Rare Praises for NPR

I was going to write about yesterday's deceitful and stupid report on the CIA by Pamela Hess of the AP (Media Bloodhound and Left I on the News often expose the AP for being the lazy rebroadcaster of US government propaganda that it is) or Juan Forero's (the reporter who couldn't read straight) pro bono work this morning for the owners of Venezuelan plantations (farms in Forero-speak) or Inskeep's coffee-clutch against the public health insurance option with the PR man for Wellpoint the parent company of a foundation that just happens to be one of NPR's biggest annual donors (hint: it's the California Endowment).

(From NPR's 2005 [most recent] Annual Report -PDF file)

But heck, it's summer and let's give credit where credit is due. First to Robert Siegel (there I said it!) who, on Monday's ATC, presented the Alito remarks about empathy as a counter to the attacks on Sotomayor's remarks about empathy. Siegel was interviewing the twittering Chuck Grassley of Iowa and confronted him with the Alito statements AND even asked a few follow-ups when Grassley tried to squirm out of making a complete ninny of himself. It was delicious.

More importantly, this morning Peter Kenyon actually covered the story of the 25 IDF soldiers who have documented the systematic war crimes of Operation Cast Lead. NPR actually sent a reporter on the ground in Gaza and talked to a Gazan who lost his parents to Israeli shooters in a case similiar to one related by an Israeli soldier. Several commenters on the web site of the story thanked NPR for reporting this - one who summed it up well as a commendable "baby step."

Putting Out Reliable Information

On her blog Alicia Shepard recently made an enhanced response to her initial harsh defense of not using "coded language" like the word torture, Alicia Shepard makes the following bold claim:

"But I am shilling for strong, credible journalism that is as objective as humanly possible. I am shilling for NPR to practice journalism based on putting out reliable information, to the best of its ability -- without taking sides -- so the public can make its own informed decisions."

Hey that's a noble thing to shill for, eh? Let's see how her employer's doing in "putting out reliable information" about some major news stories of the past week.

• On June 24, 2009 the BBC released a damning report on the torture and abuse of detainees at the US-run Bagram airbase from 2002-2008.
• On June 29, 2009 the International Committee of the Red Cross released a report detailing the Israeli imposed poverty, despair, economic collapse, infrastructure failures, etc. being imposed on the population of the Gaza Strip.
• Yesterday, the Israeli Defense Forces hijacked used enhanced boarding techniques to commandeer a boatload of humanitarian supplies in international waters, kidnapped used harsh removal tactics against its crew - including a Nobel Peace Prize Winner and a former (not lifetime) US Representative - and placed them in detention in Israel.
• Today, Amnesty International released a report documenting multiple war crimes committed by Israel in its December assault on Gaza (and denounced the war crimes of rocket fire by Hamas).

How did NPR do?

• On the BBC detainee abuse story, CBS picked it up...but NOT NPR.
• On the Red Cross humanitarian disaster in Gaza, Voice of America got it...but NOT NPR.
• On the Israeli seizure of humanitarian supplies on the high seas, the Salem-News got it...but NOT NPR.
• On the Amnesty war crimes report, CBS again...but NOT NPR.

How's that for "strong, credible journalism"? My math might be a bit weak, but I'd say that's 0-for-4. At least Shepard was right about the shilling part.

Yardwork with Anne

Goodness me, I thought that Israel's Gaza Massacre was all about slaughtering children and attacking UN safe havens. How wrong I was - turns out that "Operation Cast Lead" was just a bunch of Israeli groundskeepers going in to Gaza to mow the grass. Seriously, I learned that from brush-clearing Anne Garrels tonight on NPR as she claimed to be presenting Israeli "analysts, who cover the political spectrum..." One of these brilliant scholars, "Efraim Inbar says, the best that can be hoped for is conflict management. He calls it mowing the grass." Honestly, that's what Garrels said, and then let Inbar speak for himself:

"We go in, do some damage to the terrorist infrastructure knowing well that this type of hatred toward Israel cannot be totally eliminated and we'll have to do it again."

