Well right, an actual victim of rape or assault or whatever is never the one to blame, because presumably they didn't consent to being assaulted. This situation is NPR's fault because their people consented to a dumb fucking interview request. It's their fault because they fired their presumably competent CEO...
Consenting to have lunch with a potential donor isn't dumb in the slightest. Being delicate with someone offering you $5 million isn't either. In fact if you read the transcript, he clearly goes out of his way to downplay or sidestep some of the crazier things the O'Keefe folks are trying to feed him. They certainly did not consent to being recorded, and they certainly did not consent to that recording being publicized.
The only "blame" you can reasonably assign to NPR here is their firing of the CEO, which I agree is a stupid move that is nothing but a tacit admission of guilt. My guess is that it's simply because this is the second major scandal on her watch in 3 months time, and corporate boards tend to not be very forgiving of such things.
"You have this very large un-educated part of the population that carries these ideas." Yes, most of the population is uneducated and possessed of cripplingly backward ideas about religion, history, politics, and even basic geography. I know it's not exactly popular to say such things about "middle America," because they're used to being pandered to and praised for their "realness" and "Main Street values" and "down-to-earth common sense," but seriously, when your Main Street values encourage things like tying gay men to fence posts and pistol-whipping them to death, calling you anything other than a gibbering dumbshit hick is too generous.
WTF.
I'm from LA. Do my "liberal left coast values" encourage things like killing 5 year old bystanders in drive-bys? Because that happens a lot more down here than Matthew Shepards happen anywhere in middle America.
Not too many people defend gangbangers who shoot toddlers, so no, I don't think anyone would claim child-killing to be part of their values. Homophobia, on the other hand, is a cherished institution for a terrifyingly large number of Americans all across the country, and it's a prime example of the harms caused by the combination of ignorance and zealotry that Schiller spoke out against. There are literally millions of people in this country who believe that discrimination and even violence against gay people - or against Muslims, or immigrants from Mexico, or anyone else who doesn't fit their narrow definition of "American" - is completely socially acceptable.
Let's say that millions support anti-gay discrimination. Even in that case, how do you make the leap from that to them supporting the murder of homosexuals?
FDR discriminated against American citizens of Japanese ancestry. In fact, he made it the law of the land to discriminate against them. That still doesn't mean he wanted to kill them all, or wanted other people to kill them in his name.
Are you seriously arguing this? I hope you're just not communicating clearly, because it looks like you're saying "even if millions of people promote active discrimination against homosexuals, it's not like they're going around murdering them." Except, you know, some people *are* going around murdering them. And some people in positions of religious or political authority are making public statements claiming that homosexuals should be executed by the state because they're "worthy of death". Then you have groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, who are protesting at military funerals by claiming that the deceased - regardless of personal sexual orientation - deserved to die because America tolerates homosexuality, which makes God hate and punish us.
And what exactly are you using the Japanese internment as an example of? For one thing, you're wrong: while FDR himself may have been less vocal, General DeWitt - who actually directed the internments - said such charming things as "we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map," which sounds pretty fuckin' murder-y to me. (And that statement was about American citizens of Japanese origin or ancestry, not about the inhabitants of Japan itself). For another, the Japanese internment was a terrible act of senseless discrimination, which is why the US government formally apologized to the survivors and their descendants, and has paid out over $1.6 billion in reparations. So, if that was your "discrimination doesn't mean you actually want to hurt people!" example, try again. Also, think long and hard about what discrimination actually *does* to people: if a guy starves to death because discrimination prevents him from getting a job, he's just as dead as he would be if the bigots just saved time and threw rocks at him.
The blame for the firings/resignations absolutely rests with NPR. O'Keefe can't force them to dump their CEO, they chose to do that.
Except he helped create an environment where the resignations were going to happen. This is similar to entrapment:
- O'Keefe helped to create an environment where doing X gets you fired/forces you to resign
- then he pretended to be a representative for a fake organization seeking to make a significant contribution (its more than the federal government gives to NPR if my poor excuse for math skills serve me correctly; 1.5% of 258Million is 3.87Million)
- then he goaded the heads of the organization to do X
- then he edited the video
- then he released it and claimed that NPR was a liberal cabal thats clearly trying to take over America and usurp our fine righteous conservative values
Should they have kept their opinion to themselves? Perhaps, but when asked by a donor who wants to make a significant contribution to your organization its best to make it seem as they have as much in common with your organization as possible to secure the donation.
EDIT: Its important to keep in mind that they never knew they were talking to O'Keefe. They thought they were talking to a potential donor. Even then, its not like the statements they made were even that crazy.
