Thursday, November 04, 2010

Take it Away


I thought I'd put up a new open thread post so that it's at the top of the blog.

71 comments:

informedveteran said...

How much longer is China going to lend us money to build bases encircling most of the remaining easy-to-get oil in the world? I’m sure NationalistPropagandaRadio will have an expose about our imperial ambitions vs. the debt (that everyone is so “concerned” about) any day now…………

Patrick Lynch said...

Why do an article on China/imperial ambitions/debt when you can have Steve Inskeep looking around for some tissues to wipe himself off after he "interviews" Nigella Lawson about her recipes. It was embarrassing to listen to. Very much like his reaction to Tina Brown. Inskeep must really get off on posh British accents.

Porter Melmoth said...

Well, as the George W. Bush of NPR, Inskreep's motormouthing is multi-purpose. One second he can have phone sex with Nigella (she may be posh but at least she can be witty) and the next he can have a 'brilliant' repartee with Barney Frank.

But it's no surprise that this morn even the 'Kreep made way for the heavy hitters: Gjelten & Dina - comin' at ya!

In another of Viv's enlightened 'teamings' (e.g. Overby & Seabrook, Brown & Wyndham - aka 'Craig 'n Paul', and Adumb Davidson's ever-lovin' whiz kids), Tom & TempleRaston are gonna give us the lowdown on al Qaeda now. The results are laughable. Gjelten's constipated gruntings are typically doom-laden and boring, while dainty Dina gives us the soft sell. There's never been a better pairing since Abbott & Costello.

According to Tom & Dina, it's a case of al Qaeda adapting to our mighty powers. That's about it. Profound, eh?

Of course, an imperialist force masquerading as a democracy has to stick to a good guys/bad guys scenario at all cost. Al Qaeda has always been a good and loyal friend in keeping their machine going, and Nationalist Propaganda Radiation has been pretty handy in the toadying dept.

On the other hand, Gjelten & Co. better get their collective asses into gear. I imagine that the Richard Perle types think they're not hardass ENOUGH. With Juangate setting the standard for the tenuousness of a job under Field Marshall Schiller, they're gonna have to please the big boys more.

And Inskreep? I think his giggles ensure his job security. Besides, Viv probably thinks he's cute.

Patrick Lynch said...

ARRRRGGGGGHHHHHH! This morning Scott Simon and some smug little dweeb whose name I didn't catch did a conveniently brief on Keith Olbermann and what I now consider classic NPR fashion completely fail to mention all of the MSNBC/NBC on air personalities who gave to Republican candidates and were not punished for it.

Of course the little dweeb absolutely enjoyed saying that Olbermann clearly violated NBC policy without saying what that policy was and it seemed to me he was making a dig at MSNBC for turning "hard left" at the same time. The policy said "should" not "must" get permission for making those donations but instead dweeb mentions what Faux news does without again mentioning the hypocrisy of MSNBC's own actions.

At which I hurled a very loud "fuck you" at my 1972 replica 1932 Philco cathedral radio sitting on the kitchen table.

@Porter Melmoth: At least Lawson got a couple of digs at both NPR and Inskeep yesterday with the "tow low brow for NPR" and Inskeep's running of his mouth at the very end.

I missed the dimmer twins of Gjelten and Dina because at that point I was getting ready for work. My fiancee and I used to listen to NPR as we commute to work but in the last few weeks we stopped. Their election coverage was s nauseating that even my fiancee who doesn't bear the same animosity towards NPR as I do couldn't bear to listen to it though she is becoming increasingly critical of National Propaganda Radio herself.

goopDoggy said...

NPR' flushable wipe checks in with friend from the business world, Joe Nocera of the New York Times.
Nocera advises the hapless voter that

1. The Fed has made a dangerous (read brave) move that will (i) "annoy the rest of the world" and (ii) "spur inflation - I think that's a little unlikely"

2. It will take the Friedman unit (6 months) to tell whether or not it was successful

3. We don't want a repeat of the government shutdown that would result from not raising the debt limit

4. The Bush tax cuts for people making more than 1/4 million USD/yr should be extended during the lame duck session

5. The new congress has a mandate to clip the wings of the consumer protection bureau and give Wall St. more regulatory freedom


No mention of the fact that all this $600B is essentially another bank bailout that is designed to cover their asses in the mortgage debacle so that, as Michael Hudson points out,

the United States is trying to rescue the real estate market from all the junk mortgages, all the crooked loans, all of the financial fraud, instead of just letting the fraud go and throwing the guys in jail like other economists have suggested.

...and...

The Fed is doing this to cover up the huge fraud that he talks about. He’s right. These people should be in jail, and you shouldn’t bail them out. You’re keeping the debt that was run out by the junk mortgages and the fraudulent lending, you’re keeping that in place, pricing American labor out of the market, and making it impossible for America to earn its way out of debt.

goopDoggy said...

Conan's beard looms large on the horizon. Hide the women and children!

Porter Melmoth said...

