Patterico's Pontifications

3/14/2011

No Vindication for Ex-NPR Exec: On the Blaze’s Accusations of Misleading Editing by O’Keefe

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:35 am

Many leftists employ a standard debating tactic wherein they assure you of their Republican credentials . . . just before they start into some inane diatribe about how crazy Republicans are “these days.” It’s rare to go a week without reading about some allegedly “lifelong Republican” who has had it with the dishonesty of conservatives nowadays, and found himself siding with Barack Obama and the Democrats because, by God, common sense demands it! Usually investigation reveals that the “lifelong Republican” is anything but — and yet, the tactic persists.

The trick is as old as the Greeks — it’s a part of ethos, one of Aristotle’s modes of persuasion. The idea is to show you are a disinterested party. The speaker’s declaration that he is neutral — or better yet, one who is naturally inclined to believe the other side — allows the speaker to portray himself as simply swept away by the compelling force of his own arguments. Why, I didn’t start out to be a Democrat! I am naturally one who leans Republican! It’s how I was raised! But I just can’t help but notice how extreme and radical those Republicans are nowadays!

It is amazing to me that, when Ron Schiller repeatedly employs this trick in the NPR video released recently, it is described as Schiller speaking warmly of Republicans. Thus, if James O’Keefe cuts that part out, he is (so the leftists claim) being deceptive.

A piece for the Blaze accuses James O’Keefe of deceptive editing. For example:

Schiller’s negative comments about Republicans and conservatives have gotten a great deal of attention.

He clearly says some offensive things, while being very direct that he is giving his own opinion and not that of NPR. Still — a wildly stupid move!

But you may be surprised to learn, that in the raw video, Schiller also speaks positively about the GOP. He expresses pride in his own Republican heritage and his belief in fiscal conservatism.

Yeah, Schiller reveals himself to be a huge fan of the Republican party in the Blaze’s clip. He describes an anti-intellectual move that he sees developing in the current Republican party. Then he starts waxing on and on about how he was raised Republican — but, since he is a pure Democrat, he catches himself and acknowledges that he has “voted mostly Democratic lately.” (“Mostly” my ass!) He loves Republicans’ fiscal conservatism, he claims (which I guess is why he votes for those fiscally conservative Democrats). Then he describes the current Tea Party as “fanatically” involved in people’s personal lives and “very fundamentally Christian, and I wouldn’t even call it Christian, it’s this weird evangelical kind of move.”

3. Praise Republicans from Naked Emperor News on Vimeo.

To characterize this as genuine praise for Republicans is to miss the rhetorical trick he is employing.

SPEAKING OF MISSING CONTEXT: Note where the Blaze clip ends: at time stamp 12:53:27. Do me a favor: go to the original video and scroll to that timestamp. Do it right now; I’ll wait. You’ll see it at about 30:24 on the running scroll bar at the bottom of the full video.

See what happened? The Blaze’s clip was neatly snipped right before the Muslim guy said this:

As a black Muslim, I am truly and highly offended by the racism and the bigotry and the Islamophobia that is coming out of the tea party or tea baggers or whatever you call them, what is NPR doing and what can we do to help ensure that this kind of situation can be curtailed and stopped?

Watch Schiller’s body language during this description of “tea baggers” as bigoted racists. He nods his head in clear agreement. You will also see him shake his head around the word “Islamophobia” before nodding again. If you actually watch it, the effect is one of pure agreement, with the brief head shake reflecting sympathy for the Muslim at the table who has to suffer through this Islamophobia and bigotry. He answers the quoted question by talking about how NPR is the voice of reason.

Why did the Blaze choose to cut the clip right before that passage?? Did the Blaze delberately choose to hide evidence that Schiller agrees with accusations that the Tea Party is racist, to bolster their claim that Schiller honestly praised Republicans?

I doubt that the omission was intentional, just as I doubt that O’Keefe’s editing intentionally distorted anything. Both were trying to make their points as effectively as possible, and both are subject to endless charges that “you left out this!” and “you left out that!”

But it is . . . ironic that a piece that complains of missing context should omit such crucial context itself.

Now we come to a more difficult issue, because I do have some criticism for O’Keefe here. Once again, I will quote the Blaze and show their video.

NPR exec Ron Schiller does describe Tea Party members as “xenophobic…seriously racist people.”

This is one of the reasons why he no longer has a job!

But the clip in the edited video implies Schiller is giving simply his own analysis of the Tea Party. He does do that in part, but the raw video reveals that he is largely recounting the views expressed to him by two top Republicans, one a former ambassador, who admitted to him that they voted for Obama.

At the end, he signals his agreement. The larger context does not excuse his comments, or his judgment in sharing the account, but would a full context edit have been more fair? See what you think:

4 Racist tea Party from Naked Emperor News on Vimeo.

I think it’s impossible to deny: O’Keefe should not have edited the clip this way. If a person is describing the views of someone else, you can’t edit the clip to make it look like they are describing their own views.

But here’s the thing: when you look at the body language, listen to the tone, and put it in context with the rest of the video, it’s clear that Schiller is describing his own views here. He’s just using that old Aristotalian device of putting his words in the mouths of ideological opponents, to give those words more credibility.

Watch the above video and tell me that he is not signalling his agreement.

Even if, like Dave Weigel, you want to insist that this is somehow unclear, you have to look at the context of the rest of the video. (By the way, stay with me until the end of the post for an amusing bonus story about Weigel blocking me on Twitter over all this.) The rest of the video provides context, and — once again, ironically! — the critics of O’Keefe are omitting the context that makes it so clear that Schiller agrees with every word of this criticism.

First, if you did what I asked you to above, you have already watched Schiller nod as the “black Muslim” complains about the racism of the Tea Party. Remember the set-up to that. You have already watched the latter part of the 12:52 time stamp, wherein Schiller explains that he is going to “talk personally” and waxes about the “anti-intellectual” movement within the Republican party. You have already watched him admit that he votes mostly Democratic, and claims that the current Republican party, especially the Tea Party, is “fanatically involved” in people’s personal lives — adding: “I wouldn’t even call it Christian, it’s this weird, evangelical kind of move.” (The Tea Party is “evangelical”?? You don’t say!) And then he nods when the other guy calls Tea Party people racist.

Elsewhere in the full video, Schiller says that, in his personal opinion, liberals are more educated, fair, and balanced. It’s the typical arrogant claptrap we are used to from the elite crowd, and he is fully immersed in it.

That stuff I just described is elsewhere in the tape. That’s not even the part we’re currently discussing, where he sets forth the views of the Republicans who hate Tea Partiers.

Which, by the way, how does that come up in the conversation? Well, there is a discussion about whether educated people watch Fox News. Schiller says that there is an educated component to it, but it’s mixed up with the rest that comes along with it. This is where, kind of out of nowhere, he starts in with a discussion of how many people in Aspen are Goldwater types who never thought they could vote for Obama, but they think of Tea Partiers as clearly racist and so forth — the parts you have seen so many times.

When he relates that they are “seriously racist,” he is, I will grant you, very arguably still in the mode of describing the views of his Republican friends. But he is invoking those friends to show that “even” Republicans think this! It’s much the same as when people cite the Blaze criticism of O’Keefe’s editing: even Glenn Beck’s site is criticizing O’Keefe! It’s a variant of the old tactic I described at the head of the post of appearing neutral: you cite people on the other side from you and say: “even the other side is saying this!”