"Less than two percent of the budget is derived from competitive grants from federally funded organizations such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation, and National Endowment for the Arts."
There are other forms which show different numbers, but $403Mil was the highest number I saw. So that roughly puts federal funding at $7Mil. O'Keefe is the one who claims that NPR takes $90Mil.
EDIT: As I rewatch the video, the head guy says that NPR takes about $90Mil. They should update their website.
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
The whole rape analogy thing doesn't really work cause I sincerely hope that after the horror that being raped is you aren't kicked out of your house/job/what-have-you for not being more careful.
Then again, as terrible as people are, this probably does happen.
So anyone else think that the timing of this was just a little too good to be entirely coincidence? If this was released 48 hours later it would have been drown out by the news from Wisconsin.
I absolutely blame them for not being more vociferous in defending themselves -- something the along the lines of "Why should we feel bad for saying the tea partiers are a bunch of half-wit douchebags when they fraudulently misrepresent themselves while secretly videotaping conversations like a bunch of half-wit douchebag Linda Tripp wannabees?"
Fighting back against O'Keefe does not qualify as "going after" the Tea Party.
Wait, SammyF works for NPR now?
Huh.
I did not know that thank you Sammich.
No, he said that NPR should criticize the tea party for what a tea partier did, and you said NPR shouldn't "go after" the tea party, whatever that means, because news organizations saying that conservative Republicans are hypocritical xenophobes is an op-ed, not reporting.
No, he said that NPR should criticize the tea party for what a tea partier did, and you said NPR shouldn't "go after" the tea party, whatever that means, because news organizations saying that conservative Republicans are hypocritical xenophobes is an op-ed, not reporting.
Do I need to quote what he wanted them to say again?
There is calling out falsehoods in a story. Then there is engaging in partisan attacks.
Apparently the second is ok as long its one we agree with.
No, he said that NPR should criticize the tea party for what a tea partier did, and you said NPR shouldn't "go after" the tea party, whatever that means, because news organizations saying that conservative Republicans are hypocritical xenophobes is an op-ed, not reporting.
Do I need to quote what he wanted them to say again?
There is calling out falsehoods in a story. Then there is engaging in partisan attacks.
Apparently the second is ok as long its one we agree with.
So saying "These guys were morons and taped themselves lying to us" doesn't count as pointing out a falsehood in a story. Good to know.
No, he said that NPR should criticize the tea party for what a tea partier did, and you said NPR shouldn't "go after" the tea party, whatever that means, because news organizations saying that conservative Republicans are hypocritical xenophobes is an op-ed, not reporting.
Do I need to quote what he wanted them to say again?
There is calling out falsehoods in a story. Then there is engaging in partisan attacks.
Apparently the second is ok as long its one we agree with.
So saying "These guys were morons and taped themselves lying to us" doesn't count as pointing out a falsehood in a story. Good to know.
"Why should we feel bad for saying the tea partiers are a bunch of half-wit douchebags when they fraudulently misrepresent themselves while secretly videotaping conversations like a bunch of half-wit douchebag Linda Tripp wannabees?"
Defending yourself and your comments =/= NPR going after the tea partiers.
Calling an entire political movement a bunch of "half-wit douchebags" isn't a defense, and should not be the public stance of a journalistic organization.
I absolutely blame them for not being more vociferous in defending themselves -- something the along the lines of "Why should we feel bad for saying the tea partiers are a bunch of half-wit douchebags when they fraudulently misrepresent themselves while secretly videotaping conversations like a bunch of half-wit douchebag Linda Tripp wannabees?"
And seeing as how the initial comment wasn't tea party members are half-wit douches, his defense of his statement wouldn't need to be "We called them douches because they are douches"
it would be "We called them conservative christian/xenophobes/whatever because they are conservative christian/xenophobes/whatever"
I absolutely blame them for not being more vociferous in defending themselves -- something the along the lines of "Why should we feel bad for saying the tea partiers are a bunch of half-wit douchebags when they fraudulently misrepresent themselves while secretly videotaping conversations like a bunch of half-wit douchebag Linda Tripp wannabees?"
Yes. My point is that isn't a valid defense for journalists to be using.
He said they should say these things as a defense of what this video showed. While I think they should absolutely defend themselves here, I don't think his suggestion (they're all half-wit douche bags) was a valid one.
Anyway, I really don't care to carry this any further.
I guess you are having trouble reading Sammy's quote then?
You know the NPR dude never said "the tea partiers are a bunch of half-wit douchebags" right? Instead he said thing like, they are less educated and , they are xenophobic, and they have high religious overtones.