Patrick,

Indeed, we have all had to undergo our own gruesome odysseys in coming to grips with what NPR really is. I know that I myself gave them the benefit of the doubt way longer than they deserved. Now that I am at peace over the fact that NPR is what it is, it is far easier checking in to see how they're 'doing'.

(In case you haven't done it, the Archives of this blog are a treasure trove of purposeful rage and piquant critiques, as is our right, as we all of us pay at least 2% of NPR's bills.)

g-Dog, not only Conan's beard, but the great tradition of NPR's ongoing love affair with thoroughbreds certainly pleased the millions of fans this morn.

Plus, Liane discovers Vegas for the first time (woo, woo, WOO! I wonder if she'll dare to stray off the Strip one block and count the syringes on the pavement or profile the last-stop-before-jumping-over-Hoover-Dam dives in N. Vegas?)

Finally, the creampuff to top the show: Adenoid Andie C-brook verbally French-kissed John Boner by declaring him to be - get ready - 'a really fascinating man'. She's got a thing for bartenders. The beginning of a really beautiful relationship.

With that, I could properly face the day with my chin up.

Porter Melmoth said...

Egads, will you look at this:

http://www.politico.com/click/
stories/1009/beastie_boys_mojitos
_a_wedding.html

One hand shall wash the other.

Most shocking: I had no idea that Seabrook and the Simonizer shared faiths.

So much for the bartender 'thing'.

goopDoggy said...

Port - You owe my a mouthful of beer and a scrub of my monitor. Good grief! Not that I'm an Adonis or anything, but we can see why the Sea creature is not normally on TV.
And talk about Village incest - fresh hubby Kirk Easton "works" at the dept. of homeland security. I'd guess he can get Andie access to the latest WMD's so she can cuddle and drool over them. Plus he's got that nifty device for making your clothes invisible.

SEABROOK: Now, it's time for my scan - no, not in your average walkthrough metal detector. This checkpoint of the future has what's called a whole body imager. It looks like a Plexiglas phone booth with a scanner that moves around the person inside.

Mr. WHITE: It uses radio waves, harmless radio waves, to bounce off the skin. It can see through clothes but cannot see through skin. It allows us to conduct a very high level of screening without ever physically touching a passenger.

SEABROOK: Now, wait a second. You can see through clothes but not through skin, which means you're going to see me without any clothes on if I go in that.

Mr. WHITE: Well, the image itself looks more like a robotic image, almost like a catsuit.

SEABROOK: I told you this was going to be unnerving. I step into the booth, raise my arms like I'm going to do a pirouette and that's it. I step back out again. Now, let's see that picture.

Mr. WHITE: So, we're entering the remote viewing location. It's separate from the checkpoint and it's off to the side where no one at the checkpoint can see the image, no one in this room can see the checkpoint.

SEABROOK: That is me. You know, it's not like you can see a naked person by any means but you can see through the clothes. What are you looking for on the body there?

Mr. WHITE: We're looking for any items that may be hidden on the person. So, today, to get to an issue where someone alarms the metal detector, they get a pat down. Typically they may be touched all over the body. Passengers greatly favor not being touched, and we totally understand that. So, by introducing whole body imagers, we can see things without touching people.

SEABROOK: Well, you sure can see the underwires of my bra.

(Soundbite of laughter)


Ha ha ha. I'm so amused *AND* I feel so much safer now!

Porter Melmoth said...

Oh my achin'...

I know one must exercise civil obedience when talking about, well, persons of LESSER TALENTS in this world, but OMG, that, that video, no doubt intended for those who come after us who might consider NPR as something worthwhile... Well, I feel horribly, horribly sorry for them.

On the other hand, if stuff like this doesn't turn people off of NPR, then, well, they DESERVE Sarah Palin to be president.

In a perfectly reasonable way I'm a bit wistful about Ms Andie's plucky sort of confidence in herself. But, uh, if only she had the talent to justify it. Looks don't matter, but talent DOES or, SHOULD, in broadcasting.

Mytwords said...

I think I'll quit my job and get a job and a College Degree at WalMart:
Lynn Neary: "Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer of everything from groceries to gardening supplies, is offering its 1.4 million employees a college education. It's partnered with American Public University to provide online courses toward a bachelor's degree or a master's degree. It's a deal that education experts say is worth watching."

But wait...

You don't hear it in the on-air report, but on the story page NPR writes:
"And Walmart will cover up to 15 percent of tuition." Woo-hoo! 15%! I guess with those HUGE WalMart salaries, covering that remaining 85% will be a cinch.

Mytwords said...

Guy Raz wonders if Obummer will channel a little Truman magic to create a glorious legacy:

RAZ: "And so between that midterm loss of 1946 and the next election in 1948, Truman managed to launch the Marshall Plan to rebuild post-war Europe, sign the National Security Act."

Prof. Zelizer: "Which creates the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council. It's a vast expansion of the federal government." [trans. That's what turned the US from a republic into a permanent war, security state.]

