Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Police Brutality Shielded by NPR

Anthony Bologna - NYPD thug

(Update below)
As readers have commented in the Q-Tips section below, NPR is following the rest of the police state media in offering ZERO on-air coverage of the Occupy Wall Street actions in NYC that were launched on September 17, 2011.  This is especially galling now that the police have resorted to basic thuggery against peaceful protesters and have targeted the relatively small and spirited demonstrators with dozens of frivolous arrests.

Activists have identified one of the chief perpetrators of police violence - Anthony Bologna (see graphic above) - and since the NYPD website gives the places where citizens can demand that action be taken against this criminal in uniform, I thought I'd post it here for anyone wanting to email, mail or call:
"The IAB Command Center office is open for complaint, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A complaint may also be called in by phone to (212) 741-8401, by E-Mail to IAB@NYPD.org, or By postal mail to Occupant, P.O. Box 1001, New York 10014; to the Internal Affairs Bureau, located at 315 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10013 or in person at any Police Department facility." 
FAIR asks the obvious question of how the media would cover Tea Party extremists in a similar scenario, but - regarding NPR - one doesn't have to wonder: just take a look at some of the enhanced promotions that NPR has given to them.

Given the assault on many of our constitutional liberties and the rise of paramilitary tactics by police forces around the country when confronting dissent, one would think that liberals and progressives would be calling for a boycott of NPR for its near complete lack of investigative work on any abuses of power by US police, military, or corporate forces.  Unfortunately, as in the past, the opposite seems to be the case with individuals and organizations like Free Press reacting to proposed funding cuts to NPR with this kind of misinformation that I recently received in an email:

"Taking down NPR and PBS has been a decades-long goal of political extremists in Washington who are threatened by public media’s brand of facts-based investigative reporting." [my emphasis added] 
Josh Stearns
Associate Program Director
Free Press Action Fund 

If one wants to make the case for preventing government spending cuts to NPR because it represents a victory for the take-no-prisoners brown shirts of the right that is one thing, but to claim that NPR offers anything resembling "facts-based reporting" is such delusional thinking that it would be funny if the reality weren't so downright depressing.

Update, September 28 - NPR's newest tool Ombudsman weighs in on NPR's censorship.  He decides it's not a problem...surprise!
"As ombudsman, I don't weigh in on daily news judgment unless its totally egregious or part of a long term trend, and this one is neither. But the complaints have validity, too."


jaytingle said...

"Even the liberal" NY Times has some unhelpful reporting about the flagrant excessive force and brutality the cops are perpetrating in rehearsal for the inevitable food riots or any assemblage that causes concern for the oligarchs. http://t.co/rAcIPxfb
To their credit, the Times names the most prominent offender (Bologna), but gives the cops the last word on the story. Also, they're not taking comments. Rank and file cops seem to have a different perception of the threat posed by the demonstrators than their superiors. Why might that be? Considering the catastrophe that befell the city in 2001, New Yorkers are remarkably restrained and slow to panic. Let's hope they don't lose sight of the fact that citizens, not the oligarchs, pay the cops. It will be a sad day, and a turning point, when people are so overwhelmed with fear that they cheer their oppressors as the cops beat down the mob. But, of course, the food riots won't be precipitated by accident.

Anonymous said...

Franz Fanon speculated that there was some mental "disorder" at work when people begin to identify with the oppressor. He was working on the people of Algeria during French occupation but . . . NPR staff, "owners" and contributors readily identify with their oppressors. And not only concerning OccupyWallSt. but torture, illegal wars, the banksters and fraudsters and on and on.


Anonymous said...

bill O'reilly and steve inskeep. The dynamic duo glossing over a whole lot of things.

Hey, why not ask the ombut about . . . oh never mind. I had a tempoary moment of insanity there by thinking that he would actually have the nerve to ask somebody how or who booked O'reilly.


jaytingle said...

Wonkette says what we're all thinking: "Never never never listen to NPR."

Anonymous said...

"As ombudsman, I don't weigh in on daily news judgment unless its totally egregious or part of a long term trend, and this one is neither. But the complaints have validity, too."

Ignoring and/or Censoring "uncomfortable" stories?

Part of a long term trend at NPR?


Where does NPR find the clowns they have working as Ombuttsmen? The circus side show?

They sure are funny.

Anonymous said...

"If one wants to make the case for preventing government spending cuts to NPR because it represents a victory for the take-no-prisoners brown shirts of the right that is one thing, "

Hey, I'm not proud.

Shutting down NPR is a noble cause whatever way one does it.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes your enemy can be your best ally.

Be sure to write to Republicans in Congress and complain about the firing of Juan Williams (though personally I think he's a Fox hack) and belittling comments made by former NPR exec Ron Schiller about Republicans in the fund-raising meeting with the fake Muslim group (though I happen to think the comments were right on the mark)

Get those Republican reps all riled up and ready to cut NPR funds when the fist opportunity arises.

