NPR Exec: Organization 'Better Off' Without Federal Dollars; GOP Happy to Oblige
An admission by a top executive at National Public Radio that the organization would be "better off in the long-run" without federal funding may bolster ongoing efforts to rescind that funding. Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., said Tuesday that he was "amazed at the condescension and arrogance" displayed by then-senior NPR executive Ron Schiller in a hidden camera video released by conservative filmmaker James O'Keefe.
The video showed Schiller telling two men posing members of an Islamic advocacy group that Tea Party activists are "racist" and "xenophobic." Schiller also claimed that NPR "would be better off in the long run without federal funding."
Republicans are prepared to oblige NPR on that score. Lamborn told Washington Examiner columnist Byron York on Tuesday that congressional Democrats and other NPR backers should "reconsider their support in light of these appalling attitudes that are displayed in the video."
"I am amazed at the condescension and arrogance that we saw in the sting video," Lamborn told me. "They seem to be viewing themselves as elites living in an ivory tower, and they are obviously out of touch with ordinary Americans."
The video has already become part of the debate currently raging on Capitol Hill about funding for NPR. "The real crux of the video was when the guy [NPR executive Ron Schiller] admitted that they could survive and would even be better off without federal funding," says Lamborn. "That's what I'm hoping happens."
Lamborn says he hopes the video will prompt Democrats in Congress to rethink their defense of taxpayer funding for NPR and of public broadcasting in general. "I hope that some of the staunch supporters of NPR and CPB will reconsider their support in light of these appalling attitudes that are displayed in the video," Lamborn says. "And I hope that once and for all we can put this issue to bed. I certainly have no desire to see them go away or to suffer. I just think and believe and totally expect that they can survive in the private market, like everyone else in the media has to."
NB publisher Brent Bozell has joined the chorus of voices calling on Congress to redouble its efforts to withdraw federal support for NPR. "This week’s utterances from NPR officials," Bozell said in a statement Tuesday, "underline that these taxpayer-funded bureaucrats loathe most of the taxpayers who feather their comfortable nest."
Schiller's comments regarding federal funding are "in direct conflict with the organization's official position," according to NPR. Schiller had also stated that in the near term, some stations could be threatened by a sudden withdrawal of federal funds.
Here's the edited video of the exchange in question. The full two-hour video can be found at the website of Veritas Visuals, O'Keefe's organization.
Update 16:25. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor released a statement similar to Lamborn's. It's reprinted below:
"As we continue to identify ways to cut spending and save valuable resources, this disturbing video makes clear that taxpayer dollars should no longer be appropriated to NPR. Not only have top public broadcasting executives finally admitted that they do not need taxpayer dollars to survive, it is also clear that without federal funds, public broadcasting stations self-admittedly would become eligible for more private dollars on top of the multi-million dollar donations these organizations already receive.
"At a time when our government borrows 40 cents of every dollar that it spends, we must find ways to cut spending and live within our means. This video clearly highlights the fact that public broadcasting doesn’t need taxpayer funding to thrive, and I hope that admission will lead to a bipartisan consensus to end these unnecessary federal subsidies."
- Lachlan Markay's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
The only way NPR wouldn't be
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 3:46pm.
The only way NPR wouldn't be lying when they swear they're middle of the roaders in their ideology and company policies, is if that road was only a one lane, and one way .
So apparently someone, or in they're case a lot of someones isn't telling the truth, other than when they're in a restaurant being recorded by a hidden camera.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
GOP, act before midnight to
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 3:54pm.
GOP, act before midnight to tonight. I'm sure NPR will be able to rise plenty of cash on their own with their new line of islamic tote bags, big enough to carry two severed heads.
I just watched the video of Ron Schiller...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 4:12pm.
baring his arrogant, libnut soul, if he has one, in this video, and assuming that the Repubs in the House and the Senate have brains in their heads, they will do everything in their power to make sure that NPR's federal funding ends asap...This organization and these people shouldn't get another red cent of the American taxpayer's money.
Schiller says that NPR would be better off without Fed money, so fine...Let's accomodate this arrogant a$$.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
NPR executive, Schiller. Let's just label him-intolerant bigot.
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 4:20pm.
NPR executive Ron Schiller seems not to understand the definition of "bigot."
"Bigot" - let's go to the Dictionary
Bigot:
- a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
- One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
- A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
So, how does Schiller fit the bill?
From the video:
Schiller: Even around the Juan Williams issue we had a really great discussion with.. [..]
What NPR did, I'm really proud of, and what NPR stood for is non-racist, non-bigoted straight forward telling of the news. Our feeling is, that if a person expresses his or her opinion, which anyone is entitled to do in a free society, they are compromised as a journalist. They can no longer fairly report. And the question we asked internally was, can Juan Williams, when he makes a statement like he made, can he report to the Muslim population,for example, and be believed and the answer is no. He lost all credibility and that breaks your basic ethics as a journalist.
And so what sort of credibility does Shiller demonstrate here in his make-believe land of tolerance and acceptance of other groups?
Earlier Schiller said:
.. the Tea Party is fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamentally Christian -- I wouldn't even call it Christian. It's this weird Evangelical kind of a move...[..]
Question: The radical, racist, Islamaphobic, tea party people?
Schiller: Yes, exactly. And not just Islamaphobic but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America, gun-toting .. I mean, it's scary. They're seriously racist, racist people.
Now, let's just imagine that Juan Williams had come out and expressed such a view about Muslims in that same vein as Schiller did - perhaps like this:
Williams (make-believe): These Islamic folks, Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, etc., they are fanatically involved in people's personal lives and are very fundamentally Muslim. It's this weird sort of Islamic fundamental kind of a movement.
They are radical and racist. They do not support women's rights; in fact, they openly abuse women. They call for non-believers to be murdered. They have repeatedly called for the extermination of Jews, of Christians, of Israel, of western cultures. They believe in suicide bombing, and are gun-toting, knife wielding scary people. They're seriously racist, racist people.
He didn't' though, did he. Williams simply expressed a little commonly held personal fear.
Schiller, on the other hand, exposed his own personal intolerance of millions of hard working Americans and their many varied cultures and views. He does this by lumping everyone he doesn't agree with into one - and he does it without the evidence to support it. Schiller doesn't fit his own definition of a "journalist." On the other hand, he seems to fit perfectly the definition of an itolerant bigot.
(;~/ gary
Gary. You're using those old
Submitted by danbo on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:10pm.
Gary. You're using those old fashioned, ancient dictionaries. You have to use the new revised dictionaries that define bigot as right wingers, republicans, tea partiers.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
DEFUND TODAY
Submitted by RightRealDeal on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 4:36pm.
Right NOW! Get our cash out of there!
Of course
Submitted by Bob K on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 7:10pm.
the libs are going to avoid this story as much as they can. I just went to DU and looked it up. One thread, and only 4 comments. The comments ran from "So what?" to "I have said every one of those things. We should brain O'Keefe with this." I predict if i look at the same thread this time tomorrow, the comments will not run over 2 dozen and will mostly consist of attacks on the messenger.