Raz: "And he also decided to ask Congress for $400 million to help prevent Greece and Turkey from falling under the sphere of Soviet communism." [And turn them into torture states - Raz forgot to mention.]

Truly a disgusting legacy...unless you live in NPR-world:

Raz:"That's Princeton historian Julian Zelizer, talking about the program that came to be known as the Truman Doctrine, quite possibly Harry Truman's greatest political legacy."

Sheesh...

informedveteran said...

15 whole percent? Sign me up! At Walmart, the gravy train never stops.

informedveteran said...

This Walmart story is a good case study in how corporate PR firms operate. The professional regurgitators in our worthless news media just blindly repeat Walmart's press release which is basically "Walmart pays employees for college". The fact that most of their below-the-poverty-line employees will never benefit from this is irrelevant. Walmart WILL benefit hugely from the good PR.

informedveteran said...

The "Alley" financial ad is back on the Planet Monkey blog page. What is the deal?

goopDoggy said...

American Public University (aka American Military University) is run by American Public Education, Inc and is private company and not a university. Kind of like the Federal Reserve, which is not federal and has no reserve.


Privatizing education is a not-so-secret agenda of NPR, since much of their underwriting comes from Kaplan, Capella, etc. But this just makes sick all over again. The former layer of vomit has not time to dry before a fresh layer is applied.

JayV said...

FAIR shared this article by George Curry from the Philadelphia Inquirer with its Facebook fans.

"Beyond the Spin: The real trouble with NPR"

"More important than NPR's firing Juan Williams forthe wrong reason is its failure to fulfill its original mission. The watchdog group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting noted that the network 'has consistently shown a tilt toward elite guests and sources -government officials, corporate representatives, and journalists ...from commercial media.'

Read more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/george_curry/20101103_Beyond_the_Spin__The_real_trouble_with_NPR.html#ixzz14ibjEFyx

JayV said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JayV said...

Oops! The url for the Philly Inquirer article linked above was incomplete. Go here for the Curry article.

Porter Melmoth said...

Thanks JV, for that important story. Better late than never that others are getting hip to the real NPR.

In fluffier news, I'm wondering how or if NPR will cover Bob Gibbs' asshole behavior in New Delhi. Can't find anything on their site about it (yet). Seems that Gibbs was 'defending' 3 of the press puppies he certainly has contempt for, cuz they were (temporarily) denied access to a Obama/Singh foto-op (as if 5 weren't enough to snap repetitious digital images of the smiling pair). I wonder if dopey Flintoff was one of the chosen ones.

Gibbs' putting his foot in the door and threatening to pull Obama from bi-lateral talks (can he DO that?) seemed indicative of a classic Westerner being 'assertive' in essentially 'peasant-class' India.

(I've seen it many times in most parts of S. Asia.)

I'm sure Gibbs would've had the balls to do the same thing in, say, Beijing. Yeah, right.

Funniest comment over at Wonkette: 'I hear tell that before he became WH Press Sec, Gibbs was a bad-ass encyclopedia salesman.'

Mytwords said...

Gibbs has a history as a professional sleazebag - so no surprise about this great white dope pulling such an imperious stunt.

Porter Melmoth said...

Check out James Wolcott's weighing in on NPR in the latest 'Vanity Fair': 'The Sound of Sanity'.

Don't think it's web-worthy yet.

JayV said...

Check out Beat the Press. "Case for Defunding NPR: Promoting Scare Stories on Social Security"

Would a prominent public figure be allowed on NPR to defame a major U.S. corporation without challenge? For example, could a cabinet official assert that Microsoft is the main cause of global warming, with no evidence whatsoever to support this position, and not have anyone point out that this charge lacks merit? My guess is no.

Which raises the question of why Colorado Senator Michael Bennet was allowed to tell listeners on Morning Edition that if something is not done soon there will be no Social Security benefits for people his age (45). There are no, as in zero, nada, none, projections from any source that show Social Security will not be able to pay Mr. Bennet and his age cohort larger benefits (adjusted for inflation) than what retirees are receiving today.

Patrick Lynch said...

This morning my fiancee and I ate breakfast with NPR turned off. It was so much nicer. She still likes their "soft news" coverage but now finds the so called "hard news" impossible to listen to.

A very pleasant breakfast without sudden shouts of "bullshit" directed at the radio.

informedveteran said...

Add one more term to the ever-growing list of NPR unmentionables. Louis Berger , the “KBR” of Afghanistan, gets barely a mention in our noble “public” radio. Oh, please don't cut their funding. It might cause their reporting to suffer.

Porter Melmoth said...

Link to Wolcott:

http://www.vanityfair.com/
culture/features/2010/12/
wolcott-201012

To me, a big disappointment. Despite a few blunt barbs, the usually acerbic Wolcott soft-balls NPR. Poor fellow. Now they'll REALLY have him on one of their shows, which is apparently what he really wants.

Funny, no one ever mentions that NPR was a direct copy of the BBC's radio, which has been doing 'voice of sanity' stuff since the 1920s.

goopDoggy said...

