The Blaze Plays Into The Misdirection Machine On O’Keefe’s NPR Sting, Part One

How do you stop effective techniques from your political adversaries?

The Andrew Breitbart / Shirley Sherrod controversy, the Hannah Giles / James O’Keefe ACORN sting, and the current James O’Keefe / Simon Templar / Shaughn Adeleye NPR sting all have a common technique that been used to attempt to discredit them – call it a Misdirection Pile-on.

In all three cases – Sherrod, ACORN, and NPR – there were proven issues that resulted in immediate action; people fired, placed on leave and organizational defunding. Whether you agree or disagree with the outcome, you can’t argue with that effectiveness. Because a group like Media Matters for America has been so demonstrably ineffective in defending these liberal institutions, they need to try to weaken any future attacks. That’s precisely why organizations like MMfA are so desperate to discredit Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe and (as I’ve seen firsthand) anyone who works with, defends or even sort of likes them.

So here’s the blueprint for Misdirection Pile-on : when with incontrovertible video evidence, gin up some faux-troversy that will get the liberal base to ignore the real controversy and focus on some side issue that you can beat into the ground through the left wing blogosphere’s echo chamber and (in a slightly subdued form) into the mainstream media that sympathizes with you. Use meaningless catch phrases like ‘heavily edited’ and watch gleefully when they become common parlance.

And that strategy is exactly what Glenn Beck’s website The Blaze and his editor Scott Baker enabled in what seems to be a naked attempt to hurt two competitive right wing blogs, The Daily Caller and Baker’s piece called DOES RAW VIDEO OF NPR EXPOSE REVEAL QUESTIONABLE EDITING & TACTICS? was classic Misdirection; focusing on minor issues and Baker-created strawmen while ignoring the undeniable facts of the story. With the Misdirection in place, organizations like Media Matters and endless writers start the Pile-on and repeat over and over how the NPR sting has been debunked, discredited and can now safely be ignored.

There are a couple of ways to analyze Baker’s piece on The Blaze. In this post, I’m going to look at how Baker’s choice of points to question gibes with the initial reporting on the story. You’ll see that Baker ignores two major substantive points about the NPR sting completely in his article, which then gives the Pile-on media totally free reign to ignore them as well. In a future post, I’ll look at the substance of Baker’s claims.

Aside from two speculative points about the audio, here are the six issues that Baker and The Blaze highlight…

  1. Muslim Brotherhood Connections
  2. Does Ron Schiller react to “Sharia” mission statement with amusement?
  3. How does Schiller describe Republicans?
  4. The “seriously racist” Tea Party
  5. Are liberals more educated than conservatives?
  6. Does NPR need federal funding?

Was the media fooled by James O’Keefe on these six points? Were these ‘key points’ of the video, as NPR has suggested?

One objective way to begin to answer that question is to actually look at the initial coverage when the story broke on March 8th. What were major media outlets saying about the NPR sting and did Baker have reason to worry that they’d been hoodwinked by O’Keefe and company?

Here’s the summary of the points four mainstream and blogosphere media sources reported when the story first broke.

Huffington Post Initial Reporting

  • Describes group as ‘Muslim Education Fund’
  • Tea party seriously racist
  • Defends firing of Juan Williams as non-racist, non-bigoted
  • Better for NPR not to receive funding

Yahoo! News / The Upshot’s Michael Calderone Initial Reporting

  • Republican Party hijacked by xenophobic, racist people
  • Proud of Juan Williams firing
  • Doesn’t interject at comments about Jews controlling the media
  • Laughs at joke that NPR is National Palestinian Radio

CBS News Initial Reporting

  • Republican Party / Tea Party involved in people’s personal lives
  • Tea Party has hijacked GOP, calls them racist
  • Republicans anti-intellectual and liberals are more fair and balanced
  • Report shows skepticism over O’Keefe

Slate / Dave Weigel Intial Reporting

  • What would happen if NPR cut off funding
  • Tea Party Racists
  • Juan Williams
  • Points out “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” sign isn’t really in front of NPR

This isn’t a fully comprehensive sample, obviously, but it is pretty representative of the coverage. When we compare the initial reporting to what The Blaze’s “concerns” are, a few things immediately jump out.

