Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The NPR Has No Clothes

Given that I've been running this blog for almost five years now, I thought I should weigh in on the current NPR and PBS funding cuts issue. As much as I detest how squarely NPR News supports unbridled corporate and US government power, I take no pleasure in seeing a Republican and far-right mobilization to cut off all public media funding. However, I've been unable to bring myself to sign on with the current campaigns to support NPR and PBS funding, and so I'm posting the following, hoping it will spur debate:

NPR, It's Just Not That In To You

Many progressive and liberal activists have probably received emails from MoveOn.org and FreePress.net exhorting them to, respectively "Sign the petition to save NPR and PBS" and "Sign our letter now and urge your member of Congress not to play politics with public media."

Leftists and progressives make bold claims about NPR reporting. In 2009 Megan Tady of In These Times, referring to NPR, wrote, "Public broadcasting provides some of the country’s most hard-hitting journalism....Public media produce some of the best reporting and programming on radio...." In 2010 FreePress President, Josh Silver, asserted that "Public media like NPR play a crucial role in America, providing original, in-depth journalism..."

Unfortunately these claims have no basis in reality. The painful truth is that - like the national Democratic party and the Obama Administration - NPR's signature news shows - Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and Weekend Edition Saturday/Sunday - relentlessly exhibit nothing but contempt for leftists, progressives, and antiwar and social justice activists while constantly airing reports that bolster US militarism, corporate power, and legitimize radical rightwing ideology and movements. If you doubt me, I have assembled almost five years of evidence on this blog. For skeptics, I'll offer but a few examples that are the rule not the exception.
I didn't even mention the well-known cases of NPR's refusal to call torture torture, or how NPR smears leftists when they die.

Chris Hedges recently derided liberals because they "make passionate appeals to work within systems, such as electoral politics, that have been gamed by the corporate state. And the result is to spur well-meaning people toward useless and ultimately self-defeating activity." And such are these worthless drives to save NPR and PBS funding. Notice that the campaigns to save NPR and PBS funding make no demands and insist on nothing more than the status quo.

It is a shame that organizations like MoveOn, which claims 5 million members, or Free Press are not tying the campaign to save government funding for public media to demands that NPR offer more diverse and critical journalism. The campaigns of these organizations should mobilize their members and supporters to contact their local NPR stations and demand that NPR news programming be improved within a year or be dropped. This demand should be backed by a pledge to cut off membership support if these modest demands are not met.

Glenn Greenwald recently made an astute observation about politics in Washington: "There's a fundamental distinction between progressives and groups that wield actual power in Washington: namely, the latter are willing (by definition) to use their resources and energies to punish politicians who do not accommodate their views, while the former unconditionally support the Democratic Party and their leaders no matter what they do."

Progressives have a choice with public media: produce journalism that challenges the powerful or use their resources and energies to punish them. That is a campaign I could sign on with.


Anonymous said...

Sometimes the punishment should fit the crime.

Personally, I think many (if not most) of the people NPR has working for it (for themselves?) are incorrigible.

Their contempt for ordinary people is part of their personality, not something they can change (or even switch off when they go on air).

The problem at NPR is not cosmetic or even something you can fix (I don't think) without firing most of the people there and starting over from scratch.

NPR is rotten to its core.

It should be thrown out so that truly independent and truly hard hitting news organizations like Democracy Now get the attention they deserve.

NPR is a monopoly and a particularly bad one at that.

While I don't support the Republican rationale for defunding NPR, I support the goal and I intend to "leverage" the Republican rationale when I write to members of Congress (eg, citing the Juan Williams firing as a reason for defunding NPR and its member stations)

Anonymous said...

I'd settle for a deep, deep audit of the financial arrangements between NPR inc., American Public Media (for profit safety valve for possible "profits?), and Public Radio International. There's two too many entities to muddy the waters.

WHYY finally got their 760k which they claimed was the biggest goal ever. Let's assume they raise this amount three times a year which gives us 2.280m. So far so good. Now they claim to pay anywhere from 1-1.5m (amount rises as drive goes on just as listening numbers seem to also) for NPR programming. Dollar Bill Marazzo makes 767k (min). Now we are at 1.77 - 2.26m yearly cost on just Marazzo and NPR. Gross makes at least near 200k and Moss-Cohan another 96k. Add the cost of labor they don't tell us about and the expenses they continually claim to incur (NewsWorks etc etc) So the expenses seem to out-pace revenue year on year (no funder met goal in 12 tries). Where's the money?


