tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27644679.post946434630680199398..comments2023-11-03T03:17:27.053-05:00Comments on NPR Check: Garrels TwistsMytwordshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04307620268159811668noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27644679.post-53654386693701228202007-11-06T11:11:00.000-06:002007-11-06T11:11:00.000-06:00I got this response to my complaints from the NPR ...I got this response to my complaints from the NPR Ombudsman:<BR/><BR/>Dear Listener: <BR/><BR/> Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful observations on<BR/>Anne Garrels' recent reporting on torture victims. Here are my thoughts.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Alicia Shepard<BR/><BR/>Ombudsman, NPR <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Anne Garrels is one of the finest war correspondents of our time. She<BR/>has spent the last five years in and out of Iraq, covering the<BR/>war-ravaged country with a certain fearlessness that is awe-inspiring. <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>But listeners think it's time for Garrels to come home. <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Recently, the head of Sadr's militia in the western side of Baghdad<BR/>invited her to watch three renegade Sadr militiamen be interrogated.<BR/>Garrels did not know beforehand that she would find three beaten and<BR/>bloodied men. On Oct. 26, Garrels spoke with Morning Edition host Steve<BR/>Inskeep about what she saw, saying that the information from the<BR/>tortured victims seemed to confirm that Iran is fueling violence in Iraq<BR/>(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15655331).<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>GARRELS: In the Sadr safe house, the three detainees had clearly been<BR/>tortured and the story they told was that they were trained in roadside<BR/>bombs and car bombings in Iran. They say they worked for money and that<BR/>their orders were to attack Americans and sow suspicion and violence<BR/>between Shiites and Sunnis." <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/> Listeners heard that piece and went ballistic. Some<BR/>incorrectly believed that Garrels watched the men being tortured. She<BR/>did not. <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>"Please make clear that NPR was not a witness to torture," wrote Garrels<BR/>later in an email and "that we were provided (an) opportunity to hear<BR/>'testimony' by alleged renegade militiamen. The NPR team determined when<BR/>the detainees were presented to us, that the detainees had been tortured<BR/>and so reported. Far from being a party to this, we reported on the<BR/>abuse." <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/> But is this kind of abuse news? Was their 'testimony'<BR/>credible? <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>If there was news in Garrels' piece, it would be that NPR has definitive<BR/>proof that Iran is behind recent violence. But that can't be confirmed<BR/>on the say-so of torture victims in front of their captors.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Ariel Salzmann, a history professor from Canada's Queen's University,<BR/>thought NPR's decision to accept the invitation was of dubious<BR/>journalistic judgment, "for it was clearly organized by al-Sadr to<BR/>rehabilitate his organization before the international public," she<BR/>wrote. "Once she saw the condition of the men accused, any doubts she<BR/>might have had about the veracity of al-Sadr followers' claims should<BR/>have dissipated." <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>What really upset the 700-plus people who emailed or called is that NPR,<BR/>well-known for careful reporting, would base a sensitive story on the<BR/>unreliable words of men beaten into confessing. "What kind of journalism<BR/>is this?" asked another e-mailer. "Since when do we consider bloody<BR/>torture victims reliable sources of information?"<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>"Torture victims will say anything their torturers tell them to<BR/>(especially if they are still being held by their captors!!)" said<BR/>another email. <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>I agree with them. The folks who run Morning Edition also were concerned<BR/>that maybe Garrels hadn't been skeptical enough, and asked her to do a<BR/>"two-way" with Inskeep on Nov. 1 to clarify. Below is an excerpt from<BR/>that aired conversation and you can find the entire segment here:<BR/>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15835066 <BR/><BR/>INSKEEP: Did you have at any moment any doubts whether they were just<BR/>making up a story because they didn't want to be beaten anymore? <BR/><BR/>GARRELS: Of course, I had doubts. But the details that were given seemed<BR/>to me to gel with other things that I had heard from people who had not<BR/>been tortured. But I was as uncomfortable as the listeners were with the<BR/>conditions. The fact that the militia was doing this and making it clear<BR/>that they had issues with Iran, I thought was important. But, of course,<BR/>the information that comes from victims of torture is always<BR/>questionable. <BR/><BR/>But Garrels did not make that point in her initial story, though Inskeep<BR/>did show some skepticism. In the follow-up piece, Garrels didn't do a<BR/>good job of satisfactorily justifying why she and her editor used<BR/>tortured victims as sources. <BR/><BR/>GARRELS: We went back to the degree possible and confirmed the<BR/>information that was elicited from these torture victims. And indeed,<BR/>many of the incidents they described had happened.<BR/><BR/>Many listeners think Garrels only complicated the matter when she tried<BR/>to clarify her story on air. Some said it is morally wrong to use<BR/>information provided by torture victims because it could endorse or<BR/>encourage torture. Others stated that Garrels gave a specious argument<BR/>when she said had independently corroborated the detainees' story. How<BR/>many times in criminal cases has a suspect confessed to something he had<BR/>read in the paper, heard on the radio or that the cops fed him just to<BR/>stop the beating?