Earlier this week, undercover sting filmmaker James O’Keefe released a video incriminating a former NPR executive as a Tea Party hating, government funding slashing, Islam sympathizer. But, the question was whether O’Keefe used his sometimes questionable editing techniques to manipulate the story. You’d assume that some liberal news organization would be all over debunking O’Keefe’s narrative, and now someone has come to NPR’s defense: Glenn Beck’s news website, The Blaze:
Anyone looking at the edited version of the Project Veritas video would be concerned about the conduct and views expressed by the NPR representatives. But should we also be concerned about the deceptive nature of some of the video’s representations? Some will say no — the end justifies any means, even if unethical. Others may be bothered by these tactics and view similar projects with a greater degree of skepticism.
In our posting yesterday on the ethics of undercover journalism, we found a range of views. One interesting view is held by Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard. Barnes believes it is always wrong for a journalist to lie: “It‘s dishonest for anyone in journalism to pretend to be someone they’re not.”
But Barnes also believes this applies only to journalists. “This rule doesn’t apply to folks outside the profession,” he told The Blaze. Barnes views the O’Keefe production as a “political hit job and a quite clever and successful one at that.”
Barnes may not realize that O’Keefe describes his work as “investigative journalism,” and thus by Barnes definition — unethical.
And that is only on the issue of going undercover. But even if you are of the opinion, as I am, that undercover reporting is acceptable and ethical in very defined situations, it is another thing to approve of editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented.
The story on The Blaze is worth checking out, simply because they tear apart O’Keefe’s techniques with a series of comparative videos by the site’s video expert. Who knew?
This article appears in Mar 10-16, 2011.
You know you’ve hit bottom when Glenn Beck questions your journalistic credibility!
Dan, the entire un-edited tape was 2 hours long. Would you expect Glenn Beck to play the entire two-hour tape on his one-hour show?
Throughout the video, the high-level NPR exec and his NPR companion made numerous comments that further confirmed what many Americans, if not most, have long believed: that our country’s major news organizations are self-styled elitists with liberal/progressive views and are condescending toward most other Americans.
If selective editing by Glenn Beck and James O’Keefe is the problem, why did NPR’s senior vice president for marketing issue this statement on NPR’s web site:
“We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for.”
Blaming the messenger instead of encouraging honest dialogue about how this incident affects the media’s relationship with the public it serves squanders what could be a teachable moment. But when shown both in sound and pictures an example of why the public mistrusts the media, you ignore the substance and instead want to talk about how the video was obtained and displayed.
NPR’s web site has a link to the entire 2-hour tape. Anyone so inclined can comb over that tape to see if different editing could have produced different interpretations of the event, but I’m sure that would have already been done if it could be. Here’s a link to edited version, which I believe is about a half hour long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd9OYJMX9t4
i watched the edited vers on okeefes site and it was funny…
i generally agreed with most of what the npr guy said, tho he overstated some things.
and was surprised to hear that npr thinks of itself as even-handed…
they obviously have a liberal bent.
the rub here is that npr represented themselves one way when they really are something else.
Anon nailed it. Saying one thing and doing another limits listening audiences to those who are content with hearing only what they want to hear and wouldn’t want the whole truth anyway.
That said, I don’t look forward to the end of public funding for NPR. The amount they were receiving at least forced them to make a pretense of objectivity. If ever freed from that standard, NPR could very well descend into a softer-toned version of Air America, Pacifica or the Olbermann/Maddow/Schultz/O’Donnell cabal on MSNBC. If that happens they’ll be addressing an even smaller audience as people like myself will take NPR off my favorites list. (Despite the stubborn and annoying bias, NPR is nevertheless the richest source of information and analysis on the public airwaves.) What will that mean for maintaining an informed electorate in America?
Larry, I think you almost entirely misunderstood my post, but so be it.
Larry Audlsley wrote: “Anyone so inclined can comb over that tape to see if different editing could have produced different interpretations of the event, but I’m sure that would have already been done if it could be.’
Mr. Audsley: Beck website turned the 2hr tape over to their video producer and she combed over the tape and shows where it was intentionally edited to mislead the public. Perhaps you should take a look at what they did. Below is a quote from “The Blaze’s Pam Key, who produces most of our original videos, is experienced in reviewing hours and hours of raw audio/video to find key sections that can then be used in proper context. Her review of the NPR exposé identifies a number of areas to examine.” and a link to here analysis
“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.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-v…
“…what many Americans, if not most, have long believed: that our country’s major news organizations are self-styled elitists with liberal/progressive views and are condescending toward most other Americans.”
Well, many Americans have believed that since the Right made a concerted effort to assert that the media is liberal. By framing any future arguments thusly, any time a news story critical of the Right is published, right-wingers can simply dismiss it as bias. If people think the media is condesceding, maybe it’s because they are stuggling to maintain thier bubble of ignorance in the face of data that challenges their pre-conceived notions/political talking points.
And really, let’s think about this: The goal of any media organization IS NOT to deliver news/information. The mission statements of most of these organizations is to bring audiences to advertizers, and to make money by doing so. The vested interests of most corporations do not at all dovetail with those of the progressive movement, so why on earth would the media (money-making corporations that make money by advertising to other money-making corporations) act as a mouthpiece for progressives? The claim that any of the mainstream media presents the progressive viewpoint shows nothing but ignorance of what progressives stand for on the part of the claimant. An easy example: all major media outlets spend dedicated hours every day reporting on the staock market (capital), but labor is not given a similar forum. That suggests a pro-corporate bias, if anything.
I view NPR as the “strawman” used by those in power to suggest (and thru O’Keeefe somehow prove) media is “liberal”. Regardless of what some posters here believe, our media is controlled by corporate interests. On the national level you have NewsCorp, Disney, Viacom, Comcast, and Time Warner representing Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN respectively. Your local affiliates are owned by smaller media companies. Usually these companies are not “local” but represent smaller versions of the national media conglomerates. How can such a corporate setup be considered “liberal” or “progressive”? Those who still think it is “liberal” or “progressive” need to look up the term”useful idiot”.
Wow. Good for Beck. The ACORN videos were equally disturbing because of their deceptive editing, but I’m amazed that most people don’t know ACORN was cleared. So much for the “liberal media” lie.