I don't think PBS or NPR have historically been governmnet puppets and I think it would be really tough to show that. The thing about the development guys is that they are all salesmen. They sell sunshine and everything is positive always. You don't get people to donate and give large gifts by saying... "We're doomed. It's hopeless. Without the government we'll die!" Frankly, I wouldn't trust a fundraiser.
From what I know, NPR could easily survive without government support, but that doesn't mean it isn't a worthy and good thing for the government to continue supporting. Then again, I believe in arts funding, education, and a healthy and robust media. The thing that scares me going forward is not only are newspapers closing and going extinct, but newsrooms are shrinking at a local and national level. That means fewer feet on the street and far less investigative, real journalism. That's why you get so much analysis versus reporting on TV/Cable these days. Analysis is cheaper than paying for a crew and sending them out and digging out a story that may take days or weeks. It's so much cheaper to bring in an expert, pay him to speculate and riff based on his philosophy and pay him an hour. It's cheaper and often sexier because the analyst/commentator knows its his job to stir it up and create controversy.
The problem with the news these days is there's so little news. I still get a Washington Post, but it's about a third the size it used to be. We are losing the ability to be informed and we are settling for the worst, opinion based conjecture too much of the time. That is another reason why NPR and PBS should be supported because they are one of the few news organizations that still actually cover the news and not just talk about it.
Those development guys are crazy though. Some of them are little better than used car salesmen. Their job is to sell the station no matter what and get you to give. Someone probably said...
"Hey Ron, you worried about de-funding" and in sales mode he said,
"Are you kidding me? This is NPR! We are going to be great no matter what! Who needs the government? Now, let's go back to that check you're going to write me. A few more zeros would be nice."
So after saying that the MEAC website advocates the “acceptance of Sharia,” the video cuts to the NPR exec saying, “Really? That’s what they said?” The cadence is jovial and upbeat and the narration moves on. The implication is that the NPR exec is aware and perhaps amused or approving of the MEAC mission statement. But when you look at the raw video you realize he was actually recounting an unrelated and innocuous issue about confusion over names in the restaurant reservation.
But you may be surprised to learn, that in the raw video, Schiller also speaks positively about the GOP. He expresses pride in his own Republican heritage and his belief in fiscal conservatism.
But the clip in the edited video implies Schiller is giving simply his own analysis of the Tea Party. He does do that in part, but the raw video reveals that he is largely recounting the views expressed to him by two top Republicans, one a former ambassador, who admitted to him that they voted for Obama.
At the end, he signals his agreement. The larger context does not excuse his comments, or his judgment in sharing the account, but would a full context edit have been more fair? See what you think:
But the raw video shows a section where Schiller is hesitant to criticize the education of conservatives and the other executive, Betsy Liley, is outspoken in her defense of the intellects of Fox News viewers.
Speaking of two sets of rules, a couple people have lost their jobs over this video. Do you think anyone who produced and distributed this video will?Schiller says that NPR, “in the long run,” would be better off without federal funding and that most of the stations would survive a loss of such funding. The implication is that Schiller does not believe federal funding for NPR is important. In the raw video, however, Schiller explains the risk to local stations in more detail and why NPR is doing “everything we can to advocate for federal funding.”
Perhaps, but then the footage should stand for itself, don't you think?No matter how "objectively" this thing is sliced and diced, he still said plenty of stupid stuff and agreed with a lot more, especially about those pesky Jooooooooos
Ends justify the means completely? This is what you want the mainstream media to be doing? Really? It's bad enough that FOX News just makes **** up when they feel like it, now you want them to actively distort clips and soundbites to put liberals in an even worse light?IMO, he's doing what the mainstream media should be doing. Perhaps if this cat was around in 08 and got a covert interview with then candidate Obama, we wouldn't be suffering through Jimmy Carters second term