he got fired is because NPR knew about the much more serious incident with Betsy Liley offering to shield the identity of the supposed donors. NPR leadership felt like the situation was serious enough to fire both of them first and ask questions later.
If it had just been Schiller, they might have trotted out the old " out of context" excuse, but there's no way they could justify Liley's actions.
I would not call Mr. O'Keefe a journalist.
Having said that I'm shocked that anyone purporting to be a journalist would edit video footage to conform to a narrative.
"NPR is trying to reframe the argument to avoid losing federal funding."
Which, really, is dumb. Their funding is not at risk and never will be.
Democrats and Republicans LONG AGO agreed to join forces. The United States isn't about Republican vs. Democrat. It's about Harvard vs. US. The elite taker versus the prole worker.
When Democrats were in complete and total power, they did not eliminate that part of the federal government that they rail against. They didn't ACTUALLY close Gitmo. They didn't ACTUALLY oppose the individual mandate. They didn't ACTUALLY stop killing brown people with robot drone aircraft.
Republicans now control the US House of Representatives ... from which all federal funding flows.
So, let's examine what have we seen thusfar: Continued funding of NPR.
Lo and behold. NPR still exists. As does the Department of Energy. As does the Department of Education. As does Obama's moratorium on drilling.
Republicans, by continually passing Continuing Resolutions, are ensuring that Democrat Party strongholds such as NPR continue in perpetuity.
Republicans have continued funding Democrats through federal grants to colleges and universities (where most of them work). They're still studying mouse farts.
Republicans are still funding Planned Parenthood. Babies are still being murdered.
Democrats have nothing to really worry about because THE. FIX. IS. IN.
Republicans will fund NPR ... forever.
Mark. My. Words.
But please, I beg you, please, please, please.....
When Rev says no, he means no
"I got nutin."
It's smart that you retreat in the face of a superior opponent.
You can go away now and comment on DailyKos threads or somesuch.
"I suspect the real reason he got fired is because NPR knew about the much more serious incident with Betsy Liley offering to shield the identity of the supposed donors."
That was a criminal act that the Obama Administration was able to get away with when they controlled the chairmanships of the House oversight committess ... but which should be resulting in subpoenas and sworn testimony and fifth amendment claims now that the Republicans have subpoena power and can compel witnesses to appear before the Congress.
If Betsy Lilly isn't compelled to testify before the people's House about her criminal act of conspiracy, then really ... what further use do we have for the Republican Party?
Republicans had better start playing for keeps, or there won't be a Republican Party.
It's really that simple.
Ut called me smart!!!
Life is complete.
NPR took a bad hit over firing Juan Williams- in light of other egregious statements by its so called journalists.
The O'keefe video demonstrated it was time to finally clean house.
"Ut called me smart!!!"
I did no such a thing, and your claim reveals for all to see that you are not, in fact, smart. For you have fallen into my trap.
It is better, dude, to keep your mouth shut and to be thought a fool that to open it and remove all doubt.
"NPR took a bad hit over firing Juan Williams ..."
Gee, you think it was a good idea to fire the black guy?
THE. ONLY. BLACK. GUY?
I mean, these liberal thinkers over at NPR have completely lost their FUCKING MINDS.
Ut said:""NPR is trying to reframe the argument to avoid losing federal funding."
Which, really, is dumb. Their funding is not at risk and never will be."
I don't know about that, NPR is easy pickings right now and the GOP would like to put this in the win column to wear on the sleeve going into the elections. (that have already begun).
"I did no such a thing"
Oh well, a boy can dream.
"I don't know about that, NPR is easy pickings right now and the GOP would like to put this in the win column to wear on the sleeve going into the elections."
Really? Because I don't think they'll actually defund NPR. Or Planned Parenthood. Or cut funding for Democrats in the colleges and universities where they fester.
I don't think they'll do that at all.
Oh, they'll talk a good game. They'll change the subject to the deficit and how we need to reign in borrowing.
But as Tim Geithner predicted ... they'll raise the debt ceiling. You remember Tim Geithner don't you? He's the Secretary of the Treasury who cheated on his taxes and got away with it.
The fix is in.
Republicans WILL fund NPR. They WILL raise the debt ceiling. They WILL fund mouse fart studies. They will fund the Smithsonian's Piss Christ displays. They will fund everything that props up the Democrat Party.
