Assassinating English: Belligerent Signals

A Belligerent Signal - from The Mirror (UK)

As usual, Glenn Greenwald has an excellent post on the distorted coverage by the US mainstream media [including NPR] regarding the latest assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist.  In spite of official US denial and condemnation of the murder - most experts agree that Israel - and possibly - the US were responsible for the killing (although at this time there is no conclusive proof).

However, as Glenn Greenwald points out, the murder allows us to see how the term "terrorism" is worthless as a factual term, but - in the US mainstream press - is a politically loaded term of propaganda applied ONLY to states and individuals deemed hostile to the US government/corporate interests.  By comparing the coverage of this actual terrorist attack against a civilian scientist to the coverage of the ludicrous US claims regarding Iran's supposed plot to kill a Saudi ambassador, one can see how the term "terrorism" is distorted and misused in most major news organizations in the US.  And NPR is no exception.

If you have any doubts that NPR is somehow distinct from other corporate news organizations, this latest story offers firm evidence to the contrary.  A simple search on NPR's site will reveal the way the NPR aligns its coverage:

Search "Iran terror assassination" on NPR's site and limit it to "Heard on Air" and you get FIVE stories (3-Morning Edition and 2-All Things Considered) on the flimsy, alleged Iranian assassination plot from October 2011, but NONE on this actual terrorist act against Iran. Among the stories from October is this chestnut featuring State Department "intellectual" Ray Takeyh throwing around various forms of the word "terror" (in relation to Iran) 13 times!

To find anything aired on NPR regarding the actual political murder of a civilian in Iran you have to drop "terror" from your search and simply query NPR with "Iran assassination" and limit it to "Heard on Air".  Doing this gives you ONE story on All Things Considered. Not only does this January 11, 2012 story not mention terror or terrorism, it features Peter Kenyon normalizing this assassination as a legitimate tool of statecraft.  Paraphrasing nuclear analyst David Albright, Kenyon says, "Tehran must be feeling the pressure." Albright then speaks,

"It knows that some of its scientists are under threat by assassination. There's been cyberattacks. There's efforts to get Iranians to defect. And we've called it kind of a third way. All those things are continuing, and that's added to the pressure."

If there is any doubt that Kenyon and NPR share this criminal attitude, Kenyon adds,

"This is the latest in a series of increasingly belligerent signals between Tehran and Western capitals."

That's interesting because I don't recall the "plot" to kill the Saudi ambassador described as a "belligerent signal," and I would wager a Romney-sized $10,000 that the assassination of a US or Israeli scientist by Iranian-backed killers would never be called a "belligerent signal" on NPR.

One can not help but listen to this rubbish from NPR and recall the previous Ombudsman's defense of NPR's refusal to call torture "torture" when the US committed it.  NPR could not call waterboarding torture  because, as she put it, "the problem is that the word torture is loaded with political and social implications for several reasons."  And of course, the exact same twisted reasoning must be motivating NPR to avoid using any form of the word terror to describe actions that serve US government interests - no matter how clearly they fit any basic understanding of the term.

Tea & Sympathy: NPR Newsbaggers

The post below shows the disproportionate and favorable coverage that a puny rally of 100-200 Tea Party rightwingers generates on NPR. So what happened when, this past March, hundreds of anti-war protesters showed up at the White House and over 100 were arrested - including Daniel Ellsberg? On NPR, the public news outlet for the Ministry of Truth, it never happened. And what about when 27 anti-SOA protesters are arrested after a march of 100-200. Want to guess where that one goes on NPR? Memory hole again. All right, so maybe hundreds just doesn't show up on the radar when you're busy bootlicking the far right; how about thousands marching against war? Are you ready? Yep, NPR goes 0 for 3 when it comes to antiwar activism, even when it includes very large numbers, committed civil disobedience and large arrests.

FAIR has just done a great job pointing this out and suggests that you sign their petition. I have to add that NPR takes the general media's blackout of antiwar activism to a truly perverse level - not only do they newsbag the important stories of antiwar activism - they have the gall to take their own erased-news as evidence of a dead antiwar movement and pass it off as journalism.