Anonymous said...

I would doubt that most NPR listeners even care about the contorted financing schemes that NPR has set up to perpetuate its monopoly.

The problem is not one of "revealing NPR's financial arrangements" so everyone can see (and say "Oh, my, I never knew what a scamming, scheming organization it was!"?)

The problem is much deeper than that.

At it's most basic, NPR is NOT what it claims to be: a "News Organization".

Their purpose is NOT to get to the truth on issues like the invasion and occupation of Iraq or the corruption exposed by wikileaks or the "war on terror".

Their purpose is quite clearly to act as an official stenographer of whoever happens to be in the White House (and for the corporations like Bank Of America who underwrite them AND/OR their member stations.)

Where is the NPR reporting on the cyber attack/smear campaign against Progressive organizations documented by Think Progress, Glenn Greenwald and others?

It does not exist?


Well, let me guess. Probably a few reasons: 1) Bank of America (one of the organizations requesting help) underwites NPR member stations (NPR is always quick to point out that BofA is not one of their underwriters!) 2) NPR hates wikileaks and has contempt for progressives.

As i said, NPR is incorrigible.

Shutting it down will allow something good to appear in its place.

Breaking up monopolies (of which NPR is certainly one) has that effect.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I should say "Braking it up will allow lots of good things to appear in its place".

The most fraudulent thing about NPR (by far) is that it is NOT about the "public".

The idea that "public" radio should be some gigantic monolithic organization that somehow is all things to all people is really absurd on its face.

Give public radio back to the public -- ie, the local communities.

Though they may not realize it, local member stations don't NEED to buy NPR news programming (would be much better off without it) because all the national news they need at a much better quality and much higher standard of journalistic integrity) is literally at the fingertips (from the internet). My goodness, NPR does not even do most of their reporting. They simply take stuff from the wire service and "modify" it to their liking (remove stuff that is "controversial" (that offends their underwriters) etc

The best way to SHOW these member stations that they DON'T need to keep buying (worthless) NPR news [sic] at outlandish prices is to cut the federal funding which is currently used for that very purpose. No dollars and they will find a cheaper (and better) alternative. No doubt about it.

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, here's a link to an interview by Dylan Ratigan of Glenn Greenwald about the smear campaign referred to above.

Greenwald points out that at its very core, this amounts to an effort to SILENCE people (including journalists like himself) through intimidation, threats of ruined careers, lives, etc.

One would think that ANY legitimate journalistic organization would be interested in this -- ie, in defending attacks on their very profession and first amendment freedoms.

But certainly NOT NPR.

What does that tell you?

NPR has contempt for journalism itself.

That's a sad but inescapable conclusion.

What point is there in continuing to give ANY money to such an organization?

I mean, really?


By the way, this is all eerily reminiscent of what "happened to" (ie, was done to) to Gary Webb.

In fact, perhaps most interesting of all (given NPR's current silence on this story) is the stance taken by Alicia Shepard (NPR's current ombudsman) in the Gary Webb saga.

Which, of course, is one of the reasons why NPR's current stance vis a vis this story (and their utter contempt of wikileaks) really comes as no surprise.

Anonymous said...


I posted this to a recent NPR "story" about WikiLeaks. I think it illustrates part of this post.


Money that I used to give to NPR goes to:

1. WikiLeaks -- $50 (one time)
2. Glenn Greenwald -- $10 (one time)
3. The Majority Report -- (none yet, but soon)
4. Democracy Now -- $10 (one time), plus a hat and mug -- $50 or so
5. WTFPod with Marc Maron -- $10/month
6. Kevin Pollak Chat Show -- $5 in downloads, so far
7. Kunstlercast 2 books, so far -- around $40
8. Matt Taibbi 3 books and one audio download -- around $50

Somebody make sure they forward my user information to Tom Gjelten and Dena Temple-Raston so that they can forward it to their buddies (colleagues?) at the CIA. Mmmmmkay? Thanks.

Good journalism costs good money. And that is why I give directly to good journalists. Are you listening, NPR?

Don Q. Public



gDog said...

well said, anon

Patrick Lynch said...

Both the main post and the comments by Anonymous are excellent. An excellent summation of what is wrong with NPR.

