March 8, 2011

NPR exec Ron Schiller on the Tea Party: "they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people."

Caught on video by conservative pranksters posing as potential donors from a Muslim Brotherhood front group:
Schiller goes on to describe liberals as more intelligent and informed than conservatives. “In my personal opinion, liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives"...

When [one of the pranksters] suggests to Schiller that “Jews do kind of control the media or, I mean, certainly the Zionists and the people who have the interests in swaying media coverage toward a favorable direction of Israel,” Schiller does not rebut him or stop eating. He just nods his head slightly.
When one person says something and another keeps silent, what should we think of the silent person? I recently discussed exactly that with Slate's Timonthy Noah, who was keen on using silence against a Republican Congressman who didn't immediately jump on a constituent who said "Who is going to shoot Obama"?



Somehow I predict that Noah will let Schiller off the hook for that, and I, being consistent with myself,  will too. As I said in the Bloggingheads, it depends on the context. Schiller was in a different context. Congressman Broun was at a public meeting. Schiller was having a seemingly private meal with prospective donors. You're not going to fund-raise very well if you scold people or make them feel uncomfortable. And in any kind of a private meeting, you might humor your interlocutors as a strategy to obtain more information about them.

The pranksters were trying to trap Schiller into sounding anti-Jewish or anti-Israel, and I would defend Schiller for what he said in response to that prodding. What does look really bad, though, is his virulent hostility toward social conservatives and his twisted image of the people in the Tea Party movement. What's completely predictable — we're familiar with NPR — is the preening self-love of the liberal who's so sure he and his people are the smart ones. Not smart enough not to get pranked, though.

Remember when Scott Walker got pranked the other day by a phone call purporting to be from David Koch? His opponents couldn't get enough of calling him stupid for that, and even though he said nothing inconsistent with his public talking points and seemed the same as he is in public, they fine-tooth-combed his remarks to find little things they could blow up and portray as evil. Forget empathy and fairness — use whatever you find as brutally as you can.

Now here's this choice new material from Schiller, giving conservatives the chance to punch back twice as hard (to use the old Obama WH motto).

ADDED: David Weigel notes that Schiller is no longer with NPR. And he has the text of the Schiller quote about the firing of Juan Williams:
What NPR did I'm very proud of. What NPR stood for is a non-racist, non-bigoted, straightforward telling of the news. Our feeling is that if a person expresses his or her personal opinion, which anyone is entitled to do in a free society, they are compromised as a journalist. They can no longer fairly report. And the question we asked internally was, can Juan Williams, when he makes a statement like that, can he report to the Muslim population, and be believed, for example? And the answer is no. He lost all credibility and that breaks your ethics as a journalist.

144 comments:

KCFleming said...

Schiller noted that NPR would survive if federal funding were dropped (in contrast to their public stance).

So let it drop, and they can be as leftist and pro-Muslim as they want. On their own dime.

Anonymous said...

Nothing surprising here.

The local NPR affiliate is an important source of airtime for musicians promoting gigs and CDs.

Been a while since I listened. But, in the past every music show on that affiliate was produced and hosted by a far leftist.

So, if you wanted to get airtime on NPR's local affiliate, you were well advised to have the proper far leftist views, and to perform at leftist fund raising events.

Herein lies one of the keys to why artists are so overwhelmingly leftist. You'd better be if you want to be seen and heard.

Basically, artists have a gun to their heads. NPR is only one facet of this arm-twisting. In the film industry, it's even worse. Virtually every film festival in the country is a leftist propaganda seminar.

X said...

these 2 Schillers from NPR seem hyperpartisan. why should taxpayers fund them again?

Dose of Sanity said...

I have a "meh" response to this story. The walker thing was the same deal, as you said. No reason to blame someone for trying to stay neutral and appeal to the person they are talking to.

I'm sure all of us have been in conversations (without the internet to shield us) where we realize we totally disagree with the person we are talking to, but just nod along for the sake of being sociable.

Dose of Sanity said...

Oh - and to clarify - I'm not shielding his unsolicited comment that is the tag for this article.

Stupidity is not party based!

MadisonMan said...

Preening is the perfect word here.

Joaquin said...

And the execs from NPR were meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood for why?

MadisonMan said...

why should taxpayers fund them again?

From a neighbor who would know.

Rep Baldwin usually gets <10 phone calls for most bills in Congress. For something that is controversial, she might get about 100.

For the Defunding of the CPB, she got more than 300.

Congress listens to vocal groups. Doesn't answer your question, really, but there it is.

TWM said...

You simply cannnot parody these people.

Well, obviously NPR doesn't need our tax dollars so that should be a no-brainer in the coming cuts.

I eagerly await the defense of these corrupt morons by the leftist commenters here. Should be a fun thread.

Fred4Pres said...

Schiller is an amazing hypocrite in slaming Republicans and then claiming Juan Williams lost credibility with the Muslim community.

While I am sure Schiller believes everything he says, I get the impression he would crawl under that table and "service" those potential donors if he though it would clinch the $5 million coming in to NPR.

KCFleming said...

I had no idea Cedarford worked for NPR as a fundraiser. Weird.

I wish him luck at the Aspen Institute.

DADvocate said...

You're not going to fund-raise very well if you scold people or make them feel uncomfortable.

Of course, any lofty values you profess to hold fall by the wayside when presented with a potential $5 million dollar donation.

Gun-toting. Are you automatically racist if you tote a gun? Even if you're legally concealed carry? Where does this put all the gangbanders who carry? Are they racist too?

Just how small minded and conceited can these heavenly liberals get? They scare me that their perception and interpretation is so narrow and self-rightious.

MadisonMan said...

If Schiller isn't with NPR, shouldn't the title of this post reflect that? You could argue, I suppose, that he was a fundraiser when the tape was made, but he has since left to work elsewhere -- leaving before the tape came out, even.

