NPR has just issued a statement regarding James O‘Keefe’s undercover video featuring Senior Vice President of Development Ron Schiller.

(Read our original story and watch the video.)

In it, NPR spokeswoman Dana Davis Rehm, senior vice president of marketing, communications and external relations, says the organization is appalled by Schiller’s words, and that he will be leaving the company due to an already-planned departure. However, NPR reiterates his leaving has nothing to do with the video, and the company never accepted the fake actors’ money

Read the statement below:

The fraudulent organization represented in this video repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept.

We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for.

Mr. Schiller announced last week that he is leaving NPR for another job.

In a follow-up e-mail with NPR, the company told The Blaze, “Ron Schiller’s departure has nothing to do with this video – we weren’t aware there was a video until this morning.”

UPDATE:

NPR is covering its own controversy, and has a blog post that is being updated here. Author Mark Memmot offers additional details on Schiller’s new position: he will become director of the Aspen Institute Arts Program.

See Story here

James O’Keefe, the controversial, undercover, conservative filmmaker, has released his company’s (Project Veritas) latest video today. This time, his group’s targeting publicly-funded NPP and catches one of the news outlet’s executives saying some suspect things. The video is sure to get some attention, but it’s not bulletproof, and there could be cause for concern.

To be sure, one of the NPR executives on the video, Ron Schiller (president of the NPR Foundation and senior vice president of development), is caught making damning statements. He calls the Tea Party “racist,“ decries the ”anti-intellectual” GOP, and claims liberals “might be more educated.”

He even attacks the supposed religious views of the Tea Party: “The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian – I wouldn’t even call it Christian. It’s this weird evangelical kind of move.”

“[I]f Schiller represents the executive view at NPR,” Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey writes, “it’s not hard to imagine what kind of treatment those white, gun-toting, xenophobic Tea Partiers can expect from NPR’s news coverage.”

But the video also falls short of its intended goal: to catch NPR execs kowtowing to a fake Muslim Brotherhood front group. Schiller, as well as his companion, do not say anything shocking about glorifying the group per se, and it must be remembered that this is a donor meeting with $5 million on the line, not a policy debate.

That is not to say that Schiller is absolved from everything he said, but rather to give context. See and decide for yourself. I’ll update with some more thoughts in a bit:

Again, there is some shocking stuff there. But some things should be noted, including concerns:

1. Schiller does try to distinguish (somewhat) his professional views from his personal views. He fails. In the end, he’s at a work-related event. Trying to qualify something as “this is my personal opinion” doesn’t give him a blank slate to say whatever he wants and have it not reflect on NPR. Ironically, in the video Schiller blasts Juan Williams for doing this very thing.

2. Schiller does say that NPR is looking to feature Muslim voices. Guess what, Sean Hannity does the same thing. The Blaze does the same thing. All journalists and news organizations have a responsibility to present to the best of their ability all sides of the story. That’s why Hannity invited radical Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary on his program a few weeks ago. Even if you don’t agree with someone, they should still get a chance to say what they want. Glenn Beck has always said he’ll stand shoulder-to-shoulder with any MSNBC host for freedom of speech.

3. Some are pointing out that Schiller admits the station would be better off without federal funding, and use it as a “gotcha” moment. I‘m not sure that’s the case. I’ve worked in fundraising before, and it seems to me what Schiller is doing there is trying to remove a donation barrier. As he says, most “philanthropists” think NPR as almost fully-funded by the government, which certainly could prevent people from donating to the organization. If the government’s mainly funding NPR, why should donors?

4. It must be pointed out that Schiller does not overtly dignify the actor’s anti-Semitic comments. When the actor talks about Jews controlling the media, Schiller only  gives a half-hearted head motion. In fact, Schiller goes out of his way to point out that there’s no such thing as “Jewish influence” at NPR. That’s huge, and Schiller should be commended for that.

Unfairly, O‘Keefe puts Schiller’s response under the heading, “Jews Own the Newspapers, Obviously.” That’s not what he said at all. He said that there is Jewish influence at papers that are owned by Jews. That’s a far cry from saying “Jews own the newspapers, obviously.” In fact, Schiller’s associate, Betsy Liley, even mentions that NPR is funded in part by a Jewish organization. That doesn’t seem to be placating anti-Semitism.

5. When the actor first begins talking of the Muslim Brotherhood, the video cuts. The actor says the organization was originally funded by a few members of the MB in America, and we do not see or hear Schiller’s unedited, immediate reaction. The video instead cuts to Schiller’s talk about Muslim voices. Maybe that is his immediate reaction, but we don‘t know since there’s a video cut. That could be important, or maybe it’s not. But it’s definitely worth pointing out.

The video, in the end, not only raises questions about NPR, but it also raises questions about undercover, gotcha journalism that can sometimes border on entrapment. We’ll be discussing this more in the future.

For now, consider these points, watch the video again, and feel free to comment. We will be watching the story all day, including bringing you any reaction from NPR. By the way, we did reach out to NPR for comment. A spokeswoman declined to comment and said an official statement will be released today.

It also bears mentioning that yesterday video surfaced of NPR president Vivian Schiller issuing a challenge to find examples of NPR bias. It‘s doesn’t bode well for her that Ron Schiller’s comments about the Tea Party were made public today (note: Ron and Vivian are not related):

See videos here

UPDATE:

NPR has responded to the video. See our story on that here.

In early March 1991, all the smart people in politics knew one thing about the upcoming 1992 campaign: President George H.W. Bush was unbeatable.

Fresh from victory in the Gulf War, Bush enjoyed a job approval rating around 90 percent. At a time when potential challengers should be enlisting supporters and planning campaigns, Democrats who had been expected to challenge Bush held back, hesitant to enter a race that seemed hopeless.

“Will anybody run against George Bush in 1992?” asked Juan Williams in the Washington Post on March 10, 1991. “There are no candidate footprints in the pristine snows of New Hampshire this winter and the Iowa cornfields are untrampled.”

March passed, and then April, May, June, and July, and still Democrats searched for candidates willing to challenge Bush. One by one, the big names — Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Mario Cuomo — decided not to run. Bush was just too strong.

The Democratic field that finally emerged seemed decidedly lackluster: Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey, Bill Clinton, Douglas Wilder and Tom Harkin. After an undistinguished primary season, one of them would be the sacrificial lamb to run against Bush.

Today, 20 years later, there’s no need to elaborate on how it turned out. All you have to say is that the prize went to the candidate who took a risk when others shied away.

Now we’re in a political season in which it is Republicans who seem hesitant to challenge an incumbent president. And we’re seeing the emergence of a new conventional wisdom: Barack Obama will be very, very tough to beat.

What a change. Back in 1991, the pundits discussed how hard it would be to defeat a president with a job approval rating of 90 percent. Now, they’re talking about how hard it would be to defeat a president with a job approval rating of 48 percent.

Back in the first Bush administration, some GOP strategists surveyed the struggling Democratic field and repeated the old axiom, “You can’t beat somebody with nobody.” Who could possibly have the stature to knock off President George H.W. Bush? Now, some of those same Republicans are fretting about the quality of their own presidential field and repeating the same slogan, this time not in overconfidence but in self-reproach. Maybe they’ve forgotten 1991.

None of this is to say that conditions today are the same as they were 20 years ago. There are a zillion differences. Bush was riding what turned out to be a fleeting wave of popularity after the war in ’91, while Obama will likely have more durable support in ’12. Also, the economy was trending downward in ’91 but will (hopefully) be headed up in ’12. And much of the press was against the incumbent president in ’91 but will most assuredly be for the incumbent president in ’12.

But whatever the differences, the similarity is that for Republicans, victory is possible for a candidate with daring, confidence, and skill. Yet some of the most qualified potential GOP candidates appear to be hanging back, reluctant to take on the White House. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is surely one of the more capable potential presidents out there, but he has gone back and forth on the question of running and at the moment seems to be leaning against it. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has flatly declared himself unready for the job. Other Republicans with proven appeal, like former Arkansas governor and ’08 candidate Mike Huckabee, are biding their time.

But time is passing. The first Republican presidential debate is less than two months away, and by now candidates should have already spent months organizing and seeking support in early primary and caucus states. Those who haven’t been doing that are already behind.

Yes, Obama will be difficult to beat. He has the enormous power of incumbency, and he can lose a number of the states he won in 2008 and still be re-elected. But George H.W. Bush seemed unbeatable, too. In 1991, Clinton decided to go forward, in the face of all the conventional wisdom, and ended up in the White House. No one knows whether a Republican challenger could do the same thing now. But we know this for sure: They won’t win if they don’t run.

Byron York, The Examiner‘s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) recently asserted that there is a “potential alliance” forming between Progressive and Tea Party lawmakers on the issue of defense spending cuts. Others have also noted this opportunity:  “Arguably, the new Tea Party push on defense spending merely echoes long-standing progressive attacks on the Pentagon budget as the nation’s number one ‘entitlement’ program.”

But defense is no entitlement program. It is one of the core responsibilities of the federal government, and a necessity for sustained security and an independent American foreign policy. The issue of defense spending is exacerbated by a gross misunderstanding among average Americans about the share of military spending in the budget. According to a recent poll, 63% of those asked believe that the United States spends more on the military than on Social Security and Medicare. This is far from reality: roughly 58% of the 2010 U.S. budget was spent on domestic entitlements and welfare spending, whereas 20% was spent on defense.

The US need not police the world, but since the beginning, military preparedness for threats both manifest and unknown has been a priority. In George Washington’s first annual address to Congress in 1790, he cautioned future Americans to safeguard defense:

Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

America’s traditional spending priorities deserve to be voiced in the current budget debate.

While Progressives and some Libertarians are attempting to form political alliances to cut American military spending, China plans to increase its military spending by 12.6% (to $91.5 billion) in 2011, prompting concern from countries in the region. China may not constitute a direct military threat at this time, but according to George Washington’s understanding of Congress’ role, the imminence of a threat is secondary to ensuring “effectual means” to provide for U.S. security.

Progressives such as Barney Frank do not “merit particular regard” for American security and independence abroad. Indeed, they would rather sacrifice military preparedness on the altar of domestic entitlement spending, in an effort to survive the current spending cuts with their bloated welfare programs intact. What could be further from the goals and values of the Tea Party movement?

The Foundry