All Tea All the Time

(That's hapless Tea Reporter Don Gonyea)

It's no secret that like Fox News, NPR is Tea Party friendly turf - even fairly unbalanced Tea Partiers like Lori Medina of Dallas find NPR fair - well, duh. Given that a recent poll shows the Tea Party suck factor growing (almost as high as for Democrats and Republicans-see the poll here), and given that a recent Tea Party rally in Washington, DC drew a minuscule 100-200 participants (Politico and Slate have a couple of photos - you decide) - no wonder NPR felt obliged to provide amplified and robust coverage to this far right army of Dick. So what does a dinky little DC rally of hardcore rightwingers get on NPR?

• A Thursday ATC story featuring highlights of your speakers and a description of the Sen. Rand "Civil Rights" Paul and the unhinged Michele Bachmann as bringing "some star power."
• More Thursday amplification of Tea Party talking points from NPR's Frank James on the "It's All Politics" blog.
• An April Fool's Morning Edition feature with Tea Party fool, Audie Cornish, who explains that "It wasn't a big group less than 250 people. But they had a big voice."
• A Weekend Edition Sunday feature where some of those several hundred attendees get to weigh in on US foreign policy in Libya - "...when it boils down to it, we are the country that's done the great things in the world; we are the leaders, and that's a role we still have to have."

So what gives? Even if one concedes that the Tea Party represents a force in American politics, one can easily argue that a group like MoveOn represents an equally powerful force in electoral politics. So take a look at how on-air Tea Party coverage compares to on-air MoveOn coverage on NPR. That's 789 for the Tea Party compared to 106 for MoveOn - very fair, very balanced.

Never Too Late to Plug the Leaks

(Yes, that is Michele Kelemen, though I provided the fetching cap.)

The dike of secrecy ain't just leaking; it has collapsed, thanks in large part to WikiLeaks. But NPR's Michele Kelemen still thinks she can channel the little Dutch Boy and plug those holes. A news agency's first story on any major event can be quite telling; consider NPR's initial story on the latest WikiLeaks document release that ran on Sunday's ATC:

Audie Cornish: "Michele, there's a lot to cover, but let's talk about that last cable we just heard. That is a directive to essentially spy on other diplomats at the United Nations. And what have you learned about that?"

Kelemen: "....The U.S. government apparently wants these diplomats to learn about potential links between U.N. organizations and terrorist organizations and to learn about corruption in the U.N."

It funny how the Guardian had a few other truthy ideas about what the US was up to in spying on UN officials and provides a healthy context for the likely criminality of such actions.

Noting that reported harm and danger from previous WikiLeaks have been proven to be lies, Glenn Greenwald asks today, "Will that prevent media figures and many other people from running around this week mindlessly parroting the Government's claim -- without pointing to any specifics or other evidence -- that WikiLeaks has endangered lives with this latest release? Hmmm, let's see how NPR answers the call,

Kelemen: "...the White House was reminding people today that these are not expressions of policy. It's just field reporting....That said, the U.S. does worry that these disclosures could put diplomats at risk, as well as their sources, you know, human rights activists, journalists, bloggers."

Bloggers? Uh oh!

Finally, there is Iran. Ah yes, there is always the boogie man of Iran. Juan Cole points out that the released cables reveal how much BS the Bush/Obama warministrations have foisted on the public - especially in relation to the absurd idea that Iran has been helping out the Taliban [something old Fair and Balanced Sorya Sarhadi Nelson has been commended for]. Seems like Kelemen couldn't help but sing about the evil TENTACLES of Iran:

"And the ambassador, Stephen Beecroft, writes that the metaphor most commonly deployed by Jordanians when they talk about Iran is that of an octopus whose tentacles reach out insidiously to manipulate, foment and undermine the best-laid plans of the West and regional moderates. It says that Iran's tentacles include its allies Qatar and Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories."

Oooooh, so scary!

A Rebel? Well, Just Because

(with apologies to Natalie "Seabrook" Wood and James "Boehner" Dean)

There's a lot of things a person might call John Boehner - lobby pimp, corrupt sleazeball, gross opportunist, unbridled hypocrite - though understandably a journalist should simply stick to describing the behaviors that merit these names, and avoid outright name calling - unless that journalist, NPR's Andrea Seabrook, is shamelessly enamored with the future Speaker of the House and breathlessly lauds him as "Boehner the rebel and Boehner the compromiser. "

Such was Morning Edition today. How's this for a hard-hitting examination of Boehner:

• "There really seem to be two Boehners: Boehner the rebel and Boehner the compromiser."
• "Boehner was one of a few Republicans who wrote a simple, succinct document that outlined an agenda of vast reforms in Congress: the Contract with America."
• "This is Boehner the rebel: tough, conservative, ideological, uncompromising. He entered the Republican leadership ready to fight for reforms and a smaller government, regardless of the political price."

