Guardian

Guardian Left, American-Style: NPR Execs caught on tape tolerating anti-Semitism, vilifying Christians & welcoming Muslim Brotherhood


H/T Armaros and Atlas

I think the following video, of NPR Foundation’s senior VP for development Ron Schiller and Senior Director of Institutional Giving Betsy Liley, should at the very least, cement the view of National Public Radio as a member in good standing of the Guardian Left.


While there is much in the video that is simply astonishing – such as the NPR Executives’ extreme intolerance and bigotry towards Christians in the U.S. on one hand, and their tolerance towards guests who they understood to be members of a Muslim Brotherhood affiliated group wishing to fund NPR on the other – one thing in particular stands out.

When confronted with the ugly and unmistakable anti-Semitic narrative of Jewish control of the media, these NPR Executives – not long after expressing righteous outrage at the intolerance of “gun-toting”, “anti-intellectual” American Christians – didn’t storm out of the room, and didn’t even angrily denounce such flagrant racism.  Indeed, Schiller continued the conversation with these potential funders almost as if nothing had happened.

In addition to the bigotry and hypocrisy, the imperious and condescending attitude of these NPR officials surpasses even the wildest caricatures of the organization.

I simply can’t wait for Michael Tomasky – The Guardian’s blogger on American politics – to try spinning this.

(Update: NPR issued a statement on the video)

The comments contained in the video released today are contrary to everything we stand for, and we completely disavow the views expressed. NPR is fair and open minded about the people we cover. Our reporting reflects those values every single day — in the civility of our programming, the range of opinions we reflect and the diversity of stories we tell.

The assertion that NPR and public radio stations would be better off without federal funding does not reflect reality. The elimination of federal funding would significantly damage public broadcasting as a whole.

Prior to the lunch meeting presented in the edited video, Ron Schiller had informed NPR that he was resigning from his position to take a new job. His resignation was announced publicly last week, and he was expected to depart in May. While we review this situation, he has been placed on administrative leave.


21 replies »

  1. You’re correct to fault these executives for seemingly tolerating anti-Semitic rhetoric from somebody offering them $5 million. Though it is also possible that they merely stomached it.

    However, to anyone following American politics, the anti-intellectualism of the Tea-Party activists is pretty well-documented.

    Of course, who knows what Schiller and Liley discussed after the meeting was over?

  2. Heard a local non-NPR station gleefully reporting this.

    “The assertion that NPR and public radio stations would be better off without federal funding does not reflect reality.”

    True.

    The reason this has surfaced now is because House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) is about to launch a series of controversial hearings Thursday on radical Islam in the United States. NPR fears that this will fuel the attempt by the Republicans to end funding for NPR.

    NPR receives about $174M of federal funds annually, and there is no doubt that ending it would severely damage it while doing little for the US deficit. But comments like the ones in this recording have the Republicans very upset.

  3. Well, this is also part of Republicans aiming to eliminate any public funding of culture: The National Endowment for the Humanities, National Endowment for the Arts, Public Broadcasting System, state universities et cetera– because they want everything to be in the hands of private industry.

  4. gotta agree with ian thall

    when one raises money…one learns rather quickly how to kiss ass to the person who is giving you a check

    this video only proves one thing

    that npr isnt very good at doing a background check on a potential giver

    who cares if they had a website….all charities in the united states must be registered…and this org wasnt

    and a quick google search wouldve alerted these morons that o’keefe took the name from a glenn beck forum

    had they done their due diligence, they never would have made the meeting

    and if npr loses government funding, it will not be long before they become like pacifica

    kcet in los angeles just chose to separate itself from pbs

    they will now be broadcasting al jazeerah for an hour per day

  5. oh…and i think it is hilarious that everyone is outraged that this exec would dare call the teabaggers xenophobic, birthers and religious wackos

    the tea party rep in congress is michelle bachmann

    she is all those things…and more

  6. So NPR considers Tea arty followers religious wackos.

    What does NPR consider Muslim Brotherhood followers, “progressive”?

    Since when is a religious edict demanding death to apostates of Islam a “progressive” value?

    NPR is in fundraising mode right now.

  7. The NPR so nuanced it is just as totally bonkers as the Guardian Left – way past Dagenham and beyond Barking.

  8. Oh and to be absolutely clear, the anti-intellectualism of the Tea Party movement is so refreshing after the intellectually fascistic antics of the Guardian Left and its allies here and in the USA.