I'd like to be wrong. But I'm not.
"Oh well, a boy can dream."
I noticed that while you were dreaming you went totally silent on the supposed "lie that was pieced together by O'Keefe." (And, I'm quoting you here.)
Don't think we've forgotten about your original accusation.
What was the lie? You never said what the actual lie was. You only alleged a lie by O'Keefe.
The big lie.
What was the lie again?
Why so quiet?
The NPR elitists knew they were guilty of worse crap. Scapegoating underlings is typical reaction of those who know they are guilty.
O'Keefe always posts the full videos.
What's more surprising to me is that Ron Schiller didn't recognize this kid. (Okay, what's NOT seen is the goofy get ups they came up with "to look like donors from Saudi Arabia.)
Exactly how did O'Keefe pass that test?
The House voted 229-192 today to defund NPR en toto.
O'Keefe's vid helped to make the case. NPR is neither a NATIONAL nor a PUBLIC radio station. It's the sock puppet of a small malevolent faction of Maoist scum. There's no reason that the rest of us should be paying taxes to support their mouthpiece.
I used to like NPR 20 years ago. But it has gotten more and more narrow and sick, like the Democrat party itself. They have to be stopped. The first thing is to pull the financial plug, and make them pay taxes, if they are not going to report fairly (lastn ight I listened to an hour long positive piece about a Maoist guerrilla group in the mountains of India without their ONCE having the decency to tell the story from a proper Indian government perspective.
Just a shameless propaganda tool.
Mitch McConnell: Little Timmy Geithner wants more debt.
John Boehner: Well, whatever little Timmie wants little Timmie gets because, because...we don't wanna be accused of being big bad government shutdowners...WAAAAAH...
Mary Mapes. Considered "brilliant" by her peers. And the CBS memo hoax wasn't just dishonest editing (which the NYTs and its ilk do every single day), it was the deliberate use of a fraudulent document to effect the outcome of a presidential election.
And the NYTs white-washed the incident. The audacity of them to lecture O'keefe on "journolist ethics". What a joke.
Spending and taxing decisions by an elected government is not tyranny.
Tyranny is defined as "arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority". Despotic means "having the quality of a king or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power". If the government claims unlimited power then, yes, we're living in a tyrannical regime, even if it is an *elected* regime. At this point there are very few aspects of an American's life that are not regulated by the government, and the push to expand that regulation is unceasing.
I would also argue that our individual relationship with the federal government is closer to subject:king than it is voter:representative. The reason is that our individual voting power is so tiny that the odds of any one of us ever affecting the outcome of an election are astronomical. If the government said, tomorrow, that you personally forfeited all your voting rights for all future Presidential and Congressional elections... it wouldn't affect anything at all. Not a damned thing.
If it literally does not matter if you vote or not, is that actually democratic government anymore?
"The House voted 229-192 today to defund NPR en toto."
Thanks Kirby!
There is so much commenter nonsense on this post.
Let's be truthful:
O'Keefe did not always previously post the full, unedited video. Full Acorn-sting videos are not as yet fully available. However, he did this time.
By posting the full NPR video, O'Keefe revealed his highly biased editing. He he made it appear as certain comments made by Schiller applied to statements they did not. I've reviewed the tapes. O'Keefe's edited videos should in no way be taken at face value.
The full video showed, however, that even with O'Keefe's ridiculously biased editing, Schiller made statements that were firing offenses by the Juan Williams standard NPR previously defined. This is particularly so given the resulting congressional push to de-fund NPR.
Short version: O'Keefe framed a guilty man.
O'Keefe did not always previously post the full, unedited video. Full Acorn-sting videos are not as yet fully available. However, he did this time.
So he's already practicing more ethical journalism than any of the major news networks do.
pbAndj,
I think it's a sign of low moral character to blame NPR because they reacted to a lie that was pieced together by O'Keefe.
It seems like the appropriate reaction is to attack O'keefe for lying, rather than those he lied to. Unless you support lying, when it helps your cause. Hence the low moral character.
Whoo-boy, you libs will spin! So 60 Minutes style hidden camera work - that catches liberals saying what they really mean - is "lying"? Incredible. Tell me:
When is the MSM going to release all their straight-forward and honest Palin footage?
Will this help some of you understand why cutting and pasting together video is a lie?