  • · First, no media outlet I found mentioned two of Baker’s issues – the Muslim Brotherhood connections and the Sharia connection. These aren’t issues that confused or even interested anyone until Baker brought them up him, in an attempt to find points of criticism.
  • · The issue of Schiller’s view of the current Republican party and the Tea Party come up in every article and Baker raises questions about the video’s accuracy on these issues in points 3-5.
  • Baker’s sixth point about NPR’s need for federal funding also comes up in the intial reporting.
  • · The coverage – even the initial coverage – is openly skeptical of O’Keefe

But what’s equally interesting are points Baker DOESN’T challenge O’Keefe’s work on.

  • · Juan Williams’s firing comes up in most of the initial reporting but not Baker’s piece. This is an especially interesting omission on Baker’s part since the Juan Williams firing was O’Keefe’s initial impetus for looking into NPR in the first place.
  • · Schiller’s acceptance of anti-Semitic comments was mentioned in initial reporting and again, no challenge from Baker. Schiller also made his own comments about Jews controlling the newspapers.No mention of this anywhere in the Blaze article

These points are actually more important and germane than Schiller’s admittedly personal opinions about the Tea Party. In fact, I have no reason to believe that Schiller’s resignation wasn’t more about the anti-Semitic comments than the Tea Party comments. After all, the Anti-Defamation League immediately called Schiller and NPR out for an apology. The Tea Party comments are grabby and polarizing but aside from being possibly indicative of the general worldview at NPR’s executive level, they aren’t nearly as resignation-inducing.

But The Blaze did its job – the misdirection worked. Just do a Google search for “NPR O’Keefe Anti-Defamation” with the time limit set to ‘Last Week’ and you’ll see that that part of story has been cleanly erased, relegated to a Bill Moyers penned piece that asks whether it’s a double standard for the ADL to ask for an apology.

Do I think Baker was in on some conspiracy with the ‘institutional left’ to discredit O’Keefe, Brietbart and The Daily Caller? No, of course not. Scott Baker has his own reasons and they aren’t the same as Media Matters.

But when the Pile-on started and the talking point of the day became ‘the NPR story is debunked!’, did Baker jump into the fray and say that that wasn’t was he meant at all? Did The Blaze try to set the record straight on issues like the Juan Williams firing or Schiller’s nodding acceptance when talk turned to the ‘Jew run media’?

No, course not – they ran a story about all the kudos they were getting.


  1. I think it’s worth mentioning that Scott Baker worked for, doing a daily podcast w/ Liz Stephans called The B-Cast, before leaving Breitbart about a year ago or so. Then he was hired to work at The Blaze. I have seen nothing public indicating a personal animosity between Baker and Breitbart, but it is not uncommon for such partings to leave some sour feelings one way or another.

  2. Nicely done, Lee. I look forward to Part Two!

  3. Wow those first two comments will get you permanently banned from any cocktail parties. Great article Lee, what an odd situation to find out who came up with the “got off on a technicality” meme. I’ve been enjoying your articles it’s fun to watch someone come to terms with how the left often operates. All though in this case it would appear to be a self inflicted wound; which is all the more baffling. Keep up the great work.

  4. Speaking of misdirection: something keeps bugging me about Betsy Liley: She’s been in “institutional giving” for a while, having come to NPR from a university; she’s a real pro. She told two guys whom she thought to be representing a Muslim Brotherhood front group that she could keep their donation anonymous; it sure sounded to me as though she was saying it wouldn’t just be hidden from the public but would be laundered so as to appear on an audit as if it came from somewhere else.
    NPR disavowed that, of course. But how in the world could a pro like Liley “misspeak” on something so fundamental to her job? Did we just get a peek at what really goes on?



  1. Media Matters Beats Breitbart's Dead Horse | WYRD 101 - [...] as anyone would who was able to use Google, that BreitBlogger Lee Stranahan addressed this on his own blog…

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *