NPR- "We can shield your donation from audit"

[henryclay]

That's what a sting operator was told when asked if a Muslim Brotherhood front organization wanted to donate 5 million dollars to NPR.

Watch/hear the tape and read the write-up about it.

dailycaller.com/2011/03/10/new-video-npr-was-going-to-accept-muslim-education-action-center-donation-and-hide-it-from-the-government/

I believe that is called money laundering, and NPR seems to be ready to do anybody's laundry.

NOW, liberals, , , , , What say you about taxpayer money continuing to flow to NPR? Further, what say you about RICO operatives running around free as a bird, (Sesame Street's Big Bird maybe), at NPR?

[deziloooooo]

I just love my NPR and Public TV, not like,........ LOVE. in fact ...LOVE Is more like it.

[Tennesseer]

Let's wait a litte longer to see what the final truth is:

Questions Surfacing About NPR Sting Videos
Alana Goodman
03.11.2011 - 2:32 PM

Yesterday, John O’Keefe released an audiotape that appeared to prove that NPR was willing to accept money from a conservative activist posing as the leader of a Muslim Brotherhood–affiliated organization.

But now NPR says that there’s more to the story. The news organization has released e-mail exchanges between its executives and the conservative activists that show that the conversation on the audiotape may be a bit misleading. Dave Weigel weighs in:

NPR’s representatives are polite, and never say they’re going to flat turn down the money. They just hint, very politely and strongly, that they can’t unless they know more. That doesn’t satisfy the complaint that conservatives have here — that the network should have turned down a donation from a group whose representatives were biased against Jews, etc — but it validates what NPR’s been saying.

In one of the e-mails, former NPR CEO Vivian Schiller writes that the group’s donation “would not need to be reported in the public part of the 990 but it would need to be reported to the IRS, including the name of the donating institution” — indicating that NPR wasn’t willing to shield donors from federal scrutiny, as the audiotape suggested.

This isn’t the first of the NPR sting videos to come under question. The Blaze, a conservative news site, watched the unedited video of former NPR executive Ron Schiller’s lunch meeting and found several inconsistencies.

For example, in the edited video, Schiller appears to be ranting about the Tea Party. But according to the Blaze, “the raw video reveals that he is largely recounting the views expressed to him by two top Republicans, one a former ambassador, who admitted to him that they voted for Obama.”

The Blaze also notes that there are two “glitches” in the video where the audio reloops, as well as another lost section of the video that the filmmaker claims was “redacted” for the “safety of a reporter in another country.” While these are likely and legitimate claims, there’s still no way to know what was said during that lapse in time.

This new information certainly doesn’t debunk the videos, but it does raise some concerns about the editing process. O’Keefe will probably release more NPR sting tapes in the coming days, and Republicans lawmakers should be careful about promoting those videos before they have a chance to be properly scrutinized.

www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/11/questions-surfacing-about-npr-sting-videos/

[ed1066]

So are they going to give him and the CEO their jobs back?

[deziloooooo]

"I just love my NPR and Public TV, not like,........ LOVE. in fact ...LOVE Is more like it."


The Brother hood wanted to donate $5,000,000.00? No mesage just say, this pogram brought to you by and then as they do they mention the different sponsers, donators, like the Willian Gates Foundation, the Annenburg fund and they would stick in and the "Muslim Brother hood ", my call, take the money.

[henryclay]

desi says NPR should take the 5 million.

Why is that not a surprise? Even with the donation being conditioned on absolute secrecy, including keeping it hidden from audit, they should violate the RICO statute, violate their public trust, and violate most everything every child is taught to believe in and practice.

The reaction to the offer,with all the free advice about how they would handle it makes it all the more probable that thy have been doing those very things all along.

He says he just loves NPR. I wonder if desi has ever sent NPR any of his own money.

I hope he doesn't consider that question too personal and impertinent and a violation of the rules. He made the comment.

NPR thrives off donations, and he has encouraged them to commit some illegalities regarding donations, so I was just wondering if he enjoys their programming enough to help keep them on the air so they wouldn't be so strapped as to even consider advising anyone to not only circumnent the ethics, , , and laws, , , but how they could be a party to actually doing it, in order to remain a viable broascast network.

[deziloooooo]

Mar 13, 2011 3:46:07 GMT -5 henryclay said:

desi says NPR should take the 5 million.

