NPR Resorts to Using Glenn Beck's Publication for Damage Control
The damage control effort over at National Public Radio (NPR) is at such a state that they've consulted a piece from Glenn Beck's TheBlaze.com to argue it's the victim of a smear operation. On Sunday morning's "Weekend Edition," NPR delved into the report.
When a sting operation launched by conservative James O'Keefe recorded a top NPR Foundation fundraiser making disparaging comments about Republicans and tea partiers, NPR faced heavy public scrutiny. But a publication created by Glenn Beck, described by an NPR correspondent as a "sort of a conservative 'Huffington Post,'" used the full-cut video of the operation, released after the original edited video, to argue that O'Keefe may have cut the video to cast some comments out of context.
(Click here for the NPR story, which includes audio and transcript of the segment.)
The "Blaze" report pulls multiple quotes by the NPR executive, Ron Schiller, shows them in the video produced by O'Keefe and then shows the full-cut which casts the remarks in a different context. The report's conclusion is that while Schiller's comments are cause for concern, so too is O'Keefe's editing process.
Yet Scott Baker of "The Blaze" himself even admits that the "full cut" of one of Schiller's most controversial remarks, about the "racist" Tea Partiers, does not change the context but simply adds some background.
Schiller was actually quoting Republicans (who voted for Obama) who were concerned about their party and its acceptance of Tea Party members. Schiller's point was generally in line with what his sources were saying.
NPR correspondent David Folkenflik's conclusion was that while O'Keefe claims to be an investigative journalist, the sting "seems like part of his conservative activism to bring down institutions."
In what seems to be an unprecedented move for NPR, much of its audience might be surprised that they drew from a Glenn Beck publication, of all places, for its defense.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Yeah,so?
Submitted by ebayer on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:26pm.
"NPR correspondent David Folkenflik's conclusion was that while O'Keefe claims to be an investigative journalist, the sting "seems like part of his conservative activism to bring down institutions." Some things just need to be done. More power to him.And O'Keefe's
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:38pm.
actions, or "conservative activism" would differ from 60 Minutes' liberal activism in just exactly which way? Or, are the libs whining yet again about "good for me, but not for thee"?It's not a "sting"
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:01pm.
if the mark realizes he's been stung...Not quite right, Frank
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:11pm.
It's still a sting if the mark is unaware while the trap is being sprung. Sting operations happen in law enforcement and eventually the accused does face his accusers. But it's still a sting.
Cool Arrow:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 9:26pm.
I can't agree with you. The fact that the term "sting' is misused in another context doesn't make it right in this one. The essence of a sting is that the mark never knows it was a scam. That is the beauty of it. Many times I've seen law enforcement operations called "stings." It may just be a false front, a honey pot, at the extreme entrapment - but if the gull discovers she (or, of course, he) has been had, it ain't a sting. Read "The Con Game and Yellow Kid Weill," also published as The Yellow Kid's autobiography, if you want an education on the subject. Most interesting!Cool is right---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 10:09pm.
and there is nothing wrong with wilson's definition of "sting", either. The word "con" fits equally well under the definition used by Puddinhead for "sting". There are multitudes of definitions for lots of words that fit comfortably and accurately under one spelling.But But But. He is putting the larnin' on us.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 10:39pm.
There can only be one definition and it is the one Fwankie read in a review of a book he saw linked on wikipedia.Ol' Fwankie might have gotten his definition of the sting,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 11:25pm.
from the movie by that name. :o) Hollywood always gets it right, eh?Private Bill Wilson LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 10:34pm.
Private Bill Wilson the 145 time LIAR: The essence of a sting is that the mark never knows it was a scam.
USLegal.com ---- Sting operation is a deceptive operation designed to nab criminals. Generally, a law-enforcement officer or cooperative member of the public play a role as criminal partner or potential victim and go along with a suspect's actions to gather evidence of the suspect's wrongdoing. United States recognizes sting operation as a viable means of crime prevention. For instance, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1956(a)(3) stipulate that, in establishing the basis for money laundering sting operations, requires that the government agent represent that the property involved in the transaction is the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, or property used to conduct or facilitate specified unlawful activity. The statute further defines the term “represented” as any representation made by a law enforcement officer or by another person at the direction of, or with the approval of, a federal official authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. [United States v. Arditti, 955 F.2d 331 (5th Cir. Tex. 1992)
The term STING has a legal definition and the mark will know it was a sting when EVIDENCE is presented AT TRIAL.
Private Bill Wilson LIES again.
Only and IDIOT like j. frank wilson thinks he can read a review on Amazon and use it as though he actually read the book.
One note, please. I'm really tired of reading about law enforcement "stings." They aren't stings because the crooks realize what's up when they get arrested. In a pure Sting the victim never catches on.
Oh look, Fwankie read a review and now thinks he can explain the book to all of the stupid conservatives.
Capt. UnderPantZ:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 1:42pm.
