There are two ways to lie. O'keefe did both.

[RandomGuy]

NPR: O'Keefe 'Inappropriately Edited' Video; Exec's Words Still 'Egregious'

NPR's David Folkenflik has done more reporting on the differences between the 11 1/2 minute video that O'Keefe's Project Veritas produced and the two hours worth of video that O'Keefe says is the largely unedited account of a lunch that Schiller and another NPR fundraising executive had with two men posing as representatives of a Muslim group that wanted to donate $5 million to NPR.

Al Tompkins, a senior faculty member for broadcasting and online at the Poynter Institute, says to David that he tells his children there are "two ways to lie. One is to tell me something that didn't happen. And the other is not to tell me something that did happen." After comparing O'Keefe's edited tape to the longer version, "I think that they employed both techniques in this," Tompkins says.

One "big warning flag" Tompkins saw in the shorter tape was the way it made it appear that Schiller had laughed and commented "really, that's what they said?" after being told that the fake Muslim group advocates for sharia law. In fact, the longer tape shows that Schiller made that comment during an "innocuous exchange" that had nothing to do with the supposed group's position on sharia law, David reports.

Tompkins also says that O'Keefe's edited tape ignores the fact that Schiller said "six times ... over and over and over again" that donors cannot buy the kind of coverage they want on NPR.

Scott Baker, editor in chief of the conservative news site The Blaze, tells David that after watching the two-hour video he came away with the impression that the NPR executives "seem to be fairly balanced people."

NPR spokeswoman Dana Davis Rehm told David late yesterday that O'Keefe "inappropriately edited the videos with an intent to discredit" NPR. Still, she added, Schiller made some "egregious statements."

As we said yesterday, those included Schiller calling the Tea Party a "weird evangelical" movement that has helped push the "current Republican Party" to become "fanatically involved in people's personal lives."

As Time magazine's James Poniewozik writes at his Tuned In blog, "the close-up look [at the longer tape] doesn't let the executive, Ron Schiller, off the hook. But it shows O'Keefe edited the short version of his video to fit his anti-NPR agenda. Explaining why both things can be true at once requires, well, a lot of context."

Before the videos were released last Tuesday, Schiller had already announced he was leaving NPR. After their release, he apologized for his statements and said he was resigning immediately. The next day, NPR's board ousted CEO/President Vivian Schiller (no relation to Ron) because it felt she could no longer effectively lead the organization due to the distractions of this controversy and last year's dismissal of news analyst Juan Williams.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/14/134528545/npr-okeefe-inappropriately-edited-video-execs-words-still-egregious
---------------------------------------------------------------

I get the feeling Okeefe will be hoisted by his own petard at some point.--RG

[boutons_deux]

O'Keefe represents dishonest, destructive, smash-mouth Repug dirty-tricks politics at its very worst.

Schiller wasn't politically correct, but he spoke the truth.

[TeyshaBlue]

I get the feeling Okeefe will be hoisted by his own petard at some point.--RG

Indeed. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.

[boutons_deux]

Breitbart and O'Keefe are teflon heroes for Repugs and conservatives.

[ManuBalboa]

Nah, you can't troll a top troll.

[Wild Cobra]

O'Keefe represents dishonest, destructive, smash-mouth Repug dirty-tricks politics at its very worst.

Schiller wasn't politically correct, but he spoke the truth.
If that's true, he's only being the balance to what the liberal media does...

[boutons_deux]

liberal media? just another VRWC lie.

ACORN, Sherrods, NPR, where is the mythical liberal media matching those Repug slanders?

[RandomGuy]

If that's true, he's only being the balance to what the liberal media does...

The "ends justify the means"?

"If everybody else is doing it, that makes it ok for me to do it."

You are rationalizing moral rot because you sympathize with him.

Congratulations on supporting immoral behavior for self-serving reasons. :clap

[Sec24Row7]

Liberal's don't like getting Michael Moored by Conservatives?

Who would have thunk it...

Michael Moore wins Oscars for doing the exact same thing.

[RandomGuy]

Liberal's don't like getting Michael Moored by Conservatives?

Who would have thunk it...

Michael Moore wins Oscars for doing the exact same thing.

I don't think Moore ever did anything quite as aggregiously misleading.

Stilted, yes.

Outright knowingly lying? No.

That aside, it wouldn't be right if he had done so either.

Rationalizing fail. Go stand in the corner with Wile E. Cobra.

[TeyshaBlue]

The "ends justify the means"?

"If everybody else is doing it, that makes it ok for me to do it."

You are rationalizing moral rot because you sympathize with him.

Congratulations on supporting immoral behavior for self-serving reasons. :clap


It's just as disturbing that Huffpo chose to adapt the Fox News model of information dissemination.


Agreed.

Liberals are usually better at not going that route, IMO.

On the other hand, perhaps it is time to counter the landslide of bullshit being thrust on people by Fox et al. with (gasp) an opposing viewpoint.

It's an easy trap to fall into. Et tu, Brute?:p:

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't think Moore ever did anything quite as aggregiously misleading.