As I've said before, Republicans who want to defund NPR/PBS haven't been paying attention because if they were they'd realise that they already have the perfect propaganda machine in place.

The reactions I get from friends who listen to NPR/watch PBS news is that I'm trying to burst their last bubble and they don't want to see them as anything but benevolent liberal outposts of news and information. I am both saddened and dismayed by this.

I'm definitely in the "let them die" camp when it comes to their funding. Maybe something that truly serves the public good would rise from the ashes.

Anonymous said...


Colorado Public Radio (CPR) is celebrating a record drive in record time. What they won't tell listeners is that they are $13+ million dollars in debt -- long term debt they racked up in bond financing of AM stations that they cannot sell now and an FM station they could not afford to buy, but decided to lease for $8.5 million. *Commercial FM stations are now selling in the Denver metro market for around $5 million each.

CPR is in long-term "extend and pretend" mode because though they are covering their exorbitant operating costs, they are paying a pittance on their bonds (due to mature in 2022), which are rated just above junk status, with the outlook negative.

Check to see if your station has taken money from Public Radio Capital, what assets they have collateralized to do the deals they have done, and what the time frame is on repayment of the debt. I think you'd be surprised. This is the source of consolidation in public radio, as big stations grab smaller ones. It parallels the "too big to fail" banks. And it probably ensures that we will all be tuning out much more NPR-driven drivel from fewer, larger networks to the dismay of smaller, independent stations.

I don't support NPR, and I haven't for years. But let's face it, most smaller market stations don't really get much money (or love) from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. So, who would really feel the pinch from a de-funding of NPR, PBS and the CPB?

Don Q. Public

Porter Melmoth said...

Part 1!

Mytwords, thanks for the helpful digest that illustrates NPR's true identity. I'll refer others to it. I particularly needed it yesterday when I was discussing NPR with friends I trust, and sadly, they gave me that 'he's over the top' look regarding NPR. As has happened many times before, they got very quiet. No debate resulted because they didn't want to hear that 'their' NPR wasn't what they thought it was. I've never wanted to evangelize anybody on this matter, but just provide food for thought.

The American public is more vulnerable to propaganda than ever before. NPR, which appears so trustworthy, enjoys high standing, especially among those whom Hedges rightfully quotes as 'progressives' and 'liberals'. (Quotes implying a dubiousness...)

I include a timely Chomsky quote from Truthout:

"To understand why independent journalism is vital to regaining our self-governance and breathing life into our democracy, we turn to renowned philosopher and activist Noam Chomsky. Speaking recently about the way politicians fear the wave of democratic revolution in the Middle East, Chomsky said:

"We should remember there’s an analog here. I mean, it's not the same, of course, but the population in the United States is angry, frustrated, full of fear and irrational hatreds. And the folks not far from you on Wall Street are just doing fine. They’re the ones who created the current crisis. They're the ones who were called upon to deal with it. They’re coming out stronger and richer than ever. But everything's fine, as long as the population is passive."
(End quote)

Porter Melmoth said...

Part 2!

Indeed, I've long held that NPR as it is now should be dissolved. It's developed past its useful purpose, and it behaves like the commercial enterprise it is but denies being. And other reasons regularly show up on this blog.

Of course, like GM, I don't expect NPR to disappear. However, if its budget was drastically cut back, perhaps there's a chance that it could be reinvented. As illustrated in the helpful comments above, if their cost-heavy trophy personalities were fired en masse, funding would not be so acute an issue, and NPR could evolve into a leaner, meaner, and even exciting info source. But not under the current personnel roster. No way.

This is a 'scorched earth' approach, but I agree that most of the current staff are hopeless as a result of their ambition, indoctrination, and their perverse, narcissistic versions of journalism are concerned.

Sorry to get 'Old Testament-like' here, but the children of Israel couldn't get to the promised land until all the 'golden calf' generation WAS CONSUMED. (I love that line towards the end of DeMille's 'Ten Commandments'!)

I mean, if CBS wants to blow 30 million on Katie Couric because she's 'good', so be it. They're a wholly commercial enterprise, and ratings are all that matters. When NPR aspired to get into that league, they became an instant failure.

