NPR's CEO Resigns
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-09/nprs-ceo-resigns
In the latest controversy involving NPR, President and CEO Vivian Schiller has resigned. This comes after a hidden camera video was released of another executive criticizing conservatives and saying the network would be better off without federal money. NPR said it was appalled by the comments. Public funding for NPR came under fire last fall after it fired news analyst Juan Williams for comments he made on Fox News about Muslims. We focus on what the latest incident means for the network and public broadcasting as a whole.
Guests
Tucker Carlson
political commentator and founder of The Daily Caller.
Patrick Butler
president and C.E.O of the Association of Public Television Stations.
Alicia Shepard
NPR ombudsman.
Brooke Gladstone
host of "On The Media."
David Edwards
director and general manager, WUWM Milwaukee Public Radio;
chair of the NPR board.
Stephen Moore
member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
Paul Farhi
staff writer at The Washington Post, covering media.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
When I heard the news of Vivian Schiller's departure, I did two things in rapid order. I sent a contribution to my local NPR station, New Hampshire Public Radio. Then I tuned in to The Diane Rehm Show to find out whether you'd be covering this today. I am pleased that you are.
It's time for the NPR board to take things in hand and restore NPR's credibility. And it's time for NPR to stop seeking and accepting taxpayer money. The network needs to be independent of Congressional second-guessing, and it now has little chance of getting any more money, thanks to this week's events. Let's make lemonade!
It would appear that if a perception about a group(s) is out there in society, it would be an opportunity for those groups to make efforts to change the perception. What Mr. Schiller said in the video is known is many circles of society. There is nothing wrong with speaking the truth, as society knows at the moment. Isn't it a violation of the first amendment - Freedom of speech? I saw the video and did not hear him make any "racist" or "disparaging" comments against any one group. Americans, Caucasians, disabled, Hispanics, Jewish, Muslims, gays, lesbians, conservatives, liberals, etc should be able to hear what is being said about them and make changes to their image, if need be.
Did he make the comment about NPR not needing federal $, yes. This was probably not too smart to do in light of all the budget cuts being proposed. However, it is a good point to make so people are made aware. After all, transparency should be the norm for all agencies, people, etc.
Irresponsible and arrogant of NPR's Schiller to make these comments to a prospective donor. Yes, I agree with the statements about conservatives, (as anyone can clearly see) but keeping those comments to only a select few would have been wise. However, what happened to unbiased reporting and projecting that image that NPR says it is? This is what keeps NPR above the fray (FOX). Unfortunately I do think that if this is the belief of NPR from the top down (of conservative views being bigoted, which again, I personally believe it is too) they've lost their credibility to be neutral when they report thus taking federal monies/funding would be questionable at best. In my opinion I think NPR has blown any chance of future funding and needs an overhall of their image.
At times, today's mindset is difficult to comprehend. On one hand, the Supreme Court sanctions the hurling of grave insults at funeral parties of fallen soldiers. On the other hand, NPR employees cannot give their personal opinions, uncalled for or not, even at lunch.
I would like to object to your guest's comparison of the Fox ( New Pravda) disinformation Network to NPR. When confronted about their practice of daily on air lies and distortions Faux News usually insists that they are an "entertainment channel". This comparison of Fox and NPR being equivalent is ludicrous. NPR usually presents the neoliberal (so called conservatives) viewpoint very well with guests from many well funded neoliberal groups like the Heritage Foundation and many more like it that are given large chunks of air time. ---sorry for the double post --I received a "message did not post" error the first time.
A few thoughts (random and unconnected to each other):
1) Is there a national epidemic of foot-in-mouth disease? Whether it's the fundraiser (Ron, not Vivian Schiller) making his idiotic comments, Governor Walker of Wisconsin's dumb statements to the "Koch brother", Congresswoman Bachman's moronic statement about slavery and the Founders, have none of these people ever been told "engage brain before opening mouth"?
2) Does anyone double-check the identities of the people they talk to?
3) Why the shock that the technology exists to record conversations?