Former NPR exec? Former NPR Fundraiser?

MikeR said...

Nothing super-duper, but I imagine that MotherJones would have been ecstatic to have gotten anything this good from Walker. Walker sounded fine. This guy sounds like a pander and a bigot.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


I have a "meh" response to this story. The walker thing was the same deal, as you said. No reason to blame someone for trying to stay neutral and appeal to the person they are talking to.


Ok, so if these had been a group of Euro-Nazi’s, or if it had been Mussolini’s Granddaughter offering cash, would anyone at NPR or Althouse be so “accommodating?” How about the Westboro Baptist Church?

Fred4Pres said...

I wonder if he got wind of the tape before he bailed to join the Aspen Institute? I wonder if he disclosed it to the Aspen Institute?

Good timing, eh? I am sure it is just a coincidence*.

* snark/sarcasam.

TWM said...

Didn't take long to see the minimizing begin. Former NPR versus NPR. Nothing surprising since everyone in Hollywood and music do it.

Doesn't matter because the real big thing here is that NPR doesn't really need federal funding to keep operating. They can get plenty from the Muslim Brotherhood - the real one next time - and other groups like it.

Thomas said...

As I read it, Schiller hasn't left NRP's employ just yet; he's only announced that he's starting a new job on April 1. I'm guessing he's still there, and Weigel just has the facts wrong. Since he's still there, there's plenty of time for NPR to disassociate themselves from him by firing him.

Schiller sounds like the typical liberal twit to me. Does he even know what the word "evangelical" means? From his use, the evidence strongly suggests that the answer is no. He sounds like a moron.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)





Every day I deal with lotsa folks who voted the wrong way or believe the “wrong thing” and it’s true I don’t throw them out of my office or refuse their help in my eleemosynary efforts, but there ARE limits….Pablo Escobar or Che Guevara or the Muslim Brotherhood or Rocky J. Suhayda of the American Nazi Party….. My point is there and NEED TO BE LIMITS on who any organization should meet with or receive support from.

Third Coast said...

One of the Muslim pranksters said, paraphrasing: "We like to refer to NPR as National Palestinian Radio". Schiller and cohort laughed and said "I like that".

David said...

Proof that not all bigots are racist bigots.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Aspen Institute- NPR -The Open Society- NBC- CBS -ABC -CNN - they are pretty much one and the same no?

Unknown said...

I can just bet the Lefties have a different attitude toward pranking and ambush journalism and all now that it's being used against them.

The rule going forward has been for some time - nothing is private and assume there's a mic, if not a camera, somewhere close.

As for this statement, agree with shout. It's nothing more than another bitter clinger moment caught when the speaker should have known better.

Ann's point about Schiller nodding isn't quite accurate. A small nod isn't remaining silent and, in any case, the Nuremburg principle that doing nothing in the face of evil acts isn't an excuse probably applies.

I understand what she's saying about fund-raising, but it's like Giuliani turning down the Saudi prince's offer. Principles really do count (didn't Willie's misfeasance teach us that?).

PS Hope you two are feeling better.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Will someone please explain to me why what Juan Williams said was "racist"? Islam is not a race. It's a potentially universal creed, like Christianity.

wv: phouries.

MadisonMan said...

The Aspen Institute's Core Mission:

Foster enlightened leadership and open-minded dialogue.

Ooo-kay. And Mr. Schiller adds to this how? He does not seem very open-minded.

mrs whatsit said...

I'm sorry, but I see no reason why these bigoted people should receive any more of my tax dollars, ever. I am not a Tea Party member and have never "toted" a gun but, like many other Americans, I do sympathize with the group's concern about the growing size, power, and cost of the federal government. If we can't get this under control, I am seriously worried about my children's future. According to Schiller, this concern makes me a racist (although it seems to me that my worries are based instead on my ability to add and subtract, a skill I had not previously realized is found only in Ku Klux Klan members.)

Fine. Let Schiller believe that I'm a racist -- he can hate whoever he wants to hate in his pinched, parochial, Scrooge-like little heart. This is America and, as the Supreme Court just reaffirmed, we let nasty people give voice to their nastiness here. We do not, however, have to fund their nastiness with our scarce tax dollars. It's time for NPR and all its Schillers to stop exacting tribute from those they hate, in the form of tax dollars, right now and forever.

Christopher in MA said...

"And the execs from NPR were meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood for why?"

Any enemy of AmeriKKA is my friend, and all that, I would think.

Martha said...

Schiller is going to have a major problem with the Aspen Institute:

"Ron Schiller embraces and lives the values that we share as a community,” said Aspen Institute President and CEO Walter Isaacson, “I am very pleased that he has agreed to join us to help us build a strong and vibrant arts program, the kind of program that we believe is central to the Institute’s origins and to its mission.”

Depends on what values Schiller shared during his recruitment.

Peano said...

The pranksters were trying to trap Schiller into sounding ...

Pranksters. So that's what it was. A prank.

mrp said...

The Soros-NPR-Schiller connection is long-standing.

From s November 1, 2010 article at Current.org:

NPR sets a goal: add 100 reporters to statehouse beats

http://tinyurl.com/69d25wh

excerpt:

Ron Schiller responded in a Current interview: “We’ve been talking to [Open Society Institute] for a year about this project, so there really is no connection — none at all.” Referring to O’Reilly’s implication that Soros influenced NPR’s decision on the dismissal, he added, “We’re very clear about our firewall here. We always have been, and always will be.”

J said...

Other radical groups get NPR time--, say, AIPAC. Scary. 'Specially when they get one of those gravelly voiced goils stumpin' for the Republicrats

Wince said...

Our feeling is that if a person expresses his or her personal opinion, which anyone is entitled to do in a free society, they are compromised as a journalist. They can no longer fairly report.

And a news organization accepting $5 million from what is believed to be the Muslim Brotherhood, what would you call that?