She's not joking - honestly. And as for Mr. Compromiser? Again Seabrook:

"This is where we enter the era of Boehner the compromiser. In 2001, he took over as chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee....[and] began to work with Democrats on a massive overhaul that would be dubbed No Child Left Behind....Boehner the compromiser called [it] his proudest achievement in his decades of public service."

Let's just recap that, Boehner dared to work with Democrats who willingly gave the Republicans everything they wanted in a suck piece of educational legislation that is even now noted as a failure by one of it's earliest "intellectual" champions. That's how NPR defines compromise. I guess when Obama's Catfood Commission recommends amputations for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid while spending on our Nobel Laureate's forever wars keeps rising, Compromiser John will be there to reach across the aisle (and Seabrook will be there to swoon).

Boneheads and Infotainers

Granted, NPR has trouble distinguishing Tea Party Brown Shirts from the Civil Rights Movement, and it's own ombudsman rues not having more Beckian viewpoints presented in its coverage - but this weekend poor Andrea Seabrook and chuckling Guy Raz can't seem to tell the difference between Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck or their rallies.

Seabrook: ....I mean, think about it. Some of the biggest political movement in terms of rallies this year have been organized by non-politician...

Raz: Yeah.

Seabrook: ...infotainers.

Raz: Incredible.

Seabrook: And they were very much alike. People at both the Glenn Beck rally and his rally were very nice, calm, happy. I mean, the Glenn Beck rally was more like a church picnic.

Yep, Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck (and their respective rallies) are almost identical - just good old infotainers, except one likes to describe his opponents as a virus and call for their eradication. I bet that Glenn Beck rally was just like a church picnic, can't wait for the bonfire later...

In the Open Thread comments below goopDoggy succinctly notes how the other subtext of Seabrook's "report" is to disparage antiwar protesters as "chanting, you know, screaming people."

In the Mainstream

Imagine if a national radio news organization were committed to providing coverage that had to be "fair, unbiased, accurate, complete and honest." If instead of trying to ape the narrow, acceptable range of opinion and coverage that the mainstream media provides - think how dynamic it would be if that news organization was determined to "present all important views on a subject." Think of the daring stories one would hear if that news organization demanded that it "not approach any coverage with overt or hidden agendas" (including unspoken trust in government spokespersons and a belief in the nobility of military actions and war.)

Clearly, it would be a dramatic change if such a a news organization promised to be "skeptical of all facts gathered and report them only when we are reasonably satisfied of their accuracy....[and] make sure that our language accurately describes the facts and does not imply a fact we have not confirmed." That would definitely be an end to hearing about "militants" being killed in drone attacks and air strikes and "terrorists" being anyone the US government claims is a terrorist.

In these times of obscene financial scams and fraud at the highest levels of our corporate government, just consider how refreshing economic news coverage would be if that imaginary news outlet made "rigorous efforts at all levels of the news gathering and programming process to ensure our facts are not only accurate but also presented in the correct context."

Surprisingly, there is a large, national news organization that is publicly committed to upholding all the standards listed above. Every one of them comes from NPR's published code of ethics. It is a code of ethics squarely at odds with the goal of being mainstream, and yet NPR's ombudsman, Alicia Shepard, repeatedly - and unabashedly - reminds listeners that NPR is determined to be nothing but mainstream. Her most recent statements on the subject came in an interview on WAMU highlighted on her blog,

"NPR started in 1971 as an alternative news network and it has definitely - and more towards the left - and it has definitely and intentionally become more mainstream. I am not advocating that it be mainstream; I am explaining that that is what has happened and that they consider themselves - and I speak of them in the third person - to be like the New York Times or the Washington Post. You can listen to NPR and you can get everything..."

Despite claiming that she is "not advocating that it be mainstream" she then goes on to respond to a caller by stating

"I don't think that you hear a lot of libertarians or socialists or Green Party people on NPR and part of my job is to pass that on. I don't think it's going to change dramatically....I think it's always a matter of balance and what your goals are and what your intention is and as I've said I think NPR's intention is to be more mainstream."