You wrote "The term STING has a legal definition..." You just make this stuff up, don't you? You find it on the Internets, misread it, and then expect someone else to believe you know what you are talking about? Whiskey Tango Foxtwat? What in the world does an Amazon book review have to do with anything?Yes. I do just make things up fwankie.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 11:43pm.
How did you know? My link was actually to a site called "Granny Apples, Mother Nature's yummy goodness".
Might wanna read someone's post next time you feel like beclowning yourself again.
Now marking this down as lie 146.
146. Claims victims of stings never know they are victims of stings because this iz really stupid and stuff. Eleventy!
Capt. UnderPantZ:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 2:43pm.
Capt. UnderPants “I pound on trolls here WITHOUT MERCY. I cannot afford to be wrong once. Do you understand that? Not once can I be wrong in front of the trolls.” Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2011/02/05/lat-falsely-attacks-... “38. Whoops. 343 posts and I finally make a mistake in a field I only started reading about 3 days ago.” Read more: http://newsbusters.org/extensive-lies-and-stupid-trogldyt-i-do-mean-exte... - Mistakes don’t count as being “wrong” if the writer is new to the subject. You betcha! PS: I don’t make up quotes. The real thing is good enough.Whatever Fwankie.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 9:51pm.
Juxtapose the actions of truthful people with your constant lies. This is 10 times now you show what an honest person does when he discovers he is wrong vs the 146 times you have lied over and over again to cover your previous lies.
Beclown yourself again, it is what you do best.
Capt. UnderPantZ:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 9:57am.
The only way you could know what an honest person does is if one told you. And five will get you ten you wouldn't listen then, either. Does heredity detetermine how many DDT 10-20-10 moons of Mars can prance, Upon the pinhead of Capt. UnderPantZ?Let's show the boys and girls what happens to Fwankie.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 11:23am.
Let's show the boys and girls exactly what happens to a little liar that is proved to be wrong. Fwankie claimed President Bush did not show is DD214. But President Bush never served active duty with the Department of Defense (the DD in the DD214 form). He served with a state militia - the Texas Air National Guard. When confronted with the truth, Fwankie went into full spin mode and has NEVER ADMITTED HIS LIE TO THE VERY DAY.
111. Claims George W. Bush refuses to release his DD-214. GWB served in the Texas Air National Guard. Only active duty members separating from the federal armed forces would get a form from the Department of Defense (the DD of DD-214).
111.1. Crazed birthiers continue to demand a document that doesn't exist (kinda like George Bush's final DD-214).
111.2. I specifically referred to his final DD-214. I waded through several of the links you provided. Certainly didn't see it. - Cobraman provided a link to the TANG separation paper.
111.3. How about George Bush's final DD-214? And other records of his military service.
111.4. If you've seen George Bush's final DD-214, please share it with us. - There is no such thing as a FINAL DD-214. You only get the one when you separate from service.
111.5. If pointing out I made a mistake regarding the name of Federal government form... - He got the name of the Federal form correct. GWB was never eligible for that form.
Come on little sissy. You posted 10 times what happens when an honest person sees a mistake. Beclown yourself again and show us what YOU DO.
Capt. UnderPantZ:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 6:31pm.
Capt. UnderPants “I pound on trolls here WITHOUT MERCY. I cannot afford to be wrong once. Do you understand that? Not once can I be wrong in front of the trolls.” Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2011/02/05/lat-falsely-attacks-... “38. Whoops. 343 posts and I finally make a mistake in a field I only started reading about 3 days ago.” Read more: http://newsbusters.org/extensive-lies-and-stupid-trogldyt-i-do-mean-exte... - Mistakes don’t count as being “wrong” if the writer is new to the subject. You betcha! PS: I don’t make up quotes. The real thing is good enough.Press on, Puddinhead---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 6:45pm.
Keep your history of lying right up front for all to see.
Underline, stress, and wave about your penchant for prevarication, in order to maintain your unchallenged position as an unmitigated, pitiful, putz.
MD
Second Banana:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 6:54pm.
Don't those Peanut Gallery seats get hard after a while? Guess not - you're still in 'em...Excellent job fwankie.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 9:40pm.
You do beclown yourself like no one on the planet.
All hail King Beclowner.
Puddinhead---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 9:53pm.
far better to be a Second Banana than a lying putz.
What's your excuse?
You gonna go with "it's pathological"?
MD
James O'Keefe edited one of
Submitted by bob loblaw on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:06pm.
James O'Keefe edited one of his video, what a shocker. Why do people take him seriously again? James O'Keefe isn't credible, and those that take what he presents as journalism seriously, are not credible either.(ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN,
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:13pm.
(ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS).....edited one of their videos, what a shocker. Why do people take them seriously again? (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS)....aren't credible, and those that take what they present as journalism seriously, are not credible either.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
@bob
Submitted by Samshile on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:13pm.
I edited out the news anchor picking his nose. So when he spoke of the Japan earthquake it didnt happen? Einstein said: "keep it simple, not simplistic"!Beck and context
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:09pm.
I listen to Beck on the radio almost every day, and catch his television show two or three times a week. At times I wonder if he is just ignorant about things economic, or if he takes things out of context, on purpose, to push his agenda.