The most amusing example of this tactic I ever saw was L.A. Times columnist Michael Hiltzik, who once came over to my site posing as someone else and argued with a Hiltzik critic. Then, back at his own blog and under his own name, Hiltzik pointed his readers to the alleged shellacking that his alter ego (which he did not reveal to be his alter ego) was giving his critic at my site . . . and then, he delivered the coup de grace:

For anyone interested, Specter is getting his head handed to him over at the Patterico blog for trying to sleaze out from under his flat misstatements of fact. And that’s a conservative blog. Follow the link above, and enjoy the carnage.

Hahahahaha. “And that’s a conservative blog.” See what he did there? He came to a conservative blog under a phony name, made some arguments, then retreated to his own blog and cited the arguments of Mr. Phony Name, which — voila! — now had extra credibility because they were at a conservative blog!

That’s what Schiller is doing here, and his body language and pro-leftist views elsewhere on the tape make that clear. Here is a guy who clearly, giving his own opinion, calls the Tea Party weird and fanatical. He nods when the Tea Party is called racist. He talks about how the left is more educated, fair, and balanced, and talks about how the Republicans have really lost their way. Somewhere in there, he relates a critique of the Tea Party that he enthusiastically relates as being from Republicans — and we’re supposed to believe he doesn’t agree with every word?!

Yeah, this guy is totally vindicated!

And yet, that’s what the left is seriously saying. It’s the “pimp costume” deal all over again — when O’Keefe edited this video, he wasn’t wearing a pimp outfit. Therefore . . . VINDICATION! As they did with the ACORN videos, the lefties are making it seem as though the editing is everything, and the underlying facts, which O’Keefe supplied himself, don’t even exist. You have the Bob Cescas of the world saying:

Eric Cantor and the House Republicans, along with certain members of the media, owe Ron Schiller an apology.

Andrew Sullivan is calling it The Video Framing of NPR. And you have the Digbys of the world saying:

I have a dream that one day when a liberal organization somewhere is “caught” by one of these idiotic stings they will demand to see the whole damned tape before they start firing people. I live in hope.

Now hold on just a darn second. The whole damn tape has been released And that is a point that can’t be emphasized enough. The so-called “exculpatory evidence” — which, I have taken pains to explain, isn’t — all comes from O’Keefe himself. I guess he should have handled things Big Media style: record nothing, make up quotes, and never release any context.

The full video O’Keefe released clearly shows a leftist dripping with elitism for Tea Partiers. As I said to Weigel on Twitter, after he claimed that point 4 in the Blaze analysis (the second point discussed above) was “pretty devastating”:

“‘Devastating” is a pretty strong word. Why “devastating” — given that Schiller makes it clear he agrees with every word?

And now it’s time for that amusing story I told you. Within minutes, Weigel had blocked me:

Why did this occur? I had left him five messages, mostly challenging him on how he could argue that Schiller didn’t agree with the negative views of the Tea Partiers that he had passed along. Weigel thought better of it the next day and unblocked me, explaining:

I block anon Twitter accounts sometimes if I’m bored by the comments. You have rejoined the land of the unblocked, tho

Except, I am not anonymous. Which I explained. Then he said:

Oh, my fault for not checking. Generally tho I get more tired of responding if critic is anonymous, had no stake in it.

Except that he never responded to me, even once, before blocking me. So how could he have gotten “tired” of responding to me?

The next time someone cites that Blaze post, point them here. Ask them how, in light of the full context, they could possibly argue that Schiller doesn’t agree with every word of what he said about Tea Partiers.

They’ll soon “tire” of the discussion.

UPDATE: Verum Serum has more on the Blaze piece here.

129 Responses to “No Vindication for Ex-NPR Exec: On the Blaze’s Accusations of Misleading Editing by O’Keefe”

  1. Oh noes! BLOCKED by the Weigeler!

    However will you survive?

    Bigfoot (8096f2)

  2. Forget it Pat; it’s The Blaze

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)

  3. Seeing how they had a mole for the Cuban govt for 30 years in the State Department, and the likes of Charles Freeman, the one who couldn’t be certain if AQ was behind 9/11, I’m not that convinced that Foggy Bottom’s opinion is worth a whole lot, yes occasionally Weigel has a trace of integrity, but that is circumscribed by his membership in the Journolist, and don’t tell me that was disbanded,
    just regrouped.

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  4. Forget it Pat; it’s Weigel

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)

  5. Of course, if the comments were so dishonestly edited, then the Schillers will of course know that the opinions were not their own and won’t resign their respective positions … oh, wait …

    SPQR (8420d3)

  6. Was he getting a lot of comments from other people? I’ve seen that before were reasonable criticism (yours) get’s lost in the noise and the speaker just gets burned out on the whole subject for a while.

    time123 (33ce8e)

  7. There’s another, much more serious, angle to the NPR story that I haven’t seen addressed anywhere. Charities must certify that they have not engaged in transactions with suspected terrorist organizations or with organizations that may promote violence (or even “hatred,” according to a colleague who actually submits this paperwork to the Feds for his organization).

    NPR may not have accepted a gift from this group, but they certainly were woefully sloppy about their due diligence. And one really wonders if there are any other contributions that they have accepted from suspect organizations, given their willingness to play footsie with this group. I certainly hope there’s a thorough audit in the offing.

    If anyone’s interested, here’s a link to a decent summary of the regulations pertaining to international giving.

    Y-not (45d6ad)

  8. it’s hard to say if this is The Blaze per se or just Mr. Baker and Mr. Baker is a big classical music fan and classical music fans are on average particularly susceptible to NPR’s affectations

    happyfeet (ab5779)

  9. When is the last time the left media released the entirety of footage of a controversial tape. Still waiting for the Palin tape, Katie.

    That O’Keefe and Breitbart released it all, in full transparency, gives them the moral, ethical, and journalistic high ground in this ridiculous situation.

    Ed from SFV (206325)

  10. you know, as a lifetime communist…

    (kidding!)

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  11. Patterico, I could understand Little Dave “blocking” you had you asked how that whole ProActiv things was going.

    Anyway, I think that the point here is much simpler than one might think: the pundits aren’t actually watching the video that they write about. Never ascribe to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence, I think the quotation goes.

    The MSM is full of lazy people who are just sure of what they thought in the first place.

    Simon Jester (de152c)

  12. > Why, I didn’t start out to be a Democrat! I am naturally one who leans Republican! It’s how I was raised! But I just can’t help but notice how extreme and radical those Republicans are nowadays!

    This, is of course, precisely what liberals thought Zell Miller was doing.

    aphrael (9802d6)

  13. A small problem with the Ambassador and big donor telling Schiller the Republican Party had been hijacked by the Tea Party prior to the 2008 election. The “Tea Party” did not exist prior to that election, sorry. The comments are merely channeling what Obama said to those fat cats in San Francisco about people in Pennsylvania when he thought nobody was listening. MEME FAIL.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  14. Interesting. I’m imagining that Mr. Beck does not read everything on the Blaze word for word. I know he has hired people for their expertise in certain areas even though they are not conservative. I personally have always thought Mr. Beck to be more committed to the full truth rather than spin (even if you don’t agree), and I look forward to seeing how this plays out.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  15. Teh religious right Jebuslanders are coming. They will smite you with their crosses.