Another problem is that NPR, in all their puffery and Neocon connectivity, aspires to do too much. They think they can do it all, and do it well. They want the gravitas, the comedy, the show biz and the concern, to be packaged in a 'creatively-written' and easy to pop pill - for the 'thinking masses' as I like to call them. Then they can posture as being above everybody else, whether it’s NBC or 'The Daily Show'. (They've never taken on Fox because they're so much alike - just a different wardrobe.)

But look at Al Jazeera. They don't want to do it all. They've basically kept their coverage pretty specific. They touch on 'magazine' issues when they have time, but they're obviously lower priority. I get the feeling that NPR is not only jealous of Al Jaz, some within NPR might think, 'that's what WE used to be like...'

NPR also adopted the classic commercial tactic of 'you can't live without us - you need us on every day, all the time.' And of course they're being so noble and all by providing such a 'service'.

Ultimately though, there really isn't much point in revamping NPR, as their monopoly is becoming rapidly meaningless. In the 90s it could have been done, before the raw corruption of the Bush Era fully set in. But NPR was too ripe a plum to be plucked by the Corporatists, and NPR, in its vanity, solicited the plucking most willingly.

But now it doesn't really matter. Viv might do her darndest to keep the vitality going, but as the baby boomer-plus generation (who still rely on the services a structured radio apparatus provides) age and disappear, there just won't be much point for an NPR anymore, and no one will want to pay for it, even as a propaganda tool, unless it goes wholly commercial. And Fox already exists, so why bother?

NPR is famous for being late on the scene for the story, and in the wider sense, it's too late for NPR to be saved from itself.

If doofus Republicans in a doofus Congress wanna get tough on NPR, fine. They don't know anything about it anyway. True alternatives have already emerged.

Porter Melmoth said...

(Patrick, I can relate!!)

PS: Let those who THINK they love NPR get all riled up and 'activated'. It will be very interesting to see how far out on a limb they want to go.

Hopefully, those who really care will be doing a little research on the NPR they're so willing to stick up for.

Patrick Lynch said...


I've tried to get some of those friends to come here, or read the 56 articles Fair.org did on NPR or their coverage of PBS and as far as I can tell they have not looked at my links and probably will not.

A very few people I've discovered have come to the same conclusions on their own but mostly I get people who instantly change the subject if we are in a room where NPR is on and something particularly specious falls out of the mouth of a NPR "personality" and I start to say something. Perhaps deep down they know but for some reason want to cling to the illusion of the NPR they think they know.

I will be bookmarking this particular post by Mytwords as a starting point when I need a quick digest of what's wrong with NPR.

word verification: relie. Needs a hyphen as NPR frequently re-lies.

Anonymous said...

It is actually a common misconception that NPR and PBS get the bulk of the funding from CPB.

"CPB provides some funding for PBS and NPR, but much more of its funding goes to public television and radio stations that are members of PBS or NPR," -- wikipedia

That is precisely why NPR gets so nervous when anyone (ie Republicans) talks about defunding NPR member stations because if the member stations get defunded, they will no longer have money to pay for NPR programming, which will directly affect NPR's bottom line.

The member stations will still have money from individual donors and underwriters, of course, which can go toward quality LOCAL programming -- much better quality if they don't have to shell out so much damned money for overpriced NPR programs which basically go to pay for overpriced NPR hosts and other nonsense anyway.

Anonymous said...

Regarding this statement:

"It is actually a common misconception that NPR and PBS get the bulk of the funding from CPB."


Few people who read (and contribute to) this blog are confused about how NPR is funded. Unfortunately, the average NPR listener is confused about how NPR is funded, just as they are confused (we think) about the quality of NPR content.

Frankly, I don't think I have ever heard the average Republican or Democrat make comments about "de-funding member stations." Politicians seldom understand the distinction between NPR and its network of member minions.

Much of radio-related CPB funding goes to NPR member stations in the form of grants; ones that require competition among member stations to receive. The biggest grants go to larger NPR member stations and networks.

The degree to which any one member station -- large or small -- is affected by changes to the CPB depends upon their individual budgets. Some very large stations and networks and smaller, local stations receive a substantial percentage of funding from the CPB; 10-15% in some cases.

Of course, member stations can use all types of funding to purchase NPR programming; state funding from taxpayers (for university-licensed stations), individual and group member subscriptions, corporate underwriting, funding from licensing of content, funding from licensing of merchandise, etc.

