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.
One of the arguments made by those in favor of ending government funding for public broadcasting is that there is wide availability of a variety of media outlets in the 21st century. The guest from The Wall Street Journal used internet service as an example.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that people have internet access, and that they have computers with which to access it. Not everyone who is served by public broadcasting does or can. People use TV and radio differently than the use the internet. The US government regards the airwaves as a public asset and regulates them and their users in the "public interest." Broadcast signals require no special equipment or additional fees to receive or access. Plus, radios are cheep. I have only had my computer six years, it was really expensive, and it is already getting old and slow. On the other hand, I got the radio I listen to at home almost 30 years ago and it works fine. To say "everyone" has easy and equal access to media is inaccurate.
I think that it would be more honest for those in Washington who want to cut public TV and radio funding if they would vote to stop ALL corporate welfare across the board and not just pick on public media. Hundreds of corporations get billions a year in tax breaks that are not related to moving this country forward (as opposed to R&D and the like, which are generally good policy decisions).
I appreciate your willingness to cover NPR's dirty laundry, but I think you missed the point.
It is indeed a Republican/Democratic divide on how tax money should be used. For exaqmple, our St. Louis Republican representative, Todd Aikin, does not believe tax money should be used to feed the hungry, house the homeless or care for the sick. In his opinion those services should be performed by churches and other charities.
How unfortunate that the NPR representative spoke his mind at a business lunch. It makes it more difficult for NPR to make a federal funding case.
But why should NPR be a special case, with funding for it preferred to funding for women with infant children, Medicaid, etc?
Finally, your ombudsman and media reporter are understandably focused on NPR's relationship to Congress. And you are all in shock. Nonetheless, you missed the point of the great partisan divide.
I've seen several comments here that talk about how NPR's credibility needs to be repaired or restored. That would presume that NPR's credibility were somehow broken or lost. I don't believe that this is the case. I find NPR's journalism to be as credible or more credible than any other news organization out there. In particular, I like the fact that NPR is willing to broadcast news that helps us to reflect on ourselves and/or might not tell us what we want to hear. I think that lends credibility.
Don't even get me started on the sad fact that so many Americans get their information from a certain opinion/propoganda oulet masquerading as a news channel.
I agree with "acabanar". No more corporate welfare. And while we are at it, let's get corporate money out of our elctoral process. That is the root of most of our biggest problems.
If I remember right wasn't Linda Tripp indicted on charges of illegal wiretapping? Does the local or state prosecutor plan to do the same to James O'Keefe? In this whole debate/scandal, he's the only one to actually do anything illegal.
Just seems that this is another rush to summary execution before all the facts are in. Look, the republicans are going to kill federal financing for NPR, period. There was no reason to sacrifice an effective leader who's leadership made it possible for me to listen to this program at 3:20 in the afternoon from NYC. Where is NPR's backbone in all of this?
Economics is complicated. That's why Keynes is right and the Tea Party is wrong. My question is the following: weighting the payments according to the amount of federal funds received by the individual stations, how much federal money does NPR receive indirectly from its member stations for the programming it provides? I suspect that the amount of funding NPR cites as coming from the government does not include the indirect funding it receives from member stations who receive a greater percentage of direct funding from the federal government than NPR itself receives. Taking this additional data into account, it may make the comments of those involved in the video more egregious. Additional question: how do the difficulties of NPR compare to foreign government broadcasters such as BBC? I'm guessing if they get all the $$ from the government then they don't have to submit themselves to seeking it from private sources. Pretty ironic. Maybe the true question is whether NPR has by getting most of its funding from private sources, made itself irrelevant to federal authorities. If I were an individual member station, I'd want to think about separating myself from NPR and seeking federal funding separate from them.
Are Vivian and Ron Schiller related? NPR claims not, but I would not have been surprised had they been. NPR is the best radio network, and the most accurate, we have in the USA and it is a shame when production personnel are embarrassed by the fundraisers, often called development directors. Recent information suggests that many of these positions are held by millionaires (maybe made on the job) with all kinds of seedy connections. That is to be expected in the USA where all financial business is corrupt and collusive by definition.
I had a bad experience in the 90s with Clinton affiliated public broadcasting executives when they tried to seize (WBAI in NYC) Pacifica Radio (100% listener funded without corporate underwriters) and liquidate it for cash, with a plethora of under the table kickbacks. Respected liberals often conduct internecine war on other leftists, progressives and radicals, partially to please their oligarchs and corporate patrons. That is why reformist views and proposals have such an uphill battle in the USA. It is almost like public service institutions take a lick from the business sponsored right wing and then pass it on.
But back to the corrupt sleazy NPR, PBS and CPB fundraisers.
