Saint Petraeus

The Petraeus worship has to stop! Guy Raz is at it again on Morning Edition today. Raz says, "Almost every Senator indicated support, relieved to be dealing with a military commander who’s prepared to tell it like it is." And then, "The President is sending Petraeus off to save America in Iraq. The Senate wants him to save the military from the President, and Petraeus – ever the diplomat – knows how to walk between those drops of rain."

Tell it like it is? Can we have a little evidence? Did Petraeus "tell it like it is" on the illegality of the war? the torture of detainees? the flattening of Fallujah? Or does he care more about that precious 4th star than taking a stand against the idiocy of the "surge?"

"Save America in Iraq?" What of "America" is there to save in Iraq? To save Bush's butt would be more like it? To turn our Stalingrad into a Dunkirk - maybe? And who is going to save our creaky Republic from the Pentagon loving militarists that Guy Raz is so comfortable hanging out with?

"Walk between those drops of rain"? Something's in the water at NPR!

Show Me the Money

One of today's kind readers noted this great post from blogger Olvlzl. The money(!) quote:

• "This puts all three of these news readers at the falsely named National Public Radio firmly in the top 1%, personal income group. I don't remember who said it but it is a mighty rare person who isn't changed by an income over a quarter of a million dollars a year. A sort of aristocratic amnesia sets in, forgetting what it was like to get by on the less than a tenth of that amount, what most Americans have to live on."

Amen. Read it and weep...

Open Thread - Wednesday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Back to Mr. Death Squad

This morning NPR has Steve Inskeep talking to Kalev Sepp about counterinsurgency in Iraq. This is not the first time NPR has gone to "Salvador" Sepp for spin on counterinsurgency. NPR supposedly is committed to balance, so I'm still waiting to hear from some of the recipients of US counterinsurgency (someone like Jennifer Harbury or a representative from the Human Rights Office of the Diocese of San Salvador would be interesting).

It is sad and inexcusable for NPR to continually ignore the role of the US in Iraqi death squads, or to provide the historical context of US involvement in death squads. For a remarkable presentation of this sordid story take a look at this site from the UK.

Open Thread - Tuesday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Saving Bipartisanship on a Sinking Ship

Worried about health insurance, the rise of the surveillance state, climate devastation, the takeover of government by corporate money, the prospect of endless war, etc? Don't fret, because the real issue of the day is BIPARTISANSHIP.

After the November 2006 elections I posted on NPR's attempt to distort the significance of the results, and NPR is back at it with a vengance. Not only is NPR picking a non-issue to focus on, but they the coverage they give is telling.

This morning Mara Liasson presided over a laugher. Imagine seriously trying to pass off the center-right Brookings Institute as moderate left! That's exactly what Liasson does! It explains how NPR can consider itself balanced when the range of their ideology extends from the Brookings Institute to the Hoover Institute which is presented as the "moderate right." Given NPR's strangled ideological boundaries, I guess Reagan would be a centrist, George H. W. Bush would be left-of-center and Bill Clinton would be far-left!

And who else does Liasson talk to in this sorry piece? Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute and Tom Mann of the Brookings Institute.

Sadly NPR doesn't deal with the real bipartisan issues that people are concerned about. For those reality-based numbers you'll have to go elsewhere. Or you can always go to npr.org and read this nonsense: "As part of our Crossing the Divide series, Melissa Block brings together the far left and the far right for a conversation with members of Congress Carol Shea-Porter and Bill Sali." Far left! Honestly, they're not kidding...

Open Thread - Monday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Conflicted Coverage on the Conflict in Bolivia

On Saturday's Weekend Edition Julie McCarthy reports from Bolivia. The substance of the report is pretty good. She interviews Morales supporters and opponents and talks to Jim Schultz of the Democracy Center in Cochabamba (how refreshing!). But as all broadcasters know, the opening of a report (like the lead in a newspaper story) is what sticks in a listener's mind. Here is how NPR frames it.

Steve Inskeep introduces McCarthy's piece with, "but a year on, partisan rancor over the direction of the country has deeply divided Bolivians, and there is growing concern that Morales’ style of governing may be fueling that division."

McCarthy then begins the piece with, "Evo Morales rose to prominence as a master of confrontational politics; critics say he’s practicing them as President and cite recent events...."

Listening to this you would assume that the problem lies with Morales, a view eerily similiar to the January 11th propaganda of our criminal Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte: "Democracy is most at risk in Venezuela and Bolivia. In both countries, the elected presidents, Chavez and Morales, are taking advantage of their popularity to undercut the opposition and eliminate checks on their authority."

I'd recommend that if your time is limited, take a look at the blog of Jim Schultz (who is interviewed by McCarthy). You'll get a much more nuanced and complex coverage of the conflict in Bolivia.

Kid Gloves for Joe

There's fierce competition these days for most shameless, disgraceful character in American politics, but Joe Lieberman is definitely a front runner. The man is a compulsive war monger and hypocrite who showed utter contempt for the democratic process when he turned on the party that built his career because its voters turned him down in the primary.