    We’ve been hearing that attack since the 1980s.

    Where can I get a membership card in the religious right?

    Obama himself fueled the race card part of the card part of the campaign.

    Transparent fail.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  16. Is there any doubt what NPr’s template is, from the Teabagger cartoon, to their coverage of the Tucson
    shooting to events in Wisconsin,

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  17. This, is of course, precisely what liberals thought Zell Miller was doing

    The fact that Miller actually ran as a Democrat tends to bolster his credibility on the issue.

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  18. I bet it’s the same former ambassador that Rev Wright was supposedly quoting about the Chickens….coming home….to roost!

    MayBee (081489)

  19. Yes, but yousaw what happened as soon as Miller began attacking the Democrats, right, they portrayed him as some sort of psycho, some even went back and brought up his work with Lester Maddox, thirty five years prior

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  20. Anybody who doesn’t see the hilarity in Schiller making *any* comments about the right’s religious zealotry to a Muslim Brotherhood front group is missing the fun.

    MayBee (081489)

  21. Ah, Ed Peck, who not surprisingly moved into 9/11 denialism,not long after.

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  22. Ah, well they deal with groups like that, all the time, CAIR, MPAC, ISNA. Curious though how they didn’t inquire about MEAC’s bona fides before going to the dinner

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  23. You notice Schiller didn’t bother to relate the story of all the Republican donors who did vote for McCain, and do not find the GOP xenophobic. He didn’t quote the former ambassadors who didn’t vote for Obama, or those who found McCain too centrist. He chose the story he wanted to tell. To a Muslim Brotherhood front group that wanted to spread Sharia law to the US.

    You know his defenders don’t believe what they’re pitching, here.

    MayBee (081489)

  24. Coming soon to bookstores near you: The Protocols of the Elders of NPR, by Ron Schiller.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  25. You accuse Schiller of using the ‘lifelong Republican’ rhetorical trick to gain credibility with his audience. Okay, but who is his audience in this case? He has no idea he’s being taped or that his interlocutors are imposters, so as far as he knows, his audience is this Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated group. So you’re saying he’s using the ‘lifelong Rebublican’ rhetorical trick to ingratiate himself to what he thinks is a bunch of radical Muslims?

    I’d buy your argument more if he was actually talking to conservatives (or people he *thinks* are conservatives). But since he’s not, I don’t really get it.

    More generally, I think you are over-analyzing his body language, which seems like the body language of a fundraiser trying to wrestle money out of someone he thinks has a lot of it. Certainly, not becoming or flattering to Schiller. And you’re right, he clearly disdains the Tea Party. But the way O’Keefe frames it in the excerpts makes it seem much more egregious than it is. Now, yes, O’Keefe deserves some credit for releasing the unedited footage along with his framed footage. But I’d respect him more if he just released the whole thing unadulterated without the framed segments. Which still make Schiller look bad, but in a less sensationalistic way.

    Mike (095491)

  26. . Okay, but who is his audience in this case? He has no idea he’s being taped or that his interlocutors are imposters, so as far as he knows, his audience is this Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated group. So you’re saying he’s using the ‘lifelong Rebublican’ rhetorical trick to ingratiate himself to what he thinks is a bunch of radical Muslims?

    Because the radical muslims hate the Republicans and tea party, and are hoping to get those voices crowded out of NPR.
    I don’t understand why you think Republicans who hate Republicans would be a good pitch to Republicans.

    MayBee (081489)

  27. This just shows that Schiller doesn’t even know his prospective audience, you don’t talk about Republicans, you talk about the right’s support of Israel, you throw in some disdain for the usual suspects, by talk radio, they do no prep work at all, even to do the proper pitch.

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  28. Some chump, do you give Lincoln Chaffee the same credibility you would assign to Zell Miller?

    aphrael (9802d6)

  29. THe template doesn’t work the same way, Chaffee was
    promoted as one of those reasonable Republicans, which didn’t save him from being beaten like a drum, by a moonbat like Whitehouse

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  30. “But I’d respect him more if he just released the whole thing unadulterated without the framed segments.”

    Mike – Sure, a two hour tape of a lunch will go VIRAL just like that, ZOMG!

    “I don’t really get it.”

    Really, that Schiiler’s trying to make the case that even die hard Republicans hate the Tea Party, even though he’s a faux die hard Republican? What’s not to get?

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  31. You accuse Schiller of using the ‘lifelong Republican’ rhetorical trick to gain credibility with his audience

    Yes. Claiming to have “always been” one thing, but how you so agree with your current audience is a way of adding credibility, as it supposedly shows how open-minded you are.

    Say, for example, you were trying to score with some hot Republican, but you have Obama posters all over your wall in a non-ironic sort of way. You might try to score points by saying “You know, I grew up a Democrat, but I have to say that I really agree with” and insert something you think she’ll care about.

    So at worst Schiller is a partisan hack who knows nothing besides the vitriol and talking points he hears about the Tea Party. At best he is an ethically ambiguous panderer who will say anything and everything the other person wants to hear if he thinks it will get that donation.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  32. 27.Some chump, do you give Lincoln Chaffee the same credibility you would assign to Zell Miller?

    Not sure what you’re asking. I took your first post as implying that Zell Miller was using a rhetorical trick in claiming to be a Democrat. I don’t think it was a trick, I think he was a life-long Democrat who saw his party’s direction change over his lifetime.

    How Lincoln Chaffee figures into this is a mystery. Unless you’re just trying to play “gotcha” again.

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  33. #30, yeah, fair enough. Like I said, the whole tape is not at all flattering to Schiller. Honestly, I think the ‘big story’ in this whole thing, which has gotten downplayed, is that even a professional NPR fundraiser thinks NPR would be better off forgoing the tiny bit of its budget that comes from the government, admitting its partisanship and fending for itself.

    Mike (095491)

  34. NPR complaining about misleading editing?

    Where’s money for a new irony meter.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  35. There is a bit of playing gotcha in it, sure: I think there’s something inconsistent about believing Zell Miller’s rhetoric about the party leaving him, on the grounds that he was a long-time Democrat, while not believing Lincoln Chafee’s rhetoric about the Republican party moving to the right.

    But what I really think is happening is that both parties have, over the last forty years, become more ideologically rigid. The process started with the Democrats, as conservative Democrats wandered out of the party in response to (a) the civil rights act, (b) the anti-war movement, (c) the very left wing economic policies of the 1970s era Democrats, and (d) the serious law + order problems of the 1970s and 1980s. As conservatives left the Democratic party, they pulled the Republican party to the right, and now liberals are leaving the Republican party. When I hear someone say they are a lifelong republican disgusted with modern republicanism, I think they’re saying that they are a liberal republican who feel that the party no longer has a home for liberals, as it used to; this strikes me as being precisely equivalent to the claim from people like Zell Miller, who was a conservative Democrat who no longer felt at home in the Democratic party.

    The reason Zell Miller’s rhetoric rang false with my compatriots – and, to be honest, with me at the time – is that in our minds, “Democrat” was equal to “liberal”, and it was patently obvious that Miller wasn’t a liberal, and never had been, and therefore his rhetoric was absurd. But that was wrong; “Democrat” and “liberal” have never been synonyms.

    Similarly, the reason the rhetoric Patterico is denouncing rings false with many conservatives is that, in their minds, “Republican” and “conservative” are equivalent (otherwise the term RINO wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense) – and while that’s more true than the Democrat=liberal equivalence, it’s also historically false.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  36. Don’t take it personally. Weigel just blocks people in lieu of admitting error. He blocked me long ago.

