In wake of Ron Schiller "scandal," NPR CEO Vivian Schiller resigns

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As reported by NPR itself:

Vivian Schiller, NPR's CEO and president since January 2009, left that job today in the wake of the second high-profile controversy to hit the organization in the past six months.

Dave Edwards, chairman of NPR's board, said directors came to the conclusion that the controversies under Schiller's watch had become such a distraction that she could no longer effectively lead the organization. She had told the directors that they should take the action they felt was appropriate, and Edwards said the board decided it would be best for her to depart.

The controversies in recent months that led to Schiller's departure have given NPR's critics opportunities to accuse it of liberal bias and to push for elimination of any federal funding for public broadcasting:

— Tuesday, a videotape surfaced of then-NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller (no relation) slamming conservatives and questioning whether NPR needs federal funding. His comments were secretly recorded by men posing as members of a Muslim organization (they were working with political activist James O'Keefe on a "sting").

— Last fall, NPR dismissed news analyst Juan Williams after he said on Fox News Channel (where he was also a paid contributor) that he gets nervous when he sees people in "Muslim garb" on an airplane. Williams went on to say it's wrong to profile or sterotype anyone based on their appearance, but NPR said it was the latest in a series of comments he had made that violated NPR's standards. The handling of his dismissal and the controversy surrounding it ultimately led to the resignation of NPR's top news executive at the time, Ellen Weiss.

I was deeply critical yesterday of NPR's handling of the Ron Schiller "scandal" -- in quotation marks because it really wasn't much of a scandal. Schiller spoke openly, perhaps a bit too openly, got snagged in a right-wing sting, and the organization, embarrassed and terrified of being seen as politically partisan, responded with utter cowardice, pushing Schiller out the door, calling what he said "appalling," without any consideration of context or accuracy, and giving NPR critics on the right a high-profile victory, all while feeding the double standard that treats liberals differently than conservatives. Because, really, you think anyone at Fox News would be forced out for saying such things? They do all the time, and to applause and encouragement.

And yet today it was the other Schiller's turn -- no, there's no relation -- to take the heat. Again, I was deeply critical of Vivian self-flaggellating response to Ron's remarks, but how is it that these two "controversies" were enough to bring her down? Firing Juan Williams for saying stupid and bigoted things about Muslims (admitting, that is, that he's a bigot, or at least that he views Muslims differently than others and sees them, without regard for nuance, as possible terrorists)? And then pushing Ron out the door for saying irresponsible things, at worst (particularly with respect to corporate policy on federal funding), to prospective donors?

That's it?

I don't really know enough about Vivian's performance as CEO to say whether she should or should not be in the position, but NPR itself acknowledges that she was fired largely because of these two "controversies," and I just don't seem as amounting to all that much. Fire her for poor leadership, fine, if in fact her leadership has been poor, but for this?

Again, it's a double standard, a self-imposed one, perhaps, but one that reflects broadly how conservatives, in the media and elsewhere, are treated differently.

Another way of putting that is that conservatives are generally held to lower standards (and hold themselves to lower standards) than liberals. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with liberals maintaining high standards for themselves, but at some point the difference is just too much, not least when the standards aren't self-imposed but rather imposed by the "culture," and particularly by a media establishment that all too often gives conservatives a free pass for offences much worse than anything Schiller said. (Again, just watch Fox News. How many such offences are you likely to encounter on any given day? Could you even count all the examples of partisanship, all the expressions of bigotry?)

It may be tempting to views the events the past couple of days as inside-NPR matters. But they aren't just that. Instead, they're reflections of a broader and deeper problem facing liberals in the media, in politics, in business, anywhere, indeed, of the problem facing anyone who isn't on the right and therefore who isn't given that free pass. In dealing with Ron Schiller, NPR acted with cowardice. It acted pathetically. And in forcing Vivian Schiller out, it only made the problem that much worse, and that much more apparent, feeding NPR's own rabid critics on the right with yet more evidence that it, and we, can be pushed around. Once more, we see that it is the right that drives the narrative, along with a willing media establishment, and that the left caves without much of a fight.

**********

As for Juan Williams, the fact that he's now accusing NPR of racism over his firing shows just how utterly self-serving he is, and always has been. He's a terrible pundit (who's found the perfect home at Fox News, where he can play the loser on the left), and NPR was right to rid itself of him, even if it should have fired him for general incompetence, not for those specific anti-Muslim remarks.

**********

For a defence of Ron Schiller, see Slate's Jack Shafer, who notes that Schiller was just acting like a good fundraiser. I defend him on different grounds. What he said really wasn't all that controversial. Partisan, yes, but not wrong.

**********

It's such a huge controversy, apparently, that Schiller won't be joining the Aspen Institute as planned. Ridiculous.