So, instead of defending a statement he didn't say (calling them douchebags) perhaps sammich was suggesting more vociferous in defending themselves, and actually use the numbers others have posted in this thread showing the lower levels of post 2ndary education and higher self identified religious numbers?
Perhaps that is what he meant?
Jesus you really fucking hate hyperbole even when it is super obvious that that isn't what the person meant, don't you.
He said, they should defend their statement. Since their statement wasn't "Those guys are douches" why do you think he would defend his statement by saying "when I called those guys douches......"
They should have defended their statement by saying something along the lines of an actual easily shown defense of said statements.
He said, they should defend their statement. Since their statement wasn't "Those guys are douches" why do you think he would defend his statement by saying "when I called those guys douches......"
They should have defended their statement by saying something along the lines of an actual easily shown defense of said statements.
Its not NPR's place to defend the personal opinions of its executives. And in the case they shouldn't, even though I agree with them.
The only thing they should be defending here, and the only thing they need to defend, is the right of their employees to hold personal opinions and not be fired for it.
NPR doesn't need to go making a case that what he said is true.
And Styro is saying that something along those lines would be out of order.
If you want NPR to be the liberal version Fox News, which is essentially what that post is advocating, just say it already. Quoting that post is getting old.
The problem with Fox is that it lies to serve a partisan agenda. That statement would not be lying, and the only reason that it serves a partisan agenda is that exposing scandals about people helps their political opponents.
The problem with Fox is that it lies to serve a partisan agenda. That statement would not be lying, and the only reason that it serves a partisan agenda is that exposing scandals about people helps their political opponents.
Half-wit douchebags is a subjective label to pin on anyone. It is not the place of journalists to call names.
I know this is hard for people here because we seem to suffer from a bad case of "Its ok when we do it because we're right and they're wrong".
Pointing out that people are stupid isn't being partisan unless you ignore one group completely. Pointing out that people tend to be xenophobic isn't for the same reason. And so on.
And let's be honest here. The tea party is advocating laws banning the implementation of fucking sharia law in the U.S. This is half-witted xenophobic fuckmuppetry at its finest.
NPR should be pointing that shit out because it is a news organization and that is what news organizations should be doing.
No, news organizations should be pointing out when during a story on laws banning Sharia Law and one side claims Sharia Law is taking over the U.S. that there isn't any place where that is true.
It is not their role to then go accuse those people of xenophobic fuckmuppetry.
That's the difference between journalism and good punditry.
No, news organizations should be pointing out when during a story on laws banning Sharia Law and one side claims Sharia Law is taking over the U.S. that there isn't any place where that is true.
I don't understand what this sentence means.
It is not their role to then go accuse those people of xenophobic fuckmuppetry.
"The Tea Party has advocated such xenophobic measures many times in the year."
Doesn't seem too hard to not embellish things and yet also point out that the teahadists are idiots at the same time.
That's the difference between journalism and good punditry.
I think you have a misunderstanding of what journalism is. Journalism isn't 'say what's going on as long as it doesn't make someone look bad or point out that they are liars or assholes', it's 'say what is going on and represent the facts'.
I think you have a misunderstanding of what journalism is. Journalism isn't 'say what's going on as long as it doesn't make someone look bad or point out that they are liars or assholes', it's 'say what is going on and represent the facts'.
You don't seem to understand me.
I've said in this thread at least a dozen times that journalists should correct factual inaccuracies, not just report them as another opinion.
I think you have a misunderstanding of what journalism is. Journalism isn't 'say what's going on as long as it doesn't make someone look bad or point out that they are liars or assholes', it's 'say what is going on and represent the facts'.
You don't seem to understand me.
I've said in this thread at least a dozen times that journalists should correct factual inaccuracies, not just report them as another opinion.
What was suggested by Sammy goes beyond this.
I'm reasonably certain I understand the point you're making and I happen to disagree with it. You can say a lot of categorical things about the Tea Party in general and O'Keefe specifically without resorting to opinions. What I'm saying is that NPR should be doing this. They should be pointing out that the guy behind these videos has a history of taking things out of context to support his claims. Or hat he has been caught bugging the offices of (iirc) a U.S. Senator. You can categorically say that one of the things the Tea Party stands for is to keep the government small and out of peoples' lives, except for when it comes to issues with their doctors or their marriages, in which case they want it to be really invasive.