Yes, Garrels really covered the breadth of Israeli opinion in the piece that she opened by claiming, "The one thing Israelis agree on is that Israel showed, after what many consider a humiliating defeat in Lebanon two years ago, it can respond forcefully." I guess Amira Haas and Uri Avnery and Btselm workers don't fall qualify as Israeli analysts, but the following do:

• Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (a pro-expansionist Zionist institute)
• Yossi Klein Halevi, a senior researcher with the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies (a completely pro-expansionist, Zionist institute)
• Avi Issacharoff, Arab affairs correspondent for Haaretz (the only non-extreme partisan of the three - but no critic of Israel)

I hope Anne doesn't feel too bad for wielding the old, bloody hedge-trimmer for Israel, she's in good company with a couple of other brush clearers - Ronny and W.

Memory Hole - NPR Style

If you've been listening to NPR's coverage of the Gaza Massacre you've probably heard some fairly imaginative history. I recall being treated to some fine HistoryLite™ by former US tool Philip Wilcox who claimed that Hamas emerged in the 1st Intifada. You've also heard Inskeep claim that Hamas broke the ceasefire and others assert that Hamas had no interest in a ceasefire.

Just to set the record straight there are a few missing factoids in the NPR storyline:

Hamas was around before the 1st Intifada, and was strengthened and supported by...Israel! How curious, seems like there were a few problems with a secular, nationalist Palestinian movement - perhaps the greatest problem being that it was willing to accept a two state solution before Israeli expansionism was complete.

As far as the Hamas "takeover" of Gaza - that little plot was conceived and midwifed by old birth-pangs-Rice, Bush and the complicit "Quartet."

As far as the broken ceasefire, even CNN had someone who actually read a few articles to see if there was an actual record of a major Israeli violation - there was. Johann Hari also pointed out that not only did Hamas not flagrantly break the ceasefire, it actually wanted to continue it. He sites the source of his information as Shin Bet chief, Diskin, who is quoted in Haaretz saying, "Make no mistake, Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms. It wants us to lift the siege [on Hamas-ruled Gaza], stop [IDF] attacks, and extend the truce to include Judea and Samaria [the West Bank]."

O, memory hole, thy name is NPR...

The Great Task of the Israeli Defense Forces

Regarding the assault on Gaza, the Israeli Army has learned "to take the operation slowly in a manner that will not only safeguard Israeli troops to the degree that you can, but also minimize the number of civilian casualties on the other side." Additionally, "keeping those civilian casualties less than excessive, as you would say, is the great task of the Israeli Defense Forces and I think up to this point we are doing very admirably in that way."

It must be true because I heard it on NPR this morning - and from a "scholar of military history in the Middle East" no less. I would definitely agree that NPR favorite, and war criminal spokesperson Michael Oren is certainly doing an admirable job with his assistant Ari Shapiro.

Shapiro goes along for the ride even as Oren proudly claims that of the slaughtered Gazans "well over three quarters have been armed gunmen and that is a percentage which is very rarely attained in urban warfare." Armed gunmen? Well over three quarters? As if one quarter of the dead being women and kids is just hunky dory - for God's sake.

It is disgraceful that NPR again and again gives unchallenged coverage to such Israeli government propagandists when that same government bars independent reporting from the inside Gaza.

BTW, see earlier posts on Oren (May 2008 and Nov. 2006).

Accomplices

(source of original image)

Friday Morning two busy little spin bodies (h/t to War on War Off ) were busy on NPR:

• Steve Inskeep: "And here's what raises the question of how Israel intends to finish the operation. The bombing was intended to stop Palestinian rocket fire into Israel and despite hundreds of bombing runs those rockets are still arriving."

• Mike Shuster: "First Israel hit military targets - buildings tunnels and bases used by the security forces of Hamas..."

If a war crimes trial is ever held for the Israeli leadership that launched this "operation" on "military targets" I hope they save two seats in the docket for Shuster and Inskeep.

Targets and Goals

(click on image for source)

On Wednesday morning Steve Inskeep displayed the extent of his woeful ignorance (or stupidity). He was interviewing Mustafa Barghouti, an independent lawmaker in the West Bank city of Ramallah and asked the following question:

"There was a ceasefire in Gaza for months. It expired, as you know, and then Hamas began firing rockets into Israel knowing there might be a harsh Israeli response. Why did Hamas do that?"

One has to love Mr. Barghouti's reply:

"No sir, I think what you have described is the Israeli narrative and it's not correct..."