Richard Dolan said...

Ann wants to cut Schiller some slack for the interaction with the fake donor, but less so for the parts of the conversation that show his own mind-set. That line shows up in other contexts featuring secretly recorded 'gotcha' tapes.

For example, these 'gotcha' tapes have a long history in criminal investigations. For those with long memories, they were the key evidence in Abscam and are still the most potent evidence in gov't prosecutions for political corruption. Ann's argument about 'context' is a frequent defense argument in those cases, and it has some force there as well (but mostly in the pre-indictment phase). You don't often see the gov't proceed with a prosecution for political corruption if all they have is the tape; usually the gov't will also have evidence of a pay-off (either completed or well advanced in the planning/talking stage).

The gov't is more willing to indict just based on a taped/video'd conversation in drug and organized crime cases. Given the efforts that the top guys in those syndicates go to distance themselves from the street-level crime, a taped conversation involved a stool-pidgeon is sometimes all that the gov't has against the ringleaders.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)





A pathetic troll has appeared, it seems, venturing forth from his/her website that has hundreds of “entries” but almost NO comments, seeking confirmation of his/her existence and value…I would recommend giving the troll the same amount attention, HERE, that it gets on its own page.

MadisonMan said...

And a news organization accepting $5 million from what is believed to be the Muslim Brotherhood, what would you call that?

Except they didn't take the money. So that's kind of a strawman question, isn't it?

I don't know any fundraiser who only takes money from groups they agree 100% with. That's a quick way to go out of business.

The Drill SGT said...

MEAC acceptance of Sharia across the world

You'd think a gay guy like Schiller would be a bit more negative on folks who want to stone you and your partner....

Henry said...

What kind of belief is "white middle-America gun-toting" anyway? What weird short-circuit in his brain produced that little character sketch of the liberal strawman:

White.
Middle-America.
Gun-toting.

That's a lot of people you've just slandered, buckaroo.

J said...

Sorosites-somewhat alarming


Glenn Becks & co--flying monkey -demon scary

Unknown said...

"...that breaks your ethics as a journalist."

NPR has no ethics.

J said...

11:14: touched a nerve, eh Crypto Kissinger? STFU, mierda


Yr not the voice of Reason, even of the the trite Jeffersonian sort. Yr the voice of...Shofar!

Go back to Rahm.com, basura

Unknown said...

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Will someone please explain to me why what Juan Williams said was "racist"? Islam is not a race.

Remember Uncle Saul.

It's racist if they say it is.

(there you go again - trying to be logical; what's the matter with you?)

Anonymous said...

Our feeling is that if a person expresses his or her personal opinion, which anyone is entitled to do in a free society, they are compromised as a journalist. They can no longer fairly report. And the question we asked internally was, can Juan Williams, when he makes a statement like that, can he report to the Muslim population, and be believed, for example? And the answer is no. He lost all credibility and that breaks your ethics as a journalist.

Bullshit.

Notice how Schiller dishonestly conflates being a journalist and being a reporter here? NPR had already ousted Juan Williams as a "reporter" -- he was doing analysis and opinion journalism when he was fired.

Does anyone have any doubts about what NPR "journalist" Daniel Schorr's political views were? Did he have any hesitation in making them known in his on-air commentary?

lemondog said...

Would have been interesting to have a couple of 'donors' representing the Jewish National Fund or some Jewish organization to have gotten a possible flip side to compare/contrast.

Is NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller who did a number on Juan Williams, related to Ron Schiller?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)





I find it odd that anyone might wander by and just shamelessly toll for attention…but considering some site statistics I’ve seen I see why some might wander by, fling some monkey-poo and hope that the eyeballs will follow them home. I really, almost, feel sorry for those people.

It’s even more pathetic than Kathy Griffin “insulting up” to make herself relevant, I mean a few people actually knew who Kathy was before she “appeared” at Althouse. But some folks are just way beyond obscure. When you labour for YEARS and you have less than 100 comments, in toto, it must be galling to come here and see Althouse get, routinely 100 postings, on a SINGLE ENTRY, in a day…and Althouse makes multiple entries, the effect on certain egos must be DEVASTATING. Think on that, Althouse will receive more eyeballs and comments on this Schiller fellow than some folks have gotten in their entire Blog Lives…

In the words of Count Rugen, “…I think that's the worst thing I ever heard. How marvelous."

Charlie said...

So "smart" liberals think all Tea Partiers tote guns and are evangelical Christians? That's an ignorant point of view. Shockingly ignorant.

retire05 said...

"You're not going to fund raise very well if you scold people or make them feel uncomfortable."

So, explain this, Ann:

do you feel that NPR was correct in even talking to a group that they thought were connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holyland Foundation trial? Do the means justify the end?

What does the N in NPR stand for? Or is the management of NPR getting ready to change the name to the OneWorld Pandering To The Far Left Public Radio?

Odd that a few years ago a national network went "under cover" at a NASCAR race to try to elicit derogatory remarks from NASCAR fans about Muslims. Oooops, the undercover sting failed miserably. Yet, this video shows that the NPR exec had NO problem making bigoted comments to pander to his Muslim [potential] backers.

By your statement, which I quoted verbatim, I assume you think that it is fine to climb into bed with those who would do Americans harm as long as revenue is generated?

Gee, what a low bar the left sets. As they rail on capitalism, they have no problem associating with radical Islam to further their own capitalism. Some would call that hypocracy.

Kirby Olson said...

Seems like racist is being used an adjectival intensifier for racists in the sentence. There are racists and then there are racist racists.

Those liberals are such an intellectual bunch, always developing an ever-new and ever-more-accurate phraseology.

Toad Trend said...

I recall a quote from the Zero - something about being comfortable with bigotry.

Apparently, Mr. Schiller wasn't copied on that one.

lemondog said...

So "smart" liberals think all Tea Partiers tote guns and are evangelical Christians?