When is the MSM going to release all their straight-forward and honest Palin footage?
Oh, there's nothing to see in the unedited footage. They promise.
And heck, if you can't trust a major media conglomerate's word, well... whose word CAN you trust?
O'Keefe will not quit. He is awesome and his timing is exquisite. He gets accused of devious editing: he releases the entire tape. What news outlet does that? What would it reveal if the msm did that with their complete tapes? O'Keefe also keeps a bit in reserve, just in case. He is not to be fucked with this kid.
pbAndj wrote regarding Obama: I voted for him. I gave him money. And, I have not regretted my vote for one second since I cast it.
Knowing from whence he cometh, the wise and objective man will take any comments authored by pbAndj with a considerable grain of salt. Watch the the unedited Schiller video and listen for lies pbAndj claims O'Keefe has fabricated. I haven't heard anything that exonerates Schiller or NPR. They're guilty as charged and pbAndj is merely nursing a delusion for the sake of his own self-respect.
Wise up pbAndj, you'll never get over this degradation with the kind of calumnies you typically spew here. You've tied the Obama millstone around your neck and your honor is going down with him.
pb&j: so showing an edited tape of gwb proves that a complete and unedited tape made by o'keefe is false? Dude, relax. GWB is the last president, old news.
Kirby Olson said...I used to like NPR 20 years ago. But it has gotten more and more narrow and sick, like the Democrat party itself.
Do you really think NPR is any different now than it was 20 years ago? I used to listen most regularly in the late 1970s-1980s, before there were so many alternatives. It was always very left-wing. I used to keep a tape of the most over-the-top NPR stories, things with titles like "Lesbian dance troupe in Havana challenges stereotypes."
In the mid-80s "All Things Considered" celebrated its 10th anniversary by asking listeners to send in suggestions. I wrote a nice letter suggesting they hire a token conservative. I actually was called by then-host Susan Stamberg, who discussed the matter with me for about 40 minutes. She explained that everyone who worked at ATC was a liberal, but liberal in that "open-minded, intellectually curious way." (Ha-ha.) A six- or seven-minute edited version of our discussion was played on the air. It was incredibly unfair. Stamberg had re-recorded her questions and chose my answers to fit them to my disadvantage. For example, when we were talking she asked me what I thought about their South Africa coverage and I told her, but the broadcast version had her asking me in what area I thought NPR was biased, and me answering about South Africa as if that was top of mind for me, making me look like a racist. Also, at times during our discussion Stamberg had become quite heated, but on the edited version she was calm and collected of course and I was the only one occasionally becoming heated. She also took out the admission that NPR staffers are all liberal, of course.
The original version of the GWB speech is also available. That doesn't make the edited version less of a lie.
The lie is when the video tape is cut and splice to distort what was originally said. Which is what O'Keefe did.
But, if you folks want to say it's ok for this sort of lie to occur, that don't make no nevermind to me. I don't support liars, you all do.
Different strokes, for different folks.
But, if you folks want to say it's ok for this sort of lie to occur, that don't make no nevermind to me. I don't support liars, you all do.
The MSM has been doing that every day for the last 30 years. Where have you been?
Next, you'll be damning O'Keefe for using anonymous sources
Oh, bullshit. If O'Keefe is to blame, NPR should have defended Schiller. It didn't.
Oh, please! This is horseshit and you know it. Classic post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Yes, the prevailing counterargument is: "O'Keefe didn't change anything they said in any substantive way, but... it's not fair!!"
As a poster pointed out above, the media sting was brilliantly executed--release the first tape, and let the NPR respond to that; then hammer them with the full unedited tape that exposes both the initial lie followed by the coverup--these guys are good ( Briebart and O'Keefe that is)
Shadowfox: Oh, bullshit. If O'Keefe is to blame, NPR should have defended Schiller. It didn't.
"Oh, please! This is horseshit and you know it. Classic post hoc ergo propter hoc."
This is not "classic" post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is not post hoc ergo propter hoc at all. Look it up.
