Saturday, March 29, 2008

Increasingly Sucked

Let's take a look at NPR's coverage of the al-Maliki government's attempts to crush the rival Mehdi army starting in Basra (and how the the gentle giant of the US has been blindly and helplessly pulled into this defining moment).

On Friday's Morning Edition:
  • Dina Temple-Raston says to Renee Montagne, "technically what he's [al-Maliki] taking on, and this is what the American line has been too, is they're taking on rogue elements of that army, because technically there's a cease what they're saying here is that the fighting is just among these rogue elements who were trained in Iran and aren't listening to Muqtada al-Sadr."
Trained in Iran? Says who? Where's a shred of evidence? Has Temple-Raston ever heard of Iran and Daawa (al-Maliki's party), SCIRI, and Badr Corps? Has anyone at NPR?

On the hourly reports on Friday afternoon:
  • (Early afternoon, Jack Spear): "the US has been increasingly sucked in" to the fighting.
  • (Later in the evening) Jack Spear says, "the Iraqi Government stalled...but as NPR's Anne Garrels reports, the US may now have to assure its success." (Garrels comes on) "...but now that the Iraqi forces have started the offensive US officials can not afford to let them fail."
Funny that there is no mention in these reports about Cheney's mid-March visit to Iraq and his likely pressure on al-Maliki to attack the Sadrists. Nothing about how al-Maliki's Shiite allies are closer to Iran than any of Sadr's forces. Nothing about the absurdity of the US occupation not knowing what al-Maliki was planning. Is anyone really stupid enough to believe that al-Maliki could mount a major military offensive without the knowledge, planning, assistance, (and permission) of the US occupation? NPR thinks so...


big!pink!fuzzy!bunny! said...

Great title, just like my opinion of NoPR's coverage.

Porter Melmoth said...

I can't imagine a more worthless source for truthful information about Iraq than Nonfunctioning Public Radio. Fox News is worse of course (if not synonymous), but at least you know where they stand. NPR attempts to play the game of 'safe' cleverness, so that they'll be taken seriously. Boy, how they crave the prestige.

And what the hell is with this 'defining moment' crap? OK, it's just another Luntzy product from BushCorp. But why would any thinking person take such a vague statement seriously? Just the fact that the media repeats such a banal pronouncement with a straight face is enough to invalidate any news source's credibility. And now, with NPR's new gals (Dina+Lourdes) delivering steady-voiced updates about the New Iraq from Bombproof Vault #345, deep beneath the billion dollar US Embassy, and with a 'less emotional' and fully-clothed Annie G. to guide them, their team's putting the propaganda back into NPR with a capital 'P'.

(NOTE: I think it was Susan Steeammberg who made it clear though, that Our Lady of Lourdes had indeed been 'on the streets of Baghdad' or somewhere or other, just so Lourdes’ statement that those streets were deserted could be taken as a sort of eyewitness fact. I found it interesting that the anchor in DC would make a statement that the reporter on the scene (or in the general region) should be making. Hell, I could make the same statement just by using Google Earth...)

NPR should just stick to doing feature shows and leave the hard edge reporting to other, more independent agencies. I don’t care if this was an extremely liberal administration and NPR was spinning things to the left all the time. The truth is the truth, and NPR is in the thrall of non-truth and truthiness. They aren’t valid enough to do the job, and they’ve proven it, time and again.

Liberality said...

that was just what I said to hubby as we listened to the news. The remark was "wasn't Dick Cheney just over there? What in the hell did he do?" yeah, some of us can connect the dots even though NPR goes out of their way to try to scramble them.

War On War Off said...

Nothing about how al-Maliki's Shiite allies are closer to Iran than any of Sadr's forces.

Daniel Schorr actually said that Sadr's forces were the Pro-Iranian elements! Completely and absolutely WRONG. GAH!

Mytwords said...

I was struck by Schorr's complete error. Does his senior news analyst status mean that no one checks his work? Seriously, just a cursory look at Wikepedia would have clued him in on his blatant misinformation.

big!pink!fuzzy!bunny! said...

Oooooh, Schorr's 'McCain moment' sounds like fertile ground for (yet another) FAIR Action Alert! CHAAAAARGE!!!!