Someone needs to remind Ms. Shepard to read NPR's code of ethics and explain to listeners how it can possibly meet it's commitments while aiming to be "more mainstream." And claiming that "You can listen to NPR and you can get everything..." just doesn't cut it as an explanation, especially considering the evidence to the contrary that this blog has amassed over the years."

Inskeep Works Hard for the Money

On Thursday morning, Inskeep interviews Mike Murphy (the classy Republican strategist) about the huge, massive, overwhelming Democratic gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia on Tuesday evening - oops, that was in 2001 - I meant the similar 2009 Republican triumphs in those states that are a "slap in the face" to Obama and the Democrats.

For those of us living in the reality-based sphere, we recall that Obama and Democrats made all kinds of concessions for the stimulus bill - only to get NO Republican votes in the House. We remember that team Obama squelched single payer and backed corporate insurance "reform" only to have the Republican nihlists savage these timid reforms. And any of us who give a crap about the Constitution, are seriously disturbed by the extremist Bush-Obama efforts to enshrine the absolutism of the security state.

Keeping these troublesome facts in mind, consider the statements that were made by Mike Murphy as Steve Inskeep interviewed him this morning:

"...hopefully to have some Democrats now start thinking about a bipartisan approach, where they can sit down with Republicans and actually compromise, rather than asking Republicans to vote 99 percent Democrat and call that compromise."

Inskeep's challenge to this nonsense: "We'll talk about that a little bit, but I want to ask a little more about these elections...." When that "later" roles around, here's his big confrontation,"Why do you think, as you suggest, that these election results would cause Democrats in Washington and Congress to work a little more collaboratively with Republicans?" Yes, Inskeep just rolls over, and accepts the lie that Democrats have been obstructing bipartisanship and running roughshod over Republicans.

Seeing that Inskeep knows how to "work collaboratively" with him, Murphy states,

"Because I think the great mistake of the Obama presidency...is they were elected as a bipartisan problem solver, almost a post-partisan politician. But from the day they've been in, they got a little drunk on the power and they've governed as a one-party liberal party....the Democrats, in my view, are governing too far to the left. They're losing the middle of the country...."

Drunk on power? One-party liberal party? Too far to the left? Seriously, did I miss the Democrats pushing for a Roosevelt-style jobs program? Was I sleeping when the Democrats insisted on pursuing single-payer health insurance, or a full public option open to all with no "triggers" or provisos attached? Are the Democrats seeking to have the Bush torture architects and practitioners investigated and tried? Did the banks get nationalized? Did the Pentagon budget get slashed?

And Inskeep's rejoinder? - "Now, when you say the Democrats should learn a lesson of not being too focused on health care, I mean, they're in it. I mean, they're going to try to pass a bill. How should this affect the health care debate for them?" In other words, NOTHING - no challenge, no fact check, no mention of the recent past. I guess that's how Inskeep earns that whopping $353,390 a year salary (+ $38,698 to "employee benefit plans") *[from page 57 of the NPR FY 2008 IRS 990 filing.]

*Or simply click on graphic at the top of this post to see the 5 highest paid NPR employees in 2008 - how Alex Chadwick fits in there is anybody's guess.

Bend It Like Beck - Ahem

"I've said it before, and I will reiterate it. NPR is a mainstream news outlet." - Alicia Shepard, Nov. 2, 2009

I have to hand it to NPR's ombudsman, Alicia Shepard, when she posts on her blog, she really knows how to put ugly out there. This was manifest in her June21, 2009 defense of not calling torture torture and her similarly enhanced defense of the same on June 30, 2009. If you've not read Glenn Greenwald's critique of Shepard on this matter, it is well worth the read.

On her Monday, Nov. 2 post, Shepard's back with a doozy, distorting her critics' positions and selectively misquoting herself in order to defend her stated desire to have MORE conservative voices on NPR news.

Shepard is writing about a complaint she received regarding comments she made on the Kojo Nmadi show on the Washington, DC public radio affiliate, WAMU. A caller had just hung up after noting - with examples - that NPR's usual range of experts/pundits ranged from the hard right to slightly left of center at best. Shepard's response (starting at about the 42 minute mark) was telling:

"Public radio listeners are very passionate about what they hear...people hear things selectively....people hear groups that they think shouldn't be on NPR and then they latch on to that and I think that's just how we're wired as human beings..."

and then comes

"...do I think NPR could do a better job? I think of having more conservative voices on NPR ah, you know rather than saying that they pander to conservatives, I just think some of the conservative names Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck. I mean when Glenn Beck is on NPR I can be assured that there will be a lot of emails about that, and I feel like, 'Hey you should hear what Glenn Beck has to say. You know, like it or not, he is influential.' "

It's crucial to note that there is absolutely nothing in Shepard's on-air comment indicating that she thinks it's important to report on the views of people like Beck and Limbaugh - to hold their statements up to facts and to explore the phenomenon of the popularity of hate and misinformation news-opinion shows. Is there any other way to interpret Shepard's remarks, except to conclude that she believes more conservative voices such as Beck and Limbaugh should be on NPR?

And so she received an angry email from a listener who wrote,

"I was outraged by your comment today on the Kojo Nnamdi program that NPR should have more people like Glenn Beck who represent a certain point of view not heard on NPR."

Seems like a pretty open and shut case of Ombudsman says something stupid and unethical, gets caught, and should issue an apology/retraction. Not in Shepard's "Beck and Me" land. First she whines,

"Usually I am the one examining those on air, and now I know how it feels to be on the other side of the mic, where it is perceived that I did something wrong."

Then she selectively edits her statement from the WAMU show,

"When Glenn Beck is on NPR I can be assured that there will be a lot of emails about that, and I feel like, 'Hey you should hear what Glenn Beck has to say. You know, like it or not he is influential.' " [Notice how she removes the damning opening to her statement "...I think of having more conservative voices on NPR ah, you know rather than saying that they pander to conservatives, I just think some of the conservative names Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck.]

And finally she distorts her critic's opinion so that it is easier to dismiss,

"That quote does not indicate that I think Beck should be on NPR every day..."

It's worth re-reading the complaint she's referring to: "I was outraged by your comment today on the Kojo Nnamdi program that NPR should have more people like Glenn Beck who represent a certain point of view not heard on NPR." Is there anything in that quote alleging that Shepard wants Beck on NPR every day?

I can't think of a column that makes a stronger case for what I've been attempting to show in this blog - NPR news is indistinguishable from the pandering-to-power corporate/mainstream media news outlets in this country. Alicia Shepard - with her thirty years of journalism experience! - says it better than me:

"I've said it before, and I will reiterate it. NPR is a mainstream news outlet. Its duty is to inform the public of all that is going on - and that means airing voices and stories that many listeners might not like or agree with."

This begs the question of just what unique perspective or qualities NPR contributors are getting for their donations that they can't get on CNN, FOX, etc.

Buffing Turds at NPR

Part I - School Daze

Mara Liasson - on Tuesday (September 8, 2009) ATC, tries to normalize the wingnut stupidity, insanity and virulence of the Republican-led attacks on Obama's live address to schools. Of his speech she says,

"Inspiring perhaps, but not very controversial. And not unlike the politically innocuous study hard, stay in school messages of previous presidents. Of course, those messages were subject to political sniping as well. Back in 1991, when George H. W. Bush gave a similar speech, Democrats called it political advertising."

Even though the chairman of the Florida Republican party stated that "I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology....schoolchildren across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans....an invasive abuse of power" - Liasson equates this rabidly stupid, hypocritical attack with the "political sniping" of Democrats who denounced Bush 41's school speech as "paid political advertising" and investigated the use of federal funds in producing the broadcast.

Part II - You Lie

Inskeep on September 10, 2009 ME weighs in on Rep. Joe Wilson's unprecedented interruption of Pres. Obama's joint session speech the evening before:

"Now, in the middle of that booing, you can hear Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina shout out, 'You lie!' There's been a lot of the coverage of the etiquette of this. Wilson has apologized, but let's ask about the substance. Was the president truthful in saying that his plan is not going to cover illegal immigrants?"

Well dang, there's a lot of reactions one might have had to Wilson's I-thought-I-was-at-a-Tea-Bag-Party outburst. Instead of questioning what role race - and decades-old Republican virulence and hypocrisy - played in Wilson's rebel yell, Inskeep wants to get to the "substance" of his squeal. At least if NPR was going to focus on the "substance" - it might have focused on the depravity of our political culture in general - where a supposedly liberal President is heckled for not being anti-undocumented immigrant enough when he is defending how hard-hearted he wants his healthcare reform bill to be toward those undocumented immigrants.

