NPR Executives Don't Care If Accepting George Soros Money Deepens Their Liberal Image
As her term wraps up, NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard explored the controversial $1.8 million donation from leftist hedge-fund manager George Soros and his Open Society Institute, and how NPR tried to talk its way out of the idea that it was a liberal media outlet taking money from a major liberal agitator of means. Shepard reported executives there determined “it would be wrong to turn down money because of someone's political beliefs and based on how it looked.”
"OSI Foundations met NPR's qualification criteria for funders," said Dana Davis Rehm, NPR's spokesperson. "They understood and accepted our terms – chief among them the prohibition of any effort to influence editorial decision making. Our acceptance of the grant was based on principles of independence and fairness, and we stand by it."
Near the end of the article, Shepard acknowledged that conservatives find this donation highly suspicious, both because of the political record of Soros, and his added million-dollar support of the left-wing watchdog group Media Matters, now devoted to “sabotage” against Fox News. MRC’s Dan Gainor insisted there will be no investigative journalism of Soros at NPR:
"NPR took $1.8 million from a man who also spent $27 million trying desperately to unseat President George W. Bush in 2004, yet NPR still claims to be neutral," said Dan Gainor of the conservative Media Research Center. "Conservatives know that isn't true. The Soros money just proved it. Will NPR deploy some of that new-found wealth to investigate Soros' global empire? No, he signs the checks."
The contribution did raise eyebrows inside the NPR family:
Some stations have expressed concerns about taking money from someone labeled a left-wing philanthropist. Chief among them was WBEZ in Chicago, one of the biggest public radio stations in the country.
When NPR invited stations to apply, several in Illinois were excited about the project, said WBEZ President and CEO Torey Malatia. But WBEZ wanted no part. Other stations in Illinois applied as a consortium but did not get funding in the pilot project.
"The last thing I wanted to do is hurt my colleagues," said Malatia. "But this is a very clear crossing of the line, at least in perception even if it doesn't happen in reality. Perception is our currency. It's what you talk about during pledge drives. It's the emotional trigger you hope can be pulled when you are talking with philanthropists about your independence. Perception is just as important as reality. It doesn't matter how many controls you have. The minute you have to explain away the problem, you are in trouble."
On the other hand, Soros' foundations gave 34 grants from 1997 to 2010 to local NPR member stations and specific programs that have totaled nearly $3.4-million, said the foundations' Archuleta. Recipients included WNYC and Minnesota Public Radio.
Former NPR CEO Vivian Schiller was, unsurprisingly, not just the one who told Juan Williams he should save his Islamophobia for a therapist, but also the one who thought the Soros money was a wonderful idea:
At a staff meeting last fall, an editor asked former CEO Vivian Schiller, who was involved in getting the money, about the public perception created by NPR's taking money from Soros' foundation. In response, Schiller cited the "firewall" between donors and the newsroom.
The Open Society people "understand that we are completely independent," said Schiller. "They will hear the stories on the air along with everyone else. We will have no editorial dialogue with them about these stories. There is a complete separation."
Schiller said she was not troubled about perception and insisted NPR shouldn't have a political litmus for funders.
"I don't know that we need to draw lines saying 'If you have a point of view you can't give us money,'" said Schiller. "Where we draw a line is, 'You cannot give us money to pursue your agenda.'"
On one level, Schiller was right. Many of NPR's donors have long records of left-wing philanthropy, like the Ford Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation, and that's never been an appearance problem for NPR (beyond conservatives who know about activist foundations). But Soros really is in another category, as a controversial political actor spending many millions to defeat Republicans and pushing controversial ideas like gay marriage and drug legalization. The idea that these people really didn't think this affected their public image at all are either extremely deluded about their own objectivity or deeply know they're Liberalism Incorporated and think they should just be aggressive and ignore conservative critics. That second mental approach does tend to sum up many NPR hosts and reporters.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Beggars aren't choosey when it comes to taking money ...
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 5:08pm.
. . . even if the beggars are earning 6-figure salaries.
"Around the World" big boy?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 5:23pm.
Whores have never been picky about where the money comes from, as long as it keeps coming in.
Terrorist is as terrorist does
Submitted by Slyrr on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:00pm.
They didn't care that they were taking money from Arab terrorists - why should they care about taking money from a European terrorist?
A Lefty Giving Money to Left Wing Broadcasting
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:15pm.
Is understandable. The crime is that taxpayers' money goes to NPR.
Oh, really!
Submitted by jessieH on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:45pm.
Then we can stop ALL funding for these people! I am really tired of funding TRAITORS! National PUBLIC Radio, pushing an agenda, against everything this country stands for, connot continue!
I have no problem with NPR taking Soros money....
Submitted by thescoots on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:03am.
I have a real problem with NPR taking my money.
sigh,...
Submitted by Mark81150 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:46am.
Oh no of course they think there is no appearence of influence buying,... they have the money, and they haven't been shy about giving a flip about what the country thinks. They treat America as two peoples, one, the "enlightened thoughtful intelligent and all wise liberals"..... and those dirty trailer park rednecks... you could have a doctorate and an alphabet behind your name, and to them,. if you're conservative, you're stupid or crazy, if not evil incarnate.
If the Koch brothers offered them ten million,... would they take it?
Or would they fear their very leftwing base would flee like rats from a sinking ship? It'd be fun to see, but I'd hate to see that much money go to such a bigoted source. I'd love to see the epic level of angst that would generate on the left,.. but they'd just do a running hatchet job on the och brothers if they had the money up front, something you can bet will never happen to Soros..
He just bought an insurance policy.. against bad press.
Nor Should They Care Since It's Perfectly Legitimate...
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 12:23am.
Do you even know where the term Open Society comes from? If you had done any homework on the life of George Soros, the term "Open Society" comes from a book called The Open Society and its Enemies, written by one of Soros's teachers in college, the philosopher Karl Popper. And if you think this was Soros's Communist manifesto, you might be disappointed in learning that Popper's book: "...extolled freedom and democracy and attacked totalitarianism and Marxism." (emphasis mine.)
So, that pretty much puts a dent in your whole theory of Soros wanting to create a left wing vision of the world, seeing as how he was influenced by defeating the core principle of socialism and communism, which would be Marxism. Don't you just hate it when your Lyndon LaRouche conspiracy theories fall completely apart with a few over-looked facts? If you want to know more, I would recommend the book Blowing Smoke by Michael Wolraich, but seeing as how you can't stomach facts from a liberal perspective, I would simply say it's your loss.
Predicatable Sticks
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 12:57am.
We can always tell when you have reached a new chapter in whatever class you are currently taking or whenever you have heard a new line on the Simpsons since you come in here spouting it like it's some great ephiphany
The last kick that you just can't seem to shake is Lyndon LaRouche. Before that it was Poe's Law you babbled on and on about. Now we get Blowing Smoke mentioned repeatedly. We'd appreciate if you'd just post your liberal reading list, syllabus and the Simpons schedule so we can be prepared.
BTW, that you look at facts from a liberal perspective is the problem.