Cowards and conservatives: Much ridiculous ado about Ron Schiller, NPR, and James O'Keefe's latest right-wing scam

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There has been much ado today -- I'm late coming to this, but I haven't been feeling well -- about NPR being caught in yet another gotcha sting by right-wing activist James O'Keefe and his ironically-named Project Veritas.

Basically, if you haven't heard the details yet, NPR executives Ron Schiller and Betsy Liley had lunch with two men posing as representatives of the so-called Muslim Education Action Center Trust, a fictitious philanthropic organization backed by the Muslim Brotherhood. The group, the two men said, wanted to give $5 million to NPR because, they said, "the Zionist coverage is quite substantial elsewhere." During the lunch, Schiller went off on Republicans and conservatives, saying, for example:

-- "The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental Christian – I wouldn't even call it Christian. It's this weird evangelical kind of move."

-- On the Tea Party: "It's not just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America, gun-toting. I mean, it's scary. They're seriously racist, racist people."

That's about it. O'Keefe got it all on video, and now the story's flying around the Internet, with the anti-NPR ire of the right ramped up to new levels of vitriol.

Let me address the above comments first:

-- The Republican Party is indeed socially conservative and deeply theocratic. On the whole, it seeks to impose right-wing, fundamentalist Christian "values" on the country. One might object to Schiller's assertion that such evangelical fundamentalism isn't "Christian," but Schiller is right.

-- Schiller does somewhat misrepresent the Tea Party. While there are indeed racist elements in it, it is for the most part an anti-tax, anti-government, hyper-libertarian movement.

Undeniably, there are xenophobic and anti-Muslim strains in the Republican Party, significant if not dominant strains, but they are to be found more among the paleo-conservatives (and some neoconservatives), as well as within the party "establishment," not really, or at least not exclusively, among the Tea Partiers. (Rand Paul isn't really the problem here, it's more the likes of fear- and hatemongers like Pete King.) Still, the Tea Party is overwhelmingly white, pro-gun, and "middle" American. It may not be as racist as Schiller suggests, but it's certainly scary.

Okay, so what else did Schiller say?

-- "What NPR did I'm very proud of. What NPR stood for is a non-racist, non-bigoted, straightforward telling of the news. Our feeling is that if a person expresses his or her personal opinion, which anyone is entitled to do in a free society, they are compromised as a journalist. They can no longer fairly report. And the question we asked internally was, can Juan Williams, when he makes a statement like that, can he report to the Muslim population, and be believed, for example? And the answer is no. He lost all credibility and that breaks your ethics as a journalist."

I didn't necessarily think Williams should have been fired on the grounds that what he said crossed the line -- though I certainly would have supported firing him for his long record of being a shoddy pundit -- but it's not like Schiller said anything outrageous in defending NPR's decision.

-- "I think what we all believe is if we don't have Muslim voices in our schools, on the air... it's the same thing we faced as a nation when we didn't have female voices."

And? There is widespread anti-Muslim bigotry in America right now, most of it stoked and espoused by the right, and there should indeed be "Muslim voices in our schools." That doesn't mean that "our schools" should be Muslim, though conservatives are also stoking fears of a Muslim takeover and the imposition of Sharia law, just that Muslims in America are part of the American fabric.

-- NPR "would be better off in the long run without federal funding."

This was perhaps the most controversial thing he said, but only because it contradicts NPR's official position. If it's just his opinion, so what? He should have avoided talking corporate policy, and shouldn't have spoken for NPR given his dissenting view, but that's an error of judgement, nothing more.

So can we move on? Conservatives will make a big deal of this, but they were already anti-NPR, and, as far as I'm concerned, Schiller's remarks don't amount to much.

Well, let's address a few points first:

-- NPR has commented officially on the matter already:

The fraudulent organization represented in this video repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept.

We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for.

Mr. Schiller announced last week that he is leaving NPR for another job.

In other words, NPR was not about to take the money, quickly distanced itself from Schiller's remarks (going so far as to call them appalling), and further distanced itself from Schiller, who had already announced that he was leaving NPR to take a job elsewhere.

-- I am actually somewhat appalled the NPR called Schiller's remarks appalling. Again, is what he said really so bad, so outrageous? Fox News people, including on-air personalities, say far worse all the time. NPR has different (i.e., higher) standards, obviously, but it seems to me that NPR is going too far the other way, trying to defend itself from any and all possible association with partisanship. And for what? For the small amount NPR takes in federal funding every year?

-- NPR CEO Vivian Schiller (no relation) said Schiller's remarks were "deeply distressing to reporters, editors and others who bring fairness, civility and respect for a wide variety of viewpoints to their work every day." They may have been, and may still be -- how should I know? -- but Schiller was a fundraiser and was not involved with NPR content. So it's not like it was an editor or reporter, or executive responsible for such matters, was caught saying such partisan things.