Blue Texan at FDL really captures the role that Liasson, Inskeep and NPR are playing: the American Right flings the most outrageous, dishonest, and ignorant poo it can and trusts that media outlets like NPR will work their hardest to shine it up as nothing but normal, mainstream, acceptable politics.

With Friends Like These - More Fair and Balanced from NPR

A reader of this blog earlier noted his letter to the OMBOTsman regarding NPR's habit of always having supposedly liberal Daniel Schorr balanced out on every show by a more rightwing voice (can you say Foxista Juan Williams?).

This morning featured Juan Williams (and Scott Simon) parroting the right wing talking points on the Sotomayor nomination:

(Williams) "But on the face of it Scott, you'd have to say that her language - and if you took it for what it was worth - was racist."

That was the view from the right, but what about the liberal views on the weeks news? Consider these statements from Schorr talking with Simon later in the program:

• "We have not witnessed a nuclear explosion in anger since 1945..."
• "Nuclear weapons going steadily into more and more hands and not very responsible hands..."
• "Probably the most immediate dangerous is what's called proliferation. Israel has already had to bomb an installation in Syria which apparently had North Korean help in getting a nuclear weapon."
• "And so for the civilized world right now the immediate thing is to prevent further proliferation which may mean having to board and search ships at sea."

Holy smokes! However - civilized, responsible Schorr wasn't done yet. With a prompt from Simon, he's off an running on Iran:

(Simon): "Does the policy of extending a hand in friendship look a little naive this week?"
(Schorr): "I don't know if it looks, if it is naive, but it looks as though it's not getting very far..."

I'm not sure what hand of friendship Simon and Schorr are fantasizing about. Maybe they mean one of the AIPAC enriched palms of Dennis Ross - chief of Obama's non-diplomacy policy toward Iran.

FU WSF

Hey what do you know, in the midst of capitalism's global implosion there were two very different economic forums being held at the same darn time! There was the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, representing the interests of global capitalism and the World Social Forum (WSF) in Belem, Brazil, representing alternatives to predatory globalization.

Well, dang, lets see how NPR - which has been touting the merits of journalists "trained to see patterns in data and ask informed questions" - covered the dueling forums:

Here's a little search of "World Social Forum" on the NPR site. What do you know, nothing from 2009, 2008, or 2007! In all just 8 results.

Let's compare that to a little search of "World Economic Forum" on the NPR site. Hmmm...seems NPR was a bit more interested in the big money at Davos. You can see a wealth (128 results) of stories on the capitalist forum, including a whole story featuring the pro-terrorism, bad Samaritan, and always wrong Thomas Friedman.

UPDATE: Readers have asked for more on "always wrong" Friedman, so here's a few interesting links - enjoy:

• Mark Rubert at Syracuse University has an Anti-Friedman page (taking on Friedman's love of global corporatism)
• Dean Baker takes Friedman to task for being a know-nothing about the role of the housing bubble crash.
• Lionel Beehner contemplates how Friedman sucks up to powerful CEO's instead of researching their practices.
• The Dim-Post has a rather cheeky look at the pillars of Friedmanism.
• Matt Taibbi reviews Friedman's The World is Flat and concludes that the same could be said of Friedman's book.

A Balance of Generals - Fair and Balanced Explanation, part II

If you haven't looked at NPR's ombudsman's page explaining NPR's participation in the Pentagon domestic propaganda program, its worth a look. There are a few problems: as mentioned in my post below, NPR simply claims no major distortions took place, and then treats its own assertions as evidence. For example Ombudsman Shepard writes, "While Scales and Rhame may not have been vetted by NPR, it doesn't appear that either had any glaring business conflicts." She later adds, that "both Gjelten and NPR's Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman say Scales does not spout the Pentagon's line." Holy crap! I guess if Colorful Gjelten and Hummin' Tom Bowman say it, then it's just got to be true.