Lieberman was on NPR's ATC yesterday for a friendly chat with Melissa Block. Here's a few of Lieberman's statements that went unchallenged:

• "I say to those who are opposed to what the President is now suggesting, that they have a responsibility to do one thing, one is to come up with a better plan if they don’t like this one...." [If Block had done 5 minutes worth of research before this interview she might have come across this list of MANY alternate plans for Iraq that don't include escalation and used it to challenge Lieberman's distortion.]
• "Look, many mistakes have been made in Iraq, in the prosecution of this war. I’ve spoken of those mistakes at length, but we are there now...." [Except for this one critique of the post invasion situation, Lieberman has spent most of the Iraq war attacking critics of the war and praising the "real progress"of the war.]
• "Elected leaders have a responsibility to do what they think is right for the country and the future of the country and not to play to public opinion...." then later "....extremists and terrorists…can break our national will." [Just what is this amorphous "national will?" Or does he mean the will of the extremists neocons that he represents.]
  
• "If the Democratic party can not convince the American people that we are prepared to protect them in a dangerous world, ultimately we’re not going to be successful." [Funny, I thought the policy that Lieberman is pushing has made the world more dangerous and made the country less secure.]

This failure of the media to act as a watchdog in challenging those responsible for the disaster of Iraq was noted by David Sirota of the San Francisco Chronicle - a failure that NPR seems to relish.

Wish Lists

What could be more upbeat and exciting than "a huge display of new weapons and defense technology?" NPR takes us to the Marine West Expo which Michele Norris tells us is "an opportunity for defense contractors to meet with their most reliable customers, the Marines who use their gear on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan."

In the story, guest reporter Alison St. John, provides a lively tour:

• One weapons salesman proudly relates, "the products you see here are primarily shoulder-fired rockets and then the SMAI’s(?) the large enhanced-blast rocket that can be used to take snipers out of buildings; it basically knocks the building down with the sniper in it… the Marines love it." (the image above is from Fallujah and looks like it had a sniper "taken out of it.")
• Of a high-tech 3-D tactical map of Iraq, St. John breathlessly says, "It’s almost like virtually going there before you’ve gone there."
• When she sees a new drone she gushes, "there’s new technology that could have come out of a science fiction movie like an unmanned aircraft…it does look a bit like R2-D2."
• As the report ends, you'd swear that it was about school kids leaving the county fair and not about people who are being sent off to slaughter and be slaughtered: "The young Marines left the expo with bags full of posters and free samples. Many of these products will be on their wish list the next time they deploy."

God, isn't war just great? As Chris Hedges noted, it gives us meaning, at least NPR thinks so.

Selective Justice

In the run-up to the war in Iraq, a conservative coworker handed me the part of the British Dossier on Iraq that focused on human rights abuses under Saddam Hussein - a report that relied heavily on Amnesty International [AI] and Human Rights Watch [HRW] reports. I read it out of respect for the friendly but serious disagreements we were having about the coming war. I recall thinking to myself, "Yes, you'll use AI and HRW reports now, but I bet you're not so keen on them when they challenge allies of the US or the US itself."

I had a similar reaction this morning as NPR took up the cause of press freedom. The focus was on - guess what country? - Venezuela...what a surprise! The shadowy Juan Forero was reporting on Chavez government's plans to shut down a major opposition television channel, RCTV. I have to agree that I strongly oppose such a move - it seems dangerously arbitrary (see this report from Reporters without Borders).

In Forero's report he talked to Carlos Lauria, an Argentine journalist and representative of the respected organization, the Committee to Protect Journalists that has criticized the moves of the Chavez government. And this is where my concerns with NPR's coverage come in. Why focus on Venezuela? Is is just because it is the enemy de jour of the Bush administration? Will NPR give as much coverage to other serious press issues that the Committe to Protect Journalists has raised such as US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the actions of US allies such as Pakistan or Israel? I'm not holding my breath, besides covering those stories wouldn't allow Forero the chance to air such a "substantive" quote as this one from Chavez opponent, Americo Martin:

• "We can’t say that Chavez is a Hitler, that would be an exaggeration, but we’re headed that way....this regime…it’s on the way to becoming a totalitarian system."

Couldn't make this up if I tried!

Open Thread - Friday

NPR related comments welcomed.

They're Extremists Dummy

Michele Kelemen is traveling with Secretary of State Rice. Listening to Kelemen, it's hard to separate Rice's statements from Kelemen. Here's a little sample from today's Morning Edition:

• Kelemen: "...rather than reaching out to all of Iraq’s neighbors, Secretary Rice has tried to divide them in groups; so you have the moderates – the Arab allies with whom she met and won some support for the President’s plan for Iraq - those are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the Gulf States. And that’s versus the extremists, and she accuses Iran and Syria fueling extremism in Iraq. Now many in the region are worried about Iran’s influence, not only in Iraq, but in the whole region..."

Amazing how seamlessly Rice's propaganda weaves into Kelemen's assertions. Notice how Kelemen moves from "Rice has tried to divide" to "so you have the moderates...." and "that's versus the extremists."

Oh yes, Saudi Arabia is truly moderate (except when it rapes detainees, tortures and beheads people, and punishes people with eye gouging. And Egypt which gets so much US support is also a model of moderation. So what does makes a country an extremist? It surely isn't human rights abuses; it also isn't invading other countries at will (that would have to include the US and Israel) since Iran hasn't invaded anyone. It can't be illegally making and stockpiling nuclear weapons (Israel). It seems that for NPR the defining characteristic of "extremism" is to actively oppose (e.g. Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, etc....) the United States foreign policy of global dominance through militarism and economic control.

