NPR chief Vivian Schiller steps down
NPR’s increasingly embattled CEO, Vivian Schiller, has stepped down. This statement was distributed earlier today by NPR’s board of directors.
“I recognize the magnitude of this news – and that it comes on top of what has been a traumatic period for NPR and the larger public radio community. The Board is committed to supporting NPR through this interim period and has confidence in NPR’s leadership team.”
In recent weeks, NPR’s top management team — including top news executive Ellen Weiss, fundraising chief Ron Schiller, and now executive director Vivian Schiller — have been battered by controversy.
The latest firestorm began with the abrupt dismissal of commentator Juan Williams last year, and escalated as Republicans in Congress moved to defund public broadcasting.
The tipping point came this week, when a conservative activist released a video of top NPR executives speaking disparagingly about conservatives and the GOP.
In a blog post on the All In page here on NCPR.org, North Country Public Radio general manager Ellen Rocco, a forme NPR board member, responded to today’s news with this comment:
The buck does have to stop at the CEO’s desk. Yes, Vivian herself made one or two of the mistakes covered in the news, but more importantly, there is a perception that NPR is a bit in disarray.
Who is taking care of the details? Who is taking care of the big issues–like basic guidelines for all employees vis-a-vis public statements?
The latest missteps by NPR executives have already emboldened critics of Federal funding for public broadcasting.
As always, your thoughts and comments welcome.
Tags: public radio
I listen to NCPR because it is the best and only source for news that doesn’t include who is being picked upon out in Hollywood and all the other fluff you see, hear and read on MAJOR media outlets.
I listen to NCPR because it has interesting and different content. I do not listen to NCPR news because I find it left leaning. Most of the “experts” or people quoted are leftists. I would love it if there were an unbiased news source. I hate feeling manipulated by what is left in or out of a story. That being said- if you have a bias- admit it. You will keep your listeners. It’s not like they don’t already know.
Like all media outlets that try to objective, NPR is under assault from those who are upset that it does not have an overt agenda… or rather that it does not mouth THEIR agenda. These people are trying to intimidate these media outlets into doing their bidding. The ‘liberal media’ cry isn’t so much a belief as a tactic. NPR is not perfect but it tries to get it right and mostly succeeds. Which is why those with an ax to grind want the watchdog to disappear and are desperately trying to delegitimize it.
There’s an important role for journalism with a point of view, such as The Nation or Sy Hersh’s stuff with The New Yorker. I’m sure conservatives would say the same about the National Review. Ditto the commentary of FNC or MSNBC or many magazines. But their role is to COMPLIMENT journalism that tries to be objective, not replace it.
NPR isn’t left wing (if it were, it never would have had Juan Williams on in the first place), but it’s perceived that way. And so the conservatives will do what they do: burn to the ground and salt the earth beneath anything perceived as liberal. It’s why most of the time, they win–because they will do whatever is necessary to win. They keep coming, and will not stop, eventually wearing down any opposition, which just gets tired of the yelling all the time, and which doesn’t have the time or money to keep fighting.
They go after Dan Rather. And win. They go after minority voting. And win. They go after climate change scientists. And win. They go after secular-humanist textbooks. And win. They’re going after unions, especially teachers unions. And in every state but Wisconsin, they’re winning.
Now, they’re after NPR.
NPR’s government funding days are numbered.
Perception is often reality. NPR is “perceived” as having a left-leaning agenda, although those of us who listen know how hard the network tries to give equal voice to those with a different opinion.
However, it’s 2011, not 1994 when Gingrich fired his first shot, and the players have changed. Gone is eloquent hate, replaced by yowling full-mooners and their nutty non-logic. In the bull’s eye is NPR.
Vivian Schiller may be a nice person, but the network needs a strong leader right now, a fighter, a bulldog, and someone who won’t roll over to hate speech. I look back to last year when Schiller fired Juan Williams then stammered through her inadequate public rationale for this stupid act. Not a leader, for sure.
Now NPR has been caught cold by these crazies, and needs to come out fighting. No more mollycoddling the left, no more polite acceptance of the right, no more pandering to the middle which wants and takes and never gives.