And are WHITE unlike the **snark** NPR lineup

Anonymous said...

A pathetic troll has appeared, it seems, venturing forth from his/her website that has hundreds of “entries” but almost NO comments, seeking confirmation of his/her existence and value…I would recommend giving the troll the same amount attention, HERE, that it gets on its own page.

What's odd is the willingness of certain of the left-wing commenters here to let these creatures stand as the voice of enlightened progressivism. When Cedarford and other right-wingers go off the deep end, both the liberal and the conservative readers of Althouse's blog condemn them. But when J/Jeremy/Ritmo/whatever display their pathologies to the world, how do the principled lefties here react?

When one person says something and another keeps silent, what should we think of the silent person?

vnjagvet said...

What about the part where he says there aren't enough elite intellectuals implying the vast part of the public is stupid and uninformed?

I suspect he puts himself in the elite intellectual class.

What a narrow minded twit.

jerryofva said...

J:

George Soros is a self admitted junior war criminal. I find this quite scary

J said...

Crypto-Kissinger, stick to the goatblood and kosher coke--you sure in the F. have nothing intelligent to say.

JAL said...

Dose says: the walker thing was the same deal, as you said.

Well, not really.

There's more than one issue -- being pranked is one thing. They both got pranked.

What Schiller said about how he regards tea partiers and "white middle-America" is appalling. And this person is supposed to bring the American public ("National Public") the facts in the news. Where are the racists again?

(Try reporting on Carole Mosely Braun as a start who thinks blacks are too stupid to vote outside their race.)

Schiller's comments are totally unacceptable.

Defund NPR. Period. Big period.

former law student said...

Schiller goes on to describe liberals as more intelligent and informed than conservatives.

Well, Satoshi Kanazawa published a paper last year showing that the more conservative one was, the lower the score on an intelligence test. And for liberals to control academia, as conservatives are always decrying, don't they have to be, on average, more intelligent and informed than conservatives?

Mary Beth (the commenter) said...

Would have been interesting to have a couple of 'donors' representing the Jewish National Fund or some Jewish organization to have gotten a possible flip side to compare/contrast.

Yes, just to see if he's truly hateful or just a whore.

YoungHegelian said...

@J

"Crypto-Kissinger, stick to the goatblood and kosher coke--you sure in the F. have nothing intelligent to say."

Congratulations!

That may be the vilest piece of anti-semitism we've yet seen on this blog! And, surprise! surprise! it comes from a lefty troll.

At least Cedarford has broader political concerns behind his rants. You are just pure spite.

former law student said...

Schiller noted that NPR would survive if federal funding were dropped (in contrast to their public stance).

As was discussed in the wake of the Juan Williams affair, only 2% of NPR funding comes from the federal government. But stations get, on average, 10% of their funding from the federal government. Cutting these funds would hurt rural stations in particular, who don't have robust numbers of listener-contributors.

D.D. Driver said...

Sort of burying the lede here. Yes, he nods politely. Big deal.

He also asserts a PRO-ZIONIST bias among Jewish-owned newspapers. (8:10-8:30).

That goes beyond mere head nodding.

Lincolntf said...

If NPR simply adhered to basic standards of journalism, and/or hired people with integrity, de-funding it wouldn't be an issue. But they'd rather watch it burn than lose their daily national 24-hour commercial for the Dem party.

jr565 said...

hich anyone is entitled to do in a free society, they are compromised as a journalist. They can no longer fairly report. And the question we asked internally was, can Juan Williams, when he makes a statement like that, can he report to the Muslim population, and be believed, for example? And the answer is no. He lost all credibility and that breaks your ethics as a journalist.


Considering everything that Schiller just said regarding conservatives can't we hold him and NPR to the same standard that they held Juan Williams? If they want to fire themselves and hire some ethical journalists instead that would be great.

Hoosier Daddy said...

And for liberals to control academia, as conservatives are always decrying, don't they have to be, on average, more intelligent and informed than conservatives?

An intellectual would think that the best and brightest would be holding the reins of government and guiding a nation on a path to success. But as anyone with a shred of common sense knows that it's in fact, just the opposite.

jr565 said...

Former law student wrote:
And for liberals to control academia, as conservatives are always decrying, don't they have to be, on average, more intelligent and informed than conservatives?

That assumes that academia is in fact intelligent. The jury is still out on the one. As they say, those that can do and those that can't teach. Any many who teach can't do that either.

former law student said...

He also asserts a PRO-ZIONIST bias among Jewish-owned newspapers.

Are there any US newspapers that don't support Israel, irrespective of ownership?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Will someone please explain to me why what Juan Williams said was "racist"? Islam is not a race.

Christianity has been liberal's preferred target for demonization and mockery so they have to come up with some trope in which to deflect constructive criticism of another religion they hold in obvious reverence.

Christopher in MA said...

"Well, Satoshi Kanazawa published a paper last year showing that the more conservative one was, the lower the score on an intelligence test."

Good lord. What IS it with the left and their desperate, well nigh pathetic, obsession with charts and papers and tests that "prove" they are the smartest people on earth? Were you all bottle-fed as a child and have a resultant need for love and affection and confirmation that, yes sir, you're smart enough and good enough, and doggone it, just all around better than everyone else?

Christ on a crutch, FLS - why don't you get a business card reading "Wile E. Coyote, SOOOOOOOOPER Genius" and have done with it?

traditionalguy said...

Schiller was doing his job at a meeting with a potentially very large donor. The time I fund raised with the YMCA for an expensive new facility, we received training. Small to medium donors are contacted and pushed to donate, but rich folks that can write a 5M check require from you a submissive attitude that feeds their ego with no pressure from you. It all has to all be their idea and timing or you lose them. Schiller is another good reason to elect Palin...she will astound him with her combat smarts.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Considering everything that Schiller just said regarding conservatives....