Barghouti then patiently explained how throughout the ceasefire Israel tightened its total blockade and committed a violent and flagrant violation of the ceasefire toward the end.

Unfortunately, nothing seems to penetrate the pro-IDF bubble in which Inskeep operates. During a discussion with Mike Shuster this morning he says,

"As they begin to run out of new targets to hit...are the Israelis any closer to their goal which is to stop rocket fire from coming out of Gaza into Israel?"

You could spend a lot of time unpacking such a statement. Who says the goal of the Israelis is to stop rocket fire coming out of Gaza? What rockets were driving Israel's ghettoization and utter destruction of a Gaza when rockets weren't being fired?

And targets? Since when do mosques, police stations, homes, and thousands of wounded and killed civilians count as "targets"? The whole of Schuster and Inskeep's talk is riddled with the use of the "target" euphemism and claims based solely on Israeli Defense Forces statements:

• Inkseep: "Israeli jets struck multiple targets including the Palestinian Parliament building in Gaza City. Israeli naval forces also fired at targets inside the territory."
• Shuster: "Israeli airstrikes on tunnels...where Israel says Hamas has been smuggling in weapons....the Israelis targeted what they called a weapons manufacturing and storage facility in central Gaza. The Israeli navy has gotten into the operation with ships off the coast hitting Hamas coastal outposts and rocket launching spots according to the Israeli Defense Force....500 sorties by warplanes against targets in Gaza...hundreds more carried out by helicopter...looks like Israel is beginning to run out of new targets to hit."

Shuster and Inskeep aren't the only ones at NPR using the vague "target" language. I hear about "Hamas targets" almost anytime I catch one of NPR's hourly updates. Why not just state the fact that the whole of Gaza is being targeted by both bombardment and the blockade of basic necessities such as food, fuel and medicine?

Bobmark Regevsiegel Speaks

First, a few positives: NPR actually allowed some Gaza residents to speak about life under Israeli bombardment (NPR's contracted news producer and a Gaza professor) and interviewed a UNRWA spokesperson about humanitarian conditions.

But sadly NPR's previous suppressed and distorted coverage of Gaza allows a massive amount of disinformation to continue unchallenged. A case in point was One-Approach-Bob Siegel's sympathetic interview with Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev (not the first time he's been coddled on NPR).

Here are a few of Regev's claims that faced no scrutiny whatsoever - so I've included a few basic informational follow-ups that any half-informed reporter could have asked:

• "Our operation is ultimately defensive..." (How does bombing mosques, a university, a police graduation ceremony constitute defense?)
• "300,000 - 400,000 people have been living under the gun of Hamas." (A polite question about how the 1.5 million Gazans have fared under Israeli guns might have been helpful...)
• "When Hamas tore up the ceasefire last week and escalated the crisis we were forced to respond but our operation is defensive." (But what about Israel's November 5th violation of the ceasefire - and the fact that Israel never eased its blockade as required under the ceasefire?)
• "We want to teach Hamas a lesson." (Are you aware that bombing densely populated civilian centers to "teach a lesson" is clearly a war crime?)
• "We make a clear distinction between Hamas and the civilian population of Gaza." (But the siege and blockade of Gaza demonstrates that you make no distinction between civilians and Hamas.)
• I don't think anyone understands why Hamas torpedoed the calm and Hamas escalated the violence bringing about this crisis. (Actually Daniel Levy a former assistant to Ehud Barak has a lot to say about why Hamas is doing what it's doing, and - closer to home - expert Helena Cobban offers rather obvious explanations for Hamas' actions, without condoning them.

I realize it's a tall order asking NPR news readers to know more than the White House and State Department press releases, but - for God's sake - it's not that hard to find the history and context of the violence in Gaza - violence which everyone else in the world knows is fully backed, funded and enabled by the US government.

Real Achievements

Peter Kenyon was talking about PA head Abu Mazen's rather stunning assertion that Hamas is to blame for Israel's latest Gaza slaughter. Kenyon offered this little plum:

"Abbas has always been a pragmatic politician, more interested in securing real achievements for his people than in being their hero."

No qualifications offered, no facts or evidence put forth to buttress such a glowing statement, and no indication that many people might just consider Abbas a hapless pawn of the US and Israel at best and a stooge and craven puppet at worst.