Perhaps the most glaring - and unaddressed - aspect of the ombudsman's piece is how it reveals the overwhelming dominance of pro-US military/Pentagon representatives on NPR. Shepard mentions that General Scales of the NYT's report "appeared on different NPR news shows - a total of 36 times in 2003, including 11 times during NPR special news reports in first days of the war" and "since February 2003, he has been on NPR 67 times, most often (28 appearances) on All Things Considered (ATC)." Shepard also refers to yet another retired general NPR hired, Thomas Rhame, and writes that "Rhame has appeared on NPR news shows 48 times -- 43 of them in 2003."

I can understand why NPR might consult an ex-general or two when the country goes to war - but where was any counter-balance to the generals. During the time periods mentioned, did we get to hear from dissenters and leaders of the anti-war movement? Did we get 67 or 48 appearances from the likes of Kathy Kelly, Chalmers Johnson, Noam Chomsky, Scott Ritter, Daniel Ellsberg...etc? How about 30 times, or 20 times? Not a chance.

This complete reliance on US military and security insiders is well illustrated in the lousy reporting on Tuesday's Morning Edition. In one story, Inskeep talks to a West Point analyst, Brian Fishman, about al-Qaeda's Zawahiri answering questions on the web. Of Zawahiri's Q&A tactic Fishman notes "You know this is a fascinating technique. It's not the first time it's been used by an insurgent or a militant organization that we've seen." And Inskeep smugly reminds us, "Now we should mention that this is not a free and open debate. He's choosing which questions to take on and which ones to ignore." I had to laugh at both comments since it made me think of another extremist who took on staged questions and the fate that befell those who weren't part of the script.

Later Guy Raz looks into the US Army's internal debate regarding counterinsurgency. The reporting is strictly limited to members or retired members of the armed forces, and as always, NPR doesn't refer to any of the long, shameful history of US counterinsurgency operations that have tortured and killed millions since WWII.

Perhaps if NPR cut its addiction to generals and former generals they'd actually start asking questions of those in power and challenging the official line. Then instead of covering a debate only after it breaks out in the Pentagon, they'd start the debate themselves. Or NPR could do the hard, slogging investigative work of exposing the US government's exploitation and lies regarding the death of a famous soldier instead of following the story only after his mother has done all the work that they should have been doing all along.

Investigative reporting...challenging those in power? I know, it's a wacky idea.

NPR's Fair and Balanced Explanation

Back in April NPR was caught with its Pentagon pants down. Seems one of NPR's favorite military analysts was the Foxy retired general and war profiteer, Robert Scales. As the NPR Ombudsman has noted Scales is a frequent voice on NPR. She relates that "Scales appeared on different NPR news shows -- a total of 36 times in 2003...." and "Since February 2003, he has been on NPR 67 times, most often (28 appearances) on All Things Considered (ATC)."

I wondered how NPR would handle this embarrassing revelation, and its now clear that it has opted for a page right out of the Bush playbook: do an in-house review and declare yourself innocent, or even worse, declare yourself justified. And so David Folkenflik declares on the May 1, 2008 edition of All Things Considered:

"Duffy also says Scales did nothing wrong, and that a review of his remarks, in which he was often critical of progress in Iraq, found he wasn't unduly influenced by the Pentagon."

Duffy happens to be Brian Duffy, managing editor of NPR news and his statement is quite a piece of work. So what disinterested third party conducted the review? NPR of course! - convenient, isn't it? And where is one shred of evidence to support Duffy's self-serving claim that Scales "was often critical of progress in Iraq" and "wasn't unduly influenced by the Pentagon"? I did quite a bit of snooping around in NPR's archives and found nothing. But I did find some very typical bits of Scales "useful analysis to our listeners" (to use Duffy's earlier words):