Why is that not a surprise? Even with the donation being conditioned on absolute secrecy, including keeping it hidden from audit, they should violate the RICO statute, violate their public trust, and violate most everything every child is taught to believe in and practice.

The reaction to the offer,with all the free advice about how they would handle it makes it all the more probable that thy have been doing those very things all along.

He says he just loves NPR. I wonder if desi has ever sent NPR any of his own money.

I hope he doesn't consider that question too personal and impertinent and a violation of the rules. He made the comment.

NPR thrives off donations, and he has encouraged them to commit some illegalities regarding donations, so I was just wondering if he enjoys their programming enough to help keep them on the air so they wouldn't be so strapped as to even consider advising anyone to not only circumvent the ethics, , , and laws, , , but how they could be a party to actually doing it, in order to remain a viable broadcast network.

I never said take secretly, take it publicly. I said take the money, thank them also, even a phone call from a director with "thanks, so much appreciated, can we talk about next year now too or should i call you later" would be fine with me, would be nice, $5 million is a nice contribution.

"violate most everything every child is taught to believe in and practice."

If you mean to ignore a gift with out thanking the person who gave it, correct way a note is real nice and appropriate but at least a verbal at all times, and if small enough, a hug and kiss too is nice to see. That's what i was taught and taught our kids when young and hopefully being taught to the grand kids.

"He says he just loves NPR. I wonder if desi has ever sent NPR any of his own money."

Just the other day, two nights ago after watching a rock and roll/Doo Wop concert, had a problem deciding between two, I get two TV public stations on my cable, the other one had a 25 year reunion of "Les Miserables", from London, I opted for Doo Wop, bopped my way for over a hour and a half, all those old guys/Gals...sounded the same. [ Bubba Ba bummmmm ]
Called them right after , about a bit past midnight, nothing hugh but probably the second time this year and probably a few more coming, how I do it. OK with you?

"commit some illegalities regarding donations," I guess i miss something here, why is it illegal to take money from the "Muslim Brotherhood ", if it is then they shouldn't take it, didn't think they are a illegal organization here, possible I missed that.
If so, then no they shouldn't take the money , there I agree with you. Are they illegal or just that YOU feel they are suspect?

[henryclay]

".........Are they illegal or just that YOU feel they are suspect? .........."

I don't know whether the Muslim Bortherhood is illegal or not, and besides that, whether or not they are is not under discussion. Why not stay with the topic?

Before I posted I watched the video, read the transcriopt and heard the audio. The entire offer was premised on secrecy and it was subscribed to by the NPR head shed, including rough details as to how they could accommodate the Muslim Brotherhood's condition of secrecy.

I read, watched and listened "before" I posted. Apparently you don't feel doing so is necessary for an intelligent exchange to ensue. I can't deny you the right to practice such dramatics, but I sure don't recommend them either.

Nor does your belated mea culpa carry any water. Rather it shows, once again, how deigned in one's feeling of omnipotence a person has to be to even attempt it.

[ed1066]

I believe that is called money laundering, and NPR seems to be ready to do anybody's laundry.

Not quite anybody's, but radical Islamic terrorist fronts, most definitely. They don't call it National Palestinian Radio for nothing...

I think they should take the money, then publicly announce their patronage from the MB. The libs would lap it up!

[ed1066]

Better yet, I think NPR should institute an "adopt a terrorist" program for their loyal listeners. Just like the children's charities, liberals could send $30 a month to help support the radical anti-Semitic, anti-American Islamist of their choice. Helping to feed, clothe and arm an impoverished terrorist may turn out to be a big moneymaker for a base like NPR's...just imagine, a liberal could proudly tell their friends that their contributions paid for that RPG fired at an elementary school in Israel!

[henryclay]

I have noticed that, too. P.I.

And I also noticed that desi "called them" the other night. The question was whether he had ever sent them any money. The station probably appreciated the call, but they can't live on phone calls. They need money to pay people to take the phone calls from their appreciative audience. The sending of money , , , , with a note of appreciation , , , , would probably better demonstrate the appreciation. How much money would be an even more effective show of that appreciation.

But we'll probably nevefr know the trruth about it.

Just saying.

[deziloooooo]

Mar 13, 2011 12:00:43 GMT -5 henryclay said:

I have noticed that, too. P.I.

And I also noticed that desi "called them" the other night. The question was whether he had ever sent them any money. The station probably appreciated the call, but they can't live on phone calls. They need money to pay people to take the phone calls from their appreciative audience. The sending of money , , , , with a note of appreciation , , , , would probably better demonstrate the appreciation. How much money would be an even more effective show of that appreciation.