I liken them to when organized crime takes over a union. They are as likely to "bust it out" as to nurture it and serve the public trust. I don't see anything wrong with NPR news and public affairs or with honest unions representing their members. It is management that shames the NPR staff and disappoints the listeners. I think it is almost impossible to avoid graft, collusion and fascist influence as long as corporate and business underwriting retain their present rules and forms. It is analogous to political contributions and they way they have made a sham of democracy. Hint: Listen to Pacifica, especially "Guns and Butter" which is almost as good as Diane Rehm. The next time you are tempted to make a pledge to public broadcasting first inquire how much the development directors or private fundraisers will get, and also review management salaries.
It is not a happy party of skipping elves at these pledge drives. An ogre called a development director behaves like a money-mad dictator.
Mr Moore made a comment about the uproar that would be made by the left if federal dollars went to "Fox News". That comment makes a false equivalency between Fox and NPR, that is in my opinion unjust, as Fox is clearly right wing and mostly propaganda, except for their straight news show w/ Shepard Smith.
I have viewed the raw footage and the 11 minute tape edited by Mr. O'Keefe and company. The shorter tape is accurate, in that it presents actual dialog. However, in the raw footage, the hosts clearly try to provoke Mr. Schiller into making compromising statements, for example that (1) NPR is pro Muslim and in favor of putting more Muslims on the air (2) NPR is a counter to Fox News (3) NPR's goal is to force feed the ignorant masses (4) Jews are too influential in NPR coverage (5) being on Fox News was enough to justify firing Juan Williams (6) NPR is pro Palestinian.
Mr. Schiller repeatedly rebuffs or ignores these provocations, stressing that NPR is the voice of reason, presenting multiple viewpoints on issues and tolerating no interference by funders. Mr. Schiller expressed his personal view that NPR would ultimately be better off without federal funding, though not suddenly, since without federal funding a number of stations would go dark.
His elitism was evident, and this of course is always impolitic. (I like elitism myself. God forbid everyone should be like me!). Mr. Schiller erred by taking the tea-party bait and by offering an aside on Jewish ownership of print media. Ms Liley might have omitted her reference to detention camps. Her defense of democracy and NPR's role in sustaining it was inspiring, however.
All in all, both NPR reps did a fine job of making their convictions clear without insulting their hosts. The problem lay in accepting the luncheon invitation in the first place and, of course, in bringing multiple hats. NPR's political tight rope is swaying. Nevertheless I can’t help thinking that the best way to bring down NPR is to let NPR’s own political correctness tear the organization apart.
Absolutely! Well said.
Robert
I like NPR and support it. However for the folks on your show today to say that "the American Public" that lives outside of Washington DC don't think that they have a liberal bias is laughable. I live in the midwest and can see the liberal slant of stories. Do I still listen-yes, Do I think that they do a good job-yes, Do I think they need federal funds to do a good job-NO!
Totally mortified and disgusted that a self-identified "black woman" gets to toss out hate speech like jelly beans.
I would like to know *who* called the president an "ape??" I saw millions of white (and Hispanic) people vote for Obama and the thanks they get for non-racist to the bone is name-calling?? Are you *kidding* me??? How many white men with that short of a resume get elected president. He was ushered to the front of the line *because* of white guilt. Make no mistake. Qualifications had nothing to do with it - there were almost none.
Shocking and horrifying racist speech here by this poster. Wow.
A new low. Victim mentality and buck-passing, big time. A sad commentary on discourse in this wonderful nation.
I love NPR. It is the best source for news on broadcast media by a long shot.
I financially support NPR and PBS.
I find them both liberally-biased and sometimes that bothers me.
I do not believe they should get funding from the government.
I think they will be a better product without the funding.
I will increase my support if they no longer get funding.
I think it was a mistake to release Vivian Schiller. If the intent was to relieve stress to the organization, then it will miss it's mark. Only in extreme instances are leaders removed from the front line. This was not one of them.
Mr. Ron Schiller was himself an officer and responsible party. And he alone should be the bearer of his errors.
Now NPR is adrift.
Hopefully they will pull this together.
Too bad this site went down yesterday. I was going to write that NPR hasn't been on my list for donations for some time now, but for the opposite reason cited here, namely its gotten way too submissive and weak. The Right is bereft of any semblance of common decency, and I just can't abide of its warped influence on NPR. The leadership would have done better going down with the ship before allowing it to become the watered-down, feel-good white wash of DC's political shenanigans that it is now.
Do we need public radio? Yes. Do we need what THIS public radio has become? No.
I tuned in tonight (it's delayed here) and heard someone saying that "everyone knows that everyone at NPR is liberal" which just isn't true.
In the last decade (one could argue longer) NPR has moved FAR right of it's old "lefty" image. In fact, during the W. years (and on doubt still today) there were Homeland Security imbeds working in their offices.
So, without really getting into it, I'd say it's a bit drastic to generalize and say that everyone is liberal there. Anymore they have half of the Wall Street Journal folks as contributers, and that's a Murdoch paper.
But then I heard the name Tucker Carlson and it made sense.