If NPR were abiding by it's ethical guidelines ("...we present all important views on a subject – and treat them even-handedly" and "we separate our personal opinions – such as an individual's...political ideology – from the subjects we are covering..) then Kelemen would be in for a serious reprimand. That is a big "if."

Other's Have Noticed

Cursor.org picked up this post from Left I on the News disputing the UN report on Iraqi civilian casualties in 2006. There is a telling "update" following the post:

• "A friend heard an NPR report on the U.N. report this morning. After an expert guest explained the limitations of the U.N. report (e.g., some deaths go unreported), he then explained the "better method" of actually surveying the population and how it had been done twice. But, here's the kicker...no mention of Johns Hopkins or the Lancet, and no mention of the actual numbers produced by those studies! And, you won't be surprised to hear, no follow-up question from the NPR interviewer to ask what those numbers were."

It was even worse on Morning Edition that day. Renee Montagne said, "The UN reports more than 34,000 civilians died in Iraq last year, another 36,000 were wounded....the figures are a sharp increase from those previously reported. Earlier in the month the death toll was put at slightly more than 12,000 by the Iraqi government."

No Renee, the figures are a decrease from the approximately 200,000 a year estimate of the Hopkins/Lancet study, which as Left I's friend noted doesn't even get a mention. To see earlier critiques of NPR's assaults on the Lancet study click on the "civilian casualties" label below.

Finding Out Nothing

There are moments on NPR that reveal the beliefs and assumptions of the announcers and reporters delivering a story. This morning Renee Montagne reports about the doubts surrounding Bush's new "strategy" of escalation for Iraq. She says, "and in Baghdad a reporter told the US Ambassador, 'I just don’t see what has changed.' The US is adding more troops and focusing on security in Baghdad but it’s been tried that before." Not a bad start to a report, but...

Then Steve Inskeep says, "To find out what has changed we called the ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, and we asked him to define the American goal now." Hold it, stop, whoa! Talking to Khalilzad - Bush loyalist, Unocal frontman, and one of the original neocon architects of the Iraq War- is not going to help anyone "find out what has changed." Consider the ways Inskeep could have begun this interview:

Today we are going to get the perspective of US Ambassador in Iraq...
Now we will talk to Zalmay Khalilzad to hear his explanation of the President's plans...

Instead, as is often the case, instead of data, evidence, eyewitness testimonies, or investigation, NPR presents the statement of a powerful government official as if it were factual, legitimate information.

From the Playbook

Stripped of political and historical context, Linda Gradstein presents the truncated logic for war on Iran on Tuesday's Morning Edition.

• Gradstein: "...most Israeli analysts believe it's only a matter of time until Iran has the capability of making a nuclear bomb."
• Dani Yatom (former member of the Mossad and current member of Israel's parliament) : "...vital for Israel to convince the free world, led by the United States...not to exclude any military operation against Iran."
• General Zvi Shtauber (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies ): "...sooner or later - we are not yet at this junction - there will be a question of using military means."
• Gradstein quoting Uzi Dayan (Former Israeli national security adviser): "...if Israel doesn't stop Iran in the next year, it may be too late."
• Uzi Dayan: "The only way to prevent Iran later from achieving this capability will be by using military or even a non-conventional force." (What "non-conventional force" means is not explained.)
• Dani Yatom: "it [militarily destroying Iran's nuclear capability] will be much more difficult. But still it is achievable."

At the end of this report I felt like I had been in the football huddle for Team Israel with each player chiming in and quarterback Gradstein making sure we all knew what the next play was: the option play...military option that is (it worked so well against Iraq and Lebanon after all).

Down...set...hike!

Open Thread - Wednesday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Incredibly Important

This morning Mara Liasson weighs in on the likely run for the presidency of US Senator Barack Obama.

• "His lack of experience, the fact that he is a blank slate and so unknown is his strength and his weakness. He is certainly the most inexperienced candidate seeking the Presidential nomination this cycle – maybe he’s the most inexperienced [chuckling] candidate ever, I don’t know. But that will be his biggest problem to overcome. He has only been in the Senate for two years; before that he was in the Illinois State legislature – and that’s about it....in an era when foreign policy and national security are incredibly important, so is experience."

Given the current boob running our ship of state on the rocks of foreign policy and national security, that Liasson can utter this bit of punditry with seriousness is quite a feat.

Instead of such silliness, why doesn't Liasson do a teeny-tiny little bit of research into Obama's Illinois legislative voting record or his Senate voting record and give us a little substance about where Obama stands on policy issues.

For little scary humor go back and listen to this NPR piece on W's inexperience when he was running back in 2000. You'll get to hear Bush say, "but I’m a fast learner, and uh, listen, I’m not gonna play like I’ve been a person who’s spent hours involved with foreign policy. I am who I am."

Audacious

This morning Julie McCarthy does some serious seat-of-the-pants analysis in her reporting on the Iranian President's trip to South America. Here is the core her statements:

"He’s isolated Iran in the world...and many in Iran are not happy with this isolation and Ahmadinejad appears keen to show that he has backing that counters this, this, this isolationism. And there seems to be few more audacious ways to do that than in the backyard of the United States, his bitter enemy."