<BR/><BR/>I asked the foreign desk editor if he would share the thinking on this<BR/>and was told that by putting Garrels on the air Nov. 1 to address<BR/>listener complaints, they had answered all the questions. <BR/><BR/>But I don't think they have. While I have a great deal of respect for<BR/>Anne Garrels' war reporting, evidence obtained through torture is not<BR/>credible, nor is it good journalistic practice. <BR/><BR/>"The mere fact they talked about something that had happened doesn't<BR/>mean that they did that," noted Virginia Sloan of the Constitution<BR/>Project. "There've been plenty of instances where interrogators plant<BR/>the evidence. What we do know is that reputable interrogators whether<BR/>military or law enforcement have unanimity of views that torture does<BR/>not work and any statements made under torture are not reliable." <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/> By the way, Garrels has left Baghdad. But she will be going<BR/>back. <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Copyright (c)2007 National Public Radio(r). All rights reserved. No<BR/>quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media<BR/>without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript may not be<BR/>reproduced in whole or in part without prior written permission. For<BR/>further information, please contact NPR's Rights and Reuse Associate at<BR/>(202) 513-2030.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27644679.post-86411385495675250142007-11-04T15:29:00.000-06:002007-11-04T15:29:00.000-06:00They're on the run!!! They're on the run!!!The fa...They're on the run!!! They're on the run!!!<BR/><BR/>The fact they have to explain themselves (and so, so lamely) shows they cannot--they haven't a leg to stand on!<BR/><BR/>Keep up the awesome work, Matt!<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>FlavioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27644679.post-22104001797307837322007-11-02T17:30:00.000-05:002007-11-02T17:30:00.000-05:00Neither do I, b!p!f!b!, but the more they hear fro...Neither do I, b!p!f!b!, but the more they hear from us, the better.Porter Melmothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11473990960543501439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27644679.post-55518476106813995512007-11-02T17:21:00.000-05:002007-11-02T17:21:00.000-05:00PS: those were good responses to said atrocious 'r...PS: those were good responses to said atrocious 'report.' Too bad robots & parrots can't read (or at least be affected by the portent of words). So I'm really not expecting any improvement from them... whatsoever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27644679.post-70365537243768332202007-11-02T17:16:00.000-05:002007-11-02T17:16:00.000-05:00Now THAT'S what I'd call shootin' yerself in the s...Now THAT'S what I'd call shootin' yerself in the sh!t stomper there, Major-General Jack-Bauer Garrulous!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27644679.post-1339742203629806872007-11-02T15:09:00.000-05:002007-11-02T15:09:00.000-05:00I sent in the following letter earlier this week:"...I sent in the following letter earlier this week:<BR/><BR/>"I found Ann Garrels report from Iraq on Friday offensive in the extreme. Interviewing torture victims as sources would be acceptable for the purpose of shining a light on their mistreatment, but aiding their tormentors by giving credibility to their "confessions" and disseminating it on national radio is wrong wrong wrong! If Garrels was after a scoop, I guess she got one, at the expense of her decency."<BR/><BR/><BR/>The audio link to her response is here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15835066<BR/><BR/>Her defense of "details that were given seemed to gel with other things I had heard from people" is laughably, infuriatingly vague. Even if that's true, she failed to mention those things in the original story, and it still doesn't excuse the fact that she used torture-testimony to source a story. A sordid journalistic incident indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27644679.post-27163054219735001512007-11-02T14:50:00.000-05:002007-11-02T14:50:00.000-05:00Mytwords and Masbrow, thanks for articulating the ...Mytwords and Masbrow, thanks for articulating the ramifications of this important story.<BR/><BR/>For what it's worth, I sent this to NPR:<BR/><BR/>Re: Anne Garrels' Torture Story<BR/><BR/>Ann Garrels should be relieved of Iraq duty. Her credibility is shattered. Her explanation of the Shiite militia torture story's background was lame. Why didn't she give more background in the actual story itself? Her judgment in weighing the significance of this story was flawed, and her defense of it rings hollow. Her objective in the report appears to have been to link the torture victims with Iran, and little else. She should have realized that the implications of her story are incendiary. She has obviously been in Iraq too long. She has lost her objectivity. Her ego has gotten in the way. Give someone else a chance to get to the real truths in Iraq. Aside from this, NPR has not at all been my source for news on the Iraq war, and it will continue not to be. I only chanced upon this story. NPR's 'new' approach, (more commercial-sounding, fluffier, jollier, narcissistic) in order to appeal to younger audiences, has alienated me utterly. Thus, your serious news coverage values are diminished. NPR may have sold out, but that's still no excuse for Garrels' slipshod, conditional journalism. If she wants to be a hero reporter in Iraq, she should probably pursue the fiction field.Porter Melmothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11473990960543501439noreply@blogger.com