But Some Are More Equal Than Others

NPR continues to suppress news of the ongoing war crime being committed by the Israeli government against the civilian population of Gaza. On Saturday Juan Cole, noting the Independent's article "Chronic malnutrition in Gaza blamed on Israel," sarcastically asks, "Oops, you mean it is not a headline in the U.S.? How odd? Why is that?" Maybe NPR fears ruffling Israeli government feathers, and they can always claim that they just couldn't get any reporters into Gaza anyway, how convenient.

Honestly, can you imagine the wall-to-wall coverage NPR would be giving to a US ally suffering a food and fuel blockade? I guess all civilians are not equal - some are more equal than others.

Killing Your Customers is Such a Bad Business Model

While Jimmy Carter is having a late-in-his-career Ben Franklin moment, denouncing "one of the greatest human rights crimes now existing on Earth," NPR on Tuesday morning scuttles to the high moral commercial ground to argue against the final solution to the Palestinian "problem" in Gaza. Just in case you might think it that wiping out Palestinian civilians through the ghetto tactics of unemployment, starvation, incarceration, lack of medicine, etc. is one of those crimes against humanity like collective punishment, Renee Montagne firmly reminds us that the Palestinians are to blame:

"...since Hamas took over Gaza almost a year ago Israel has frequently shut down the border crossings in response to Palestinian rocket or bombing attacks...."

Later in the report as if reading from the same IDF-approved script, Gradstein says, "the crossings between Israel and Gaza are frequently closed. Israel says that's in response to Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks." I guess the 2003 starvation of Gaza was in response to the Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks that the Israelis knew would be coming in a few years (perhaps the Pre-Cogs told them!)

With blame firmly established, the story focuses on the pain and deprivation that the slow killing of Gaza's residents is having...on Israeli famers! Montagne, not only blames the Gazans in her introduction but also explains that "the ongoing Israeli blockade of the Gaza strip is hurting farmers in Israel...costing Israeli farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars."

I imagine that some of you reading this are still chaffing at my use of the phrase "final solution" above - but, heck, I'll let Gradstein explain:

"Some Israeli politicians are calling on the government to permanently severe ties with Gaza, to completely seal the borders, to cut off electricity and fuel supplies and to stop all exports to Gaza."

If you read that too fast, I'd suggest reading it again - and really taking it in. It's a hell of a statement. If you get a chance you should hear Gradstein reading it on air, giving it the matter-of-fact treatment - as if it were a proposal to increase a sales tax or put in new street lights. Of course if you are like most moral, compassionate human beings you would wonder what this might mean for the already besieged civilians of Gaza. Not NPR, not Gradstein - the next words out of her mouth are "farmers like Eschel and Herzog say that would mean bankruptcy for hundreds of Israeli farmers."

Man, those poor Israeli farmers, better put a little extra something in the next whopping US foreign aid package for Israel.

(Click on image for source.)

The Perfectly Calibrated Renee Montagne

Who but a death worshiping Bushista would ask the following question during an interview about Jimmy Carter's negotiations with Hamas:

"Could though, at this point in time, the Bush administration argue that former President Carter may have upset THE carefully calibrated approaches to Hamas that are being made?"

That was Renee Montagne's query for her guest, Robert Malley, director of the International Crisis Group's Middle East and North Africa program and member of the new group JStreet. Consider how easily she could have asked, "Might the Bush administration claim that Carter's trip undermines its policy?" But, my God, to call it "THE [Montagne's emphasis, not mine] carefully calibrated approaches."

Oh, but maybe I'm overreacting. Perhaps she's referring to the "carefully calibrated" diet restrictions US, Israel, and Europe are imposing on Gaza, or those measured and careful surgical strikes that the US/Israel is using to try to bring peace to Gaza (I mean, who takes Amnesty International seriously anyway?). Really, with all this careful calibration, what's the worst that could happen to those stubborn Gazans?

To his credit Malley answers, "Unfortunately there's not much to upset, because there's not much good happening so I'm not sure what it could be undermining..." In other words, "I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about..."