Stilted, yes.

Outright knowingly lying? No.

That aside, it wouldn't be right if he had done so either.

Rationalizing fail. Go stand in the corner with Wile E. Cobra.

Oh yes, Moore has been every bit as misleading as O'keefe. The difference being, O'keefe went to the media whoring his shit out. Moore went to Hollywood.

[LnGrrrR]

If that's true, he's only being the balance to what the liberal media does...

:lol Nice to see you being non partisan. Way to support a liar.

[boutons_deux]

MMoore pulls slanderous shit like Breitbart and O'Keefe? any specific examples?


NPR Scandal Reversal: The Raw Footage Shows Something Else

http://www.truth-out.org/print/68450

[Marcus Bryant]

O'Keefe is like Moore in that both are generally tolerated by their respective political sides, but not fully embraced. This provides the flexibility to disavow, and serves to enable greater hijinks.

[TeyshaBlue]

MMoore pulls slanderous shit like Breitbart and O'Keefe? any specific examples?


NPR Scandal Reversal: The Raw Footage Shows Something Else

http://www.truth-out.org/print/68450

Sure there are, Go google his 9/11 film. Of course, you won't find anything about it on truth-out.borg.:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

O'Keefe is like Moore in that both are generally tolerated by their respective political sides, but not fully embraced. This provides the flexibility to disavow, and serves to enable greater hijinks.

lol @ codependents O'keefe and Moore with the myopic politico as the enablers.:toast

[Wild Cobra]

Liberal's don't like getting Michael Moored by Conservatives?

Who would have thunk it...

Michael Moore wins Oscars for doing the exact same thing.
Michael Moore has done it far more often and far worse. And yes, these same people complaining about O'Keefe, love Moore.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol Nice to see you being non partisan. Way to support a liar.
Did I say I support him?

[ChumpDumper]

lol balance

[RandomGuy]

It's an easy trap to fall into. Et tu, Brute?:p:

Indeed it is.

As much as I might wish for some balance to Fox "news" and its obvious 24/7 editorializing, to me it says volumes that the Fox business model doesn't play well with the left, so far.

I might wish for a counter, but it would be just as bad as Fox for the same reasons. sigh.

[TeyshaBlue]

Indeed it is.

As much as I might wish for some balance to Fox "news" and its obvious 24/7 editorializing, to me it says volumes that the Fox business model doesn't play well with the left, so far.

I might wish for a counter, but it would be just as bad as Fox for the same reasons. sigh.

Exactly. Good on ya.:toast

[RandomGuy]

Did I say I support him?

Rationalizing his behavior pretty much counts as "support", in my opinion.

If the situation were reversed, you would probably say the same, yes?

[Wild Cobra]

Rationalizing his behavior pretty much counts as "support", in my opinion.

If the situation were reversed, you would probably say the same, yes?
Or is it instead slamming the liberals who do the same?

Eye's of the beholder. You are applying your prejudice of me, assuming what you want.

Bad form...

[TeyshaBlue]

Relying on the "They did it WORSE" line of playground reasoning is also bad form, IMO.

"Michael Moore has done it far more often and far worse."

[RandomGuy]

Or is it instead slamming the liberals who do the same?

Eye's of the beholder. You are applying your prejudice of me, assuming what you want.

Bad form...


he's only being the balance to what the liberal media does...

The implication that what he is doing is somehow justified because of "what the liberal media does" is pretty clear.

If lying isn't justified, your lack of condemnation is either a sloppy oversight, or intentional omission.

Which is it, sloppy or the intentional rationalization of lying?

If I got it wrong, clear it up for me, and I take it back.

[Marcus Bryant]

Did I say I support him?

The Disavow.

[LnGrrrR]

Or is it instead slamming the liberals who do the same?

Eye's of the beholder. You are applying your prejudice of me, assuming what you want.

Bad form...

Nope. He is saying that you implicitly supported it, which you did. Don't try to weasel out of it.

Otherwiseyou could've said "I don't agree with this, but the Left does it too."

We aren't that dumb WC.

[LnGrrrR]

Frankly I'm surprised WC didn't use his famous skepticism and try to imply that the original video was the true one, and the unedited copy was the fake.

[TeyshaBlue]

We aren't that dumb WC.

Speak for yourself, Brock.:ihit

[Wild Cobra]

Relying on the "They did it WORSE" line of playground reasoning is also bad form, IMO.

"Michael Moore has done it far more often and far worse."
Yes, I interject my opinion there that I solidly believe. That still isn't condoning O'Keefe's work. I'm just saying Moore is worse.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes, I interject my opinion there that I solidly believe. That still isn't condoning O'Keefe's work. I'm just saying Moore is worse.

Yet you decided to share that solid belief in a thread about O'keefe.

Oooookay.:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Nope. He is saying that you implicitly supported it, which you did. Don't try to weasel out of it.

Otherwiseyou could've said "I don't agree with this, but the Left does it too."