Personally, I don’t want a lot of government in my life either, but I do want news with no sponsors, entertainment with no obligations, and a continued point of view that is not in danger of getting drowned out by the tidal wave of nasty.
NPR does a great job. Act like it. No apologies. Be proud.
I don’t get why an individual’s stupid, inane, thoughtless remark gets described as the philosophy of an entire organization.
Not only was Mr. Schiller (who, yes, deserved to lose his position, and yes, it’s right for his new employer to reconsider whether he’s the guy they want) simply in the fundraising part of the company – which is carefully and thoroughly separated from the editorial/news branch, but he was spouting his personal impressions.
If everybody out there must now have absolutely no personal opinions at all, is that a good thing, or even remotely possible?
I think what rankled me most this morning was hearing Juan Williams use the word “they”, apparently referring to some monolithic NPR, and suggesting that the opinions caught on video were what every NPR employee – and maybe every listener, too – believe.
I think one positive attribute of NPR is that it stirs up and gets input from listeners of all schools. Most commercial outlets cater only to people who agree with their particular slant.
I also think it’s a good sign that NPR gets blasted (critically) from both sides of the political ideology spectrum. They must be doing something right.
“I don’t get why an individual’s stupid, inane, thoughtless remark gets described as the philosophy of an entire organization.” I, personally, dont think his thoughts were stupid or inane, – I and probably 30% of the country agree with many of the things he said. (Another 30% think it is blasphemy). Its true, that under the circumstances, he should have known to keep his personal opinions to himself – he thought he was telling the potential donors what they wanted to hear (he was right). He did, at least, made clear during the conversation that the thoughts were his own. The thing is, if opinions are normally distributed at NPR at anything near random, fully 30% of the employees should be expected to feel as he does. So the fact that an individual at any organization has those opinions shouldnt mean anything.
I don’t care if NPR is “perceived” as an arm of the Weather Underground, the skinheads, or the KKK. It is highly improper for the United States government to be in the business of financing the dissemination of news.
Do people at NPR have a right to hold opinions? This person was eating lunch. Where does it end?
“It is highly improper for the United States government to be in the business of financing the dissemination of news.”
Exactly! Down with Stars and Stripes! Boo, Radio Free Europe!
Vivian Schiller resigns. What took so long? Her comments during the Juan williams controversy were idiotic and the handling of the affair itself was amateurish at best.
The bigger issue of bias is a problem public broadcasting can’t escape any time in the near future. Some have absolved the organization because the most recent offender was just a fund raiser. The fact is that the CEO, her VP (who resigned over the Williams incident) and the “fund raiser” and his associate are senior members of the organization’s management team. Individuals in those roles are inclined to recruit those of a like mind, as well as to chart a course that reflects their biases.
And I’m a fan of public broadcasting! I believe that, on balance, a lot of the programming is superior to its commercial peers. The sorry truth is that this series of incidents won’t go away. Rightly or wrongly, conservatives in government will point to them as evidence of a poor use of public funds and it’s difficult to believe that NPR management and rank and file employees are not resentful (and influenced) by their efforts — creating a less than virtuous cycle of criticism and resentment.
I have listened to public radio for years, and NPR, as an institution, is not biased. In fact I am frequently irritated by the blatant need to lean over backwards to present both sides of an issue. (even when only one side is worth mentioning).
I personally believe NPRs news bureau is biased to the left. Now, that being said, they aren’t as clearly biased as some of their commentators, anymore than Fox NEWS is as biased as some of their commentators (Hannity, Beck, etc). I forget if it was Daniel Shore or Daniel Pinkwater but one of them used to deliver editorials that would shoot blood out my ears. And of course, it was presented on “All Things Considered” NPR’s big news program. To me, it’s no different than Fox and some of their over the top garbage. The problem is that measly $90 mill that the taxpayer is forced to shell out to CPB. Big Bird, Oscar, Bert and Ernie could easily make that up.
Why not let the public funding go? Cut the apron strings and let NPR become what it wants to become. If that’s the new Air America, fine. Lord knows you’ll do a much better job than Al Franken and you won;t ahve to steal your employees salaries to do it. If you want to become truly independent news people with your own views, go for it. Those tax payer dollars are the only sticking point for many people on the right.