Informed,

Report Takes Dim View of Afghan Rebuilding

See? NPR has been doggedly on this story...or they mentioned it once in 2006. Of course, they had to give it a nice polish at the end:

MONTAGNE: Fariba Nawa is a journalist and author of the report Afghanistan, Inc. Much of the work cited in her report was managed by the Louis Berger Group, a New Jersey based engineering consulting firm. The company's chairman, Derish M. Wolff, told NPR there were some problems with some of its projects in Afghanistan, but he said the work had to be done quickly under extremely difficult circumstances and, in general, the company was quote "very pleased" with the results.

See? Derish is "very pleased," and so you should be too.

bun.knee. said...

^ Yeah, Port - the Wooly Cott used-ta be one of my diurnal drop-ins (I'd read his 'Attack Poodles' book too, way back when). But as his blog content began to become seemingly more about Manhattan hob-knobbin' than scathing political criticism, I gradually began to tune out (yep, just like another media outlet, albeit in a more literal sense).

Porter Melmoth said...

Patrick,

It's a good thing you didn't bother with Morn Edition today. They were particularly dippy and bizarre. There were at least four book marketings, and lots of sloppy references to all sorts of things, too many to mention.

At least the Dick Cavett segment reminded me that he is still someone to admire. (No mention of his outstanding series on PBS in the 70s-80s). Earth-mon Susan Stea-amberg was particularly 'playful' with the sterling Cavett, who was patient with her and very professional. Stamberg confidently branded Cavett's voice as 'adenoidal and nasal', which sums up NPR's tone-deaf perception of voices. I would call Cavett's voice deep, resonant and slightly reedy, but NOT 'adenoidal and nasal'. I think Cavett himself might agree. I mean, with Ari Shapiro's drainpipe chatter, David Welna's semi-helium cartoon voice, and Anthony Kuhn's diphtheria-tightened verbal strugglings, WHO deserves such casual branding??

I don't think NPR EVER listens to itself in the critical sense. How could they? Wolcott seems to think they're 'self-effacing', but as we know, it's all about smug narcissism.

Sorry to run on. I think the whole media's been spooked by Dubya's book marketing extravaganza on NBC last night. They're in-un-you-dated (a fine Dubya-ism) with his cheesy bizarreness, which is more intact than ever. The ex-prez may be off the booze, but I tell you, THE MAN IS ON DRUGS. YES, DRUGS. LOTS OF THEM.

Porter Melmoth said...

Copy you loud and clear, bpfb!

Porter Melmoth said...

Typo:

For 'Earth-mon Susan' read (ahem) 'Earth-mom Susan'.

She's older than NPR, y'know. And maybe even more beloved.

The Boss of You said...

Glad someone posted the Wolcott link. Whatever, dude!

informedveteran said...

Here’s 100 Million people who probably won’t buy Dubya’s book.

Anonymous said...

The hilarious part is that FAIR uses the argument that "NPR and PBS programming over the past 20 years has consistently shown a tilt towards elite guests and sources--government officials, corporate representatives and journalists from the commercial media" in support of their claim that NPR should NOT be defunded!!!

Don't Defund Public Broadcasting--Improve It

How does one improve an organization when doing so requires that it bite off its own tail?


NPR's (and PBS's) prime reason for being is to feed it's own insatiable appetite for more dollars (public and corporate).

Anything that threatens that is simply dumped (Bill Moyers) by the wayside.

It's more than a little like the fraudulent banks who dump those within their orgnaizations who point out and push back agianst the fraudulent practices.

William Black calls it "control fraud" and it works in journalism the same way it works with banks.

The net result is that you end up with a bunch of "yes men' and "yes women' who will not do or say ANYTHING to question the status quo because it threatens their job.

informedveteran said...

Supposedly a frightening 85% of Americans still get their news from TV. Maybe FAIR figures it is worth it to try and improve PBS considering some of the alternatives on TV. It seems like another one of those "choosing the least worst" situations that never gets us anywhere.

goopDoggy said...

I was trying to imagine how I might feel bad if I got my wish to defund NPR and all people had left for news was FOX radio at, say, 89.3 on the FM dial. Would people know the difference? Would it be peppier than Seabrook? Smarmier than Inskeep? Less probing than Forrero and Bowman and Beaumien? More embedded?

No. The big difference would be that it would be more obviously biased, though no less biased.

Anonymous said...

The big difference would be that it would be more obviously biased, though no less biased.


By and large, the people who listen to NPR KNOW that Fox is very biased (ie, propaganda).

but for some reason, they don't know (or, more likely, don't wish to believe) that NPR is also very biased (propaganda of a different falvor though propaganda nonetheless)

Does anyone really believe that if NPR disappeared tomorrow that its listeners would start listening to Fox for their "news"?

It's not like there are no real alternatives (eg, Democracy Now)

In my humble Opinion, FAIR should take their assessment (see above) to its logical conclusion.