We aren't that dumb WC.
My only support is that I sometimes get a kick out of the "Tit for tat." I find it so ironic how furious the lefties get over the likes of O'Keefe, but will defend the likes of Moore.

[Wild Cobra]

Yet you decided to share that solid belief in a thread about O'keefe.

Oooookay.:lol
Why does it matter when I say it. The subject prompts the reply.

I don't know what the facts are of his editing. If you notice, I didn't defend him here, because I do believe he may have changed the context.

Think about it. How often, when I am skeptical about a reported account, I ask for "full context?"

Is the way I choose to word things really that big of an issue to get excited over?

[Wild Cobra]

Frankly I'm surprised WC didn't use his famous skepticism and try to imply that the original video was the true one, and the unedited copy was the fake.
Are you confusing me with a conspiracy theorist?

[RandomGuy]

My only support is that I sometimes get a kick out of the "Tit for tat." I find it so ironic how furious the lefties get over the likes of O'Keefe, but will defend the likes of Moore.

Then you must be disappointed that no one is really defending Moore.

... and you still haven't cleared up what you say is my "assumption"

Is your omission of any condemnation of lying on the part of Okeefe, sloppy, or was it a purposefully intended to give the impression of supporting his actions?

You seem to be implying the former.

[RandomGuy]

Are you confusing me with a conspiracy theorist?

... says the guy who is convinced that there is a conspiracy of scientists regarding global warming theory.

:rollin

[DarrinS]

... says the guy who is convinced that there is a conspiracy of scientists regarding global warming theory.

:rollin

“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

“Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report and Briffa’s suspect tree-ring data]. Keith will do likewise.”

[DMX7]

... says the guy who is convinced that there is a conspiracy of scientists regarding global warming theory.

:rollin

...And the guy who just called the entire media (minus Fox News, I assume) liberal.

[DarrinS]

...And the guy who just called the entire media (minus Fox News, I assume) liberal.


What's inaccurate about that statement?

[RandomGuy]

“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

“Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report and Briffa’s suspect tree-ring data]. Keith will do likewise.”

I wish I could say that your automatic reposting of these quotes surprised me.

As it is, why don't you just program a 'bot to do it for you automatically? It seems so labor intensive to repost these things by hand at the drop of any mention of AGW.

[RandomGuy]

...And the guy who just called the entire media (minus Fox News, I assume) liberal.

You have to remember that, for what seems to be the vast majority of conservatives in this country, "liberal" is defined as anything less conservatively biased than Fox "News".

You could have something studiously and deliberately as neutral as possible, and it would still be actively derided as "liberal".

It is one of the more distasteful conservative double standards, IMO, because it actively poisons so much dialogue.

[RandomGuy]

What's inaccurate about that statement?

Thanks for making my point for me.

[LnGrrrR]

Speak for yourself, Brock.:ihit

Cmon now. Brock is intelligent for the "musclebound bruiser" role. Not as intelligent as, say, Beast from the X-Men, but he's no Hulk.

[LnGrrrR]

My only support is that I sometimes get a kick out of the "Tit for tat." I find it so ironic how furious the lefties get over the likes of O'Keefe, but will defend the likes of Moore.

Most of the people in this thread probably wouldn't support Michael Moore.

[LnGrrrR]

Are you confusing me with a conspiracy theorist?

Just teasing you about your "skepticism", which tends to lean one way more than the other.

[Wild Cobra]

Just teasing you about your "skepticism", which tends to lean one way more than the other.
My skepticism goes both ways. It's just that it is normally favoring conservatives because of the nature of this forum.

[SnakeBoy]

Scott Baker, editor in chief of the conservative news site The Blaze, tells David that after watching the two-hour video he came away with the impression that the NPR executives "seem to be fairly balanced people."


The funny thing about this story is the media ran with it, liberals went running for cover, and NPR started firing people without getting the full unedited video to see if it was the truth. It took Glenn Beck and his organization to do that.

[RandomGuy]

The funny thing about this story is the media ran with it, liberals went running for cover, and NPR started firing people without getting the full unedited video to see if it was the truth. It took Glenn Beck and his organization to do that.

There was only one person fired by NPR, and what was said, full truth or not, was "egregious".

You think Okeefe would have given CNN full unedited versions of his tapes?

Don't be naive.

[ploto]

...the Tea Party a "weird evangelical" movement that has helped push the "current Republican Party" to become "fanatically involved in people's personal lives."


Seems pretty accurate.

[DarrinS]

I wish I could say that your automatic reposting of these quotes surprised me.

As it is, why don't you just program a 'bot to do it for you automatically? It seems so labor intensive to repost these things by hand at the drop of any mention of AGW.


Does it bother you that climate scientists, did in fact, conspire?

[DarrinS]

Thanks for making my point for me.

A vast majority of print and TV media AREN'T left-leaning?

[Marcus Bryant]

There was only one person fired by NPR, and what was said, full truth or not, was "egregious".

You think Okeefe would have given CNN full unedited versions of his tapes?

Don't be naive.

I'm guessing the reference was to the board sacking the other Schiller as well.