As for the remarks about “the crazies”, what happened to stopping the unpleasant language and holding ourselves to a higher standard that most here were screaming for a few weeks back?
Wether reporting is accurate or not, whether topics are treated in an unbiased, fair forum or not, whether NPR cleans up anything that needs to be cleaned upor not and if indeed it bends over backwards to appease those with not so hidden agandas, nothing will change except for the continuation of funding, although I do believe mechanisms could readily be put into place to cover the loss. What I mean here is that those who would suffer from any information that cast an unwanted light on their activities or be diminished in any way to in-depth investigative reporting that allowed people to make well informed choices at the ballot box then please check the dislike box now. Thank you
I would like someone to explain to me why there is something wrong with being perceived as having a left-leaning or liberal agenda.
By the way, what is the liberal agenda?
I can explain it Pete. Left wingers are in favor of taking hard earned dollars from hard working, personally responsible, patriotic, God-fearing Americans and giving it to the undeserving, lazy, irresponsible, atheistic “other” people.
As for the “liberal agenda”, that is pretty simple too. It’s do everything you can to bring America down.
The other thing is that there is a conflation of in-depth reporting and left-leaning.
Thanks for the laugh.
There is no doubt that NPR bends over backward not to be liberal. I can hear reports every day about Sarah Palin or Newt. I get hourly updates about the stock market. Conservative thinkers are well represented in NPR stories but the Far Left is rarely heard from. Most people who listen to NPR wouldn’t even know who the real Lefties are because there is no mention of them–and they aren’t Ben and Jerry. When will we start getting hourly Labor updates along with the useless report on the Dow?
“I would like someone to explain to me why there is something wrong with being perceived as having a left-leaning or liberal agenda.”
Pete, nothing. The issue is whether it’s appropriate to fund a media organ that takes a political position with public money. Whether you believe public broadcasting does that is another issue, but if you do then it’s hard to justify.
Q from Pete: I would like someone to explain to me why there is something wrong with being perceived as having a left-leaning or liberal agenda.
A: Because it just is. Everyone knows that.
And a correction: The conservatives are winning against the unions in Wisconsin, too. Because they. did. not. stop.
He who lived by the sword…
I used to read the popular Dem/liberal/leftish blog Daily Kos.com frequently. The vituperation against NPR there was a bad as anything you would find anywhere. “National Petroleum Radio”, “Not Public Radio”, etc, they even found a way to put “Republican” into NPR, I forget how. Negative comments were always strongly “rec’d”, ones along the lines of “NPR’s not perfect but it’s pretty accurate and unbiased most of the time.” were often dissed.
(I could find nothing on it about the Schiller/Schiller situation today. Strange).
Anyway, I think this says something about the claims of liberal bias. Unless you believe, as many do, that liberals are people who base their beliefs on observation rather than received truths.,
Republican mantra “tell a lie enough times and people will start to believe it”.
Pete, nothing wrong with being liberal anymore than there is anything wrong with being conservative. Saying you don’t take a liberal view of things when you overwhelmingly do is the problem.
This relates to one of my favorite bugaboos, the failure of society to adopt the language to changes over time, “liberal” being the prime example.
“Liberal” , before the early 20th Century primarily meant the concept of freedom from government, as best stated in our Bill of Rights. Fundamental to this were concepts like freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and the press, and so forth, so conflicting ideas could be freely discussed, and an informed public decide. It also included strongly advocating property and commercial rights, per Adam Smith. It did not in any way indicate a belief in, to oversimplify, s duty of government to help people in need. This “liberalism” was more closely related to what we now call “libertarian” The “Economist ” magazine still uses “liberalism ” with this meaning.
By the Twenties, it became obvious to most people that simple negative government was inadequate to the needs of the time. Those advocating social insurance and other government involvement in the citizens’ lives and economy (including taxing the wealthy to assist the poor) came to be called “liberals”. The New Deal saw many of the ideas of positive (national) government implemented.
NPR seems to be “liberal” in the earlier, classical. tradition, believing in the necessity of the free and open dissemination of information, not the “intervene to help the poor and oppressed” view.