NPR is beyond "improvement". It's outlived its useful existence and is now emerely acting as a giant vampire squid (to borrow Matt taibi's metaphor) sucking the life out of more deserving (and truly public) organizations like DN and Pacifica.

The worst thing about NPR is that it exploits the perception among listenters that it is the only game in town when it comes to "balancing" Fox.

It's really hard to fight this when NPR floods the air waves with this argument every time their funding is threatened.

And make no mistake: the claim that "NPR receives very little federal funding" is simply a joke.

What they have basically set up is a way of "laundering" federal dollars through NPR member stations who 'purchase' their programming.

informedveteran said...

NPR’s ironically named “On The Media” apparently has no problem with American companies doing the CIA’s dirty work. Caution: This brief jem is a potent 9.5 on the curse-o-meter so everyone take a few deep breaths before viewing…………

Porter Melmoth said...

Thanks informed.

A perfect example of the legitimizing of advanced proto-fascist mechanisms employed to persuade.

With self-acquittal and reasonable-sounding logic, plus a dash of geniality, creeps can make us think that propaganda is just another consumer item at the mega-store. We may be a little turned off by the price or the packaging, but the bottom line is that a delusion is established: that the product itself is really good for us, and that we think we still have the power to choose.

Porter Melmoth said...

Great comments above, gang. Keep the debate moving!

My personal feeling is that Viv Schiller has moved into turbo gear, partnering not only with publishers to flog the book plugging to an almost manic level, but assertively interweaving with all corporate media to ensure a 'robust' survival.

Juangate may have lost a few in the NPR audience (I'd love to know how many), but I think it might have strengthened their constituency. In my lightweight scanning about, I run into a lot of 'thank God for NPR' comments from those who still want to be true believers.

Wolcott's love letter to NPR struck me as a mandate from Conde Nast Corp to lend NPR a hand. Never before have symbiotic relationships been so important to big time media. Indeed, after the WSJ sellout, Murdoch is the vampire squid that other media moguls fear. (I've long fantasized about a Rupert hostile takeover of NPR!)

The usually erudite 'Vanity Fair' even assembled a crappy little 'faces of NPR' web gallery that was cheesily cobbled from official NPR portraits of the usual suspects, plus some more worthy arts-show hosts, just to soften the odious mugs of the Blob/Blok/M-shill/'Kreep/Mundane combo.

At any rate, there really seems to be a circling of the wagons going on, and Viv means to be in the center of the protected zone.

After all, all the magazine shows on NPR would be ghost towns if they didn't fluff the depressing news with fun stuff and 'mildly-amusing' whimsy, to show sophistication, of course.

Meanwhile, Gjelten slips quietly into the Dark Side…

b!!!! said...

Yes yes, wonderful updates - counter to the usual function of grassroots forum linking (to attract the "rubes"), you're sure helping me to steer clear of things I'd rather not be subjected to (The Melmothian One's telling of the VF-NPR glossy conga line, for instance - definitely no f-in' thank you!)

A Big Bunch o' Bunny Luv to ya's!

Anonymous said...

there really seems to be a circling of the wagons going on, and Viv means to be in the center of the protected zone."

Whatever else one says about her,
Vivian Schiller really is an idiot.

Williams should have been fired LONG ago, but the way Schiller went about it wqas simply stupid.

And the remarks she made after his firing to rationalize were contradictory and pretty much incoherent.

Why anyone at NPR (even the fake journalists) would listen to such an idiot is beyond me.

She has NO background as a journalist so she can't even pretend to be "one of the gang".

goopDoggy said...

Vivian Schiller is the Sgt Schultz of MSM.

Anonymous said...

I hear Schiller has sent a directive to ALL NPR employees warning them that NPR will have to go into Operation Keep the Gravy Train Running a bit earlier than she had anticipated. Seems the Juan thing turned off a great number of "viewers" of NPR (showed up a great deal on right sites)! And Juan has some heavy hitters waiting to bash Stands4Nothing radio in Congress so . . .

I can just imagine the funders that will be done on WHYY and WXPN in Philly. This WHYY is launching a new thingy called "News Works" which will empower citizens/listeners/ and, most importantly, financial supporters to become citizen "journalists". My guess? It will not take long for these "citizens" to be just another mouthpiece for Mayor Fluffer Nutter as he runs for a second term. Just a guess.

And I wish they would audit these people very deeply because I think there is a financial scam going on here.

And just to re-enforce the mutual admiration society here at NPR Check? KEEP ON KEEPIN ON!

edk

informedveteran said...

Those two boneheads from the Catfood Commission recommend cutting all funding for the CPB (as well as cutting veterans benefits - good timing guys).

Anonymous said...

Vivian Schiller is the Sgt Schultz of MSM.

with a minor difference:

Schultz was usually lying when he said it.

The Boss of You said...

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting exchange with Dina Temple-Raston. He basically asks her why she wasn't behaving like a journalist.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/11/terrorism/index.html

(I tried to do the HTML link but it didn't work so hopefully you can cut and paste. Next time.)