I found myself wondering how she knows that "many in Iran are not happy with this isolation?" Does she frequently read the Iranian press? Does she talk to various Iranians in Iran on a regular basis? Or is she just guessing?

Then there's the term audacious. Curious, but I don't recall hearing the US invasion of Iraq (or the latest posting of another aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf) described as audacious - why not? And backyard? Haven't heard that one since Reagan warned us about the Nicaraguans sneaking up on us through Brownsville, Texas! If Venezuela is our "backyard" what does that make Iraq, our corner gas station? Imagine if an NPR reporter called Iraq Turkey's front porch, Iran's back door, or Russia's backyard! To do that would contradict the unspoken assumption that the Middle East is our neighborhood. So much for sovereignty (and sanity). Listening to McCarthy did a least bring back nostalgia for the good old days of Teddy Roosevelt when our backyard WAS our backyard whether the people there liked it or not.

How Gradstein Sees It

Gradstein continues NPR's nonstop framing of Rice's trip to the Middle East. In amazing NPR GloboVision here's how Gradstein see's it:

• "She’s trying to basically keep things on track..."
• "...just by coming here she’s reminding both sides that the United States does care about this..."
• "...it’s also a sign, I think to Palestinians…that if there is a new Palestinian government that is willing to meet the conditions of recognizing Israel and renouncing violence, that perhaps the United States will really work hard in order to try to get a peace process moving..." (not a peep about Israel's massive, ongoing violence and the fact that the US and Israel are trying to overthrow the legitimately elected Hamas-led government of Palestine)

I've written before about the biased, substandard reporting of Linda Gradstein: see posts of 12/28/06 or 10/5/06 for details.

Honoring King's Legacy

How refreshing for NPR to revisit Dr. Martin Luther King's famous antiwar speech (and stance) on this national holiday celebrating his birthday. Instead of keeping the memory of King sanitized, NPR opts to look at one of his most controversial decisions--to oppose the Vietnam War. Without endorsing his views, NPR offers a timely and relevant look at King that is often missing from the news.

Kudos to NPR and Kathy Lohr.

A Very Busy Day in Iraq

After discussing the twin hangings this morning in Iraq with Jamie Tarabay, Steve Inskeep continues, "We’re talking with NPR’s Jamie Tarabay in Baghdad at a very busy time in Iraq, and Jamie I want to ask about another story. Last week a number of Iranians were arrested by the United States inside Iraq, in the northern city of Irbil, and that story’s continuing to develop. What’s happening now?" That seems a reasonable enough question. I know I'm curious. I'd like to hear from someone on the ground in Irbil (e.g. Ivan Watson did a professional job reporting from Irbil on the morning of the raid). I'd like to know if there is any hard evidence. Is there corroboration from anyone who knew the seized men?

What we get is Tarabay stating, "...the top military commander, the top American military commander, General George Casey, said that, in detention, these five men gave intelligence that gave the American military great confidence that these people were not diplomats; they’re actually intelligence operatives working inside Iraq..." So?

Tarabay needs to do a little brushing up on source reliability. General Casey is not a reliable source; here are a few things he had to say back in October 2006:

• "...violence and progress coexist in Iraq, and we shouldn't be distracted from the positive things that are going on there amidst all the violence."
• "the new government.....They're working hard to build unity, security and prosperity for all Iraqis."
• "...we also continue to make progress with the Iraqi security forces."
• "...lots of work to do with the police and still with the army, but the progress you're seeing there is heartening."
• "...we continue to make progress across the country every day."

One can't fully blame Casey; after all he is subordinate to Bush and couldn't tell the truth if he wanted to, but to parrot his statements when asked "What's happening now?" is not honest reporting. It is also extremely sloppy (or intentional?) for Tarabay to correctly open her statement by attributing "Casey said that" but then to turn his groundless allegations into an assertion of fact: "they’re actually intelligence operatives working inside Iraq."

Really, why bother with parroting the claims of the Pentagon-unless it is to reinforce them? Why not honestly answer Inskeep's by stating, "Well Steve, I'm in the Green Zone and so have no way to verify anything regarding the raid on the consulate, but General Casey claims to have evidence justifying the raid--evidence that cannot be independently verified."

Let Them Eat Rice

NPR is "covering" Secretary of State Rice's latest trip to the Middle East.

Introducing Eric Westervelt's report on Saturday's Weekend Edition Scott Simon says, "...her attempt to jump start Arab-Israeli peace talks come at an extremely difficult time. Palestinians are embroiled in a fierce internal power struggle." Notice how this immediately accepts the premise that Rice is in anyway interested in "peace talks." It would be easy and more honest to simply state "she claims to be interested in in peace talks." Also it is inexcusable to report on the "fierce internal power struggle" without mentioning that there is a strong case to be made that this power struggle is exactly what Secretary Rice has been working hard to encourage.

NPR continues the narrative of Rice as peacemaker on Saturday evening. Describing Rice's trip, Debra Elliot declares, "but there are only limited expectations she can make progress in the search for peace between Israel and the Palestinians." Elliot then whitewashes the cynical US policy of arming and training Fatah forces by reporting on it as a policy whereby " "the U.S. has been trying to embolden Abbas."