It is tragic that these two important, but different, concepts have been stuck with the same name. For example, “The Economist” often advocates for “liberalism “in the developing world, as in, for example basic rights for Chinese, e.g., meaning things like freedom of speech and from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. But if you advocate “liberalism” for Chinese to an American, s/he will think you are talking about social insurance and health care. Classical liberalism (freedom from tyranny) is fundamental to a decent society, while “social liberalism” may be important, but is not fundamental. And, that old George Bush favorite, “freedom” is not an adequate substitute.
I’ll stop now.
Here’s a fine example of liberal bias at NPR. We’ve all heard NPR reporting on guns going to Mexico over the past few years. Illegally purchased or stolen guns from the US are allegedly a big problem there. What we haven’t heard, at least I haven’t and my search of NPR;s archives showed nothing, was that the BATFE has allowed and even encouraged the flow of illegal weapons into Mexico over the past 3 years. Gunshop owners who contacted BATFE regarding suspicious attempts to make purchases were enlisted in the scheme. This is a huge blunder and puts a whole new light on the issue. Yet, NPR for some reason hasn’t seen fit to even mention it. Why? I believe it’s institutional bias, this just doesn’t fit the paradigm NPR’s editorial staff perceives as “correct”. This is as big as Ruby Ridge and Waco. But I can’t find word one on it at NPR news.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/08/eveningnews/main20040803.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
http://www.publicintegrity.org/blog/entry/2977/
http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2976/
Newt, I’m sure most us can grasp the difference between classic liberal thought and ideals and the political liberalism term we make use of. We change it to leftist, progressive, socialist, commie-lite, whatever makes you comfortable.
I would also argue that the Wilsonian era and the progressive policies of the day were less the result of an inadequate gov’t than they were the result of socialist/Marxist influence, class warfare, an outright power grab by the Federal gov’t and a variety of other influences, chief among them the concept that getting something for nothing is really great. Sad to say, the progressivism of the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s brought with it as much strife, pain, unequal treatment and other problems as it fixed. We’re still struggling with finding the balance between individual liberty and gov;t intervention, taxes and prosperity, compassion and bribery. I don’t know that we’ll ever find perfection, but the path we are on now in unsustainable.
This is a great day!
The under current and bias that has controlled this entity is finally out in the light. The elitist, look-down-their-nose attitude that is pervasive among these “journalists” at NPR and the people that so steadfastly listen to the liberal bias was displayed in beautiful living color. These are the same people that read the Sunday NY Times cover to cover and think they are so much better than the people of this country. Well the days of liberal doctrines controlling the message are over. Drudge, blogs, talk radio, and now Fox News are providing viable alternatives and the people of this country are discovering the merits and sense of an alternative view. Therefore, I say no public funding of NPR it is fundamentally a miss use of the people’s money.
Bret, you and I have chased each other around this political tree before and no point repeating it. (For what it’s worth, I think Woodrow Wilson was the worst President in U.S. history , [ the jury being still out on just how awful W.was]. Wilson, a racist, fired many capable black Federal T.R. appointees simply to replace them with whites, got us into a land war in Europe for no good reason, used the war to implement all manner of totalitarian laws to suppress dissent, signed-off on Prohibition, was ineffectual in promoting his (worthy) 14 Points program to the Allies and, because of his arrogance (an, OK, a stroke) was unable to get Congress to ratify what he had salvaged in the Treaty of Versailles).
But to your point, while you may understand the difference between the two meanings of liberalism, most people do not, and I would think that you, as, I believe, more of a libertarian, would appreciate the tragedy of conflating the two meanings into one word.
I think it is telling that the agenda, since we are talking agendas, of someone like Eric Kantor is obviously advanced by a “provocateur” who hires people to imitate wealthy muslims, undertake a charade of prejudiced muslim-character acting and wave $5 million around to fundraisers for a national news organization that depends on fundraising. All this in order to dupe the organization–or the guy at lunch–into saying something off-color about voices in the culture that might oppose what a Muslim organization might be trying to do. This is a disgusting entrapment of people in behavior that is not illegal (as opposed to, say, a law enforcement sting looking to expose criminal behavior). The comments of Mr Schiller are understandable if regrettable. Should the tea-party be branded as racist? No, that is stupid. Does the tea-party represent the interests of minorities? Is the the tea-party interested in economic fairness? See last year’s NY Times Poll about the demographics of Tea Party–white, well-off, and over 45. The provocateur, James O’Keefe, who has tried other clever stings like luring a CNN female reporter onto a boat filled with sex props, is trouble. If this is the kind a aid Kantor and others seek in trying to quiet dissenting voices–and it is paranoid, i think, to feel that NPR is in any way a partisan voice–then Kantor & co. will get their comeuppance in due course. This is the unseemly behavior, and the American public, in the end, won’t put its faith in those who act this way or advance their agenda by such measures.