-- Schiller himself has already apologized:

While the meeting I participated in turned out to be a ruse, I made statements during the course of the meeting that are counter to NPR's values and also not reflective of my own beliefs. I offer my sincere apology to those I offended. I resigned from NPR, previously effective May 6th, to accept another job. In an effort to put this unfortunate matter behind us, NPR and I have agreed that my resignation is effective today.

Again, why this embarrassing self-flagellation? Were his remarks really "not reflective" of his "own beliefs"? So what? And whom exactly did he offend? Republicans? Tea Partiers? Anti-Muslim bigots? Why does he need to apologize to them? Perhaps he should have apologized to NPR to openly objecting to corporate policy, at least in terms of federal funding, and perhaps he should have admitted that he spoke too freely, but more than that was hardly necessary.

And yet here he is, along with NPR itself, issuing one big mea culpa while conservatives point fingers, sneer, and gloat.

Please. Does he have no self-respect? Does NPR have no self-respect? Do we liberals have no self-respect?

I'm sick and fucking tired of the double standard. Conservatives can say whatever the hell they want, going so far as to promote extremist views on every media channel they can get hold of, but liberals have to bend over backwards to apologize for even the slightest hint of bias. It's truly and utterly pathetic.

And, in this case, it's coming from a guy who was already on the way out! (And a cowardly NPR just kicked him out the door sooner.)

-- As John Cole puts it in his usual blunt way: "The latest scoop from the wingnutosphere is that some former NPR fundraiser thinks that the teahadists are nuts and that the GOP has been hijacked by crazy people. This is being spun as some grave sin, when in reality it should be met with a resounding -- 'No shit.'"

My thought exactly.

Newsflash for Greta Van Susteren: Sarah Palin is just not that bright

By R.K. Barry

Greta Van Susteren, Fox News talking head and defender of all that is fair and balanced in the coverage of news, wants to know what criteria fellow Fox pundit Juan Williams used when he stated that Sarah Palin is not on the same "intellectual stage" as President Obama.

You may recall that Williams once worked for National Public Radio but lost that job because of comments he made about Muslims on airplanes that NPR thought insensitive. Then Fox gave him a full-time gig – mostly to provide them leverage to criticize NPR for not supporting free speech. In any case, Fox is probably sorry it did that because Williams says the occasional thing that doesn't sit well with the Fox narrative, such as the aforementioned slight about Palin's intellect.

There is nothing particularly new about people taking shots at Palin's intelligence. Even conservatives have been lining up to do that for some time now.

What I find interesting, however, is the benchmark that Van Susteren uses to suggest that Williams has no basis for making the claim. She writes:

Has Juan interviewed either [Palin or Obama] so as to have any knowledge about which he speaks or is he just talking? Knowing if he interviewed (first hand knowledge) either and to what depth can help guide you as to whether you should credit his opinion or not.

Van Susteren goes on to say that her purpose was not to defend Palin from Williams, or to target Williams, but to: 


drive home the point that there is a big difference between fact and opinion, and that when we express opinion, we should make sure that it is rooted in fact or experience or good judgment -- and not simply slinging insults.

Is Van Susteren really suggesting that the only way one can determine the quality of another person's intellect is to actually interview them personally? Is that really what she is saying?

Does Van Susteren seriously believe that Americans should refrain from making judgements about the intelligence of candidates running for office unless they have had the chance to sit down with them for a good chin wag?

It seems that this would take a very long time. 


Van Susterern's comments are simply stupid and just another way of suggesting that Palin is really some sort of bright light whose abilities are obscured by "lamestream" media types who insist on asking loaded questions for the sole purpose of making Palin look foolish. Yeah, right.

I have to think that what Van Susteren is really doing is admitting that Palin comes across as less than capable in most interviews, other than those conducted by Fox News, but that if each American had the chance to sit down with her, one-on-one, they would see how smart she really is. That must be what Greta really means. I don't think she is right about this, but that must be what she means.

Obviously, we all make judgements about other people's intellectual capacity, whether or not they are running for office. In the world of politics, people who work for media companies are paid to ask the questions, either directly or indirectly, and the candidates or candidates-in-waiting answer the questions as best they can while we, the people, decide who has the requisite ability and who does not.

Criteria for assessing intelligence is important but, to be fair, there is hardly a scientific consensus about it. SAT scores and university degrees are likely a very poor proxy. The accumulation of facts, the ability to appreciate a range of opinions, empathetic imagination, problem-solving competencies, communications skills, a capacity for abstract thought, and more are certainly ways to think about intelligence. But, at the end of the day, our judgement is all we have to tell us whether or not we think another person ranks higher or lower on the scale. Perhaps the best we can do is to say that whatever intelligence is, we know it when we see it (or fail to see it).