Then this morning on Weekend Edition Sunday, John Ydstie begins a report on Rice with, "She says she’s trying to empower moderates to counter rising extremism, not only in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East. Rice met one of those moderates today Mahmoud Abbas. " This is very subtle in the way that first he indirectly quotes Rice (fair enough), but then he seamlessly adopts her deceptive language of "moderates" and "extremists" by identifying Abbas as "one of those moderates." Why does NPR decide that Abbas is a moderate? And why isn't Sec. Rice identified as the extremist Fox-lover that she is? Is the US-Israeli-European policy of collective punishment/economic strangulation of the Palestinians moderate?

This kind of reporting on the Middle East is notable for how it wholly parrots whatever frame the State Department places on it and excludes any significant critiques or analyses of that frame, a trap that this satiric look at Rice's foreign policy doesn't do.

Last Post from Memphis

The conference ended with energetic speeches from Jane Fonda who mainly addressed the need for a multiplicity of viewpoints in the media - and especially greater access and presence of women. She mentioned two organizations she helped found - Greenstone Media and the Women's Media Center. My favorite quotes from her speech were that media should support democracy not the government, and enrich people not corporations. Amen...

The final speech was given by Van Jones, founder and head of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. He emphasized the need to always put forth not just criticism of how things are, but a vision for how things should be. I couldn't help thinking of the potential that NPR news represents - news of the "public," in the public's interest--instead of celebrating consumer products, the stock market, the power of the military and those holding high office.

This will be my last post from the conference. In a day or so I should be back to listening and commenting on NPR news shows. Until then keep writing NPR's ombudsman when you can and if possible get involved with your local NPR station. The station manager of our local NPR station, WILL AM 580, was attending the conference and spoke up during a session noting that many local stations like his are very open to media activists.

Three Ds and NPR

Today at the National Media Reform Conference I attended an afternoon session on the future of public broadcasting. One of the panelists was David Brancaccio of NOW. He spoke of the need for all public broadcasting to meet the criteria of "the three Ds": diversity, democracy, and daring. I found myself pondering these reasonable demands relative to NPR's news. Does it's coverage reflect the diversity of opinion, race, gender, interests etc. that one finds in this country? Does its coverage encourage democracy, people getting involved, organizing for their interests, taking action, being knowledgable? And finally, is the coverage daring - surprising, taking risks against power, stepping out of the mainstream?

Saturday Morning from the Media Reform Conference

Went to a great session on propaganda and the press. Presenters from Newshounds, Institute for Public Accuracy, Project Censored, and the Center for Media and Democracy discussed their work. I have to put in a plug for Sourcewatch (from the Center for Media and Democracy); it is extremely helpful in identifying many of the "experts" that NPR turns to - and whose interests they actually are representing. I've hyperlinked these groups; check out their websites.

I was quite interested that IPA functions like AP, Reuters, etc. in sending their releases to thousands of news outlets (I assume NPR) so it is clearly not a matter of NPR not being aware on perspectives outside the narrow Center-right to far-right perspective they offer on the news.

Again I would note that there was a great deal of interest shown when I spoke up about my work - and a shared agreement that NPR offers very little in the way of alternative perspectives or informative news.

At the Media Reform Conference

So far I haven't found any defenders of NPR News here at the National Conference for Media Reform. On the contrary, when ever I have spoken up about my blog, I've noticed many heads nodding in agreement.

Several presenters such as Juan Gonzales (co-host on Democracy Now!) and Jeff Cohen, author of Cable News Confidential commented on the sad state of NPR news coverage. In talking with several attendees, many of them expressed a great deal of frustration with NPR's on air personalities never asking the "hard question" of rightwing guests.

The schedule is pretty full, so I won't have many opportunities to catch NPR News stories. I'll be back to regular commentary on Monday or Tuesday.

We Are Just So Conflicted

There was a remarkable moment in Michelle Norris' extended talk with Henry Reid on Thursday's ATC. Reid was articulate and mentioned that there is even growing Republican opposition to the Bush escalation plan for Iraq. Reids opinions are solidly in line with polling of US public opinion which consistently has been showing disapproval of Bush, the Iraq War, and the "surge" option hovering right up there near 70%! So how does Michelle Norris characterize this sea change that is essentially a reversal of public opinion on the eve of the war?

• I wonder if this is good for the country, a country that is so conflicted about the war, to have another war going on here in Washington between Democrats on the Hill and the President in the White House."

Conflicted? Michelle Norris better go back and review her grade school math text on percentages. A whopping 67% opposition to a war is not "so conflicted" - unless perhaps if your sympathies lie with the President and his Iraq fantasy plan.

Open Thread - Thursday - Friday

NPR related comments welcomed.

From the Horse's...

You'll have to decide how to finish the title of this post after listening to this Somalia insight from NPR's "senior news analyist Ted Koppel. Renee Montagne brings Ted on, assuredly telling us that "he’s been talking with a senior US military official with first hand knowledge of operations in Somalia." Wow, a "senior" official - and with first hand knowledge too!

Regarding the blistering air attack(s) attributed to the US in Somalia, Montagne asks Koppel, "and do we know exactly who is being targeted?" Based on information from his unnamed connection, Koppel answers decisively:

• Well they know that there are senior members of what they call the Council of Islamic Courts...and several members of that council are believed to have very close ties with Osama Bin Laden’s organization al-Qaeda and they believe that two or three of the members of that council were directly involved in the bombing of the US embassies in East Africa about eight years ago.