I don’t know but I always thought the elitist, those with the look-down-their-nose attitude, were the rich, not the middle class or the poor.
But elitism, just like liberalism, has come to be used in a totally different way.
These terms have come to be used as swear words, probably because the users are too politically correct and cowardly to use the swear words.
Rather than just discuss an issue or subject, we get code words. Let’s push emotional buttons rather than discuss the various nuances because it might just lead to a reasonable compromise and an agreement.
Pete, are you trying to say you think the majority of NPR listeners, PBS viewers, are poor and middle class working stiffs?
Newt, hard to believe you got a red mark for your last post. Better watch that open mindedness, apparently it offends some people.
Michael, actually yes, the Tea Party IS concerned with minority issues and economic fairness. It’s obvious that your perception of what the TP is all about has been skewed by leftist propaganda. The TP is about fiscally responsible gov’t which benefits everyone, minority and majority alike, and about lowered tax burdens on all American taxpayers which contributes to everyones economic “fairness”.
“I get hourly updates about the stock market.” What in the world is right or left about knowing the status of the DOW!
It is interesting in this day and age to be able to see what the comments are of the listeners and visitors of these different entities.
The NPR comment sections clearly indicate that the majority of the listeners/readers clearly side with the comments made by the guy that got fired (resigned whatever).
That may be an argument for public funding. If they have to cow-tow to the whims of the listeners as an entirely commercial entity they would have to end up looking more like the Rachael Maddow show or some equivalent thing.
The public funds are probably keeping them farther to the right. When you want everybody to cough up some money you better stay closer to the center.
“Pete, are you trying to say you think the majority of NPR listeners, PBS viewers, are poor and middle class working stiffs?”
Bret this must be the case.
They must be, the poor and the middle class just about covers everybody save a few.
Paul,
Speaking about the DOW, I’ve always felt it should pay to be advertised since posting the ups and downs is more about advertising than actual news. Same goes for who won the lottery. All that stuff is a variation of who wins and loses out in Vegas.
More shoes falling today. NPR in disarray.
Captain Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
Bret, these socialist/Maxist influences. What am I missing?
Socialists have occasionally won local and Congressional elections but I don’t think they’ve ever broken the 1 million mark or 6% of the electorate in presidential elections (and the high water mark from a percentage basis was in the 1914 election – a pretty long time ago).
I think even most students of US politics would be hard pressed to identify any Marxist or Communist candidates for office. I believe that the labor movement in the US preempted socialism/communism early in the 20th century and the Cold War made it very unfashionable as unionism strengthened mid century.
Nowadays we have Bernie carrying the torch. An interesting guy but not particularly threatening to the fabric of American society.
Pete,
Knowing what is going on in the financial markets is as important to most folks as what is going on with the weather. There isn’t a single person in the US that is not effected by what is going on in the financial market. Just look at the last 5 or 6 years. What you don’t know can really hurt you. That is the whole point of journalism in general.
Bill, go back to the pre-1900 era. There was plenty of socialist feeling among the working class. Read the history of the era preceding that, the populist era, the bi-metal issues, the early attempts at organizing and follow that up through to the Wilsonian era. No, you didn’t have Communist or Socialist candidates. Even then it was the kiss of death, in fact it could literally involve death! But the class warfare and rage against the rich/elite was there, had been since the start of the industrial revolution. The various young unions usually had in their roots somewhere some of the Marxist themes, or that of the guy Marx got his ideas from, I forget his name, Corbett maybe? Anyway it carried through and blossomed in the 1930’s when our nation was desperate, when we looked at the communist revolution in Russia as a good thing and thought highly of Stalin. We thought highly of fascists like Mussolini too. We saw what we wanted to see in them I suppose. It didn’t help that much of FDR’s “Brain Trust” thought highly of Stalin and his results, I don’t know that they really understood his methods, I hope not. Did you know at one point prior to WW2 there was a large statue of Mussolini scheduled to be erected in Washington DC?