Patrick Lynch said...

Here is a link with video of Glenn Greenwald taking apart Dina Temple-Raston who makes what would be astonishing remarks about what she has "seen" in the war on terror to anyone except us.

http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/11/11/terrorism

Patrick Lynch said...

Dope slaps self. Should read all postings so that I would notice that someone else has already put up the same URL I did.

Sorry about that.

Patrick Lynch said...

@Porter:

My fiancee had NPR on this morning, it only took a few minutes before she said "enough". The Radio Lab guy was prattling on about how humans contribute to rocks.

I'm glad to know that I dodged another Susan Stamberg bullet. I'm trying to remember if she was always this bad way back when or she became that way when they defrosted her like Austin Powers. When she's being "playful" I tend to wretch.

For that execrable 50 greatest voices series she did a terrible piece on the early 20th Century Irish tenor John McCormack which was ostensibly to make amends for an earlier piece in which she trashes him. She spends so much time talking about that, that very little airtime was spent talking about how truly talented McCormack was. As an disclaimer, I collect McCormack 78s to play on my gramophone.

Her coverage of the French Impressionists was beyond dreadful and she repeated the usual garbage about how the Impressionists "discovered" bright colours as though no one else had ever done it before completely ignoring the fact that the Impressionists were building on what the English Pre-Raphaelite artists had done and were still doing in the same century and the Pre-Raphs themselves acknowledged their debt to the original Italian renaissance painters before the time of Raphael who pioneered the use of bright colour in European art.

But not to hear Susan Stamberg tell it but I've long learned that if NPR can screw it up the facts or trivialise the accomplishments of our ancestors they are the go to network for radio abominations.

Patrick Lynch said...

With regards to the Bush book: W is running his mouth with glee because he has no handlers to temper the bizarro things he puts out there. Though the comment he makes about Mitch McConnell was priceless. However, in Kentucky, it will have no impact whatsoever. Ryan Alessi of the Lexington Herald Leader did a scathing and well documented series of articles of where McConnell's money comes from and it got a collective yawn. So McConnell's machinations about Iraq will not hurt him in the slightest.

Okay, enough posting for today!

goopDoggy said...

Here's what Dina Temple Raston sees in her reflection.

Anonymous said...

poor NPR..

They are pulling out all the stops to prevent defunding of NPR member stations, which would effectively put NPR out of bidness.

pass the popcorn.

This is going to get good.


here's NPR's response to the Obama commission recommendation:

"The National Commission's proposal to eliminate federal funding for public media would have a profound and detrimental impact on all Americans."

"Federal funding has been a central component of public radio stations' ability to serve audiences across the country," adds NPR. "It's imperative for funding to continue to ensure that this essential tool of democracy survives and thrives well into the future."

////

"It is IMPERATIVE that we keep getting federal funds funneled through member stations."

Poor Vivian Schiller.

She is overseeing the demise of NPR and does not even realize it.

The Boss of You said...

@Patrick, I think you did a better job posting that Greenwald link than I did, so no worries. Apparently I can't do the easy-peasie HTML or just a straight link share. If I didn't agree so much with everyone here, I'd leave in total embarrassment.

Anonymous said...

Listened to Terry (Moto-Mouth) Gross on Same Old Stale Air yesterday. She had dexter Philkins(sp?) on. He's with NT Times. She seemed baffled by the concept that US fighting Taliban while at the same time facilitating "peace with honor" talks. She just can't seem to wrap her mind around the fact that US always negotiates with its' "enemies". Because after all we have always been at war with (fill in the blank) . . . And of course America is WINNING, dammit.

NPR (since that's the subject here though it is true of all MSM) never learns that "official" stories are more often than not simply lies. They continue to repeat the lies verbatim and when the next crisis erupts they are surprised cause "no one could have predicted this". Well, at least no one that listens to NPR. Sheeesh!

edk

goopDoggy said...

I was quite struck by the panel discussion The Constitution and National Security: The First Amendment Under Attack where Dina Temple Raston tried to skewer Glenn Greenwald, and got skewered instead.

So I've made a transcript...which follows in parts. A little context helps: apparently Glenn had criticized her reporting a few days earlier and she is obviously quite miffed about it. Anyway, here is how she composes her challenge to GG:

DTR: Hi there, I’m Dina Temple Raston with NPR and I’m a big follower of yours Glen and I like your stuff very much but I’m sorry I’m going to have to correct you on a number of very basic points that clearly our representative from the FBI feels uncomfortable correcting you on.

The first is Michael Leiter actually came out and said Awlaki did indeed have an operational role in AQAP on July 1st in Newsweek, so you can look that up.

goopDoggy said...

The second thing is, it was pretty clear when Abdumutallab, the underwear bomber, was caught, he specifically said in very early reports that we got both quietly through sources and also publicly, that Awlaki trained him and others to do what he did. So your whole premise about Awlaki just being targeted for his speech, as far as we know, actually for people who do national security reporting more deeply, I think that would be inaccurate.