To put it in another context, NPR (and other news organizations) should point out that Scott Walker is literally lying when he says he has to remove collective bargaining in order to balance the budget. They should point out that Mike Huckabee cannot seem to get his story straight on where Obama was born or grew up. They should point out the GOP vilifies Democrats for wanting to raise taxes on Wall St execs, saying that they are barely making it, and then tuns around and claims public teachers are shitting on golden toilets they bought with our monies because they make so goddamn much.
These aren't opinions. They are facts. This is the reason that a lot of people consider John Stewart to be the only reliable source of news nowadays.
NPR should defend itself and its executives on this issue because to not do so is to give false credibility to the claim that they are biased.
Posts
Consenting to have lunch with a potential donor isn't dumb in the slightest. Being delicate with someone offering you $5 million isn't either. In fact if you read the transcript, he clearly goes out of his way to downplay or sidestep some of the crazier things the O'Keefe folks are trying to feed him. They certainly did not consent to being recorded, and they certainly did not consent to that recording being publicized.
The only "blame" you can reasonably assign to NPR here is their firing of the CEO, which I agree is a stupid move that is nothing but a tacit admission of guilt. My guess is that it's simply because this is the second major scandal on her watch in 3 months time, and corporate boards tend to not be very forgiving of such things.
The name is a coincidence; they're not related.
They are not related.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Are you seriously arguing this? I hope you're just not communicating clearly, because it looks like you're saying "even if millions of people promote active discrimination against homosexuals, it's not like they're going around murdering them." Except, you know, some people *are* going around murdering them. And some people in positions of religious or political authority are making public statements claiming that homosexuals should be executed by the state because they're "worthy of death". Then you have groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, who are protesting at military funerals by claiming that the deceased - regardless of personal sexual orientation - deserved to die because America tolerates homosexuality, which makes God hate and punish us.
And what exactly are you using the Japanese internment as an example of? For one thing, you're wrong: while FDR himself may have been less vocal, General DeWitt - who actually directed the internments - said such charming things as "we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map," which sounds pretty fuckin' murder-y to me. (And that statement was about American citizens of Japanese origin or ancestry, not about the inhabitants of Japan itself). For another, the Japanese internment was a terrible act of senseless discrimination, which is why the US government formally apologized to the survivors and their descendants, and has paid out over $1.6 billion in reparations. So, if that was your "discrimination doesn't mean you actually want to hurt people!" example, try again. Also, think long and hard about what discrimination actually *does* to people: if a guy starves to death because discrimination prevents him from getting a job, he's just as dead as he would be if the bigots just saved time and threw rocks at him.
Except he helped create an environment where the resignations were going to happen. This is similar to entrapment:
- O'Keefe helped to create an environment where doing X gets you fired/forces you to resign
- then he pretended to be a representative for a fake organization seeking to make a significant contribution (its more than the federal government gives to NPR if my poor excuse for math skills serve me correctly; 1.5% of 258Million is 3.87Million)
- then he goaded the heads of the organization to do X
- then he edited the video
- then he released it and claimed that NPR was a liberal cabal thats clearly trying to take over America and usurp our fine righteous conservative values
Should they have kept their opinion to themselves? Perhaps, but when asked by a donor who wants to make a significant contribution to your organization its best to make it seem as they have as much in common with your organization as possible to secure the donation.
EDIT: Its important to keep in mind that they never knew they were talking to O'Keefe. They thought they were talking to a potential donor. Even then, its not like the statements they made were even that crazy.
Per NPR's FAQ
"Less than two percent of the budget is derived from competitive grants from federally funded organizations such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation, and National Endowment for the Arts."
Per NPR's 2010 audited filing statement, NPR net assets and liabilities puts them at $403,815,065 however I believe that includes the NPR Foundation
There are other forms which show different numbers, but $403Mil was the highest number I saw. So that roughly puts federal funding at $7Mil. O'Keefe is the one who claims that NPR takes $90Mil.
EDIT: As I rewatch the video, the head guy says that NPR takes about $90Mil. They should update their website.
Then again, as terrible as people are, this probably does happen.
I just made myself sad.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I did compare some of the things being said here to "blaming the victim", which mostly clearly comes up in rape cases.
But yeah, let's focus on the fact that some dude with no editorial control doesn't like the Tea Party.
Wait, SammyF works for NPR now?
Huh.
I did not know that thank you Sammich.
What?
He said they should do X. I said X was not something they should do.
Not sure what you're talking about.
Do I need to quote what he wanted them to say again?
There is calling out falsehoods in a story. Then there is engaging in partisan attacks.
Apparently the second is ok as long its one we agree with.
So saying "These guys were morons and taped themselves lying to us" doesn't count as pointing out a falsehood in a story. Good to know.