But we'll probably nevefr know the trruth about it.

Just saying.

-----------------------------------------------------
The question was,

""He says he just loves NPR. I wonder if desi has ever sent NPR any of his own money."

I did, also a membership every year , it's $35.00 but Henry that is not the point.
More and more I believe you are here for only one thing and that is to stir the pot for the sake of stirring the pot, disruptions for the sake of disruptions , not to discuss topics put up here , pro, con, that is unimportant to you and a few others.

There are those from the right that are also interested in doing so, are very strong in their opinions and passionate in their presentation but are also willing to discuss and at least tolerate responses against their views, possibly reluctantly but they tolerate it.
You definitely are not of that ilk.

Here's a example of that, picky dissing {and even shown to be not true } and to bring up a point of how I might be giving $ to NPR, after answering your thoughts as if I do.

Your way of a back and forth of no consequence regarding a topic, not for discussion , just another way of stirring the pot for the sake of stirring the pot, disrupting just to disrupt and get posters into a back and forth , not on the topics, just for your amusement, as you sit back and observe, basically the actions of a Troll.

By you continuing these actions I believe many posters are stopping their participation and are just observing and even leaving the zone completely.

We , from both sides by the way, who are interested in good back and forth discussions are wondering why this is being allowed to take place, it is very apparent to any observer what you and a few are doing.

Just a observation.

[safeharbor37]

They need money to pay people to take the phone calls from their appreciative audience.

PBS and NPR rely a lot on volunteers and professionals who work part time at a discount. Some stations [have] started as community based contributors funded entities. They sometimes got grants from private foundations, local governmental entities, etc. and weren't overtly connected to NPR. In other words they started pretty much as Christian stations did, although I don't think any Christian stations got government funding.
There's no reason why Public Broadcasting [radio, TV, cable, Internet, etc.] can't function without public funds ~ but, if they are to be contributor funded, then some of those contributors will probably not be of your political ilk.
[Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another.
H. L. Mencken ~ Conscience is the inner voice that warns us that someone might be looking.][Ambrose Bierce
Love: a temporary insanity, curable by marriage.]

[deziloooooo]

Mar 13, 2011 13:47:01 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

They need money to pay people to take the phone calls from their appreciative audience.

PBS and NPR rely a lot on volunteers and professionals who work part time at a discount. Some stations [have] started as community based contributors funded entities. They sometimes got grants from private foundations, local governmental entities, etc. and weren't overtly connected to NPR. In other words they started pretty much as Christian stations did, although I don't think any Christian stations got government funding.
There's no reason why Public Broadcasting [radio, TV, cable, Internet, etc.] can't function without public funds ~ but, if they are to be contributors funded, then some of those contributors will probably not be of your political ilk.
[Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another.
H. L. Mencken ~ Conscience is the inner voice that warns us that someone might be looking.][Ambrose Bierce
Love: a temporary insanity, curable by marriage.]

I didn't answer that part of Henry's post , but usually, in fact almost always, the ones on the phone banks on the pledge drives are volunteers. I have done it with friends from my and a few other VFW posts a few years ago, a a showing of D Day observation, they were showing a filmed interview with Cronkite and Eisenhower in Normandy as they traveled the battlefields , black and white I remember as well as other such programs.
They did have refreshments for us, we got a tour of the facilities it was a fun time, had a very good turnout, met some neat people.

[henryclay]

What you say is true, safe. , , , , , but , , , ,

They can't "live" on volunteerism. Everytbing else in your posts just reeks of basic Americanism. What has happened runs so counter to the public trust that NPR espouses, when, a well intended concept like it become such an albatross. And of course it isn't the concept or NPR itself. It's always the same problem isn't it? It's always the people involved who have lost their moral compass that brings it on. Is it a feeling of invincibility?

Who knows . . . it happens.

[ugonow]

Beck's The Blaze says a lot was left in the edit room,including Shiller saying he was proud of his republican heritage. lol---------------www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/

[safeharbor37]

This Blaze thing is a little hypocritical in that "gotcha" journalism was the stock and trade of "60 Minutes" and just about every news source edits its presentations to emphasize its point. To be offended by "creative editing" smacks of pretense [Methinks she doth protest too much.].
One side presents its story and the other side responds. Those sources who claim unfailing "objectivity" are just full of it. Not to say it wouldn't be nice, but, stop and think, would you really look forward to news sources so infallible that it was not subject to question? Would you? If so, we'd need only one,....but, Which one?