The second thing I wanted to talk about has more to do with our subject at hand, which has to do with free speech and these people and I wonder if you can talk a little bit about this case that just happened in the UK. There was a straight A student, woman, who went to Kings College, London, and she says watched a great number of Awlaki’s videos and they specifically inspired her to stab a former PM in the stomach a number of times. I think she was just sentenced yesterday. Can you talk about that cause and effect and whether or not that’s straight enough? I don’t really have an opinion on it, I’m just wondering as a specific example that you could talk about.

GG: Can I ask you a question? The idea that Abdumutallab said that he was trained by Awlaki. How do you know that and what exactly did he say?

DTR: Uh, he specifically said…I can’t tell you exactly how I know this

GG: Government officials told you that, right? You were in the room?

DTR: Maybe I actually saw something…

GG: You were in the room during the interrogation?

DTR: Maybe I actually saw something that you haven’t seen.
[outburst of laughter]

goopDoggy said...

well, I've got more, but the blogger god won't have it til later?

larry, dfh said...


This
is a link to an Update from Greenwald's site, previously mentioned. As Glenzilla notes, the first comment on the article is very interesting, although a little too generous to npr.

goopDoggy said...

So we left off with DTR asking GG if he thinks maybe DTR has seen something that GG hasn't seen.

DTR: Is that possible?

GG: You’re a journalist, so you should share with us what that is.

DTR: I..I…I’ve seen his statement.

GG: You’ve seen Abdumutallab’s statement.

DTR: I’ve seen parts of Abdumutallab’s statement.

GG: What’d he say?

DTR: I just told you what he said.

GG: He said he was trained by…

DTR: That he was specifically trained by Awlaki with others. As many as ten others.

GG: uh huh.

DTR: Ok. I mean it’s not what you…you don’t do national security reporting for a living so there’s no reason why you should do it…
[laughter]

GG: I kind do actually. I sort of do. So you saw Abdumutallab’s statement and he said that awlaki trained him as a terrorist operative…
DTR: Well now you’re putting words in his mouth. He trained him as an operative with ten others.

GG: Hmm hmm. So then we ought to be able to…that’s really good evidence – we ought to be able to indict Anwar Awlaki as a terrorist. That’s great evidence.

DTR: Probably should, but that’s not what…but…but…anyway, the other point was that you said they have never ever said…whether you believe my sources or not…whether I believe my sources or not…you’ve said that they’ve never publicly said Awlaki had an operational role. And it was specifically said in Newsweek by Michael Leiter.
GG: Oh no, lots of…I mean, Leon Panetta went on ABC and said that he thinks Anwar Awlaki is a terrorist – there’s just never anything specified about what it is that they claim that he did, so I think that the way the the U.S. sort of is supposed to work is that the way that we determine guilt is not by people whispering to reporters certain things or showing them little pieces of documents that nobody can show anybody else, that it can be examined – I think that the way that we’re supposed to have it is with due process where you can go into a court and present this evidence and convince a jury that somebody is actually guilty and punish them. I think that’s the way it ought to work.

[applause]

Fred Baumgarten said...

Top of the morning. A couple of random observations from recent shows. Forgive me if my faulty memory blurs the details.

On ATC, there was someone being interviewed at the National Mall, and the reporter twice was told by Park Police that interviews could not be conducted on park grounds, according to federal regulations.

Did anyone else hear that? Aside from the bizarre irony of National PUBLIC Radio being banned from doing its work on National Public Land, there was also the frightening aspect of Big Brother-type censorship at work. What exactly is the threat of taping an interview in a public place? I hope someone else who noticed this will comment.

This morning on Weekend Edition we had Eleanor Beardsley giving a good boot-licking to a French imam who of course is painted a standing in opposition to all other French Muslims, aka radicals, aka protesters (in case we don't get the point, we have a two-second clip of Arabic shouting); who is for raprochement with Jewish people -- which I think is fine and worthy, but does not mean that identification with Palestinians is wrong; and who support Sarkoczy's ban on burqas -- which should offend anyone who believes in freedom of religion.

Anonymous said...

FRed:

I also heard the interview but NPR understands that govmint has our best interests at heart and so only the guest would comment. NPR is in serious trouble and they are not about to throw any gas on the fires that be. Besides, ATC and ME are nothing but propaganda outlets for American "interests".

edk

Anonymous said...

The more I read and think about the Temple of Doom's interchange with Glenzilla the more disturbing it is. One comment I read was that the Obama Admin. had claimed the case against al-Aliki (sp?) was so sensitive that they couldn't even allow a judge to see evidence. Yet they showed the "evidence" to Dina Temple of Doom? I'll bet it was the same type of "solid evidence" Powell tried to foist off on the UN.

But here's to Dina: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF5zmr5XFYg

edk

goopDoggy said...