    Jim Treacher (e041de)

  37. That’s probably true, but the latter’s influence is amplified by journalism, education, foundation, exactly the same groups that Lilley, Schiller, & now Slocum predominate. So even though liberals make up 20% of the population, their views are echoed ad infinitum, with techniques like the Journolist

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  38. The “TACO” – This communication technique teams up a non-Spanish speaker with a Mexican. Watch them work like a well-oiled machine!

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  39. 34.There is a bit of playing gotcha in it, sure: I think there’s something inconsistent about believing Zell Miller’s rhetoric about the party leaving him, on the grounds that he was a long-time Democrat, while not believing Lincoln Chafee’s rhetoric about the Republican party moving to the right

    Chaffee wasn’t the topic of this post, otherwise you might have a point there. The point to the post was that Ron Schiller was using a rhetorical trick by claiming (probably falsely) to be a Republican in order to prove his credibility. Schiller says he votes mostly Democrat, so that tends to work against his claim.

    But how that translates to Zell Miller using a rhetorical trick is unclear. Miller really was a Democrat: he ran as a Dem his entire career.

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  40. Ron Schiller was using a rhetorical trick by claiming (probably falsely) to be a Republican in order to prove his credibility

    If all you can say is “probably falsely”, then the comparison ought to be clear.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  41. A Florida Senate bill that prohibits union dues from being automatically deducted from public employees’ paychecks has barely survived a vote out of the Community Affairs Committee.

    [...]

    Union foes have dubbed the measure the Worker Gag Bill.*

    So what’s the dirty socialist Associated Press headline?


    Worker Gag Bill squeaks out of Fla. Senate panel

    for reals.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  42. Selective outrage by No Penis Required.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  43. Anyone see this?

    To Serve the Whole Public?

    We have built an extraordinary franchise. It didn’t happen by accident. It happened because we used a very specific methodology to cultivate and build an audience. For years, in boardrooms, at conferences, with funders, we have talked about our highly educated, influential audience. We pursued David Giovannoni’s methodologies. We all participated. It was his research, his undaunted, clear strategy that we pursued to build the successful news journalism franchise we have today.

    What happened as a result is that we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite. “Super-serve the core” — that was the mantra, for many, many years. This focus has, in large part, brought us to our success today. It was never anyone’s intention to exclude anyone.

    But we have to accept — unapologetically — that this is the franchise we’ve built.

    As they say, read the whole thing. She challenges them to serve all of America, not just the 12 percent, but that’s just not how radio works.

    carlitos (01d172)

  44. here is an NYT article about Mr. Giovannoni from 2001

    The way to serve your public better? Lose what’s on the periphery. Focus on a single audience and serve that audience extremely, insanely well all the time.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  45. Carlitos: that’s an incredible link, and is precisely the kind of liberalism I think we need more of.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  46. I agree with much of what you say, aphrael, but there are a few things that I would add.

    What I find disingenuous is the idea that the Repubs have shifted to the “far right” in recent times. (Not that you used this phrase, I’m speaking of the claim that is commonly heard, such as from Schiller). Now it may be true that as some ideas have claimed a wider following more liberal Repubs have felt more of a tug to leave the Repub party. If that results in the Repub Party as a whole having a more conservative center, that’s a fair statement. But that is different than suggesting that the conservatives of 1990 have gone wacky because of developing new views. I think the conservatives of 2011 have the same positions as they have had for at least 40 years.

    Pro-life political action has been almost exclusively Republican since as long as I remember. In my opinion the last believable pro-life Democrat was Bob Casey Sr., and we know what happened to him. State Senator Barach Obama’s position that live-born infants of “failed” abortions should “not be kept alive” was a big move (to the Left, I guess), going past even what Pelosi and others would have advocated. To say Repubs have moved R by wanting live-borns to be “allowed to live” would be nonsense. The same with euthanasia. Once almost everyone was anti-Physician Assisted Suicide. I don’t think it is valid to say that those who still are have drifted R.

    “Evangelical Christians” have been courted by the Repubs at least since Nixon, though the Dems in Carter appealed to them as well. “Evangelical Christian” theology or practice has not significantly changed in the last 40 years, at least, except perhaps more visible involvement in relief work.

    The Repubs have been “more conservative” for a long time with defense/foreign policy, since McGovern and the 1972 campaign, if not before. The idea that American military strength was to be used to keep freedom alive and communism at bay was bipartisan since Truman through Kennedy/Johnson, and continued with some such as “Scoop” Jackson into the 70′s, at least. Republicans since Nixon, and even Eisenhower before him thought that foreign policy was strengthened with more aggressive use of military force when it had to be used.

    There was an Equal Rights Amendment for women that was brought up and died long before 2000.

    The most visible domestic issue I think is gay rights. I don’t think the argument is valid to say the Repubs have moved to the right. There was a long time that the idea of same-sex marriage had so little chance of getting anywhere that it wasn’t discussed. Once it became a political issue it was soundly defeated where ever it was raised, and the first inroads in law was through the courts over-ruling the expressed will of the people. It wasn’t that many years ago that even Hillary Clinton was saying a federal amendment wasn’t necessary to define marriage because we had DOMA. I didn’t believe her then and the evidence suggesting I and others were correct is now evident. So I don’t think the majority of conservatives or republicans have shifted R on anything here, they’ve simply remained where they were.

    I agree with your points that dem didn’t always mean lib and repub didn’t always mean conservative. It still doesn’t , in some ways, I know many people who voted for Obama though they are pro-life. (I personally don’t think that is rationally justifiable.) I think many voted for Obama “in concept”, someone that would transcend political bickering, would be the definition of positive change, not negative campaigning, someone that would move us beyond thinking about race. Many still want to believe he is that instead of looking at the facts.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  47. “voted mostly Democratic lately.” (“Mostly” my ass!)

    “Mostly” Democratic is probably correct. I suppose he also occasionally votes for the Green Party, and the Peace & Freedom party, or whatever the Socialist/Communist party calls itself these days.

    Pervy Grin (ace299)

  48. The trolls who think O’keefe misedited that NPR video are the exact same who have no problem purposely and quite spitefully quoting palin out of context.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  49. are the exact same people*

    DohBiden (984d23)

  50. Carlitos’ link.

    I have refused to listen to NPR since I heard them lie about J.C. Watts and Miguel Estrada. (A few years ago.) I don’t care who listens to them or what their brand is. For me to listen to NPR I would need to actively cultivate that error defined by Michael Crichton and quoted on the other thread. The error in logic where you forget the news you are now listening to or reading comes from the same source you knew to be BS when it was talking about something that you knew about, and somehow you think you can believe what they say if you don’t already know better.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  51. (I’ll come back to 45 later, but I wanted to get this in): I listen to NPR, primarily because (a) there’s a local news talk-radio program which has people discussing bay area and california issues, something I basically can’t get anywhere else, and (b) I love “wait, wait, don’t tell me.”. Habit keeps the scanner on that channel at other hours of the day.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  52. I watch NPR

    No surprise you watch No Penis Required.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  53. DohBiden, you appear to be confuzzled and maybe talking to yourself?

    carlitos (01d172)

  54. Interesting how the left demands the “long form” video (even though it’s been released). What’s wrong the the “short form” video? It has sufficient, if not complete, information on it, and you can just trust whoever released it.