Today, on his television show, he is talked about the recent tsunami in Japan, and how the press is focusing on the potential disaster regarding the damaged nuclear power plants. Beck is correctly pointing out that our press is basically ignoring the potential disaster associated with a potential "melt down" of the United States bond market I think he's drawing a good analogy. Our bond market and the amount of Treasury debt we are ringing up is a huge potential problem that our press does not give enough attention to.
But Beck lost me when he sited Bill Gross of Pimcos elimination of U.S. Treasury Debt from Pimpco's Total Return Fund. Beck implied that Gross's move was based on a perception that U.S. Treasuries were now a risky investment. Gross's move is actually based on the yield of Treasuries being too low. Gross said that he would be a buyer of Treasuries again if yields rose. It's a market timing thing, and a not a concern on Gross's part that Treasuries will default.
But that doesn't fit Becks template. It bothers me when Beck does this sort of thing. If he does this with Gross and Pimco and U.S. Treasuries, (a market I understand and am able to catch Beck in this distortion), what sort of misinformation is Beck peddling with regards to subjects that I don't have any expertise in and can't catch Beck in his distortions.
I still like Beck. I still like his message. But every time he pulls something like this, I get a little more disappointed in the way he is trying to deliver that message. Beck doesn't need to do things like this in order to get his message across.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
→ Kingfish
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:15pm.
I thought the same way Beck did when I read about it via Drudge. I also saw it the way you do. If hedge funds start avoiding Treasury debt en masse, doesn't that fit both scenarios? Gross is a pretty big canary in a somewhat volatile mine.Yield Play
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 7:28pm.
Gross is avoiding U.S. Treasuries in his Total Return Fund because of the low yield. He said he would move back into them if their yield became more attractive. I doubt Gross is lying about his belief that Treasuries are still an investment that will return it's principal. He's not avoiding them because he thinks they may default, which is what Beck implied.
It's pretty easy to come up with an attention grabbing headline like....."Pimco's Gross dumps holdings in U.S. Treasuries!" The "why" behind the action remains of some import.
This may be an instance where Beck's research staff let him down regarding a headline on Drudge.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Took them long
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:15pm.
Took them long enough! Generally when leftists are caught doing something wrong and unable to block the Right from exposing the issue the Left will start whining about how the information was obtained: "So what if Rep. Bob Smith raped his interns' children and murdered his opponent with anthrax! You discovered this by looking in his trash! How dare you!" Sadly, this is usually a successful technique and if O'Keefe was working for someone he would be fired.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Keep them coming James.
Submitted by Ashrak on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:26pm.
James should just put out full videos in order to remove the ability to claim he "edited" them improperly. It would be better,more effective, to make that charge against media outlets that cut them up after release.
As for NPR pointing to The Blaze, me thinks that link is going to get a serious workout for years to come as folks on the left get smacked with it every time they slam Beck and praise NPR.
Love It.
As for Beck today, well, not producing desired return is a kind of default. It is most certainly exhibits a default of trust. Default on trust,which is the only thing backing our debt,err, currency, and it is an outright default - from a particular point of view.
The fools over at NPR wrote
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 11:44pm.
The fools over at NPR wrote their own epithet in their own feces they habitually smear on the walls of their cage.
The Juan Williams fiasco and subsequent cover up and denial pretty much did them in as far as continued taxpayer funding was concerned.
This latest of transgressions, recorded for all to see and hear is simply the icing on the cake.
Them trying to imply all their problems only started as a result of this hatchet job ( award winning ) tape is just more lame left wing bomb thrower B/S propaganda, at it's sleaziest.
The time is long overdue for them to go out on that ledge, spread their wings and soar like the repulsive buzzards they truly are.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
→ Epitath?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 11:48pm.
Although I can see "epithet" too. Yes, the judges will accept "epithet" X gets the square. Whoopi Goldberg to "block" block.It's your mess, NPR.
Submitted by johnsonl on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 9:39pm.
Live with it. Nobody's racism and bigotry was put out there but yours. You are what you accuse others of being.Cry me a river NPR.
Submitted by sherlock1 on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 11:17pm.
Cry me a river NPR. Have you quit hiding the death threats against the Wisconsin Republicans yet? Have you covered the testimony of DOJ attorneys that the organization enforces the law in a racially biased manner? Are you still repeating the mantra of the violent Tea Party without a shred of evidence? Did you investigate when Sarah Palin's interviews were cherry-picked for quotes to make her look bad by two network anchors? Have you ever pointed out the fact that you helped to use a Republican Senator sending salacious emails to pages to swing an election, and cause him to retire, but have never said a peep about the obvious contrast to the behavior of Democrat Barney Frank having sex with a page in his office? Cry me a river, you DAMNED hypocrites - you are reaping what you have been gleefully sowing for your political masters for years!Well then. I am confused.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 11:33pm.
Why the resignations? If the editing process was so biased, why the resignations?The Schillers just wanted to---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 11:35pm.
spend more quality time with their respective families, I'm sure.