But in many instances, CPB grant funding is set aside precisely to create programming content for broadcast by NPR and other member stations, not to purchase NPR programming from NPR or other member stations.

Anonymous said...

CPB grants were used to produce the first wave of HD public radio stations throughout the country. How well spent was that CPB money, do you suppose?

Anonymous said...

One need not specify defunding member stations explicitly to have that effect. If one talks of yanking all CPB funds (which Republicans have done on several occasions) , that is precisely what one would be doing.

And actually, as the excerpt below details, "the public contribution to the average public radio station's budget—if it's affiliated with a public university—could be as high as 29 percent".

the following is From Kill NPR To Save It
The best way to end Republican meddling.(Slate, By Jack Shafer)

"NPR's reflexive response to defunding threats is to shrug and say that it receives, on average, only about 2 percent of its $161.8 million annual budget from such federally funded sources as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts. The biggest source of NPR revenues, the network states, "comes from program fees and station dues paid by member stations that broadcast NPR programs." On average, those program fees and dues account for about 41 percent of NPR's revenues.

But where do the member stations get their loot? As Tim Graham of the Media Research Center wrote in 2008, "NPR receives substantial money from the CPB—through member stations," a fact that can be easily gleaned on the NPR Web site. In Fiscal Year 2008, NPR acknowledges on its site, CPB funds accounted for 10.1 percent of all public-radio-station revenue. The New York Times puts the dollar amount of CPB largesse to local stations at about $90 million. In what looks suspiciously like money laundering, the feds give money to CPB, CPB gives $90 million of it to member stations, and the local stations give a chunk of it to NPR.

"According to NPR, public radio stations collect another 5.8 percent of their revenues from federal, state, and local government. Universities, many publicly supported, chip in another 13.6 percent. That means the public contribution to the average public radio station's budget—if it's affiliated with a public university—could be as high as 29 percent. It's impossible to tease out from this information the exact percentage of taxpayer contribution to the NPR budget, but it's obviously higher than 2 percent.

///// end quotes

Patrick Lynch said...

From what I've read about HD radio, any NPR station that invested in it wasted their money. Here is the FAQ page for my once favourite local station and what they are doing.

HD radio at WEKU FM

I live on the outer edge of the HD broadcast range. This means I can pretty much forget it unless I happen to have an atomic powered signal booster attached to my radio. This also means my reception of PBS is equally spotty because the broadcast tower is pretty much in the same location.

I'll also add that they pretty much destroyed the classical music programming they built their reputation on. They used to have local people whose quality of programming was easily on par with the big boys except for one whose taste in musicals was execrable according to my fiancee. Whenever that guy was on, I usually shoved a cassette into the deck for an hour. It's now down to Performance Today and some opera show with Lisa Simone with far more talking than music. While I used to think it was nice to learn about what was being performed live in this country I've grown to find Fred Child as wearisome as the news people.

It's enough to make one long for Karl Haas and the old Starlight Concerts WEKU ran in the 70's and 80's.

Patrick Lynch said...

Hey! My link worked!

Note also what they say about separate pledges. It looks like the first part of the page is about what looks to me to be a low power FM station separate from possibly going HD. Either way from where I live, it's pretty much useless.

The strange thing about it is that their "regular" signal is based out of Richmond, KY. Their "all music" station proposal won't even reach Richmond without some signal boosting of their own.

It also looks like the local guys I referred to got shoved onto the online streaming only unless this other half measure actually gets off the ground. In spite of what they say, I bet it's only in response to complaints from the music listeners they lost when they went all talk. How many people can stream internet radio in their cars? Yeah, I thought so.

Anonymous said...

funding for CPB that goes to NPR and PBS, they are effectively talking about killing funding for NPR member stations (whether they actually understand the details about direct funding to NPR and indirect funding of NPR through member stations ["money laundering" by another name] makes no difference)

The key thing is that killing CPB funding that is slated for NPR will have a large impact on NPR's bottom line because a significant part of their money comes from member station dues and purchase of NPR programming by NPR member stations (who may be getting almost 1/3 their money from public sources, according to the article linked to below)

Kill NPR To Save It
The best way to end Republican meddling.
By Jack Shafer

Anonymous said...

Above got truncated:

should be

"When Republicans talk about killing funding for CPB that goes to NPR and PBS, they are effectively talking about killing funding for NPR member stations.."