4) While I loathe the Republi-Con attempts to defund public broadcasting (I wonder if anyone's investigated whether Fox gets any government largess or special tax breaks), I've often wondered myself if NPR and PBS wouldn't be better off without government aid. Then they'd truly be freed from the partisan nonsense they are subjected to. I'd certainly donate more if it set public broadcasting free.
5) Here's an idea from my home state (Arizona). It allows people to donate money for private education, and receive a tax credit in return (and not just a tax deduction). The difference is critical: a deduction only returns to you a percentage of what you donate (based on your tax rate), a credit returns 100% of what you donate. I'd love to be able to direct my tax dollars go to public broadcasting instead of the salaries of Boehner, Bachmann, and others of their ilk (to say nothing of "defunding" sweet-heart contracts to KBR, etc.). A tax credit would allow that.
Four and counting pro NPR voices, one apposing view over the phone. Typical Diane Rehm. Man these people are full of themselves.
I would like to object to your guest's comparison of the Fox ( New Pravda) disinformation Network to NPR. When confronted about their practice of daily on air lies and distortions Faux News usually insists that they are an "entertainment channel". This comparison of Fox and NPR being equivalent is ludicrous. NPR usually presents the neoliberal (so called conservatives) viewpoint very well with guests from many well funded neoliberal groups like the Heritage Foundation and many more like it that are given large chunks of air time.
Vivian Schiller was indiscreet, and her comments were inappropriate in such a high visibility position. Nevertheless, there is no difference between her comments and many of those made by the Fox Network that go on and on without public challenge or outrage. She is being called on it since NPR receives public tax money. This could all be a moot point 6 months from now after the Republicans cut all funding for NPR.
Ironically, Tucker Carlson's father was President of PBS. I hope he still supports NPR and PBS and does not think that Fox is a good replacement for NPR or PBS.
NPR and PBS have been a part of my life since I was a child. I remember watching PBS television shows and learning many things as I did. As an adult I turn to NPR for it's unbiased news in a media blitz of slant and politically and corporate based news stations. NPR helps people to make informed decisions and I do not understand why it has this stereotype of a liberal slant. I find that it always represents both sides.
Diane, the real reason NPR is under attack from conservatives has nothing to do with this imaginary liberal bias they claim NPR has. What they REALLY dislike about NPR is that it encourages free thought. Conservatives just want to tell people what and how to think, which is why they give a thumbs up to Fox news and Rush Limbaugh. NPR asks too many questions, investigates TOO MANY points of view, encouraging people to wonder who, what, when, where, why, and allowing listeners to see through other people's eyes. This is too much for conservatives who's true agenda seems to be, "don't think, just follow."
PBS is fighting a losing battle. Since "the truth has a liberal bias" Conservatives will always be attempting to shut it down.
Take the case of a show on global warming. It will be apparent that the liberal guests are basing their opinions of empirical evidence and the conservative guests are basing their opinion on 'faith'.
PBS listeners want to hear new, informed ideas. FOX viewers want to hear statements that reinforce their preformed opinions. Obviously PBS will attract both conservative and liberal viewers because some conservatives are interested in information. I doubt that many liberals watch FOX.
I listen to NPR every day, and am a current supporter of two local public radio stations. As much as I enjoy and rely on NRP programming, I believe it is time for the goverment funding of NRP to stop. There are other publicly-funded programs that are more important, particularly education. If NPR continues their quality programming and reporting, private and corporate supporters will continue to fund the service. And if NPR employees and consultants have judgement lapses that damage the corporate erputation, so be it. The corporation can then deal with them without the public scrutiny that NPR currently "enjoys".
In regards to the financial uncertainty surrounding NPR and the national budget problems, I think it is entirely appropriate to cut funding of NPR. I love NPR and listen every day, so I would be more than willing to increase my monthly contribution to help make up for funding losses. The argument that cutting NPR's funding would hardly make a dent in the national deficit is inappropriate- we will not be able to solve the current debt crisis without making many small changes.
The fact that NPR receives money from the government and is, therefore, somewhat beholden to congress helps keep them honest. I'm convinced that everything they broadcast is scrutinized with the "is this going to have Republicans calling us liberally-biased?" magnifying glass.
