In this New York Times article/blog, Brian Stelter discusses how Ronald Schiller, one of NPR's fund-raising executives was secretly recorded by James O'Keefe which included him saying things like "The Republican party has been 'hijacked' by the Tea Party" and that Tea Party supporters are "seriously racist, racist people."
Stelter continues to write that Schiller was unaware he was being recorded, and that Schiller qualified most statements by saying that they were his opinion, not NPR's.
While this is essentially a non-issue, because Schiller is leaving NPR for the Aspen Institute, this got me wondering.
First of all, is it even legal to set someone up in the way that O'Keefe did, hoping to get controversial statements out of Schiller? O'Keefe was secretly recording him, and then published the recordings. This can't be legal.
Additionally, while NPR would probably have fired Schiller if he wasn't already leaving, Schiller made it clear that these were his opinions, not the network's. Does this make any difference? Most reporters have a bias in their writings, so why is it wrong that Schiller made this statement?
I know he represents the network, but what's wrong with him expressing his opinion especially once he makes it clear that they are his own?
Any thoughts?
I think essentially, he can say whatever he wants, but I wonder if his statements had been more aggressive - use of expletives or really vulgar language, we might feel a little differently. I am sure that statements such as these would have been tolerated by NPR, understanding that their reporters are allowed to think whatever they want. But, had he been more aggressive, that would have been a turn off for viewers - and thereby, the network as well.
ReplyDeleteBefore I read the article but just heard about this incident- I asked myself is there was a correlation between Schiller 'quitting' as an NPR reporter and this outburst. I think that even though Schiller said that this did not reflect on NPR's views- he is a public figure and he went against what his job is supposed to be and that he needs to stay true to that no matter what in public. I actually think that even though the article said there wasn't a correlation- in my mind I think that there was a correlation, maybe he now feels he could express what he really feels and clearly since he announced that he was leaving his job isn't in jeopardy. I now question what his reputation will be going to this next job- and it that will affect it.
ReplyDelete