...isn't really much of a revelation coming from someone who was 'shilling' (pardon the pun) for NPR.

In other news, Francisco Franco is still dead.

Anonymous said...

Cutting these funds would hurt rural stations in particular, who don't have robust numbers of listener-contributors.


Not enough former sea horses made the cut in those areas, I guess.

Hoosier Daddy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

The media is mostly controlled by Jews. Hell, I'm a Jew and I'd be one of the first people to readily admit that.

Chase said...

It's a bad time to be a liberal and a Democrat.

William said...

We all cut on the bias. Different people have different prejudices. The left, in some cases fairly, has succeeded in causing certain prejudices beome socially anathema, but it has never examined its own prejudices. I would suggest that any man who finds more points of agreement with the Muslim Brotherhood than with American conservatives is deeply luxuriating in his own prejudices.

Bob From Ohio said...

For Dose of Sanity's benefit, since this is about fake Muslim's, hee is aPost-Mubarak story of Copts in Egypt:

"Nearly 4000 Muslims Attack Christian Homes in Egypt, Torch Church

Posted GMT 3-5-2011 4:20:16

(AINA) -- A mob of nearly four thousand Muslims has attacked Coptic homes this evening in the village of Soul, Atfif in Helwan Governorate, 30 kilometers from Cairo, and torched the Church of St. Mina and St. George. There are conflicting reports about the whereabouts of the Church pastor Father Yosha and three deacons who were at church; some say they died in the fire and some say they are being held captive by the Muslims inside the church.

Witnesses report the mob prevented the fire brigade from entering the village. The army, which has been stationed for the last two days in the village of Bromil, 7 kilometers from Soul, initially refused to go into Soul, according to the officer in charge. When the army finally sent three tanks to the village, Muslim elders sent them away, saying that everything was "in order now."

A curfew has been imposed on the 12,000 Christians in the village."

I belive Dose though all was great with the Copts now. Oops.

Alex said...

As if I needed any further reminded what utter douchenozzles lefties are.

Chase said...

The media is mostly controlled by Jews. Hell, I'm a Jew and I'd be one of the first people to readily admit that.

Suppose you're correct - not sure that "controlled" is accurate one bit, but let's play along.


So what? Why does that matter?

Alex said...

Are there any US newspapers that don't support Israel, irrespective of ownership?

How horrid, this universal support of Israel. The horror, the horror.

DKWalser said...

Althouse - Thanks for being consistent. It's too easy to let political leanings determine the reaction to something that's open to interpretation. The two cases, the one you discussed on blogging heads and the one involving Schiller, allow for interpretation.

In the first, a politician's supporter shouts something (extremely) objectionable at a rally and the politician does not object to what was shouted. Should the politician's silence be taken as an endorsement of the shouted sentiment? No! We don't even know if the politician heard (and understood) what was shouted. Or, the politician may have heard the shout and thought it best to ignore it rather than give a platform to such vile sentiments (even for the purpose of rejecting them). Or, the politician may have been in the midst of making another point and didn't want to detract from that point by discussing what had been shouted. Etc. For all these reasons, it's unfair for us to assume that the politician's silence is an endorsement of what was shouted.

Similarly, Schiller's silence shouldn't be assumed to be an endorsement of any of the ideas expressed by those with whom he was having lunch. Unlike in the first example, we can be confident that Schiller both heard and understood the sentiment, but he may have felt uncomfortable in overtly disagreeing with the sentiment. Or, he may have thought another opportunity would allow him a better chance to set the speaker straight -- thinking it would be better to persuade rather than merely note disagreement. Or, he may have thought the good done by raising $5 million outweighed the good in objecting to what had been said. Etc. For all of these reasons, it would be unfair of us to assume Schiller's silence equates to an endorsement of what was said.

The difference between the two incidents is that Schiller tried to flatter his guest into thinking that he and his guest shared a common world view. To that end, he either was willing to say a lot of things he doesn't really believe or he holds a lot of objectionable views. While it's usual for sales people to engage in a certain amount of puffery -- what Schiller said goes well beyond the limits of acceptable puffery. Even put into its best light, ht incident doesn't reflect well on Schiller. He'll say just about anything to raise money for NPR, or he's an arrogant, bigoted schmuck (acknowledging he might be both).

Chase said...

Are there any US newspapers that don't support Israel, irrespective of ownership?


Oh please.

The New York Frickin' Times

TWM said...

"Are there any US newspapers that don't support Israel, irrespective of ownership?"


And the problem with that would be?

Rumpletweezer said...

Carl--

If you guys do control the media, you're not doing a very good job, are you?

J said...

What color are those f-ing LOCUSTS, ese?? That be the question.

former law student said...

And the problem with that would be?

It's only a problem for anti-Semites trying to justify their anti-Semitism. If all papers support Israel, regardless of ownership, singling out Jewish-owned papers (if there even was such a thing) is clearly irrational.

The Drill SGT said...

Is NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller who did a number on Juan Williams, related to Ron Schiller?

apparently not. at least per NPR.

TWM said...

"It's only a problem for anti-Semites trying to justify their anti-Semitism. If all papers support Israel, regardless of ownership, singling out Jewish-owned papers (if there even was such a thing) is clearly irrational."

Ahh, I get you now. Sorry I'm so slow on the uptake but I am a white, racist, ignorant, gun-toting, non-intellectual. Sometimes it takes me a bit.

sakredkow said...

"Not smart enough not to get pranked, though."

Why set yourself up? Is anyone really immune?

888 said...

o/t perhaps:

This conversation and the Walker reminds me of the videos from Live Action in Planned Parenthood where people pretend to be pimps and prostitutes and record staffers advice. The Catholic intelligentsia and bloggers were arguing about the morality of these action re the lying involved.

Are these undercover/ sting operations really an ethical form of journalism? Do they deserve attention? Should we acknowledge the moral outrage of pranksters?