    Northeast Elizabeth (c780a0)

  55. I will watch some things on PBS TV, FWIW- though I generally avoid anything of political or news content.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  56. The error in logic where you forget the news you are now listening to or reading comes from the same source you knew to be BS when it was talking about something that you knew about, and somehow you think you can believe what they say if you don’t already know better.

    MD in Philly,

    As some here say, you are painting with quite the broad brush there. Every news source I have ever listened to or watched or read has been wrong with regards to ‘something I know about.’ While it’s true that with certain outlets, the errors are generally in one direction, I know this going in.

    I agree with your points on gay rights; Conservatives haven’t moved. That’s what ‘conservative’ means literally; conserving the status quo. I have had a recent change of heart about it after seeing what the Mormons did with Prop 8 in California and reading the court cases. I suspect that, in 40 years, those Conservatives that haven’t moved on that issue will look like those who didn’t move on racial views in the 60′s. That’s just my opinion, mind you.

    carlitos (01d172)

  57. ABC New’s Jake Tapper on claims O’Keefe was misleading:

    The full video of the sting on NPR executives indicates that some of the excerpts of the video provided by conservative guerilla filmmaker James O’Keefe were so misleading as to have been deceitful and dishonest.
    ***
    A personal note here: At the time I was assigned to cover this story, I asked NPR communications officials if the video was being unfairly excerpted in any way, as O’Keefe has done in the past. They did not believe it was. I regret not having reviewed the entire two hour video before reporting even one word on this, and I pledge that I will try to make sure that never happens again.

    Kudos to the conservative website The Blaze for drawing attention to this.

    -Jake Tapper

    It’s not surprising the NPR sources felt the edits were fair. The multiple resignations confirmed that. Furthermore, Tapper admits he could have watched the entire video and ultimately he did watch it. Every journalist edits what they see, read, and view in making their reports, and in this case the source information was available. Why blame O’Keefe when it’s something Tapper admits he should have done himself?

    DRJ (fdd243)

  58. The blaze website is a far-left communist rag no surprise Jake Crapper would applaud them.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  59. As conservatives left the Democratic party, they pulled the Republican party to the right

    This is a statistical absurdity. I know of cases in which groups have exchanged members with the result being statistical shifts in both groups. However, your statement would mean that conservative Democrats were more conservative than Republicans to a significant degree. That is just not true. The usual implication is that the Democrats that left the party to become Republican were racist.

    In fact, what has happened is that the population of the southern states has grown and most of that growth was made up of more economically conservative individuals.

    Now, you could assert that, as Democrats like Miller left the party, the Democrats became far more leftist and, therefore, the Republicans seemed more conservative.

    and now liberals are leaving the Republican party. When I hear someone say they are a lifelong republican disgusted with modern republicanism, I think they’re saying that they are a liberal republican who feel that the party no longer has a home for liberals, as it used to; this strikes me as being precisely equivalent to the claim from people like Zell Miller, who was a conservative Democrat who no longer felt at home in the Democratic party.

    No, the vast majority are lying. They call Rush Limbaugh and other talk shows all the time. It is a tactic.

    There were social conservatives, like Chuck Percy in Illinois, who qualified as liberal Republicans but that was before leftism was so discredited by LBJ and the “social” aspect was the old “society” culture in which you were Republican because your father was.

    My family were all Democrats and were horrified when I told them I had voted for Nixon in 1960. Years later, my mother claimed she had been a Republican, not because she was horrified by conservatives but because she was ashamed to admit she had been a Democrat.

    I have a couple of kids who are politically left and I wonder what happened to them. My oldest son would describe himself as anything that was opposite to my choice. He has a competition thing. We don’t talk politics and, I suspect, if I announced I was voting for Obama, he would join the Republican Central Committee.

    I have a daughter who is still an Obama supporter but, like so many of them, can’t explain it. I try not to embarrass her and we don’t talk politics. The odd thing is that she is in law enforcement.

    Another daughter, who is the most academic of them all, has been a lefty but now tells me she is changing. She wanted to meet Rumsfeld this week but her plane to China is leaving too early for her to go.

    I have tried to find someone who can explain the Democrats’ economic policies but, so far, it seems all emotional and personal.

    Mike K (8f3f19)

  60. DRJ is exactly right . It doesn’t matter how O’Keefe edited the short video. It’s his damn video. Except for live reports, some producer edits every news report Tapper makes.

    O’Keefe released the entire unedited video. Not a single network reporter has ever done that. And O’Keefe is dishonest? Give me a break. I can’t believe how stupid they think we are.

    Ag80 (efea1d)

  61. I like Tapper and think he was a far better host than Amanpour on This Week. He does come from a lefty background but has kept it out of his comments on This Week pretty well.

    Mike K (8f3f19)

  62. However, your statement would mean that conservative Democrats were more conservative than Republicans to a significant degree.

    nonsense.

    my statement would mean that an influx of conservative democrats increased the proportion of conservatives within the party and correspondingly decreased the strength of liberals within the party by reducing their relative numbers.

    Earl Warren was a Republican. He was elected governor of California as a Republican three times. He couldn’t win a Republican primary anywhere in the country today. Why? Because he was a liberal Republican, and they are now outnumbered in a way that they weren’t in the 1940s.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  63. DohBiden doesn’t quite seem to be paying attention today.

    Icy Texan (8e21a5)

  64. I got news for you, he couldn’t win an election in California anymore either, that’s how far to the left it’s gotten,

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  65. Within minutes, Weigel had blocked me…
    Why did this occur?
    Uh, [object] , maybe?

    mrt (3f3c8a)

  66. The entire conversation was made available from the start — anyone who was curious could watch it and judge for themeselves if there had been editing that changed the meaning.

    Making the entire conversation avail, in my opinion, stops cant about editing before it can begin.

    To shift the discussion from the content of what happened onto the editing is a trick. Remember how the Sherrod “discussion” was able to get people to ignore the many sounds of agreement and pleasure that came from the black audience as Sherrod described her racist thoughts about the white farmer who came for help. That was the point of this video and it was lost in the tumult of “editing” chatter.

    Anonyma (e5eb3e)

  67. Remember that Beck, and The Blaze, have an agenda when it comes to American politics: disparage the Republican Party as much as they do to Democrats.

    This article reflects this – show a schism in the GOP over the Tea Party and attempt to use that to pain the GOP as “out-of-step” justifying a third party movement.

    Tim K (82534e)

  68. So let me get this straight, there were two “top” Republicans who voted for Obama because they feared the “Tea Party” .. a group that did not exist in 2008 at the time of the Presidential election ?

    Do these “top” Republicans have a time machine or something ?

    Rodan (03e5c2)

  69. I’m not sure if Mike K and aphrael are in actual disagreement, or not using the same terms to describe the same thing.

    I would agree that if lib Repubs left the Repub party the “center of gravity” would shift to the R. I also agree that if Con Dems left the Dem party that would give cons in the Repub Party a relative greater strength.

    What I don’t agree with, which is consistent with what Schiller complains about with “Evangelicals”, is that the conservatives of today have different beliefs than those of 20 or 30 years ago, suggesting that the cons of yesteryear were at least understandable and reasonable, but the cons of today are wacko. I don’t think that is true but is an argument of the left; whether they do that because they believe it or just because they see it as a useful argumentative tool, I don’t know.