Well, rather than get off on another tangent, I suggest you look into the early labor movement and groups such as the Industrial Workers of the World. In fact……http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/labor_unions_socialisms_shock_troops/ There, try that link. I don’t agree completely with his conclusions, but there information is there to get you started. It’s a good article I saved some time back when researching this subject. At least from my point of view it’s good, you may disagree.
JDM, if you hate NPR so much, why do you spend all your time commenting on this blog? There’s Fox News, and Little Green Footballs, for hating on NPR.
Bret, thanks for the response.
I’m quite familiar with the history of the labor movement in the U.S. The union movement out west with the likes of Big Bill Hayward was pretty violent (in comparison to the Gompers-led movement in the east) and had its share of radicals. My point would be that there is very little in the way of a thread from there to the 30’s to today. While a small minority embraced the workers’ paradise in the 30’s, there really never was anything resembling a broad-based, popular acceptance of communism. (When we were allies, much of the anti-communism rhetoric was silenced for diplomatic not ideological purposes.)
I was reacting to your reference to socialist/Marxist influence. I don’t think these strains ever really entered the mainstream. The evolution of the union movement here was quite different from the European experience. While it may have been a manifestation of what you called “class warfare”, it was conflict conducted in an economic (vs. political) arena for the most part. That may have changed with the rise of public employee unions, but not because of Marxist/socialist ideology.
My main point is that the introduction of far left ideology can confuse the discussion of what is really either poor policy or policy that is unacceptable to the commentator, the equivalent of equivalent of characterizing libertarianism with fascism. It may make the observer feel better but doesn’t illuminate. But we digress………….
Well Bill, I don’t know what else to call the Wobblies but socialists,if not communists. I understand the differences between European labor party growth and American labor party growth but in reading the speeches and tracts of the era from 1896 through the 1920’s I keep seeing the same Marxist or maybe Marxist lite phrases and ideals about social justice (the modern term), tearing the ruling class down, workers being the infallible heroes in the whole discussion. I’d have to search a bit to find it but there was series of tracts and speeches printed up by one of the longshoremans or seamans proto union pre-1900 that quoted Marx or Engels repeatedly. All that may not have been apparent on the surface of the labor movement but the strains of it carried on through into the 40’s. I don’t know what else to call the struggle if not class warfare. One class, the workers, vs the other class, the rulers. What else is that?
You know what I find nutty is that John Rockerfeller, Mr. Evil in many eyes, said that he needed to provide a good, cheap product that the poor could afford. His kerosene improved the lives of the poor throughout the nation and yet he’s the bad guy because he got rich. I wonder why people can’t see the bigger picture?
And yes, I realize words like “socialist” tend to muddle things up but it is what it is. That isn’t name calling, I just can’t think of a better term for it.
Bret,
Not to be tedious, but my point is that these were never main stream movements with meanigful political bases. In the 19th century there were local pockets (mayors and even some governors) but over time they became more and more irrelevant.
In the US trade unionism overwhelmed socialism as a political movement. The working stiff in the 20th century would be aghast to be identified with the socialist movement (as would most liberal politicians), and that movement was never had meaningful national base.
The fundamental cornerstone of socialism is the state ownership of the means of production and that idea never took root here. Industrial unions focused predominantly on worker safety, wages, etc., not ownership.
The abuses of early industrialization sprouted splinter groups — socialists, syndicalists, anarchists, and quasi-communists, but the proof in the pudding is that the best showing of anything resembling a broad movement was the presidential candidacies of Eugene Debs (not a bomb thrower by any means) and he never got a million votes. We can identify groups and writings by individuals that were extreme but that’s not the same things as having ideas absorbed into the mainstream.
All that said, I’m happy to agree to disagree.
Okay Bill. Apparently I’m not getting my ideas across since you’re saying part of what I was trying to get across. Good enough for me.