How the search for a few "bad apples" can be turned into an excuse for destroying entire organizations. You could be next. by Bill Gee
(centrist)
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Up to this point, I have been relatively tolerant of the self-proclaimed muckrakers at Project Veritas, but today they went after an organization that has been a pillar of fair and balanced reporting, National Public Radio. In a classic "gotcha" sting that is the trademark of this neoconservative organization, they sought out an executive at NPR by pretending to be potential donors, lulled him into a false sense of security, and got him to speak frankly about his own personal beliefs. Unfortunately for Ron Schiller, who was up until this morning, a VP of Fundraising at NPR, those beliefs were not in line with those of NPR and Project Veritas was more than happy to share those beliefs with the rest of the world.
James O'Keefe, founder of Project Veritas, is lauded by conservative groups across the nation for his exposure of hypocrisy and corruption in groups like ACORN, Planned Parenthood and the National Teachers Association. In January 2010 he was arrested and convicted in New Orleans for breaking into a Federal building in an attempt to tap the phones of a US Senator, but his most effective tool is the use of a hidden camera and setting up "stings" where he manages to convince unsuspecting employees or supporters of Liberal causes to say things that he can then publish on the Internet in his effort to discredit entire organizations.
In the case of Ron Schiller, two men working for O'Keefe's organization set up a lunch meeting with the NPR Vice President to discuss a possible multi-million dollar endowment for NPR in the event that Federal funding gets cut from Congress. The two men pretended to be from an organization called the Muslim Education Action Center Trust, which does not exist. During the meeting, they spoke frankly about politics, conservative media, the crisis in the Middle East and the future of Federal Funding for NPR. Keep in mind, at the time of the recording, Mr. Schiller had already informed the management at NPR that he was planning on resigning to take a position at another company. Also keep in mind that this was an "informal" meeting. No money nor any promises of money were ever made at this meeting. In fact, if this had actually been a legitimate offer of funds, MEACT would have been carefully vetted by NPR's underwriting department prior to any exchange of funds.
Did Mr. Schiller say things that he should not have said? Yes. Should he have done a better job at vetting the would-be donors prior to setting up a meeting with them? Probably. Is it fair that the whole of National Public Radio and its affiliates be condemned by the words or actions of a single individual within the organization? Of course not!
Most of us who write columns at NolanChart have day jobs. (Some of us have more than one day-job!) Most of us have VERY strong opinions that we are more than happy to share with the world in this public forum, yet most of us show just enough public restraint in order to maintain a civil dialog. I would hope that if your employer knew what you did in your spare time, they would not see what you are doing as a reflection of the organization as a whole, provided that you do not violate the company's Code of Conduct. Some columnists choose to protect their identity by using aliases rather than using their own names in an effort to further shield themselves and their employers from possible embarrassment over the opinions they express in their writing.
Now think back to the last time you went out to lunch or dinner with your friends at work. Imagine that the entire conversation was recorded by a hidden camera, and that by the time you arrive at work the next day, an edited version of that conversation has been spread all over Internet with your name and your company's name. Did you say some things that you would not have said had you known that the conversation was being recorded? Probably. Did you express an opinion that was contrary to your company's official position on an issue? Perhaps. Did your opinion reflect the hypocritical opinion of the organization as a whole? Of course not!
Mr. O'Keefe is nothing more than a classic "gotcha" journalist who has already shown that he is willing to break the law and lead well-meaning people into carefully orchestrated traps in order to get them to say something damaging to themselves and their employers. It is people like him that make it difficult for people to express their own opinions about anything for fear that someone will use that information against them at a later date. His type of journalism breeds mistrust among friends, coworkers and neighbors.
The next time you go out to lunch with someone you don't know, will you remember to check them for a hidden camera or microphone before you sit down? Perhaps you should.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Bill Gee only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Bill Gee is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: LibertarianBlue
Date: March 9, 2011 10:23:28 AM
O'Keefe is just a distraction compared to the true actions of the US Thought Police. I would consider Representative Peter King's hearings on Muslim radicalization a much more important issue.
William Grigg of Lew Rockwell.com has some insight here
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: March 9, 2011 11:26:06 AM
The William Grigg posting is chilling, to say the least, and yes, nothing good can come of Peter King's hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims.
NPR has been one of the few media outlets to openly question the agenda of the King hearings, which is probably why O'Keefe felt it necessary to "expose" them as pro-Palestinian if he could.
Haven't you seen the vidoes of the Chrysler's UAW employees at the Jeep plant smoking weed during lunch time? They got fired too and the news was recording them without permission.
How 'bout those "To catch a predator" with Chris Hanson? Most of those men were being set-up too and worst they are in jail. I can't defend those pedophiles and they were worst than some racist comments, but those reporters were doing the same thing that O'Keefe was doing.
With regards to racists comments from that NPR guy, you have to remember that freedom of speech even if it is hate speech is protected by the Constitution agaisnt Government censoring it but is NOT protecting against people reacting to it in a negative way or against your employer firing you. Freedom of speech is a two way street and if someone can't live by the concequences of bad press or bad PR as a result of your speech then you are better off quiet.
On the other hand, someone recording someone else without permission, where is the privacy there? Isn't there something against being recorded and them published without pwrmission? Or if maybe if it is tax funded anyone is fair game for recording without permission? I don't know, but I certainly don't want to be recorded without my knowledge or my permission.
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: March 11, 2011 07:04:52 AM
With regard to the UAW employees smoking weed and the "Catch a Predator" shows, those were situations where the "mark" was caught committing a crime. When a person commits a crime, any assumption of a right to privacy with regard to that particular action is gone. Period.
Also, when the news media engages in this type of journalism, it's usually done with the consent of local and/or federal law enforcement because, again, they're looking to catch a person who is committing a crime, not speaking his or her mind to a group of would-be donors.
Mr. O'Keefe is the type of journalist in the same category as Wikileaks. Both claim to be "legitimate" news organizations, but what they lack are the internal checks and balances and editorial constraint of real news organizations. Instead, their sole job is not to expose crime, but to tarnish the public image of their "mark".
"Surprise!" We're all human and we all make mistakes and we all have opinions that don't necessarily fit with the mainstream of whoever we happen to work for. What gives Mr. O'Keefe and Wikileaks their "power" is when the organizations themselves fire the person who was targeted by these unscrupulous curs.