Anonymous said...

Are these undercover/ sting operations really an ethical form of journalism?

What part of journalism is ethical? Think it through. The whole thing is either a con to get information, or (mostly) an implicit fraud because journalists collude with owners of information to present it in a way that limits and distorts knowledge of the truth. In the second instance, I describe every press conference and most every interview ever staged.

William said...

This is the view that was propounded by the late Tony Judt: The solution to the Palestinian problem is for Jews and Palestinians to form one state with equal rights and religious freedom. I believe that view is accepted by many on the left, including many left wing Jews like Tony Judt.....The obvious flaw, of course, is that Muslims are not famous for their religious tolerance. When they become the majority, they will treat Jews the way they treat Copts, Bahais, or even fellow Muslims of different sects. Nonetheless the one state solution is the favored view of many on the left........My question is this: if a group of left wing Jews propose something that is ultimately harmful to Israel, is it anti-Semitic to brand them as jerks? I have seen how those who oppose George Soros are closet anti-Semites. I would appreciate guidance on this difficult question. I wish to be pro-Israel, but I don't wish this position to be interpreted as being anti-Semitic.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Are these undercover/ sting operations really an ethical form of journalism?

Depends on what you believe journalism to be. If its simply reporting the news the no, its not ethical. If its about confirming a pre-conceived notion about a particular group or organization then its fine.

For example, a journalist would not need to 'go undercover' to expose racism within a white supremicst organization. Those folks tend to wear their feelings on their sleeve. Same with Schilling and others like him. No need to prank him into saying Tea Party folk are racist scary people because not only do they believe it, all their friends agree with them!

Shanna said...

Did anyone see the article last week about all the annoying people who call/write NPR to complain about everything that isn't highbrown enough for their taste? It was sort of funny.

Jay Vogt said...

Partially agree. You lose me though when you assert that " . . in any kind of a private meeting, you might humor your interlocutors as a strategy to obtain more information about them".

In 25 years of corporate American life, I have been in a very few meetings where anti-semitism has reared its head.

In each instance, the room has grown very cold, very fast. While I can't recall the exact words of reaction, the sum and substance of it was to halt that kind of talk as quickly as possible (albeit politely). Further, all of the body language was intended to distance the rest of the attendees from those remarks and their owners. None of that was on display here.

888 said...

Seven Machos: "What part of journalism is ethical? Think it through."

Hoosier Daddy: "Depends on what you believe journalism to be."

Yea, I think this is more than just cynicism. I've considered the daily (now 24/7) news cycle to be redundant for a while now, but these responses point to a deeper question.

SPImmortal said...

Well, Satoshi Kanazawa published a paper last year showing that the more conservative one was, the lower the score on an intelligence test. And for liberals to control academia, as conservatives are always decrying, don't they have to be, on average, more intelligent and informed than conservatives?

---------


No. That study was a fraud that cleverly tried to move blacks into the "conservative" column, but the reality is that blacks are consistently the most liberal of all ethnic groups, both in voting paterns and in overall ideology.

If you shift blacks back into their proper column then liberals have lower IQs overall. This is borne out by every coprehensive election poll ever taken. Republican voters are always more educated, more knowledgable on the issues, and much, much more likely to have completed highschool (75% highschool dropouts vote Dem). Gallup has been trying to obscure this lately by dishonestly lumping dropout with highschool grads.

Democrats account for the extremes, high school dropouts and PHDs while Republicans occupy the middle and thusly have the higher average IQs and levels of education.

But that is a byproduct of ethnicity, not ideology.

TWM said...

'"Hoosier Daddy: "Depends on what you believe journalism to be."'

Isn't this what 60 Minutes used to call "investigative journalism?"

Anonymous said...

And here come the IQ-loving lefties arguing with the IQ-loving righties over the total and complete fiction that IQ is.

Anyone who believes in IQ is stupid.

Lincolntf said...

The Lefties love to point to the number of Academics who vote Democrat, but they conveniently forget to mention the millions upon millions of votes that they get from the swamps of addiction and ignorance that make up the core of so many major cities. Those are the votes that swing the Electoral College. For every tenured Prof. there are a hundred semi-literates pulling the (D) lever, and it shows.

LakeLevel said...

Corporation for Public Broadcasting whores.

Roger J. said...

With respect to NPR I see that the NPR exec is named Rehm--and I note that the gravel voiced Dianne Rehm is also on NPR spouting her "interviews"--a little nepotism there? Diane Rehm has neither a voice nor a brain--and clearly the exec named Rehm has neither--I am assuming it runs in the family

Henry said...

So a Muslim, a flunky and an NPR executive walk into a bar...

Roger J. said...

The trouble with liberals is they are bereft of brains nor senses of humor--they simply suck at being human beings

Anonymous said...

Republicans are the party of the rich, Lincoln. And as we all know, the rich are stupid, because they have low IQs. Or something. I can never follow the "logic."

shiloh said...

So AA is still whining/crying about MSM bias. And her irrational, hyperbolic false equivalency as regards to.

Consistency is a virtue or so they say.

Again, define MSM, when conservatives have a stranglehold on, domination of talk radio and only die hard partisans frequent political blogs as foxnews keeps telling us of their ratings prowess.

ie Reps have no trouble getting out their message as evidenced by their $$$ advantage in the 2010 mid-terms.

Elections are decided by moderate independents and they are usually intelligent enough to sift thru the ad nauseam MSM/cable news/internet minutiae ie liberal/conservative propaganda ... or totally ignore it.

Cry me a river!

and the band played on ...

LordSomber said...

The IQ argument is stupid because "smart" doesn't necessarily mean "wise."

Anonymous said...

Shiloh -- You are much worse than stupid. You are boring. You are trite.

You also are imputing to Althouse arguments she never made.

But, anyway, who did Althouse vote for in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008?

madAsHell said...