Regarding Mr. Carlson's statements: Just because the reality of the stories that NPR broadcasts oftentimes lends credibility to a liberal viewpoint doesn't inherently make NPR liberally biased. Sometimes the truth hurts, I guess.
Lastly, while Mr. Schiller's actions were probably not very smart, I see no reason why Vivian Schiller should pay the price of his stupidity. As CEO, her job is to fire Mr. Schiller; not to fire herself.
I watched the video, I heard nothing that I thought was awful, or fireable. Schiller didn't say that ALL Conservatives were racist, xenophobic, etc. And when the "donors" started talking about the Jewish influence on NPR, Schiller was quick and unequivocal, in his denial that that was the case.
This reminds me of the time when it became a crime to belong to the ACLU, next there will be shots taken at "card carrying union members".
It's time we stopped being afraid to speak the truth as we see it, have the strength of conviction to stand for what we believe in, and fight back when it's miscontrued or lied about.
PS this website was down for awhile, making comments impossible. Just what was the cause of that, I wonder?
----- Original Message -----
From: David Eberhardt
Subject: Fw: NPR's "distancing" itself from true remarks by Ms. Schiller about the tea party? These folks are NPR's enemies along with Republicans like Eric Cantor (people who are not interested in nuance- only finance).
I do not believe NPR is fair and balanced but I listen because it is a lot more fair and balanced than an NBC, CBS or WBAL AM radio here in Baltimore- a station of screaming toglodytes..
Maybe it's a good tactic to fire a truth sayer. I'm just not so sure.
We have a station here in Baltimore with a lot of good staff under the corporate grip of a ? hmm, not sure what to say. The management here fired a genius and we don't forget it.
I will fight for NPR (or CPB tv for that matter) even if they don't fight for themselves.
I notice the right wing guy on yr show this morning saying npr was for the "elite"- is there somethin wrong w that? In their venal, peanut sized brains maybe?
david eberhardt
cc: various
Another win for Fox News. All we need is corporate media. Right. And as they say on Fox News "the rest of you can shut up."
It seems to that we are living in"Conservatives" wonderland. They found the magic ticket: thelobbyist, politicians, the disaster, and media cocktail to make their(our?) dreams come true.
1) Control over the fourth estate. Those who control public opinion can make public opinion.
2) Control over the population's reproductive rights. God's will.
3) Getting rid of regulations,regulators and taxes on businesses and the people whom own them.
4) Control over education and equal access to good education.
5) Getting rid of the social safety net.
6)Decrease wages and increase unemployment and get rid of those commie unions.
7) Make sure the cost of the last great stock, bond and home equity highest, get passed off first to the government then to citizens.
8) Can we shut down the government yet?
9) Am I missing any of the conservative planks please let me know?
Back to the magic ticket. Ever since the inception of public broadcasting in all the pinko commie agendas that it represents. The conservatives have been trying to get rid of it and now through the use of right-wing shock jock techniques and some of the best cutting room technology. Mix in a little trickle down economics. Mix in a dab of character assassination may be add some vulgar hype you're at it. Tossing in statement for your droves of screaming ditto heads. I like rapist, anti-Semite, child prostitution, tea party hater, Muslim, terrorist, weapons of mass destruction, and many more thought revoking statements; coming to you on screens and water coolers near you and public media can finally go down.
Can any of you still remember back to Planned Parenthood or acorn?
I wonder what will be next.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Eberhardt
Subject: Fw: NPR's "distancing" itself from true remarks by Ms. Schiller about the tea party? These folks are NPR's enemies along with Republicans like Eric Cantor (people who are not interested in nuance- only finance).
I do not believe NPR is fair and balanced but I listen because it is a lot more fair and balanced than an NBC, CBS or WBAL radio here in Baltimore.
Maybe it's a good tactic to put a truth sayer on administrative leave. I'm just not so sure.
WYPR here in Baltimore has a lot of good staff but under the corporate grip of a ? hmm, not sure what to say. The management here fired a genius and we don't forget it.
I will fight for NPR (or CPB tv for that matter) even if they don't fight for themselves.