Together we can accomplish great things!

Anonymous said...

i think they finally covered the action(s) on Wall street but . . . when they had Bloomberg talk about banks they failed to make the next step: didn't we put up a ton of money to keep them afloat? And isn't that the bottom line of the 99% people?


bpfb said...

^^ Hmm, I do rather like the idea of that "useful idiots" stratagem!-
"Don't want none a MY tax dowllars (sic) goin' to dat dar lib'rul NPR! Hic(k)!"

How'd I do? ;-)


Anonymous said...

Covered the wall Street protests?

My ass.

NPR is simply following the tried and true "formula"

Ignore if at all possible anything that is even remotely "controversial" (ie, anything that might offend any donors or underwriters (Bank of America, anyone?)

When it becomes impossible to ignore (because it has become perfectly obvious to everyone that that is precisely what you are doing), DISMISS ("protests aren't big enough to merit attention", "protestors don't have any real goal or focus", "American public are not interested", etc) In other words, give a mention to cover your ass and then move on. "Nothing here to see, move along."

NPR uses this formual all the time.

They used it on Downing Street minutes which said the intelligence was being "fixed" about the set plan to invade (NPR ignored), they did it about WMD in Iraq (first ignored those who questioned the claims of Bush et al, then when they could no longer ignore, they said "So what if we got it wrong? everyone got it wrong, even the CIA"), they did it on the Fukushima nuclear disaster (ignored anyone who pointed out the potential dangers from the radiation) and now they are doin git on the Wall Street protests.

Anonymous said...

Fact-based investigative reporting? At NPR?? Ha! I guess all of their listener dollars go to pay salaries of the on-air talent. Because their coverage generally consists of interviewing the same hacks one can find on your cable news dial, or interviewing reporters from OTHER news organizations telling listerners about their ACTUAL reporting.

Anonymous said...

The folks at NPR would not know a fact if it bit them in the ass -- which it will do when the Republicans shut them down in the not too distant future.

Maybe NPR's resident economics "experts" (ie, twits) Adumb Davidson and David Kestenbaum can give us report on their own experiences in the unemployment line when that happens.

That should be good for a laugh.

larry, dfh said...

In a surprising one-of-a-kind, Diane Rehm had an interesting conversation with Mitch Daniels. Most of the callers were pretty negative towards Daniels, the the hostess went on a tear over Daniel's characterization of Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme. She slapped him around with a very sharp monologue, and when he finally staggered to his feet and uttered a few words, she slapped him around all over again. It was fun to listen to.
This was in sharp contrast to the guest hosting of the same show by Steve Roberts, where all his quests seemed to out-do each other in obvious misleading of the audience. I think Robert's show was scripted by the NSA; it was laughably so crappy.

Burkey said...

Just found this blog. I worked for NPR stations for a long long time. Between 2000 and 2005 (when I finally left)I literally could not believe my ears.

It's not the same network it once was. If they can't report that three nuclear reactors are melting down at the Dai-Ichi plant and report on what's happening over there---if they can't report that the voting machines can be hacked--if they can't report that King Lincoln Bronzeville Vs. Blackwell is turning up all kinds of interesting evidence suggesting that George Bush was not in fact elected President in 2004--if they won't even touch the obvious question about Building 7 that's got a lot of heavy hitters joining truth movements, including lifelong military experts, intelligence and public safety figures, veterans, pilots, demolitions experts...if they couldn't bring themselves to cover the extent of those huggggge protests in 2003 over the Iraq war--which were record-setting..then there's no freaking way on the planet they're going to cover police macing protestors while the Swells watch and sip champagne on the balconies.
It just ain't gonna happen. Anyone here who once loved NPR, write your local station and demand better. Some station owners still listen. I think.

Anonymous said...

write your local station and demand better. Some station owners still listen. I think."

One has to make a clear distinction between NPR (parent company) and NPR member stations.

NPR (parent company) itself is rotten at its core.

It is like a giant leech that is sucking the local stations dry -- sucking up every dollar that the local stations raise in "programming" and "membership" fees".

If you write to your local company, I suggest you suggest that they DROP NPR programming entirely and go with local programming and news from DN and Pacifica. Cheaper and FAR FAR better.

As it is now, a substantial fraction of NPR's "news" comes directly from AP, so paying for it is simply a waste anyway, especially since it is so corporate biased.

The NPR "parent" company is incorrigible. It's management has become so focused on bringing in dollars that that now dictates everything -- with the emphasis on "dictates", because NPR has become a dictatorship (The fact that the CEO of the company is a lawyer tells you all you need to know)

Anonymous said...

"As ombudsman, I don't weigh in on daily news judgment unless my job depends on it -- and since my job actually depends on just the opposite, I don't weigh in. But the complaints have validity, too. [..probably, somewhere, just not at NPR]"

Anonymous said...

Thing just look worse for the rest of us, renting NYPD: