First, note that Williams throws in the phrase “skewing the editorial content of their programming” rather breezily. He then preemptively takes issue with NPR’s indignation whenever someone accuses them of doing them just that. Well, NPR needn’t raise itself to the level of indignation here, because Williams doesn’t say anything to support his charge of skewed coverage. He just says that it’s there and moves on. In fact, nowhere in his 900-word piece does Williams pinpoint an instance of skewed editorial content. Instead, like O’Keefe, he keeps his attacks leveled at the organization’s executives and fundraisers while presenting zero evidence that the personal views they might hold affect the material that makes it to air. The piece is a string of featherweight assertions.
Second, Williams never mentions that the controversial and incriminating video that resulted in Vivian Schiller’s resignation was misleadingly edited—something to which you would think he would at least give a nod. Particularly given that the first website to point out the suspicious editing, The Blaze, was founded by one of the folks Williams seems to be defending against Israel’s attack: rodeo clown Glenn Beck.
Of course, there is always room for some Euro-bashing in a column like this, and Williams dutifully raises the specter of the dreaded tax-funded BBC as he draws to a close.
Before NPR top executive Vivian Schiller resigned, her goal for NPR was to increase federal support to create an American version of the British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC]. The BBC, which also began as a radio news service, is funded by a mandatory licensing fee paid by all British subjects. It is essentially a tax set by Parliament every year to support a national news operation.
Again, the problem is with omissions. Vivian Schiller never wanted to recreate the BBC’s business model in the U.S. She did believe in the idea of increased public funding, but knew that the BBC method was not a possibility. Pre-ousting, Schiller wrote in Design Mind (our emphasis): “ I’ve come around to believing pubic funding is an essential and long-standing tradition in this country, even without BBC-style taxes on TV sets—and should be increased.”
Another key omission in this little argumentative detour to the socialist U.K.: those balmy Brits apparently believe their beloved BBC is worth the taxes that they pay for it. A Guardian/IMC poll conducted in 2009 found that 63 percent of Brits think the BBC provides good value for money; and a whopping 77 percent think the BBC is an institution that people should be proud of.
Sounds like something we should all be very afraid of.

It seems to me that Juan Williams has only one useful purpose right now - only one thing that keeps him fat and happy in a Fox News sinecure - and that's flame-baiting the political left.
#1 Posted by Aaron, CJR on Mon 21 Mar 2011 at 05:56 PM
You make the point that Schiller believes in the idea of increased public funding, but as is made clear in the quotation that follows, it's pubic funding that she favors. Now I don't know if she's referring to prostitution or something less crass, but I have trouble believing anyone but a bleeding-heart liberal would suggest anything of this sort. I'm siding with Juan on this one.
#2 Posted by Jacqui, CJR on Mon 21 Mar 2011 at 06:40 PM
NPR = DOA
It's done...
Put the rabid dog down, already.
Chalk another "W" in the win column for O'Keefe and his Handycam.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 21 Mar 2011 at 09:45 PM
juan williams is the one who should be defunded, not npr
#4 Posted by don bohning, CJR on Tue 22 Mar 2011 at 04:22 PM
The only ones worried about "defunding" are the liberals.
ACORN... NPR.. Urban Institute... National Endowment for the Arts...Section 8... Medicaid... SNAP... SCHIP... etc.. etc.. etc...
The public treasury is the lifeblood of liberalism... Liberarlism (and thus, the Democrat party, as it presently constructed) cannot exist without monthly treasury payouts.
You don't see any conservative organizations sucking off the public trough... ThennNRA isn't.... Neither is the Heritage Foundation... Neither is any other conservative organization...
Liberal Payola keeps liberals in business, and the Liberals know it brother!... This is why the will do anything... I do mean ANYTHING... to keep the money flowing...
The first time those "first of the month" checks don't make it into the projects or the trailer parks, the ignorant, dependent masses (i.e. the core Democratic base) will go nuts... And the liberals know it....
It's time to ring the Reality Bell,,,
Time to let the dependent underclass feel the pain of choosing not to produce... Feel the pain of dependency... See the benefit of
Call it an Intervention if you must (to make it palatable to liberals inclined to accept the premise of intervention).. Call it a scourge... Call it Rovian retribution...
But just get it done...
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 22 Mar 2011 at 11:04 PM
The public treasury is the lifeblood of conservatives as well.
Farm subsidies (do conservatives ever get angry that we pay people NOT to grow crops?) and a wide array of business tax breaks are untouchable in the conservative mind. They're not handouts or benefits, right?
And the personal tax breaks for the rich, why, those can't possibly be the same thing as getting unemployment benefits, could they?
When conservatives give up their welfare, liberals will give up theirs.
#6 Posted by RUKidding?, CJR on Wed 23 Mar 2011 at 12:38 PM
As a matter of fact, conservatives do indeed get angry about farm subsidies...
http://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2011/02/17/pruning_farm_subsidies
By why let the mere truth spoil another Liberal Crack Dream?....
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 23 Mar 2011 at 03:34 PM