Okay, I don't know about you but I'm convinced! Koppel just overwhelmed me with evidence. I mean if US intelligence sources say there are direct ties to Osama Bin Laden's organization, they must know. In fact I bet they know right where Bin Laden is! And I'm sure if that vague "they" believes that two or three members of the council were "directly involved" it's because they've got the overwhelming evidence to prove it - just like before the Iraq invasion.

If it were a joke it would be amusing.

The Old Lie

In an illegal war, based on lies, resulting in the over half a million civilian deaths and thousands of military deaths (both allies and foes), and leading to less civil liberties , and greater threats to security - you just might hope their would be a few expressions of guilt and remorse. Instead NPR treats us to...

• "...but there are thousands of other mothers and dads, soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, who carry that burden [of risk and sacrifice] every day so that I don’t have to."
• "Every minute I get to spend with my daughter, is paid for by the sacrifices of soldiers better than me."

This is from Yale law student, former teacher at the Citadel, and former Navy pilot Ken Harbaugh. It says a lot about NPR that they consider this militaristic rubbish worthy of broadcast. I hate to tell Ken and NPR but EVERY single life lost or shattered by injury in Iraq has done absolutely nothing to advance freedom, dignity, or peace and security; on the contrary, each life has been a criminal waste and those leaders responsible should be investigated, tried and sentenced if found guilty. Over and over many young and idealistic people join the US military under the delusion that they will be spreading freedom and that their lives and sacrifices will never be cynically squandered for someone's political career or for corporate profits. And it is precisely people like Harbaugh (and stations like NPR) that continue to sucker people into it with " The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est /Pro patria mori."

(the image above is available from Vladimir Arts)

Open Thread - Wednesday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Killer Radio

This morning NPR joins the US government in promoting the slaughter of people as long as the claim (no matter how unsubstantiated) is made that terrorists are the target. The Somalia airstrikes are the subject this time.

First Renee Montagne interviews former NPR editor, Gwen Thompkins, who says, "The Ethiopians and Somalis and the US have been in lockstep about their aim to target as many terrorists as possible...." and "...these are outside extremists...who are linked to other violent incidents outside of Somalia."

Montagne joins in, "There’s a report that those targeted in this air strike were involved in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."

Thompkins picks it right up, "Well the US has always maintained that the Islamic Courts Union was giving safe haven to outside terrorists. In fact Jendayi Frazier, she’s the assistant US Secretary of State for for Africa, she said late last year that al-Qaeda was operating with GREAT COMFORT when the Islamic Courts ruled Southern Somalia. Now the Islamic Courts have always denied this, but there are three suspects in particular whom the US believes are linked to the embassy bombings…"

In case you're a little slow and not getting the point, Montagne adds, "So they’re talking about outsiders?"

To which Thompkins hammers it home, "Yes, indeed they’re talking about outsiders. The United States and Ethiopia and the Somalis....[are] primarily interested in outsiders, people whom they link with al-Qaida or other terrorist cells operating around the world...and so they have been very firm in trying to make that distinction to the Somali people. Now whether the Somali people believe it, that’s a whole different matter."

And whether it's the least bit true, that's also a whole different matter.

You might think this bludgeoning was enough, but Steve Inskeep is not about to be left out of the action. He interviews the seemingly thoughtful Ken Menkhaus of Davidson College. Take a look at this little interchange (I think some sound editing went awry):
Menkhaus: "...one of the dangers now with the current situation is that we [the US] may have, uh, cells of residual Somali, shabab militia, the Islamist militia that could take matters into their own hands and launch some of these terrorists attacks.” Something got cut in there, but Menkhaus seems to be saying that the US actions may increase the likelihood of residual cells carrying out attacks. At this point the editing gets really weird, because Inskeep says, "Let’s talk about the dangers for the United States here, you mentioned the potential upside – it’s a chance, perhaps an opportunistic chance to hit some suspects the US has been looking at..." Whoaa - "the potential upsides," "an opportunistic chance to hit some suspects." Truly creepy.

The coup de grace comes at the very end with Inskeep updating us with this solid evidence, "...and again the news we have is that an official and witness, and a witness say that there have been two US airstrikes on different locations against terror targets inside Somalia." Ah yes, terror targets, of course...

Open Thread - Tuesday

NPR related comments welcomed.

The Wrong Side of History

From NPR's Code of Ethics and Practices:

1. Fairness means that we present all important views on a subject – and treat them even-handedly.....

2. Unbiased means that we separate our personal opinions – such as an individual's religious beliefs or political ideology – from the subjects we are covering. We do not approach any coverage with overt or hidden agendas.

This morning Steve Inskeep interviews freshman Senator Sherrod Brown and Inskeep keeps the focus on "free trade." Brown keeps emphasizing the need for "environmental and labor standards" in any trade agreements. Over and again he talks about the need for standards in global trade.

Steve Inskeep brings on Cokie Roberts and frames Brown's thoughtful comments as follows: "Cokie, is the notion of cracking down on free trade a winning issue for Democrats?" (Cracking down?) Cokie smugly responds, "...it’s a long term loser; it puts them essentially on the wrong side of history with globalization, and even though labor unions often lose in trade agreements – consumers gain...."

It's fine for Roberts to have her own US Chamber of Commerce opinions and ideology, but in is unprofessional, simple-minded and in clear violation of NPR's code of ethics for her to write off as "a long term loser" the global efforts of progressives to address problems of "free trade': sweat shops, fair labor standards, minimum wage, immigration, and greedy individualism.