  9. NPR’s condescension towards Christians, Republicans, and others who fall outside their boundary of political decency is no secret to anyone who has listened to the station over the years. But, at the very least, I think its reasonable to expect an NPR exec to at least state his angry objections when confronted with an explicitly anti-Semitic comment. Why didn’t he do so? And, there’s something a bit hypocritical about decrying the “intolerance” of the Christian Right while meeting with someone he thought to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Look, I’m not saying that all NPR listeners or supporters feel this way, but I still find it shocking that someone so high up in the org would display such behavior.

  10. Derek, the problem is that NPR represents one end of the spectrum in re: to snobbish intellectualism and the Tea Party represents the other re: to ignorant rejectionism. US independents or moderates are becoming more and more turned off—-no one wants to hear that they are either ignorant ( far left) or un-american(far right) if you have a different opinion,it shuts down reasonable debate from the center.

  11. I still don’t think you have a really good comparison between The Guardian and NPR: Ron Schiller is not only no longer at his job, but has been roundly criticized by his former supervisors and colleagues for his statements, and NPR refused to accept the cheque. The link between NPR and this phony Muslim Brotherhood affiliate amounts to a.) one business lunch, b.) and the ranking NPR executive at the meeting no longer being at his job, and c.) no exchange of funds: Pretty tenuous.

    Nonetheless, most of what was said about the Tea-Party movement, if not 100% accurate, is largely accurate: the movement is dominated by anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, and violent rhetoric. Also, in the context of the statements about Christianity, it’s very clear that he’s not talking about Catholicism, any mainline Protestant denomination, or Eastern Orthodox Church: he’s talking about Evangelicals who do embrace a very anti-intellectual theology– he even says that he’s speaking about Evangelicals specifically.

  12. Adam Levick

    i am so happy that you have the courage of your convictions, and that if someone was about to hand you 5 mil, you would voice your outrage at their opinions

    you, however, would never get a gig as a fund raiser…which was schiller’s job

  13. In the UK, NPR is called the BBC.

    Apart from the accents, the BBC seems to share its TransAtlantic cousin’s delightful ways.

  14. “shuts down reasonable debate from the center.”

    I don’t believe in the centre – it is an illusion.

  15. Ian Thal,

    “Nonetheless, most of what was said about the Tea-Party movement, if not 100% accurate, is largely accurate: the movement is dominated by anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, and violent rhetoric.”

    But of course… because the Left-dominated MSM can be trusted to tell the truth about the Tea Party despite being doctrinally opposed to their agenda, just as the same MSM can be trusted to tell the truth about Israel despite being doctrinally anti-Zionist.

  16. I’m largely going on the statements of politicians and pundits affiliated with the Tea-Party movement. When prominent Tea-Party endorsed candidates are suggesting “Second Amendment solutions” (i.e. assassinations) to losing elections, or claiming that there are no Constitutional provisions separating Church and State, then yes, you have violent rhetoric, intolerance, and anti-intellectualism. The Tea-Party is not the voice of principled conservativism.

    Even so: Ron Schiller a fundraiser, not an editor, not a journalist, not a spokesperson and he had already taken a job elsewhere before the video had been released, and thus, was likely already looking to work elsewhere when the video was made. The cheque was rejected; so it’s a non-story.

    Sorry, but based on the evidence presented this really isn’t even remotely The Guardian American-style.

  17. “I’m largely going on the statements of politicians and pundits affiliated with the Tea-Party movement.”

    Statements as reported by… well, who can it be…?

    “prominent Tea-Party endorsed candidates are suggesting ‘Second Amendment solutions’ (i.e. assassinations) to losing elections,…”

    That’s interpreting a statement (assuming it has been correctly quoted) the worst way.

    The talk about “Second Amendment solutions” doesn’t concern losing elections, it concerns the very real possibility that this Administration might do constitutionally illegal things. Before you protest that idea, you should note it’s already happening: The czars appointed by Obama are already a tool of bypassing the Constitution. In which case, all the appeal to Law (based, of course, on the Constitution!) will be fruitless.

  18. Interesting that a Glenn Beck affiliated site would expose the deceptive editing of the above video, but here it is:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/

    Oh yes, and “ziontruth”:

    The U.S. is a constitutional democracy with functioning elections and an independent court system. Anyone suggesting “Second Amendment solutions” when one can still vote without intimidation, or seek redress against the government in a court of law, is advocating terrorism.