Harry, good story about your experience with NPR. It also illustrates why the Liberals are so hysterical about the advent of the new media. When you control the narrative by editing – having control of what to include and what to exclude – you control the national “mind.” Stamberg had the ability to re-record her part of the conversation and make your remarks (and those who they implied that you represent) look either evil or foolish. Everyone edits; the difference between O’Keefe and Stamberg is that O’Keefe can release the entire tape and his editing doesn’t change the story. Stamberg can’t. With the new media, and the ubiquitous video and audio recorders, people now understand that the MSM’s version of events is not only not the whole truth but often a total lie.
pbAndj, or perhaps I should be more formal and call you Mr. Shankman, where was this concern for media fairness with Palin interviews? Or the "fake but accurate" Bush documents from CBS? Or the fake Tea Party "N-word" incident?
Please provide a link to show your outraged comments to any or those or similar incidents.
If you can't provide said link, maybe you should just go back to "occupying" Madison.
So NPR is such a wonderful news gathering operation they don't gather facts BEFORE they take action?
"Of course, O'Keefe put his video together in a strong way to make his point" AA
Just like every news and commentary show on TV. Then he released the entire tape.
@ Harry, it may be that my politics shifted after going to graduate school and seeing where all this was headed. To a kind of Marxist fascism.
I then began to beat a long slow retreat.
So you're probably right that NPR has been the same for twenty years. It's me that's changed.
I sit, corrected.
I think when I was 20 I would have listened to an hour long piece about a Maoist group in India battling the government and felt for them. Now I just think: God help us.
I probably would have sided with Ward Churchill when I was 20.
Now I just think: God help us.
At any rate, I see O'Keefe as a very sharp muckraker. I think it's ok to use hidden cameras when you're filming public servants, because they can be held to a higher level of truth.
Did anybody care that it was a private video that caught the Rodney King beatings? Did the videographer ask the police, excuse me, officers, do you mind my filming your savage blows to Mr. King's body?
If this is ok, why isn't it ok to catch Schiller in the act?
You can't have it both ways.
@holdfast: certainly more fair than anything one would get from a Michael Moore or Morgan Spurlock.
You mean like how to this day Spurlock won't release his food log despite the documentary Fat Head demonstrates that either his dietitian was lying about his 5,000 calories a day or Spurlock wasn't following his "rules" on what to eat there.
Poniewozik's (Time) and Folkenflik's (NPR) claims about deceptive editing are the real examples of deceptive editing.
NPR didn't use the full video to reframe the debate because the complaints about the editing were quibbling without altering a bit how extreme Schiller's bias were or how pandering he was to the crackpot views of his supposed Muslim doners.
When someone actually CITES specific problems with the editing, their accusations literally evaporate in their mouth because the accusations lack any real substance.
That's why NPR and Time say the video editing was deceptive without citing HOW they were deceptive.
If NPR is so unable to separate the truth from bias, wouldn't our contributions (to say nothing of our tax dollars) be better spent elsewhere?
Michael, Michael, Michael... you seem to have missed the point:
If O'Keefe is to blame, NPR should have defended Schiller.
This is an attempt to justify O'Keefe's "creative editing" by NPR's actions after the fact.
There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for NPR's cutting Schiller lose--faced with a teabagging attack in Congress, they took the craven path out in hopes to placate the donut-IQ critics. How does this justify O'Keefe's stripping Schiller's statement of context--in exactly the same manner he's done in his other creatively edited videos? It's PHEPH alright...
Here's the point I made on another thread. One of the comments on that thread included
But jerks like this do do bad things. Congressman Giffords is a good example of how low lifes can come from anywhere.
Taken literally, I find this statement appalling. Although there are plenty of statement on this blog that I find appalling, I have reason to believe that this statement should not be taken literally. The problem is, even including more surrounding text does not help to change the content of this statement.
But understanding the tone of the post shows something that simple quoting cannot do: the statement meant
But jerks like this do do bad things. [What happened to] Congressman Giffords is a good example of how low lifes can come from anywhere.
Note how the meaning is changed completely with an addition of just a couple of words that the author does not even offer in the original. But she is guilty of poor quality writing, not some atrocity. And I did not even edit the quote. O'Keefe deliberately cropped out exculpatory material in this video and in others. In some cases he added footage tin enhance his credibility. (remember that pimp and hooker routine? Well ACORN employees never saw it--it was added after the fact.)
O'Keefe is a compulsive liar and a potential felon. He has zero credibility. But the fact that someone failed to defend an employee against a scurrilous accusation does not and should not make O'Keefe look any better. If his case cannot stand on its own merits, others' inappropriate actions in response do not justify that fraud that precedes them.
Post a Comment