He also went on to ask why the public should be coerced into paying for public radio. I would respond: because corporate media is basically State Media. And I would ask him why the public should be coerced into paying for oil exploration? Or any other corporate giveaways? Especially when we are supposed to be all about letting "the market bear it out." Doesn't our economic policy say that if they aren't successful it is their own fault and that they should work harder instead of putting a hand out? I don't expect him to have an answer anytime soon.
Diane,
Please do a show on political language, ie: the word Elite and how it is used (abused).
Big corporate money supports think tanks, right wing radio (Fox), Republicans. Can't we call these top 20% who own 90% of the country's wealth Elite? Aren't they controlling the vast majority of the Media?
NPR reports, investigates, presents truth. Would we be better off if all 'news' were really entertainment and advertising and corporate messaging?
When these corporations send out these attack dogs (think tanks, trash-talk radio, Fox, Republicans, the Tea Party--which was created by an insurance company PR firm--to shout down NPR, who benefits?
Without information-without truth--what rights do Americans have? What hope is there for a world to survive?
People of America, the majority, wake up and see how you are under attack. Health care, public schools, NPR, labor, job benefits, ACORN, environmental safety, collective bargaining rights, language...--what's next?
Elite? The elite have the money. If NPR listeners are elite 'thinkers' it makes sense, they are being given information, not sales pitches.
...
...
...
So many different issues going on here. NPR covers a wide variety of programs, some of which in my opinion are more liberally nuanced than others. No news program is perfect but I believe Diane's show, for example, is one of the better ones at being as balanced as possible. Some of the more liberally leaning shows are "Fresh Air, "On The Media", and occasionally certain aspects of the news hours like "All Things Considered", etc.. It's very difficult to listen to Brooke Gladstone's almost self-righteous rant, and her show is full of self-congratulatory snarkiness and bias. It's also irritating to hear the Ombudsman say things like "it's insulting to journalist..." because that is not her role. Her role is to help NPR remain as unbiased as possible. She also back-pedaled a bit after being challenged by Brooke. The fact is that there are some journalists who do let their biases filter in and on NPR I find that it's usually very subtle and also liberal. I actually tend to have a liberal slant, but I am more concerned about being fair and equal. And, it is becoming more difficult to justify continued tax funding of NPR when certain of their attributes don't exhibit more neutral reporting.
The only reason I feel we could continue supporting NPR with tax dollars is if somehow we could reign in more closely a neutral presentation across the board. Unfortunately at this time I'm not sure how that could be done efficiently.
Consider this, is NPR any more biased now than say 40 years ago?
But today, the coporate right seems to have achieved the ability to make it seem that information itself is liberal, "elite," and biased. Whereas the great majority of media does not give information but is really only advertisement.
The "liberal" position has traditionally stood for knowledge. Galileo was a liberal in disagreement with the Catholic Church--and look, the world was not flat. And there are no weapons of mass destruction, and national health care does not threaten (but more likely creates) jobs, and the climate is changing (despite the Oil company PR), and there is no "trickle-down" when the rich are given a greater portion of our country's wealth.
Hey kids, it's the hottest decade on record. Did you find that out from Fox "news?"
NPR? It's at least a chance that democracy, and the world itself, can survive.
I have been listening to NPR (mostly the Diane Rehm Show) and contributing to WUOM 91.7, Ann Arbor for over ten years and have always found to be very Liberal oriented. SO WHAT!! When 99 out of 100 callers/emailers/etc are obviously liberals it's safe to assume the show format has a Liberal bias. However after the callous/insensitive firing of Juan Williams I have been wavering on whether to continue to contribute. Wednesday's show removed any doubt, I agree with Hainc's comment, after hearing Brooke Gladstones myopic view of objective journalism. To say she found Tucker Carlson's remarks insulting was, to be kind, a joke. I found her remarks insulting to say the least and have to say, albeit sadly, I will no longer support NPR financially!!
For cyclebear--Thank goodness for conspiracies!! At least you don't come across as biased!!
Democrats don't need to create involved deceptions with hidden cameras to sandbag conservatives saying crazy things about liberals. All they have to do is turn on Fox News and hit DVR.
It's amazing how thick the folks at NPR are. In a quest for some sort of equality, which their enemies will never give them, they start off the show with Tucker Carlson, and he gets to frame the discussion. It's like starting off a business presentation by letting your completion have the stage first. The people at NPR don't seem to understand that they are in a fight for their lives. They need to give themselves a chance to present their case without allowing the waters to be muddied by a partisan like Mr. Carlson.
Many of us do not subscribe to TV or radio services.
Sometimes budgets simply do not allow us to pay for services.
For us, Public Broadcasting provides irreplaceable
informational and educational programming.
If we accept that healthy, sound government and public policy
requires an informed, educated electorate,
then we must support the public media that strives
as the primary mission and function
to inform and educate.
See:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/schillers_resignation_weakens.php?page=all