    To criticize the Left, we do not need to say that the libs of today are the worse than those of the past, though we do say that the libs of today, like Bill Ayers, are what we saw as radicals 40 years ago, like Bill Ayers. (To be a little unfair but illustrative with my point). In other words, JFK was a liberal in 1960 but was very different from Bill Ayers at that time, but the equivalent of JFK today (Obama) is a long-time friend and colleague of Ayers.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  70. Not really correct on what Beck’s agenda is, Tim K, but The Blaze certainly deserves some scrutiny and criticism over this one.

    Icy Texan (8e21a5)

  71. Comment by Tim K

    That’s an interesting thought. But, I’m not sure if Beck and The Blaze want to discredit the Repubs as much as the Dems to give energy to a third party; and if they did, I’m not sure being negative of O’Keefe would correlate with that, as I would think of O’Keefe more as the third-party “Tea-Party” type (whatever that means) as he is willing to be more confrontational than the “Main-stream Repubs”.
    I agree that Beck is beholden to no party and will criticize Repubs where he thinks they need criticizing, but I think that is actually more often done among Repubs. Lots of Repubs will state where they disagreed with Bush on one thing or another but would say they voted for him on the overall picture. It’s the Dems who insist their leaders are infallible.
    I’m thinking someone in The Blaze was testing the waters as to how much “freedom from Beck” do they have and we’ll see the outcome.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  72. I actually listened to the first unedited hour of it.

    That was enough as far as I’m concerned.

    What you are dealing with is that the old media feels the same way-anyone who doesn’t agree with them or questions them is “uneducated’ or “boring”.

    One of the things that NPR brags about is having 17 bureaus overseas.

    Sorry but we don’t need your stinking “foreign” bureaus and your condescending filtration of the news for “us”.

    We can go to the natives. I can read Le Monde if I want to.

    I can read Egyptians on twitter and filter it for myself.

    What you are seeing is “old media” bitterly clinging to it’s credibility.

    Sorry but it’s long gone.

    Apropo of nothing CNN doesn’t realize they’ve destined the Libyans to their fate.

    CNN hired someone for years that said both of these things:

    1) CNN ignored the atrocities of Saddam to maintain their “special” and “unique” access.

    2)US soldiers targeted journalists.

    Now we know the first is true because CNN apologized somewhere in the back of the NYT.

    But CNN has the Libyans chanting CNN! CNN!

    As if CNN can save them.

    The women protest in the streets and CNN covers it.

    They want a UN NO Fly Zone.

    A UN No Fly zone-the UN has an Air Force-who knew?

    Is there any entities as useless in those cases as the UN or CNN? ( Allah forbid that they chant USA and Reuters will edit out the part where the Libyans ask for President Bush anyways-they’re ever helpful like that.

    All this is done so CNN can feel good about their “Blood for Ratings”.

    BUt as soon as a Republican would take over they’d show a US soldier being dragged through the streets, and US soldiers being shot in the head.

    You want true evil?

    It’s our corrupt media.

    They fight this tooth and nail because they can’t really stand to look at themselves in the mirror.

    SGIP

    That’s what they should see.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  73. If it were not for conservatives outraged at Weigel’s misrepresentations, he would have no audience at all. Besting him in an online duel is as impressive as winning a fight with a two month old puppy.

    The guy was one of the Journ-o-list propagandists who sought to manage the news, so it is a joke to pretend he tries to be honest or objective.

    Estragon (ec6a4b)

  74. I posted a link to this piece in the comment thread on the Blaze’s self congratulatory report on all the positive media they’re getting and they DELETED IT!

    liquidflorian (54f796)

  75. I think this was pure genious. Look at all the attention being paid to the “editing” and the perpetuation in the conversation.

    Hands. Playing. Into.

    Mr B (803be0)

  76. liquidflorian

    Figures.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  77. Weigel is only read because he half way humors half of the electorate. Funny how he refers to Patterico questions as he is “bored” with them.

    Who’s boring? Weigel or a guy that can take comments? I submit the plus ennui is the Weigelian.

    Bored? Ancient Chinese saying:He who is bored is truly full of holes and has the lower IQ.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  78. Aphrael – If you have to go back 60 years to when Earl Warren was governor of California to make your point, I think that betrays the weakness of your position. When did this supposed hijacking which Schiller is referring to occur? He seems to imply recently, i.e., when a black man took over the presidency, but that may be reading too much into his comments.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  79. Well nuts.

    It’s certainly true that two wrongs don’t make a right.

    And I heard the NPR “analysis” this morning condemning O’Keefe’s editing of his video (you know, lots of “experts” testifying how, where and why O’Keefe edited stuff so as to lead his audience to a predetermined conclusion).

    But I’m wondering if NPR, the NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc. would be willing to have their own editing practices scrutinized by “objective” analysts.

    If O’Keefe did do wrong, then he learned from the best.

    Zipper38 (b3ab64)

  80. This is a very lengthy assertion that Schiller is insincere and resorting to a ploy in claiming Republican roots, but that’s pretty much all it is — an assertion. The Hiltzik example clearly illustrates the ploy you have in mind, but doesn’t tell us anything about Schiller’s actions or intentions.

    I would also be interested in your thoughts on something that other commenters on the entire tape have noted — the multiple mentions of a firewall between development and editorial and the admonitions that donations will not influence coverage. This seems central, since concern over bias in coverage is the primary reason to be concerned about what NPR representatives say to actors and non-actors alike.

    I agree that O’Keefe deserves credit for making the entire tape available (presuming he made no untoward alterations). But my advice to board members and other decision makers would be to always review the entire tape before coming to conclusions or ordering action, when confronted with something like this. That goes double for anything O’Keefe has had a hand in.

    Angeleno (4e9907)

  81. aphrael, I really think you need a crash course in statistics.

    Earl Warren was also the California Attorney General who interned the Japanese Americans. So that made him liberal ?

    What is true is that “liberal,” in the way it is used today, does not correspond to any major political philosophy prior to 1960. Not even FDR would support many of the policies that are today called “liberal.” For example, he was firmly against public employee unions.

    Mike K (8f3f19)

  82. Angeleno, the tape is self-incriminating. No “assertion” needed.

    Icy Texan (8e21a5)

  83. Had Schiller come out and said he was a Log Cabin Republican, then I would have bought into his argument . . .

    BigAlSouth (3f5722)

  84. Angeleno is an asshat.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  85. Angelino

    So you question their rush to judgment here, and that they might not have all the “facts” but your sure they get it right in their day-to-day operations. The latter being more perishable in the 24/7 news cycle.

    btw-if you listened to the unedited tape how many times does Schiller refer to the “uneducated” or “less educated” and what group is he referencing?

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  86. edit:but *you’re* sure they get it right in their day-to-day operations.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  87. This whole thing is a dog-bites-man story. We don’t need a sting video to know that NPR prefers Muslims over Jews, Democrats over Republicans, and America’s enemies over America. Anyone can tell that just by listening to them. What I’d like to know is what they’d say over lunch to a conservative group wanting to influence their programming with a donation. Somehow I don’t think they would be as friendly as they were to the Muslim Brotherhood pretenders, if they would even meet with them at all.