Porter Melmoth said...


I've got a Mac widget that connects directly to BBC Radio 3.

R3 isn't what it used to be, but I'll take it any day over the US's 'lite' trend.

And when in the mood for talk, no one's better than Sean Rafferty on Radio 3.

Again, who needs NPR?

gDog said...

Do you think the sugarlips of a Scott Simon don't get say over underwriters? Consider how short-lived the Scott Tissue underwriters were with their "moist flushable wipe" ads. One thing those salaries do for sure is inflate their senses of self importances. No doubt management saw the wisdom of knuckling under to Simon's insistance by dissociating WESat from that.

JayV said...

Two up this morning from Dean Baker.

ME passes on misinformation about Social Security.

Why Should Taxpayer Dollars Go to National Public Radio?

Patrick Lynch said...


I stream Democracy Now on my home computer because it's broadcast on WRFL (the only independent college station in my area) at a time when I can't listen to it. In the car, it's either CDs or low power mom and pop AM oldies stations.

WRFL used to run Counterspin during the 5 pm commute time and I listened to that regularly but they've either moved it or taken it off. They also used to run Dave Emory's Spitfire/History of the Future broadcasts. I had mostly dismissed it as entertaining conspiracy theory until the 2000 election when I remembered a 1990's segment about how George W. Bush was going to steal the election with the help of the Supreme Court.

At the time I don't remember laughing as hard at anything I had heard previously because I knew who W was back then and considered him a drunk clown. But when it actually happened a dark chill ran down my spine.

Tell me more about your Mac gizmo.

Anonymous said...

You all rock! my friends and there aren't many people or things that I will say that about.

I have persuaded two people to stop sending money to WHYY/NPR. That's in about 5 years. One gave the money to local library which is broke and funding has been steadily decreasing (don't want the serfs to read too much). But I note the same reaction to talking about NPR as many of you do - "Huh?"

Back when I was young WYSO was a college radio station out of Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio (Moscow on the Miami). They were all over the place depending on who had the booth. But they were too troublesome to county Commisssioners and others of that ilk and besides, they often played that rock and roll! Now the college is done (I think) and the area is covered by NPR outlet. More's the pity.

Thanks for the links.


gDog said...

In E-mails Hacked by Anonymous Raise Concerns we see a deft application from something I think of as the "take and give," which must, in some form, be a staple of the psy-ops handbooks as issued to NPR overlords.

First you take some of the heat directed at your client, in this case, HBGary.

It was an embarrassment for the security company to get hacked — but the content of some of those e-mails is raising concerns.

Yes, and these concerns may be gaining some legitimacy, so they'll need to be marginalized. So Glenzilla even gets to say something in his own voice:

For me, what was most striking about them is just the brazen willingness to commit these sorts of proposals onto paper.

But in the age of counterterrorism, such brazenous is to be applauded, it seems. So next we hear that BofA and the Chamber, etc., never actually used these tactics they were advised about and furthermore (and here comes the give - always the last word in these type of stories)

Butterworth makes it clear he's not about to take lessons in transparency from a group that calls itself Anonymous.


Anonymous said...

"It also suggests pressuring WikiLeaks supporters in the media. One PowerPoint slide says, "Most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause."

NPR always claims they prefer to "describe" what they are referring to rather than labeling it (in this case "blackmail"), but NPR did no such thing in this case.

So, let Glenn Greenwald and Think Progress and Crooks and Liarsdescribe it

"New emails reveal that the private spy company investigated the families and children of the Chamber’s political opponents. The apparent spearhead of this project was Aaron Barr, an executive at HB Gary. Barr circulated numerous emails and documents detailing information about political opponents’ children, spouses, and personal lives.

One of the targets was Mike Gehrke, a former staffer with Change to Win. Among the information circulated about Gehrke was the specific “Jewish church” he attended and a link to pictures of his wife and two children (sensitive information was redacted by ThinkProgress):"

Anonymous said...

What was being proposed were almost certainly CRIMINAL activities.

When NPR leaves out/glosses over such information, they are simply being dishonest in the extreme.

There is no other explanation.

Porter Melmoth said...

BBC Radio widget (accesses all BBC radio channels):


Tested - works for me.

Porter Melmoth said...

Latest Chomsky on DN!'s 15 Anniversary (2 parts):