I had never heard of the Aspen Institute....so, I pulled up their web site.

They run seminars for young leaders.

It was founded by the CEO of Container Corporation of America, Walter Paepcke. He thought Aspen was a beautiful place, and that beautiful people should come to Aspen to have beautiful thoughts.

Gawd....who pays for this crap?

Oh, yeah....I do.

shiloh said...

SM, your irrelevant, nonsensical deflections are somewhat amusing.

ok, that's a lie.

Fen said...

NPR commits suicide. And this time it really is Sarah Palin's fault.

Roger J. said...

Shiloh--exactly what planet do you live on?

You may want to look this up but talk radio became a force only within the last 20 years--

Now when I was in grad school in the early 1970s the only media one paid attention to was the NYT and secondarily the WaPo--we did read the International Herald Trib for foreign coverage and also the Christian Science Monitor--Most of these publications were not bad but had a definite liberal slant--if you wanted a conservative slant you subscribed to the National Review (whose writing was always spritely and readable unlike the dreck published on the liberal offerings--they specialized in sturm und drang)

Over the intervening 30 years network and other main stream media turned increasing liberal in its slant and abandonded a significant core of conservative americans--and talk radio was smart enought to fill that marketing niche.

An an exemplar of the MSM one Peter Jennings the anchor of ABC famousely opinied after the 94 elections that American had a hissy fit--and as it turnout that Mr Jennings, as telegenic as he was, never graduated from High School. Jennings stands in my mind as a great example of liberal idiocy.

Anonymous said...

we did read the International Herald Trib for foreign coverage

Which was owned by...the New York Times and the Washington Post.

JAL said...

@DAD Gun-toting. Are you automatically racist if you tote a gun? Even if you're legally concealed carry? Where does this put all the gangbanders who carry? Are they racist too?

DAD -- you don't get it.

2 things:

1. gangbangers don't carry legally so they can't be racist
2. many gangbangers are black or latino so they can't be racist

Only white conservative "middle" Americans can be and are racist.

E*V*E*R*Y intelligent, fair and balanced thinking American (and therefore registered Democrat)knows that.

Roger J. said...

seven--another advantage of the internatinal Herald trib was that it featured great rental opportunities in italy--a wonderful source for a really great vacation

Fen said...

Shiloh: Again, define MSM

Why do I have to define it again? I did that last week. And the answer hasn't changed since then.

when conservatives have a stranglehold on, domination of talk radio and only die hard partisans frequent political blogs as foxnews keeps telling us of their ratings prowess.

Shorter Libtard: ""I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad."

Shiloh, you're too pathetic to kick around today.

shiloh said...

Planet Earth

asked and answered :)

Again, MSM didn't have a big effect on Nixon's '72 landslide or Reagan's '84 landslide although interestingly enough Reps didn't take control of the House either time. So much for the Reagan revolution.

And (3) things control presidential elections:

1) $$$
2) One party screws up and is replaced by the other party
3) Quality of the presidential candidate.

and 4) $$$ is usually proportional to how bad the previous admin ie Cheney/Bush screw up.

It's pretty basic as MSM is irrelevant. Obama beat Hillary because he was new and exciting and against the Iraq War and very good at running a campaign, raising $$$ and campaigning, whereas Hillary was old school ie the establishment, pro Iraq War and made the big mistake of "assuming" the election would be decided on Super Tuesday ie a self-fulfilling prophecy ;)

Oops!

As she was out of $$$ and dodging bullets in Kosovo.

carry on

shiloh said...

Shiloh, you're too pathetic to kick around today.

Fen, thanx for still caring er showing your conservative empathy! ;)

KCFleming said...

For folks opposed to the second amendment, NPR seems awfully fond of shooting themselves in the foot of late.

lemondog said...

Are these undercover/ sting operations really an ethical form of journalism?

When I was a kid in Chicago I remember many stories broken through undercover investigation.

Following is an interesting article with the writer commenting undercover as a declining technique but seeing it as necessary and defending its use in moderation.

Undercover, under fire

Today, however, it's almost impossible to imagine a mainstream media outlet undertaking a major undercover investigation. That's partly a result of the 1997 verdict against ABC News in the Food Lion case. The TV network accused Food Lion of selling cheese that had been gnawed on by rats as well as spoiled meat and fish that had been doused in bleach to cover up its rancid smell. But even though the grocery chain never denied the allegations in court, it successfully sued ABC for fraud — arguing that the reporters only made those discoveries after getting jobs at Food Lion by lying on their resumes. In other words, the fact that their reporting was accurate was no longer a defense.

The decline of undercover reporting — and of investigative reporting in general — also reflects, in part, the increasing conservatism and cautiousness of the media, especially the smug, high-end Washington press corps. As reporters have grown more socially prominent during the last several decades, they've become part of the very power structure that they're supposed to be tracking and scrutinizing.

Anonymous said...

What Lemon said about the power structure is brilliantly insightful.

ricpic said...

The one state solution is disingenuous whether proposed by leftists who happen to be Jews or gentile leftists. What sticks in the craw of any leftist is Jewish exceptionalism, a direct affront to their universalist conceit. Can you think of another nation that is exceptional, class?

MadisonMan said...

But, anyway, who did Althouse vote for in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008?

Ford, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush, Obama.

You can mail me my prize.

A harder question: Who did she vote for in the Presidential Primaries in those years?

Anonymous said...

A harder question: Who did she vote for in the Presidential Primaries in those years?

Jesus. That's nearly impossible. But I bet it's a very interesting list.

ricpic said...

What struck me was when Schiller said, "Liberalism is intellectualism and intellectualism is liberalism." Anybody outside the magic circle is a dumb dodo. Inside the magic circle is a non-stop mutual admiration circle jerk. Which in fact is what we see on Meet The Depressed or Deface The Nation.

ddh said...