    Pervy Grin (ace299)

  88. but that Betsy Liley hoochie still has a job

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  89. 1. Weigel is a wannabe NPR elitist who seriously can’t stand that James O’Keefe has accomplished far more as a journalist that he has, despite all the promise we say he (Weigel) has.

    2. Also, there is a serious point to BigAlSouth’s

    “Had Schiller come out and said he was a Log Cabin Republican, then I would have bought into his argument . . .”

    The fact that a majority of Republicans are opposed to gay marriage is an issue that trumps all other issues in the minds of many gays and makes them very hateful of Republicans who view their opposition to gay marriage as H8. Once this viewpoint is entrenched, then neutrality towards the other side is lost.

    Breitbartfan77 (5f34ac)

  90. Wow dangerously close to having CJ figured out.

    Chart it. What would ti match?

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  91. *It* man dyslexia is flaring today. I think I did myself in with the SGIP.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  92. I’m all for defunding NPR and PBS if for no other reason than to get rid of their constant begging for money–when are they not fund-raising for their “superior” product? If it’s so superior, just put it out on the open market and let’s see how it competes with the rest of programming out there. I’d at least donate to them if they’d have a panel on ethics in journalism, or some other topic, and ask Breitbart (or any other non-liberal journalist, if there is such a thing) to moderate it.

    Rochf (f3fbb0)

  93. In Los Angeles they have TWO NPR stations which is a lot and they never beg at the same time. I figure this means that they know they have overlapping listeners and doing their begging at different times increases the likelihood that people will give to both. But I think rational people just listen to the non-begging station.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  94. Even if, like Dave Weigel, you want to insist that this is somehow unclear, you have to look at the context of the rest of the video.

    Perhaps it is unclear to Weigel because is young and lacks a mature discernment – or maybe he’s just digging in to try to maintain an enigmatic political stand – maybe he’s left, maybe he’s right, maybe he’s hedging his bets for future employment. Who knows. What is clear, very clear, is the context and point of view Schiller consistently maintains. It’s not rocket science to discern this.

    Dana (9f3823)

  95. NPR is playing the Folkenflick piece all day.

    But they are still sitting on the death threats against Wisconsin Senators, the testimony of racial bias by ex-DOJ attorneys, and still repeating the mantra of the violent teaparty without a shred of evidence.

    Cry me a river, NPR.

    sherlock (0a99e7)

  96. The more vituperative the response, the more accurate the initial accusation.

    If conservatives were lying about Leftists, the response would be larded-up with facts.
    Absent those, and with the high-decible level of deceit in the response, the accusations leveled at the Left must have a high level of accuracy.

    AD-RtR/OS! (0bc8d7)

  97. Comment by AD-RtR/OS!

    Somebody posted the saying here before:
    “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
    If the law is on your side, pound the law.
    If neither is on your side, pound the table.”

    So, if all we hear and see is a lot of table pounding…

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  98. Breitbart should offer tote bags.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  99. “very fundamentally Christian, and I wouldn’t even call it Christian, it’s this weird evangelical kind of move.”

    LOL at this–apparently Schiller’s familiarity with the New Testament, and the Book of Acts in particular, is limited to what Terry Gross told him at the NPR water coolers.

    Another Chris (4ba18c)

  100. I can’t believe I wasted so much time listening but the other part that’s annoying is Schiiler talking about the dinner he had with eight “highly educated” Republicans-who knew that NPR was “liberal” but couldn’t come up with specific examples-

    Please-who the hell is listening to NPR?

    That’s why they couldn’t come with “specific examples” they ain’t listenin’ no more.

    Then how about the part where Schiller wants a half order of risotto and then a salad and it’s the waiter who is dumb when he brings it to Schiller exactly how he ordered it.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  101. rich white people listen to NPR it’s kind of a thing of theirs like pomegranate juice

    happyfeet (ab5779)

  102. Ya pomegranate juice sucks. Oh and the only reason Schiller introduces the Republicans as “highly educated” at the beginning of his story is because supposedly in the end they ended up agreeing with him…

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  103. Rich white liberals listen to NPR.

    Fixed happyfeet.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  104. “Even if, like Dave Weigel, you want to insist that this is somehow unclear, you have to look at the context of the rest of the video.”

    That context is that if your job is fundraizing, I’m offering you a $5m check and I have some nutty ideas about how great wind power is, you’re either going to tell me it’s the future or a waste of time.
    You know which one it is. Everyone does.

    Meanwhile, the Veritas guys call the tea party a bunch of racists, the NPR guy responds to this by stating that some Republicans feel the same way and you think it’s perfectly clear that these are instead Mr NPR’s thoughts?

    Basically you’re saying, if it can be taken in that context, it should be. Because there is nothing clear cut about this.

    As for shonky editing, one of Mr NPR’s responses is removed from earlier in the tape and inserted as a supposed response to a different question. That’s a hell of a lot different than ending a clip early.

    Sadly, it’s no different than every other tape this O’Keefe has produced.

    And let’s not pretend any of you care about accuracy in context. The previous tape got an honest border control employee fired by falsely claiming he helped people smugglers. He actually reported them to the people smuggling unit as soon as they left the office. You preferred his sacking because you liked the lie it came with. If you had any interest in the truth, that would have been the last time you ever posted anything relating to Mr B-Roll Pimp Costume / Staged Rape Video O’Keefe. FFS

    backstop (b11060)

  105. “That O’Keefe and Breitbart released it all, in full transparency, gives them the moral, ethical, and journalistic high ground in this ridiculous situation.”
    Comment by Ed from SFV — 3/14/2011 @ 7:19 am

    Correct. And the previous tapes they were forced to release proved they fabricated every explosive tape they’ve doctored together before this one.

    I bet Bill Clinton has some quite legit land dealings nowdays. Either that’s testimony to his honesty on such matters, or it ain’t.

    backstop (b11060)

  106. And the previous tapes they were forced to release proved they fabricated every explosive tape they’ve doctored together before this one.

    Just cause the left says this 100000 times doesn’t make it so.

    Nothing was fabricated about Sherrod or ACORN. Sherrod was a racist nutcase in the course of her work. That really happened. ACORN did try to help child sex slavery. That really happened.

    What was fabricated amounts to ‘but then Sherrod was sorry about that’ or ‘ACORN only did that 95% of the time’. (I realize O’Keefe had nothing to do with the Sherrod story).

    And btw, O’Keefe released the full audio and transcripts for the ACORN stings very early on too. Pretending these tapes were doctored amounts to tolerance for the evils ACORN participated in. You’re dissembling like a good partisan soldier.

    There are some valid criticisms available of O’Keefe and Breitbart, but what you’re trying to do is erase the truth about their accurate stories by creating a smokescreen of paranoia.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  107. yeah high
    ground

    betnot (1d3483)

  108. No, Schiller and Lilley, have revealed that they show more consideration to a group that wants to impose Sharia law, which is something worse than
    the harshest member of the Moral Majority, than to
    people concerned with the economic and political
    rehabilitation of this country. A tea party group
    would never have gotten this kind of audience even
    if they had the funds to spring for such an event.
    The fact, there are Americans who have similar views in the GOP, doesn’t change that fact, They have endeavored to paint the tea party as violent, when clearly that is not the case, in fact, it is quite nearly the opposite.

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  109. “He actually reported them to the people smuggling unit as soon as they left the office.”

    backstop – Do you mean when he called a relative a week after they left his office and left a message and on his voice mail. That’s the immediate report you’re talking about. The part where he hit on the prostitute was all fabricated too, right?

