Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Further Analysis Finds Deceptive Editing In Sting Tape, As NPR Gains An Unlikely Defender
Last week, a Project Veritas "sting" operation directed at National Public Radio cost some NPR executives their jobs. Beginning with Senior Vice President for Fundraising Ron Schiller, who was depicted on tape disparaging the Tea Party movement and suggesting that NPR should move away from federal funding (a position with arguable merit, but probably very unpopular at NPR), the fallout eventually cost NPR CEO Vivian Schiller her job as well.
That's sort of the NPR way: when one of the humans under their employ gets in trouble for expressing their opinions, everyone starts panicking and people start getting fired. Further analysis of the original video, however, demonstrates the wisdom of the old maxim, "act in haste, repent in leisure."
Glenn Beck-branded website The Blaze may seem an unlikely defender of NPR, but when the site's editor, Scott Baker, and video production specialist, Pam Key, examined the raw footage, they found "questionable editing and tactics" and reported them all out. The observations they make in their analysis include the following:
-- The video "does not explain how the NPR executives would have a basis to believe they were meeting with a Muslim Brotherhood front group," and indeed "includes a longer section of description that seems to downplay connections of the MEAC group to the Muslim Brotherhood as popularly perceived."
-- The video is edited to make it appear that Ron Schiller "is aware and perhaps amused or approving of the MEAC['s]" advocacy for Sharia law, but Schiller's "Really? That's what they said?" remark is actually made in reference to "confusion" involving the "restaurant reservation."
-- Schiller is actually complimentary of Republicans, and prefaces his criticism of the Tea Party by indicating that it's his own opinion, not NPR's. (Plenty of conservatives and Tea Party activists have averred that NPR has treated them fairly.) Baker also finds footage in which Schiller and director of institutional giving Betsy Liley express a hesitancy to disparage the "education of conservatives" and defend "intellects of Fox News viewers."
NPR's Dave Folkenflik and Mark Memmott add their own reporting to this:
Al Tompkins, a senior faculty member for broadcasting and online at the Poynter Institute, says to David that he tells his children there are "two ways to lie. One is to tell me something that didn't happen. And the other is not to tell me something that did happen." After comparing O'Keefe's edited tape to the longer version, "I think that they employed both techniques in this," Tompkins says.
One "big warning flag" Tompkins saw in the shorter tape was the way it made it appear that Schiller had laughed and commented "really, that's what they said?" after being told that the fake Muslim group advocates for sharia law. In fact, the longer tape shows that Schiller made that comment during an "innocuous exchange" that had nothing to do with the supposed group's position on sharia law, David reports.
Tompkins also says that O'Keefe's edited tape ignores the fact that Schiller said "six times ... over and over and over again" that donors cannot buy the kind of coverage they want on NPR.
Per Memmott, Project Veritas' James O'Keefe continues to maintain that their video is "very honest." It's easy to see why: the effects of his "sting" operation manifested themselves in several public firings, so he can couch his claims -- however dubious they may be -- in the fact that NPR's response was a de facto acceptance of the video's premise.
Which is why organizations like NPR shouldn't freak right the hell out and start firing people until all the facts are known. Had NPR just waited, they'd have Ron Schiller and his perfectly protean opinions on the Tea Party headed to the Aspen Institute, and Vivian Schiller citing the Project Veritas video's content and NPR's own coverage as a demonstration of NPR's editorial integrity. But they decided to go in a different direction.
Glenn Beck's Web Site Questions Attack on NPR - NYTimes.com
The report criticizes editing techniques used to paint a harsher portrait of Ronald Schiller, the NPR executive who was captured on the video calling Tea Party members racists. It suggests that the complete video footage, while not exonerating Mr. Schiller, presents his views in a context that lessens the impact of his most critical comments.
The editor of The Blaze, Scott Baker, who identified himself as a conservative Evangelical Christian, said he examined the video because as a longtime television journalist, he has fundamental questions about the ethics of journalists misrepresenting themselves while seeking to expose an individual or organization. In addition, he said, he and the video editor he worked with, Pam Key, had concerns about how previous videos were executed by Mr. OKeefe.
Mr. OKeefe gained notoriety in conservative circles in 2009 for a video purporting to show improprieties by the Acorn organization. Those videos were later found to be heavily slanted in editing.
Mr. Baker said the NPR videos were similarly slanted, citing six instances when the raw video showed Mr. Schillers statements were either taken out of context, edited to show him in the worst light, or cleansed of statements that could have been seen as more conciliatory to Republicans and conservatives.
He also cited two instances when the video was edited in a way to eliminate whatever was being said at those moments.
In a telephone interview, Mr. Baker said he questioned whether it was proper for any journalist to go undercover to get a story unless it dealt with the potential for serious personal jeopardy, citing efforts to catch child predators, for example. He said he had reservations about efforts conceived with a purpose to wreck the career of an individual or undermine an institution that the journalist did not like.
While Mr. OKeefe has been labeled a political trickster by some, Mr. Baker noted that Mr. OKeefe labels himself a journalist.
He released the entire raw video.
How can it be deceptive? It is what it is.
He's given you all of the video. If you don't like his summary, take his video and make your own.
NPR felt it had enough credibility to can 3 people. Does that mean they are part of the right-wing fanatical fringe?
He released the entire raw video.
How can it be deceptive? It is what it is.
He's given you all of the video. If you don't like his summary, take his video and make your own.
