The Tea Party vs. NPR | Oncoming Traffic | The Cul-de-Sac

 
You must be logged in to post Login Register


Register? | Lost Your Password?

Search Forums:


 






Wildcard Usage:
*    matches any number of characters
%    matches exactly one character

UserPost

1:10 pm
March 11, 2011


Dr. Paul Kengor

New Member

posts 1

“The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian,” said NPR’s Ron Schiller to two undercover reporters. “I wouldn’t even call it Christian; it’s this weird evangelical kind of [movement].”

Not knowing he was being videoed, Schiller continued: “The current Republican Party is not really the Republican Party, it’s been hijacked by this group; that is, not just Islamo-phobic but really xenophobic. I mean, basically, they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-American, gun toting—I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.” (Click here for transcript and here for video.)

Schiller is being heavily criticized for these comments, as is NPR and elite liberal thinking in general. Schiller, NPR Foundation president and vice president for development (until these comments), is the Left’s latest exhibit in smearing the Tea Party movement as bigots, racists, fascists, Hitler-ites, followers of Attila the Hun, Torquemada, Genghis Khan, or whatever other handy demon.

Yet, what’s telling about Schiller’s comments is their lack of factual basis, an even greater sin from a man whose business, and erstwhile employer, is the reporting of facts. His comments are a PR problem for NPR, furthering the perception that NPR is not about unbiased reporting but primarily about opinion—a leftist opinion camouflaged as objective news.

As evidence for my perspective, I’d like to share some statistical information on the Tea Party movement. This information was widely published and is easily available to anyone, least of all a major news organization like NPR.

In March 2010, Gallup did a comprehensive survey of the Tea Party (click here). Gallup is the most respected polling firm on the planet, and not conservative. The headline Gallup chose to highlight its study speaks for itself, “Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics.”

That study found that 49 percent of “Tea Party identifiers” are Republicans while 43 percent are independents and 8 percent are Democrats. The majority are not Republicans.

As to Schiller’s strange “evangelical” comment, the study found that a little over a quarter of Tea Partiers describe themselves as “pro-choice” on abortion, suggesting a stronger libertarian presence than a uniform “evangelical” movement. That’s no surprise to anyone who has observed the Tea Party even casually.

The Tea Party movement was inspired by the breathtakingly reckless spending by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Democratic leadership that took power in 2009. Its issues are far more economic/fiscal than religious/moral. There’s a more discernible Ayn Rand “Atlas Shrugged” element than a Jerry Falwell “Moral Majority” feel—and Rand was no evangelical.

Generally, Gallup’s survey indeed found that the Tea Party was “fairly mainstream” in its demographics.

At the same time as Gallup’s study, another survey was released, by Rasmussen. Particularly interesting about this survey was that it gauged public opinion—i.e., how others viewed the Tea Party. Overwhelmingly, by 62 percent to 12 percent, Rasmussen found that “Mainstream Americans” judged the Tea Party “closer to their views” than the Democratic Congress. By 68 percent to 16 percent, Americans deemed Tea Party members “better informed” than members of Congress.

This suggests, as a matter of statistical fact, that NPR’s Ron Schiller is the extremist when it comes to Tea Party views. That’s a claim I can make from data—which Schiller never offered.

This information is out there, and has been for a while. I know it because, I, too, work in a field where reporting and analysis must be based on information. Anytime I talk to someone who has been to a Tea Party rally, I ask questions. Before I form or adjust an opinion, I want to hear actual experiences. And beyond anecdotal examples, I’d like some hard data.

How could an NPR person—the pinnacle of the liberal news profession—ignore such information?

The answer is more psychological-political than logical. Many liberals despise the Tea Party movement because of its roots in opposition to Obama-Pelosi-Reid. Really, though, the Tea Party was inadvertently created by liberals—or, at least, by their reckless spending policies in Washington.

Yet, for many Obama supporters, that kind of careful analysis of opponents is jettisoned. They’d rather transmogrify their detractors into devils and gargoyles than try to understand them and perhaps even answer them.

In Ron Schiller’s take on the Tea Party, we have a member of the liberal elite constructing a reality of his own making, one that flies in the face of evidentiary experience, of thoughtful inspection.

Unfortunately, Schiller is far from alone. And isn’t it ironic that he, NPR, his former boss at NPR, Vivian Schiller (no relation), are losing—actually, resigning? They are losing to perceptions of NPR—correct perceptions of NPR’s bias, perceptions that are grounded in reality, in actual examination.

Americans are gathering facts on the folks at NPR, and they don’t like what they’re hearing.

(© 2011 Dr. Paul Kengor)


Read original blog post

2:30 pm
March 11, 2011


Michael

Moderator

posts 43

Post edited 6:46 pm – March 11, 2011 by Michael


Almost exactly a year ago now, Fr. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P authored an article under the headline Can Pro-Lifers Lie for the Truth? Live Action and its Planned Parenthood Video Expose, on another Catholic site. 

Father asks the question, in the article’s second paragraph, “Is lying for the truth morally justifiable?” I’m going to ask the same question with respect to the facts on which came out of the “sting” on NPR.

The conclusion reached by Fr. Austriaco was, “It is not justifiable even if [the lie] is being used as a means to a good.”  The smack Mr. Schiller gave to the Tea Party because of the interview with Mr. O’Keefe, was a political/cultural one – certainly not of what one should perceive as profound as the import of exposing Planned Parenthood.  Should we as Catholics condone it?  Should we speak out against it?  Should we sit on the sidelines and see how everything shakes out – voting our conscience (hopefully well-formed) regardless of the jersey of the candidate?  

I’m leaning toward the latter, but I won’t be afraid to say that what Mr. O’Keefe is doing seems … un-Christian … if asked.

FYI – Father's conclusion was based on CCC 2464, 2482, and 2486.

Hopefully the can be kept on topic and not get into the whole Planned Parenthood-thing in this post.  

In Christ,

Michael


About the Catholic Lane Forum

Forum Timezone: America/Chicago

Most Users Ever Online: 35

Currently Online:
3 Guests

Currently Browsing this Topic:
1 Guest

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1
Forums: 3
Topics: 68
Posts: 169

Membership:

There are 1678 Members
There has been 1 Guest

There are 3 Admins
There are 2 Moderators

Top Posters:

HomeschoolNfpDad – 5
Zellie M. Quinn – 3
fishman – 3
essweesnernich – 3
oheminovemayn – 3
Louie Verrecchio – 2

Recent New Members: jackson10, Edward Looney, E. L. Core, Florian, musicapple, Damaris

Administrators: Mary Kochan (19 Posts), Catholic Lane Administrator (1 Post), Heidi Bratton (0 Posts)

Moderators: Michael (43 Posts), noelfitz (29 Posts)