[deziloooooo]

Mar 13, 2011 14:34:57 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

This Blaze thing is a little hypocritical in that "gotcha" journalism was the stock and trade of "60 Minutes" and just about every news source edits its presentations to emphasize its point. To be offended by "creative editing" smacks of pretense [Methinks she doth protest too much.].
One side presents its story and the other side responds. Those sources who claim unfailing "objectivity" are just full of it. Not to say it wouldn't be nice, but, stop and think, would you really look forward to news sources so infallible that it was not subject to question? Would you? If so, we'd need only one,....but, Which one?

One thing was brought out on a CNN show this morning, that I feel is relative, that his job was solely fund raising , had absolutely nothing to do with policy, content, programming influence in, personal feelings that all of us have no matter what kind of job.
That he should have known better in allowing his personal feelings to be brought out by strangers, he was experienced in that and it was stupid on hos part, that part is true, just not done, he knew better, no excuse there.

[henryclay]

There is another story on the $5 million. It's a better play-by-play rundown and includes reference to the NPR legal people drawing up an agreement to shield the Muslim Brotherhood from scrutiny.

Call it any way you can, this place is a rat's nest of people that need new lines of work.

www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6670-npr-was-ready-to-accept-5-million-from-muslim-brotherhood-front

[handyman2]

I used to listen to NPR when i would travel the highways, and they had some good public interest programing but they got to the point that they seemed to focus on trying to sway public opinion and that turned me off.
Actually in the world of communication they are in some ways a dinosaur on the airwaves.

[deziloooooo]

No Henry your back on your soapbox of stirring again just for the sake of stirring. You have never listened to NPR or watched PBS, at least over time, a accidental turn on is not what I consider being a listener.
It's loved by Republicans, as well as Dems..they praise the programming , it's just they don't like to have any government expenditure toward it.
For me specifically, it wouldn't really mean anything, possible my stations might get 6/10 % of budget from the fed however those living in less populated areas, parts of the country where there are less quality media, first thing cut is the news departments, it would be a great loss to them. Actually many of those areas are not Liberal, Dem areas pub conservative, pub areas , they are the ones who will lose out, less stations, just not enough people to support the station, some of these outlying NPR stations get almost 50% of their programming from govt. , so if they cut Federal $'s, then it will be the areas where conservatives and pubs live that will suffer. On this I am correct. It will be a great loss to them, and for the people who politically are what you like to see more of in the country.

[henryclay]

Hello again, Doctor dezi. I see you're still practicing medicine. What is your specialty this time?

I can't complain about your rates, , , , but then again, we get what we pay for, don't we?

[deziloooooo]

Mar 13, 2011 20:48:21 GMT -5 henryclay said:

Hello again, Doctor dezi. I see you're still practicing medicine. What is your specialty this time?

I can't complain about your rates, , , , but then again, we get what we pay for, don't we?

You doing the personal again Henry. I explained what is going to probably happen if Govt funding is stopped to the public media, you feel I am wrong it wont happen , then discuss that.
I got that from listening to numerous discussions on this. Your making it out that NPR is a evil happening, in your mind because some feel it is a bastian of liberal propaganda and thus the spawn of the devil. I listen to it and watch it a lot, more the listening, NPR, and there is none of the pushing of a agenda as Fox or as some have said MSCNBC on the other side.
If the commentators and personnel who are on the air have personal feeling that lean to the left of the right I don't hear it , if anything I hear a basic educated tone coming from most of them, I think Krickett mentioned when she listened the voices were oputing her to sleep, LOL, not the usual clap trap , loud voices, most radio media personnel seem to sound like on commercial radio.
-----------------------------------------
"Hello again, Doctor dezi. I see you're still practicing medicine. What is your specialty this time?

I can't complain about your rates, , , , but then again, we get what we pay for, don't we"
------------------------------------------
What the hell is this crap above Henry, seems to have nothing to do with the topic which is "NPR"..I see none of that mentioned , pro/negative/neutral , seems all personal, ..not even the topic mentioned. To me it is a search out to again get into a back and forth , to stir things up. You might be interested in that, I am not.
The object here I thought is to discuss the topics, criticize if you have it , agree if thats your thing, give another opinion, if that is your thing, against the points brought up by another, I see nothing close to that here, am I missing something?