Ha ha...I'll bet Dina really buys into the thrill of a self-image of secret agent lady. Here's some more of the transcript of what was, I think, quite a remarkable interchange with Glennzilla:

So we left off with DTR asking GG if he thinks maybe DTR has seen something that GG hasn't seen.

DTR: Is that possible?

GG: You’re a journalist, so you should share with us what that is.

DTR: I..I…I’ve seen his statement.

GG: You’ve seen Abdumutallab’s statement.

DTR: I’ve seen parts of Abdumutallab’s statement.

GG: What’d he say?

DTR: I just told you what he said.

GG: He said he was trained by…

DTR: That he was specifically trained by Awlaki with others. As many as ten others.

GG: uh huh.

DTR: Ok. I mean it’s not what you…you don’t do national security reporting for a living so there’s no reason why you should do it…
[laughter]

GG: I kind do actually. I sort of do. So you saw Abdumutallab’s statement and he said that awlaki trained him as a terrorist operative…
DTR: Well now you’re putting words in his mouth. He trained him as an operative with ten others.

GG: Hmm hmm. So then we ought to be able to…that’s really good evidence – we ought to be able to indict Anwar Awlaki as a terrorist. That’s great evidence.

DTR: Probably should, but that’s not what…but…but…anyway, the other point was that you said they have never ever said…whether you believe my sources or not…whether I believe my sources or not…you’ve said that they’ve never publicly said Awlaki had an operational role. And it was specifically said in Newsweek by Michael Leiter.

goopDoggy said...

To which GG eloquently responds:

GG: Oh no, lots of…I mean, Leon Panetta went on ABC and said that he thinks Anwar Awlaki is a terrorist – there’s just never anything specified about what it is that they claim that he did, so I think that the way the the U.S. sort of is supposed to work is that the way that we determine guilt is not by people whispering to reporters certain things or showing them little pieces of documents that nobody can show anybody else, that it can be examined – I think that the way that we’re supposed to have it is with due process where you can go into a court and present this evidence and convince a jury that somebody is actually guilty and punish them. I think that’s the way it ought to work.

[applause]

On the idea of inspiring things…I don’t have any doubt that there are people who listen to Anwar Awlaki and then go and get motivated to commit violence. There was just a criminal who tried to go and kill lots of people at the Tides foundation and the ACLU and he said that he was inspired by Glenn Beck. And this has been happening all the time. There are lots of people who just wrote columns like Jeffrey Goldberg and Jonah Goldberg and Mark [?] in the WaPo saying that we should be targeting Julian Assange for murder and for killing him and that may very well inspire violence as well and so the idea that you can be held guilty or culpable for things that you inspire, not only is unconstitutional, but I think quite dangerous. It’ll sweep up lots and lots of people that we probably don’t intend to sweep up.

goopDoggy said...

The blog-doggit god of goobers has banished the transcript. Weird.

The Boss of You said...

Trying hyper-link again Adam Serwer does a good job describe what is so wrong with Temple-Raston's defense or whatever you want to call it.

Mytwords said...

I'm seeing a possibility of reducing those bloated NPR executive salaries and those $300,000+ "host" salaries (from NPR's latest IRS 990 forms): Check it out...
The beauty of it is that those wires could be run straight to the Pentagon and the State Department so we could still get balanced NPR news - (maybe they already do that!)

Anonymous said...

Subsequent to the 60 Minutes paid political advertisement from NatGas, I decided to search NPR for ANGA. Here is what I found:

"The Hill newspaper reports on the new poll of 12 districts it commissioned along with the American Natural Gas Alliance:

In a poll of 12 hotly contested races that could decide who controls the House in the 112th Congress, Republican challengers are beating freshman Democrats in 11 — and in the last one, the race is tied.

But The Hill/America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) poll also detected a glimmer of light for Democrats; not one of the 12 Republican challengers has reached 50 percent, and half of them have leads so small that they are within the margin of error."

So, the ANGA sponsors polls with The Hill that appear on the NPR site.

And, so it goes...

Anonymous said...

$8,000 an hour for Siegel? I get $9,000 for a year from my SS disability. I'm sorry, that sounds so much like class envy. lol

It took me a couple of minutes to figure out the robot link but that's why MyT Words makes the big bucks here at the non-profit NPR Check.

Which brings me to this: I keep hearing an increase in the use of the words "human capital" on NPR and i'll assume elsewhere. Human capital was the phrase used by insurance companies/accountants when referring to slaves.

So Bobby S? You are nothing but a well-compensated vassal. I wonder if that's better or worse than being a "human resource"?

edk

Anonymous said...

I'm seeing a possibility of reducing those bloated NPR executive salaries and those $300,000+ "host" salaries

Sadly, the salaries of the hosts and execs like Schiller will probably be the LAST things cut.

It's like everything else. They will cut all the "unneccessary stuff" first: anything that is not bringing in dollars.

After all, that's what NPR is basically about these days: maximizing the corporate donations (and hence keeping public relations reps like schiller and Inskeep to keep the dollars rolling in).