I notice the right wing guy on yr show this morning saying npr was for the "elite"- is there somethin wrong w that? In their venal, peanut sized brains maybe?
david eberhardt
cc: various
maybe they're elites compared to the troglodyte right?
On the Resignation of Vivian Schiller
(a poem)
Moving forward –
We felt that it was time to move forward.
Vivian agreed. It was a distraction.
An unfortunate event. It’s in the best interests of everyone to move forward.
The mike is always on.
It’s in the best interests of everyone in the organization to move forward –
(Is this on?) – Vivian agrees –
The Board feels well-positioned to move forward.
Absolutely.
We are not Fox News.
I am shocked, shocked to discover that NPR is full of conservative-haters and liberal-lovers. Not only is their credibility at risk, but also public funding; as well it should be.
I wouldn't have any faith in Brooke's definition of the middle. She is the rule, not the exception, as it relates to the NPR bias.
On the Media is all about opinion, not reporting. I've had many back-and-forths with Bob and when asked to substantiate his "reportings," he responds that it is his opinion. Brooke is an editor, and a biased one at that.
I believe NPR's general reporting needs to be examined. Schiller's comments clearly illustrate the liberal bias that permeates the NPR organization. There is a big difference in reporting news and talk shows like Diane Rhem. I find her show to have a pronounced liberal bias. She denies it. But, in my opinion, it's there. NPR needs to own up to the liberal bias of the Diane Rehm show. Either address the issue openly or stop receiving taxpayer dollars. As a taxpayer, I do not want my money being spent to support either the democrats or republicans. I do not want my tax dollars contributing to Diane Rehm's salalry. Let George Soros, AFSCME, or the UAW handle that.
I have always enjoy NPR for 10 years now, I listen to it in my car, @ work and when I am at home. I know it was the right thing for Vivian Schiller to resigned. I want to see a different CEO with something that can bring NPR back to where it should be. As an african american I wanted to stop sending funds when News and Notes, and Day to Day went off the air. I was very hurt and wanted to just drop NPR. I do enjoy Tell me more with Michel Martin. But I wanted to see more African American show host like Tony Cox he should have his own show with NPR. I just feel that Vivian Schiller was not cut out for the changes at NPR. I wish her the best but please bring someone that can bring NPR back the way it should be by far this is still the BEST PUBLIC RADIO STATION but more needs to be done.
NPR,
Just continue to do your work, as you have been, and try to ignore the politically motivated distractions.
Listeners will continue to intelligently evaluate the comments of your guests and draw their own conclusions.
Thanks for being there.
Tom
You truly need to see the ruse for what it was....a trick by a radical conservative operative to bring down a democratic and important institution. And why?...because it can't be owned and won't follow the dictates of the vast conservative conspiracy. What transpired was in private and more importantly TRUE. There is no misbehavior or misstep in that. What needs exposed is this O'Keefe character and his funding and how his radical zealousness is so willing to aid those who want to own our nation for their own financial benifit. NPR does great work and the fear of conservatism is that they will report the truth to the detriment of their ruinous plans.
Right, the vast majority of Americans are NOT conservative or republican and do not care to be.
So, who is thie Tucker Carlson nutcase, and isn't he one to spew out the reframed sentences to feed the conservative faithful? Do you see how he avoids reality and misrepresents his understanding into how he wants it to be considered? A real footsoldier of the vast conservative conspiracy that one. He is gleefully wringing his hands over an artificial ruse carried out by a dangerous conservative set of operatives.
As a professional fundraiser for over 20 years I am astounded at MR. Shillers conduct. The process of engaging a donor, or donors, is a long and very deliberate one. Did he think they were going to drop the cash on the "first date". As a centrist (sometimes liberal, sometimes conservative) I would never engage any of my donors, or potential donors in such a conversation and stick strictly to the business of engaging the donor in the programs offered by my organization. This is a big world and everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they have no place in these exchanges. Shame on him. I'm embarassed that he calls himself a fundraiser.
Diane, your show reflects your and your staff's bias. You have many shows where there is no conservative voice or they are outnumbered, especially when we take your views into account.