Whatever else is true, we get to decide, though face time, while no doubt helpful, is probably not absolutely essential and certainly not practical.

Sorry Greta, but as for Ms. Palin, most people have already decided that she is just not that bright or at least not bright enough – under the most important definitions – for the highest political office in the land.

Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I have never interviewed Sarah Palin or President Obama, but still reserve the right to express an opinion about the relative qualities of their intelligence, just like Juan Williams. Call it the American in me.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Standing up for NPR

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Really, Eric Cantor? One of the messages voters sent in the midterm elections was that NPR should be defunded?

Other than the fact that federal funding of NPR is relatively minuscule (barely a drop in the budgetary bucket), this is clearly a partisan move. Republicans don't like NPR, which is for the most part a news organization that aims at objectivity and mature discourse (and hence which doesn't simply regurgitate Republican talking points and narratives), and, of course, they're using the Juan Williams firing as a wedge.

I didn't necessarily think Williams should have been fired over this one incident, but he had a long record of shoddy punditry -- a record he's taken with him full-time to Fox News, where he belongs -- and the idiotic comments that got him fired, comments made on Fox News to Bill O'Reilly, comments that exposed him as a vaguely self-aware but completely in denial and unrepentant bigot, were nothing if not deeply ignorant. (If you remember, he admitted that he gets "worried" and "nervous" when he gets on a plane and sees people in "Muslim garb" (as if the 9/11 terrorists wore "Muslim garb).)

By way of explanation, NPR said that the comments "were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR." That's not being partisan (in a way counter to Republicans), that's enforcing rigorous journalistic standards even for talking heads like Williams.

That puts NPR well above pretty much every other major news organization. It should be applauded, not defunded.

Am I the last person left with long-term memory?

By Edward Copeland

You will see me shedding no tears for Juan Williams' firing from NPR. It's not a First Amendment issue. Free speech gives you the right to say whatever you want, but when you are a paid commentator, it doesn't protect you from getting the heave-ho from your employer when you say something stupid and are being promoted as a representative of their brand. Besides, a $2 million consolation prize from Fox News is a nice consolation prize for someone who is Fox's idea of a liberal the way that Alan Colmes was. The only real liberal I ever saw was on the only show Fox ever aired that used to be truly fair and balanced, "Fox NewsWatch." His name was Neal Gabler but he criticized the boss and co-workers too often so he got shown the door as did the impartial moderator Eric Burns and the show turned into a propaganda fest like every other program. (One of the replacement "liberals" was Juan Williams.)

Before I move on to my other reasons for why I think his NPR firing was long overdue, just let me add that the comment that got him axed showed his ignorance. He admitted getting nervous when he got on a plane and saw people dressed in "Muslim garb." None of the 9/11 hijackers wore Muslim garb, brain wizard. If you saw people dressed in Muslim garb, that probably would be more of an indication of safety.

Of course, I've disliked Williams since long before Fox News even existed. No one seems to remember (and no one would probably have remembered this week if not for the fortuitous timing of that famous Teabagger, Mrs. Clarence Thomas, calling Anita Hill for an apology) that Juan Williams is a sexist moron.

Back during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, Williams, thought of as a "liberal" wrote scathing columns against Anita Hill, saying her story was full of holes. What he didn't say was that he was sympathizing with Thomas because at the time he was being accused of sexual harassment by 50 (you read that right, that's why I put it in bold) Post employees and was disciplined, though it amounted to a slap on the wrist, considering the numbers involved.

Of course, though Firedoglake remembered that and reported it today, I seem to be the only one that recalls that Williams scoured his copy of the novel The Exorcist to find a passage he remembered about a pubic hair and a drink and showed it to Arlen Specter who then brought it up in his questioning of Anita Hill to accuse her of having read the book and having it inspire her to make up the pubic hair on the Coke can incident.

One positive thing did come out of re-opening the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill can of worms: It inspired Thomas' former girlfriend to finally come forward and back up her charges of how he was obsessed with porn and would comment on female office workers' breast sizes. We've always known he committed perjury (I mean, he never discussed Roe v. Wade? Yeah, right), but this is more evidence of it. Still, nothing will come of it. They don't have the balls to pursue the last administration's far more serious crimes, you think they'd try to go after a Supreme Court justice for perjury? They wouldn't have even done that back in 1991.

To me, the most sickening display is watching all the talking heads on all sides of the political spectrum take to the airwaves to defend Williams because they all are on the same D.C. party circuit. Truth doesn't matter. Actions don't matter. No one remembers anything.