• January 28, 2003 (as the US prepared to invade Iraq it was having trouble finding allies): (Scales) "the United States, militarily, is far more powerful....we already have bases in the region....and we're also facing a military situation that is a lot less daunting now than it was in 1991. So the need for allies or coalition partners to add overwhelming force is much less than it was." This is followed by Tom Gjelten who states that "Scales, a former commandant of the Army War College, argues that a smaller coalition this time may even work to the US' advantage." [This had to be music to Rumsfeld's ears; less than two months later he was quite the defensive secretary over the world's tiniest coalition.]
• April 6, 2004 (the security situation in Iraq was fast unraveling for the US ): Eric Westervelt reported that Scales "says the US may have adequate numbers, but not the right type of troops, General Scales says it may be time for the US to create several large specialized quick reaction forces to respond more effectively to trouble spots. [Scales speaking] 'You need a sort of strategic reaction force that's able to respond to these types of emergencies and to pile on in these areas to try to quell the violence and normally that requires large doses of close combat and maneuver soldiers...' "
• On November 8, 2004 as the US was launching its thorough destruction of Fallujah Scales says of the US assault "They're going to do several things...establish an airtight seal...prep the battlefield... artillery and aircraft dropping relatively small bombs to take out very discreet, very surgical targets in the city such as command and control." Scales, using the same language that Marine General John Sattler used on the eve of the destruction of Fallujah, states that "...the whole purpose of this assault is to break the back of the enemy resistance and principally to attempt to capture the foreign fighters who are the ones who are sort of leading the defense..."
• On April 19, 2006, during the period when many retired generals were denouncing Rumsfeld's handling of all aspects of the Iraq war and occupation , Scales defends Rumsfeld, agreeing with Rumsfeld that the criticisms were about long term changes in the military. Scales says, "Well, uh, uh, certainly, the secretary has been an instrument of change. I don't think any of us doubt that. But I also contend that the change in the army began before he came on the scene." He goes further claiming that "This is not about Mr. Rumsfeld. This is not about disgruntled generals, it's really about what's in the national interest and that's where our focus was Steve. I mean the real question is to get on with the war, to look forward instead of backward and to figure out where we're going and to establish a secure Iraq that's defined by a free market economy, representative government, and most of all security."
• On November 27, 2006 when the Iraq War exceeded the length of the US involvement in WWII, Scales had absolutely nothing critical to say about the conduct of the war, but instead launched into a paean for army sergeants ("They are the soul of our army, the glue that bonds fighting units together....) and a bit of nonsense about the post Vietnam war army ("...after Vietnam I saw my army collapse, broken, disheartened and abandoned by the American people. But this army isn't broken, at least not yet, why?)

So where is all that "critical of progress," "useful analysis" that Duffy touts? Hmm, I think somebody is not telling the truth...

Liberal Media

This morning Liane Hansen hosted one of the most misleading discussions on the 2008 elections that I've heard to date. She was talking to Mindy Finn and Joshua Levy about the stunning turnout of young voters in this primary season. Finn is weighing in for the right ("a Republican strategist, and former director of e-Strategy for Mitt Romney" according to NPR's website) and Joshua Levy weighing in for the non-partisan techPresident.com ("a company that tracks how the 2008 presidential candidates and their supporters are using the Internet" according to NPR). And who is representing a liberal, Democratic perspective?

The discussion is all about how energized and active youth voters are. But wait, I've been following the primaries, and what I've learned is that the turnout among Democrats hugely surpassing that of Republicans. Secondly, the amazing youth turnout is a phenomena of the Democratic primaries (especially the Obama campaign), not the Republicans. I thought maybe I had imagined these facts, so I went poking around CNN's results pages. Here's some of the numbers:

• California: total votes - (Dem.) 4.375 million, (Rep.) 2.51 million ; (Dem.) 16% were 18-29 yrs. old, (Rep.) 10% were 18-29 yrs. old.
• Wisconsin: total votes - (Dem.) 1.09 million, (Rep.) .403 million ; (Dem.) 16% were 18-29 yrs. old, (Rep.) 11% were 18-29 yrs. old.

Similar numbers can be seen in South Carolina, and in Florida where the DNC disallowed the Democratic vote, and yet the Democrats still outpolled Republicans and the 18-29 vote shrank to 7% for those inspiring Republicans. Maybe it's McCain's 100 year plan or his Bomb Iran singing skills that fails to rally those silly young people. Really a fair report would try to uncover what it is that is motivating the flood of young voters to support the Democratic candidates (and what is keeping them from the Republican cause.)

Further maddening was Liane Hansen's failure to challenge Finn's description of the New York Times report as a "smear story" or to challenge her to back up the following ludicrous claim: "A majority of the right is getting behind John McCain, and if not specifically getting behind him, at least going against the efforts that they see by the liberal media to crush him." Wouldn't it be great to hear a reporter (that's you Lianne) say, "What liberal media? Name some specific examples of liberal bias against the Bush administration, the Repubican candidates, the war in Iraq, the torture of detainees, etc."