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  110. “Sadly, it’s no different than every other tape this O’Keefe has produced.”

    That’s right, it catches the left in its full hypocritical glory and they shift into denial mode.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  111. Haven’t we seen this pattern with the plame matter;
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/09/dangerous_liaisons_wilson_armi.html with Kimberlin, Friedman, with the Tea Party. everywhere they conjure up a false, or at least incomplete narrative,

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  112. narciso – I’m trying to figure out what point they’re trying to defend. Why did NPR fire Ron Schiller and Vivian Schiller? Oh yeah, it’s fine to talk like biased, arrogant, unprincipled elitists when you think you’re in private, but never commit the sin of getting caught. I think that was the point “backstop” was trying to make.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  113. Appearing on CNN this past Sunday — after her Twitter smackdown by Patterico — NPR’s ombudswoman absolutely threw Ron Schiller under the bus.

    Icy Texan (2f015c)

  114. The simple rebuttal to anyone at NPR, or supporting it, when they complain about what was ommitted from the short video: Has NPR started covering the death threats being against Republican lawmakers and the Governor in Wisconsin yet?

    Then explain that until that happens (not to mention a hundred other embargoed stories that don’t “fit the narrative”) they have no business squealing about lying by ommission. Lying by ommission is in fact a core part of the NPR business model.

    sherlock (9681be)

  115. Ugh the ACORN shills are out in full force.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  116. My sister proudly announced in 2005 that she was renouncing her life-long registration as Republican and registering Democrat. She lives in San Francisco. She marched against Bush in DC. But when I asked her which Republican she ever voted for for President, the closest she could come was John Anderson, the RINO who ran third party in 1980. Pathetic.

    james (8a67c9)

  117. @ daleyrocks
    “I’m trying to figure out what point they’re trying to defend …. it’s fine to talk like biased, arrogant, unprincipled elitists when you think you’re in private, but never commit the sin of getting caught. I think that was the point “backstop” was trying to make.”

    No. Again, if your job is fundrazing, I have a $5m check and some opinions about wind power, the moon landing and organic foods – now you do too for the duration of the fundrazing meeting.

    This is not something you or anyone else finds hard to comprehend. You can avoid acknowledging it, but don’t pretend it’s complicated.

    backstop (b11060)

  118. @Dustin
    “ACORN did try to help child sex slavery. That really happened.”

    I guess it depends on your definition of the word “help”. As per the AG’s investigation, he did try to hook them up with his contact, the Mexican police.
    So you know, that might have resulted in them coming across the border. It just depends if you think it’s helpful for criminals to be involved in a sting operation.

    Look, the DEA will hook you up with drugs if you ask them to. I guess it’s just a question of whether them also arresting you is of larger or smaller relevance. Oh, and your honesty, that too.

    “And btw, O’Keefe released the full audio and transcripts for the ACORN stings very early on too. Pretending these tapes were doctored amounts to tolerance for the evils ACORN participated in. You’re dissembling like a good partisan soldier.”

    a) The tape I referred to was only released in an immunity deal O’Keefe made with prosecutors to avoid charges.
    b) Read the wikipedia page for the investigations by the respective justice departments around the country. All of them refer to all the tapes being heavily edited.
    c) Apparently even when his co-star admits the tapes were doctored, this doesn’t count either and it’s still me pretending.

    “There are some valid criticisms available of O’Keefe and Breitbart…”

    Well if these don’t include what every investigation has found when these tapes have been examined, I can’t agree. Clearly there is no criticism you find valid.
    So no, there doesn’t appear to be any valid criticism for you. What other relevant opinion is there? You don’t like their hair?

    backstop (b11060)

  119. @DohBiden
    “Ugh the ACORN shills are out in full force.”

    Defund ACORN, NPR and the NEA while you’re at it if this clears up the debate for you. I have no interest in these groups or what they do. That’s kind of why, for me at least, they don’t warp reality just by being involved.

    I would defend PBS with a biased opinion because I think they do good shows, but that’s about it. I like the voiceover guy on Frontline, what can I say.

    backstop (b11060)

  120. I’m a concerned conservative who really wants to defund ACORN (?) so the debate is cleared up and I am an authority on things I refuse to provide evidence for, which just happen to be a carbon copy of the ACORN shill crap.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  121. Dustin that was not directed at you.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  122. Yeah good work genius. We’ve all heard ACORN’s line that we don’t care if you defund us, as long as O’Keefe is recognised as the repeated lying douche of remarkably questionable character* that he is. That old ACORN line. lol

    *Not a lot of people who are repeatedly shown to be fabricators of scoops, sympathize with anti-semites and white supremacists and who make tapes about aborting all the black babies in a state because there’s too many black people and who get caught attempting to stage sexual assaults for giggles… get such favourable treatment from the blogosphere.

    Of course, the only explanation for why I might detest someone like that… I’m on ACORNs payroll. FFS, rent a spine and some self respect of your own.

    backstop (b11060)

  123. who make tapes about aborting all the black babies in a state because there’s too many black people and who get caught attempting to stage sexual assaults for giggles

    You do realize he said that so he could get on tape the very positive “oh sure we can do that” response, right?

    sympathize with anti-semites

    cite your source, please.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  124. Of course, the only explanation for why I might detest someone like that… I’m on ACORNs payroll

    Oh no. You could easily be a complete and total moron. Trust me, we aren’t ruling that out.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  125. @ Scott Jacobs
    “You do realize he said that so he could get on tape the very positive “oh sure we can do that” response, right?”

    Oh, so this is the explanation for calling Planned Parenthood, asking them could they abort all the black babies in a state because there’s just too many blacks?

    It wasn’t that the guy who supports racists made this call for the obvious reason, it was to get a bunch of liberals to inadvertantly agree to race-based genocide. That old prank call.

    If you find this to be a plausible explanation, there’s something wrong with you. This isn’t something that normal people would believe, let alone repeat as though it were plausible.

    “””sympathize with anti-semites”””
    “cite your source, please.”

    I notice the other half of that quote that relates to blacks isn’t an issue worth checking for you. Really finished that post how you started didn’t you.

    backstop (b11060)

  126. They do backturd.

    Anyways your an repulsive joke.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  127. “it was to get a bunch of liberals to inadvertantly agree to race-based genocide.”

    Backstop – I’m going with complete and total moron. There was nothing inadvertant sounding in the agreement of those Planned Parenthood staffers’ to accept money to abort black babies. Did you actually listen to the calls? After all, Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenicist who wanted to reduce the population of black people in the country. The staff response was consistent with the original goals of the organization. No surprise. Educate yourself.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  128. My post 125 was in reference to the scumbag whining about how planned parenthood does not engage in genocide.

    how does one sympathize with anti-semites by speaking truthfully about planned parenthood?

    DohBiden (984d23)

  129. Body language isn’t strictly about agree/disagree. It’s often about reading and responding to content or emotions as well, while analysis of content comes next.

    Sometimes in conversation I nod so as to indicate that I hear what people are saying, a way of communicating, “please continue,” or “I’m thinking about what you are saying.” Sometimes, after someone is finished talking, I continue nodding, in thought, before then saying something like, “actually, I don’t agree with that.” Body language and agreement/disagreement are not a 1:1 correspondence.

    TR (5a8d25)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3864 secs.