What Cokie Roberts meant was that Senator Brown is on the wrong side of the wealthy and the powerful - something you could never accuse her of.

Open Thread - Monday

NPR related comments welcomed.

History in a Blender

For another installment in its counterinsurgency marketing campaign (click on "counterinsugency" label below), NPR revisits one of the United States' model counterinsurgency campaigns of the 20th century - the tragedy of Guatemala. As if to head off any doubts about counterinsurgency that might result if the Guatemala nightmare is brought up, Linda Wertheimer cuts and pastes the history of Guatemala from 1954 to 1996 so as to downplay the US responsibilities there.

A strange pastiche emerges. Wertheimer gets off to a pretty good start. "The war started in opposition to state-sponsored terror against political enemies, but eventually turned into what some have called a genocidal campaign against native Mayans. Paramilitary groups fought the government for 36 years. It’s estimated that more than 200,000 civilians were killed." To her credit she notes the origin of the war as a struggle against "state-sponsored terror." Of course the state sponsoring that terror was none other than the United States, a role that she minimizes by saying, "We should note that the United States supplied the Guatemalan military with arms and training during the civil war which I assume has had some kind of lingering effect." Well yes, and what is not said is that the Guatemalan government, military, strategy, tactics and outlook was the proud offspring of the United States government - born with the US orchestrated coup of 1954. She also fails to mention that the report published by UN Historical Clarification Commission found that the Guatemalan Army was responsible for 93% of the 200,000 murders.

NPR's Guatemala piece is also odd for the guest expert that NPR turns to - Dennis Smith "a missionary for the Presbyterian Church in Guatemala City." (One might expect a Catholic activist, Indigenous rights campaigner, or a human rights worker instead). Looking at an article by Smith, he seems humane and in opposition to the rightwing Protestant backers of military terror in Guatemala, but his comments that get aired on NPR confuse the terms of the discussion and downplay the horrors of US policy. For example, Wertheimer describes the guerillas fighting against the Guatemalan government as "paramilitaries" a term that really should be applied to the Government death squads, and Smith then uses it to describe the current violence in Guatemala, saying, "we still have a significant presence of paramilitary forces throughout the country." An uniformed listener would assume that these current paramilitaries are remnants of the guerilla forces mentioned earlier (a huge distortion). Also, immediately after Wertheimer mentions the US aid and training to the Guatemalan military, Smith says, "I think it’s important to recognize that the United States has been among the international actors that has been helping Guatemala to address the problems of building a civil society and also strengthening the court system and the rule of law. " I hope the CIA sends him a thank you note!

As someone who followed the little US shop of horrors in Guatemala and visited that torture state in the 80s, Smith's lack of revulsion and outrage - and quickness to defend the US role in Guatemala - befit a sociopath like Negroponte, not a humane missionary. Smith's comments on this NPR piece are disingenuous at best (though perhaps they are the result of an editing chop job).

Warm Fuzzy Counterinsurgency

Friday's ATC was especially bad, so one more critique. Tom Bowman (NPR's Pentagon spokesperson reporter) profiles (i.e. provides a glowing assessment) of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus who is set to take over command of all U.S. forces in Iraq.

What is especially misleading about this feature are the assertions made about counterinsurgency:
(Bowman): "Retired Army General Jack Keane says Petraeus understands how to work with the local population and encourage them to break with insurgents – the essence of what the military calls counter insurgency."
(Keane) says that Petraeus "clearly understands proven counterinsurgency practices which have got to be put in place."
(Keane): "It’s all about securing the population and it’s not been done, and he [Petraeus] clearly understands how to secure that population."
(Bowman): "Petraeus is no ordinary general he has a PhD from Princeton – his thesis topic: The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam. He is among those who believe the army after Vietnam forgot how to fight insurgencies. He recently coauthored a new army manual on that topic."

In theory, some of the manual sounds reasonable and even humane. But the record of US counterinsurgency is anything but reasonable and humane. As Matthew Yglesias points out at TPM Cafe, the "successes" the US has had with counterinsurgency (as in the Indian Wars or in Central America) have relied on mass killings and brutality.

This glossing over the bloody history of US counterinsurgency practice (versus propaganda) is pretty much par for the course at NPR (previous case in point). This doesn't make it any less reprehensible, especially since the only way to achieve the US imperial goals for the Middle East is probably going to be through more mass slaughter of those who live there.

Wonk Coup

(Image from Democracy Cell Project )

Just about everything wrong with Guy Raz' report yesterday from the pro-war, far right American Enterprise Institute (AEI), I've already noted about a previous Raz report from the AEI.

Yesterday on ATC Raz opens with distracting banalities about the "roast beef wraps and chocolate chip cookie bars" at the AEI presentation that promotes sending thousands more US troops to Iraq. Keep in mind that this plan will undoubtedly kill tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of more Iraqis and thousands more US troops, but Raz describes this occasion as "Washington’s version of an LA movie premier…"

Raz has this to say: "AEI isn’t just another Washington wonk factory, it’s become – and I don’t say this lightly – a kind of unofficial policy shop of the Bush White House." He also should have said that AEI is a favorite "go-to" think tank of NPR News. Raz does mention that a MoveOn.org protest was occurring and lets its director say, "Washington policy makers who listen to AEI are a heroin addict going back to the needle.” Raz then explains this by stating, "The needle he’s talking about here is the idea that Iraq can be won." That's not exactly right, I think he's using the metaphor to characterize the fact that policy makers (and NPR too) keep going back to AEI even though their theories and policies on Iraq and the Middle East have been proven to be completely wrong and morally bankrupt.