Having been fooled by pranksters, Schiller is too dumb to be a true liberal and, therefore, should forfeit his job at NPR.

PaulV said...

The basic classical liberal is now a conservative who supports Bill of Rights, freedom and capitalism.
Progressives pretend to be liberals
and support central planning and statism.

former law student said...

Can you think of another nation that is exceptional, class?

I learned early on that being exceptional is rarely good for you. At the library I saw a book on a table called "The Exceptional Child." I picked it up and leafed through it, hoping to find myself in its pages.

The first nine chapters or so described various sorts of children that for brevity I will call eligible to participate in the Special Olympics.

The "gifted child" was described in the tenth and smallest chapter.

Saint Croix said...

Well, Satoshi Kanazawa published a paper last year showing that the more conservative one was, the lower the score on an intelligence test.

You ought to read people before you cite them, FLS. Kanazawa is to the right of everybody on this board.

Here he explains why liberals are stupid.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/if-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives-why-are-lib

Here he offers another explanation for why liberals are stupid.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201004/more-intelligent-stupid-liberals

Here he opines that Obama is genetically Muslim.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201008/if-barack-obama-is-christian-michael-jackson-was-white

And feminism is evil.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil

Here he argues that rich and poor ought to pay the same tax. Not the same rate, the same tax.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201101/no-representation-without-taxation

Here he shows his love for Sarah Palin, and a bit too much love for 14-year-old Willow.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200907/palin-vs-letterman

Here he shows his love for Ann Coulter, and argues that we should drop 35 nukes on the Middle East.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-we-are-losing-war

But as you've proven, with your average adolescent IQ of 106, you're smarter than I am, with my average adolescent IQ of 95. Gosh. You win!

DEEBEE said...

For a self professed serious participant inplitics, Noah comes across as a hack, regurgitating (albeit it as a thin gruel of a Buckleyesque cadence) left wing pap.

Ralph L said...

Schiller fired.

Synova said...

You know... an uber liberal guy not being able to recognize James O'Keefe is sort of funny.

Synova said...

For what it's worth I agree that not responding to outrageous statements should not be construed as agreement.

(I also think that accepting money should not be assumed to be agreement and I just wish political candidates would say something like, "Sure, I got a campaign donation from the Sons of Norway and I'm going to keep it too, suckers!" But that's different, I know.)

There is a whole lot of social conditioning, particularly when speaking to another person, to be agreeable. Actually *not* saying anything is a rather strong disagreement. Look at how freely Schiller just blathered on about the Tea Party. Even a slight smile and inclined head can mean "Oh, gawd, now I'm with a crazy person."

Ah Pooh said...

Does anyone find it a little creepy the way Ron Schiller plays with his napkin?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

shiloh,

And (3) things control presidential elections:


Followed by four things.

wv: savogiti.

Anonymous said...

Sadly, I miss Ritmo in light of Shiloh.

THough not as much as I miss the smooth stylings of Hall and Oates on "I can't go for that." Smooth vocals and a touch of some Philadelphia white soul.

Unknown said...

He was most likely just quoting from stuff from "The Tea Party Recruitment Song" thats on youtube, sung by that orange pekoe tea bag band . Its a catchy tune that can get stuck in your head. but it shouldn't be sung (or quoted) out loud by people as it could probibly be misconstrued as calling the poor tea baggers racist . If ya don't believe me check it out by clicking the link below, its pretty funny, but don't watch it too many times cuz it really does get stuck in your head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QbPl6-kzhA ohhhh and after you watch it, ask yourself, do these tea baggers come off as racists to you... just say'n have a good one eh

Unknown said...

In his defence, he was most likely just quoting stuff from "The Tea Party Recruitment Song" that’s on youtube, sung by that orange pekoe tea bag band . Its a catchy tune that can get stuck in your head. but it shouldn't be sung (or quoted) out loud by people as it could probably be misconstrued as calling the poor tea baggers racist . If you don't believe me check it out by clicking the link below, its pretty funny, but don't watch it too many times cuz it really does get stuck in your head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QbPl6-kzhA ohhhh and after you watch it, ask yourself, do these tea baggers come off as racists to you... just say'n have a good one eh

Anonymous said...

Not understanding parody is no way to go through life, moron.

Revenant said...

1) $$$
2) One party screws up and is replaced by the other party
3) Quality of the presidential candidate.

Obama won because of (2) and, to a lesser extent, (3) -- Republicans disliked McCain.

The Democrats themselves have since screwed up bigtime, so Obama himself is now set up to be victimized by (2). All Republicans have to do is not nominate a nitwit like they did in '08, or like Democrats did in '04.

Revenant said...

You know... an uber liberal guy not being able to recognize James O'Keefe is sort of funny.

Is it? What percentage of left-wingers actually watched the videos as opposed to relying on the MSM conventional wisdom that they weren't worth watching?

Fen said...

Shiloh: So much for the Reagan revolution.

See, this is why your "60 year old Navy vet" pose is suspect. There's no way that person could be as ignorant as you.

Fen said...

Dave Weigel: Schiller is a professional fundraiser, not a journalist. His pandering to the group is actually sort of masterful.

Yes. For $5 million, NPR will to freeze and isolate the target (Tea Party members) on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Act NOW! and, for another 5 mil, NPR will assume the role of Der Sterner.

George Will: "No one ever died from reading Der Sterner, but the culture it served caused 6 million Jews to drop dead"

Fen said...

"But WAIT! There's MORE! The first 100 callers get THIS Free Handjob from Dave Weigel!"

former law student said...

Based on what they saw in the ACORN videos, liberals are looking for this guy:

http://blog.nj.com
/ledgerupdates_impact/2009/09
/large_acorn-sting-pimp.JPG

Chase said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chase said...

This just in:

10:41 am Eastern

Chief Executive of NPR Resigns

NPR announced on Wednesday that its board had accepted the resignation of its chief executive, Vivian Schiller.