One Approach

The level of discourse regarding our fellow human beings living in Gaza has me wondering when someone at NPR will casually mention "the Palestinian problem." Israeli Deputy Defense Minster's threat of a "shoah" didn't even merit a whimper on NPR. And then tonight Siegle interviewing the "king" of Jordan tosses this one out there:

"New numbers, new reports out today suggest that in Gaza social and economic conditions are now worse than they have been ever since 1967 and the Six Day War. What do you do about Gaza? Hamas is in control of Gaza. One approach seems to be ignore them or starve the territory so that Palestinians there will turn away from Hamas. What's your counsel?"

"Starve the territory so that Palestinians there will turn away from Hamas"! I swear to God he said that. Listen if you can bear. He just puts it out there like it was any old diplomatic tool of the trade (which it is for the US/EU/Israel). Incredible how such a brutal targeting of civilians is treated as normal. Just this morning Gradstein, referring to Gaza, said "the area is under an Israeli blockade, part of an effort to pressure Hamas."

The double standard is so starkly obvious that it leaves one breathless. Imagine if tonight's news about the gunman's attack on students in Jerusalem was described as a Palestinian's attempt to put pressure on the Israeli government. Or, if as in Gradstein's piece this morning, the victims of the shooting (intentionally targeted like the civilians in Gaza) were described as "caught in the crossfire."

(link to graphic)

Who Wants to Contrast and Compare?

Sometimes the best way to sniff out the NPR ideology is to compare and contrast how they cover two stories. Two examples:

Rezko v. Renzi

Here in Illinois we have more than our share of heavy duty corruption. Lately the latest to face the bar is Tony Rezko. Turns out that Rezko was an early supporter and contributor of Senator Obama. NPR has been all over the story of late, and - given the campaign season - that seems fair enough. However a very similiar story touches Senator McCain. Straight-talkin' McCain has close ties to Rep. Rick Renzi, a fellow facing some very serious felony charges himself. Let's see how NPR covers this sleaze story...Dang! what do you know, 3 puny hits on NPR and only one of those on a news show (and nothing since August '07!). I guess a chummy barbecue is no place for a reporter to bring up such a delicate topic. NPR can take comfort, though. Seems like McCain gets an easy pass from other news organizations, too.

Of Laptops and Lapdogs

Heading south, way south, NPR jumps right on the uraniam chain-reaction fear wagon. You know the "amazing," magical laptop from Ecuador, the one that takes us down the the uranium yellow cake road again. Nothing on NPR to suggest that Colombia's charges are likely a bunch of junk, and were probably aimed at completely derailing Venezuela's ongoing hostage release negotiations. Compare NPR's gullible coverage of this story with its hard hitting coverage of Vanity Fair's recent confirmation of the US role in trying to overthrow Hamas by arming Fatah and stoking a civil war in Palestine. Absolutely nothing, not one story giving attention to this breaking story. I guess it doesn't quite fit NPR's constant insistence that Condi the last peacemaker standing.

Bullets not Ballots

There was one half-decent piece from the Occupied Territories of Palestine this week on NPR. It occurred on Wednesday's ATC and featured a Gazan commenting on the attack by Palestinian gunmen against a peace demonstration opposed to the fighting in Gaza. The commentator said:

"Many people here — including myself — think that the West is doing everything it can to weaken the Palestinian Authority. And Israel is, as well. All of their acts are aimed at Hamas, but they have also weakened Fatah, the more moderate faction here in Gaza. This is hypocrisy by the West and Israel as they steal the hope by tightening this economic embargo against the Palestinian people. Desperate people don't think rationally. Desperate people turn radical. And that is just what is happening in Gaza."

Hypocrisy by the West and Israel - OMG! an utterance of truth slipped through on NPR. Let's hear from this fellow again.

But tonight was not Wednesday (probably never will be again). First we had Eric Westervelt reporting on Hamas' takeover of Gaza and talking about the "quartet of Middle East peacemakers." Then it's Michelle Norris talking to Martin Indyk, former Israeli ambassador and the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Indyk is all about the "moderate" Abu Mazen and Fatah. Needless to say there was nothing about the US policy of undermining the democratically elected government of Hamas, starving Palestinians, and arming and training Fatah in the hopes of destroying Hamas in a Fatah-led coup.

For better coverage take a look at Tony Karon's piece, Ali Abunimah's piece in EI, or Helena Cobban's article.

Update: Weekend Edition Saturday (6/16) had a pretty good interview with Rashid Khalidi who used to be at the Univ. of Chicago, but is now at Columbia University.