NPR felt it had enough credibility to can 3 people. Does that mean they are part of the right-wing fanatical fringe?
How can it be deceptive? Did you read the articles? He clearly did some deceptive editing. No honest person can read the analysis and say that no wrong was committed by O'Keefe.
Also, he released the raw video after the heavily and deceptively edited video was released. It's a neat little trick. First, you release the edited video that makes people look bad, generates publicity and gets people talking about it. Then a few days later, you release the raw video, which will naturally get less attention, because, at this point, it's old news. If he were a true journalist with ethical standards, he would have released the full video period. Nothing else. Then let people judge.
I understand why you want to ignore this. It makes all of the righties who sounded the conspiracy alarms look like the morons that they are.
You mean to tell me that the felon selectively edited a conversation to shut down democrat organizations. Shocked!!!!!
You mean to tell me that the felon selectively edited a conversation to shut down democrat organizations. Shocked!!!!!
You mean to tell me that a Liberal is ADMITTING that NPR is a "Democratic Organization"!!
How can it be deceptive? Did you read the articles? He clearly did some deceptive editing. No honest person can read the analysis and say that no wrong was committed by O'Keefe.
Also, he released the raw video after the heavily and deceptively edited video was released. It's a neat little trick. First, you release the edited video that makes people look bad, generates publicity and gets people talking about it. Then a few days later, you release the raw video, which will naturally get less attention, because, at this point, it's old news. If he were a true journalist with ethical standards, he would have released the full video period. Nothing else. Then let people judge.
I understand why you want to ignore this. It makes all of the righties who sounded the conspiracy alarms look like the morons that they are.
You mean to tell me that the felon selectively edited a conversation to shut down democrat organizations. Shocked!!!!!
He released the entire raw video.
How can it be deceptive? It is what it is.
He's given you all of the video. If you don't like his summary, take his video and make your own.
NPR felt it had enough credibility to can 3 people. Does that mean they are part of the right-wing fanatical fringe?
How can it be deceptive? Did you read the articles? He clearly did some deceptive editing. No honest person can read the analysis and say that no wrong was committed by O'Keefe.
Also, he released the raw video after the heavily and deceptively edited video was released. It's a neat little trick. First, you release the edited video that makes people look bad, generates publicity and gets people talking about it. Then a few days later, you release the raw video, which will naturally get less attention, because, at this point, it's old news. If he were a true journalist with ethical standards, he would have released the full video period. Nothing else. Then let people judge.
I understand why you want to ignore this. It makes all of the righties who sounded the conspiracy alarms look like the morons that they are.
Well, if it is true, both Schillers and Liley would be fools not to sue NPR. It would be a slam dunk, no-brainer, settled out of court.
Want to bet on who is the first to file?
I'll take "none of them" and you can have the field.
Cry all you want, but listen to Car Talk while you still can. You've got about 4 more months, then NPR is no more.
You mean to tell me that the felon selectively edited a conversation to shut down democrat organizations. Shocked!!!!!
shut you down? how? do you figure that?
I'm not crying. Besides, NPR is going nowhere. You don't realize how devoted their listeners are. If funding gets cut, they'll make it up in donations.
You sure are in denial, though. Your boy got caught red-handed, and by a conservative group even. It's a beautiful thing. Next time you want to boast about an edited O'Keefe video, just remember that your dumbass fell for it before, and maybe you should keep your mouth shut until the video is exposed as the fraud that it will inevitably be.
I'm not crying. Besides, NPR is going nowhere. You don't realize how devoted their listeners are. If funding gets cut, they'll make it up in donations.
You sure are in denial, though. Your boy got caught red-handed, and by a conservative group even. It's a beautiful thing. Next time you want to boast about an edited O'Keefe video, just remember that your dumbass fell for it before, and maybe you should keep your mouth shut until the video is exposed as the fraud that it will inevitably be.
Others at NPR have noticed, too. For example, news blogger Mark Memmott devoted an entire post on NPRs website to our OKeefe analysis. He, wisely, did not see our analysis as a basis for trying to exonerate Schiller.
[....]
But the most important sentence in Memmotts piece may be this: OKeefes edits do not entirely wipe away the nature of some things Schiller said.
(An NPR All Things Considered interview to air Monday will feature Baker discussing this issue.)
And that may be the best way to summarize our analysis and the reaction to it. The editing and emphasis in the expose deserve scrutiny. But there were also plenty of seemingly indefensible things said in the video. The Poynter Institutes Steve Myers says, The Blaze story identifies several important differences that color viewers perception of what happened. But Myers as with our post does not see flaws in the OKeefe video as reason to wipe the slate clean for the NPR executives involved.
He released the entire raw video.
How can it be deceptive? It is what it is.
He's given you all of the video. If you don't like his summary, take his video and make your own.
NPR felt it had enough credibility to can 3 people. Does that mean they are part of the right-wing fanatical fringe?
I'm not crying. Besides, NPR is going nowhere. You don't realize how devoted their listeners are. If funding gets cut, they'll make it up in donations.
You sure are in denial, though. Your boy got caught red-handed, and by a conservative group even. It's a beautiful thing. Next time you want to boast about an edited O'Keefe video, just remember that your dumbass fell for it before, and maybe you should keep your mouth shut until the video is exposed as the fraud that it will inevitably be.
My "boy" in this one was O'Keefe. Yours was NPR.
O'Keefe won.
In Wisconsin, my "boy" was Walker. Yours was the union.
Walker won.
You beginning to see a pattern here, Champ?