"Why should we feel bad for saying the tea partiers are a bunch of half-wit douchebags when they fraudulently misrepresent themselves while secretly videotaping conversations like a bunch of half-wit douchebag Linda Tripp wannabees?"
That's what I said wasn't ok.
Calling an entire political movement a bunch of "half-wit douchebags" isn't a defense, and should not be the public stance of a journalistic organization.
Because I'll classify them as half-wit douchebags
it would be "We called them conservative christian/xenophobes/whatever because they are conservative christian/xenophobes/whatever"
Yes. My point is that isn't a valid defense for journalists to be using.
I ignored it because it doesn't seem relevant.
He said they should say these things as a defense of what this video showed. While I think they should absolutely defend themselves here, I don't think his suggestion (they're all half-wit douche bags) was a valid one.
Anyway, I really don't care to carry this any further.
You know the NPR dude never said "the tea partiers are a bunch of half-wit douchebags" right? Instead he said thing like, they are less educated and , they are xenophobic, and they have high religious overtones.
So, instead of defending a statement he didn't say (calling them douchebags) perhaps sammich was suggesting more vociferous in defending themselves, and actually use the numbers others have posted in this thread showing the lower levels of post 2ndary education and higher self identified religious numbers?
Perhaps that is what he meant?
Jesus you really fucking hate hyperbole even when it is super obvious that that isn't what the person meant, don't you.
No one ever said the NPR guy said that.
Sammy suggested that is the kind of thing he wants NPR to come out and say in response to this whole debacle.
I disagreed.
Vapors were had.
They should have defended their statement by saying something along the lines of an actual easily shown defense of said statements.
Its not NPR's place to defend the personal opinions of its executives. And in the case they shouldn't, even though I agree with them.
The only thing they should be defending here, and the only thing they need to defend, is the right of their employees to hold personal opinions and not be fired for it.
NPR doesn't need to go making a case that what he said is true.
Has anyone here actually and directly classified the tea party as a bunch of half-wit douchebags?
Because I'll classify them as half-wit douchebags. More of a spectrum though
Kinda like that, except O'keefe actually occupies all points on the scale simoultaneously
If you want NPR to be the liberal version Fox News, which is essentially what that post is advocating, just say it already. Quoting that post is getting old.
Half-wit douchebags is a subjective label to pin on anyone. It is not the place of journalists to call names.
I know this is hard for people here because we seem to suffer from a bad case of "Its ok when we do it because we're right and they're wrong".
And let's be honest here. The tea party is advocating laws banning the implementation of fucking sharia law in the U.S. This is half-witted xenophobic fuckmuppetry at its finest.
NPR should be pointing that shit out because it is a news organization and that is what news organizations should be doing.
It is not their role to then go accuse those people of xenophobic fuckmuppetry.
That's the difference between journalism and good punditry.
I don't understand what this sentence means.
"The Tea Party has advocated such xenophobic measures many times in the year."
Doesn't seem too hard to not embellish things and yet also point out that the teahadists are idiots at the same time.
I think you have a misunderstanding of what journalism is. Journalism isn't 'say what's going on as long as it doesn't make someone look bad or point out that they are liars or assholes', it's 'say what is going on and represent the facts'.
You don't seem to understand me.
I've said in this thread at least a dozen times that journalists should correct factual inaccuracies, not just report them as another opinion.
What was suggested by Sammy goes beyond this.
I'm reasonably certain I understand the point you're making and I happen to disagree with it. You can say a lot of categorical things about the Tea Party in general and O'Keefe specifically without resorting to opinions. What I'm saying is that NPR should be doing this. They should be pointing out that the guy behind these videos has a history of taking things out of context to support his claims. Or hat he has been caught bugging the offices of (iirc) a U.S. Senator. You can categorically say that one of the things the Tea Party stands for is to keep the government small and out of peoples' lives, except for when it comes to issues with their doctors or their marriages, in which case they want it to be really invasive.
To put it in another context, NPR (and other news organizations) should point out that Scott Walker is literally lying when he says he has to remove collective bargaining in order to balance the budget. They should point out that Mike Huckabee cannot seem to get his story straight on where Obama was born or grew up. They should point out the GOP vilifies Democrats for wanting to raise taxes on Wall St execs, saying that they are barely making it, and then tuns around and claims public teachers are shitting on golden toilets they bought with our monies because they make so goddamn much.
These aren't opinions. They are facts. This is the reason that a lot of people consider John Stewart to be the only reliable source of news nowadays.
NPR should defend itself and its executives on this issue because to not do so is to give false credibility to the claim that they are biased.