The story that NPR should be covering is the stunning truth that a small group of right-wing extremists housed at the AEI think tank is running the foreign policy of the US government in opposition to both the expressed and polled will of the populace. Now that would be a story.

Open Thread - Weekend

NPR related comments.

From His Perch

But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.

(from "Sailing to Byzantium" by William Butler Yeats)

As you may know I'm not a big fan of David Greene's work on NPR (see this post for example). He identifies with the President more than a journalist should. And so I had to laugh when this evening featured a report on the shuffling of military, intelligence, and diplomatic personnel by the White House. Michele Norris says, “NPR’s David Greene is watching all these changes from his perch at the White House.”

Squawk!

Shredding History

In the moral universe of Steve Inskeep it's just a lark that one of the great 20th century American heroes of conscience shows up to challenge the current climate of lies and secrecy in our threatened democracy. "Whatever downsides there may be to living in the nation’s capital, there are moments when you think, ‘ONLY in Washington.’ One of those moments happened yesterday to NPR’s Ari Shapiro," Inskeep informs us.

Shapiro follows this send up by misinforming listeners about the famous Pentagon Papers, and the man who leaked them, Daniel Ellsberg. Shapiro states, "Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers 35 years ago, 7000 pages containing the military’s top secret account of the Vietnam War." Morally speaking, that tells us nothing - leaking top secret war documents could be good or bad. What made them "top secret" - and what made Ellsberg's action so honorable - was what they revealed about the US Government regarding the war. As the Wikipedia article on Daniel Ellsberg states, "They revealed the knowledge, early on, that the war would not likely be won and that continuing the war would lead to many times more casualties than was admitted publicly. Further, the papers showed a deep cynicism towards the public and a disregard for the loss of life and injury suffered by soldiers and civilians." (Sounds vaguely familiar doesn't it?) Shapiro also fails to mention that Ellsberg released the papers over a year after getting no congressional support for revealing them in the Senate, and with the full knowledge that he was ending his privileged career and could spend the rest of his life in prison for leaking them.

By ignoring the high moral ground (after all 58,000 Americans and over 2 million Vietnamese were slaughtered in the war) of Ellsberg's actions, Shapiro gives equal weight to the anti-democratic and servile position of Ken Wainstein that Ellsberg was in Washington to challenge . Shapiro says, "Wainstein said leaks can cripple the government’s ability to function successfully and they are never justified...."

I don't romanticize that NPR was ever any great bastion of excellent journalism in the past, but it is really sad to compare this morning's condescending tone toward Ellsberg, to this stirring commentary by Ellsberg aired just three years ago on Morning Edition.

Open Thread - Friday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Tough Ship

Yesterday Nina Totenberg did a fairly good job of letting the lawyers for Jose Padilla lay out the evidence of the barbaric treatment that their client suffered at the hands of the US government while being held incommunicado for over two years in a US Navy brig. The details were chilling (tortured with absolute sensory deprivation, shackling, no bedding, no human contact, etc. for TWO full years). The report concluded with Totenberg's noting that a source within the government affirmed that the goal of the government was to render Padilla so mentally damaged that he could be remanded to a psychological prison - apparently forever. See this post at Daily Kos for more on Totenberg's report.

Also yesterday, the ACLU made news with the FBI reports on torture at Guantanamo. If you read the reports you'll find descriptions of the treatment meted out to prisoners there: prisoners shackled in fetal position to a bolt in the floor in their urine and feces for over 24 hours (in extreme cold and heat), a prisoner with his bearded head heavily duct taped, a prisoner with an Israeli flag draped on him, a Quran squatted on and straddled by an interrogator, guards and interrogators bragging about lap dancing on a prisoner, and baptizing a prisoner, etc.)

This constext made it grotesque, but in character for NPR (see posts of Sept. 9th and Sept. 7th) to interview Jackie Northam with her upbeat, admiring tone as she assessed conditions at Guantanamo. She says "Each commander has his own way of doing business and leaves his own imprint at Guantanamo" (I'll say!) Of the current war criminal running Guantanamo, Rear Adm. Harry Harris, she says "things have tightened up since he arrived last spring" and "he runs a tough ship down there." Regarding the hundreds of uncharged, un-indicted prisoners who have no legal rights to even challenge their detention, Northam says, "Adm. Harris told me the last time I was there that there are no medium-security terrorists, only maximum-security terrorists." She, of course, fails to mention that there is not one shred of independent, legitimate, verifiable evidence to support this Orwellian claim.

Who Created a Sensation?

"Honoring Rome's gods and goddesses was considered a civic obligation and, at times, a law."

When I heard that Keith Ellison was going to use a Quran during a swearing-in ceremony, my reaction was "Well, duh!" In a secular democratic state, with religious tolerance enshrined in its Constitution that elected officials must swear to defend, what other sacred text would a Muslim choose to swear on (except maybe the Hadith)?

So why on ATC tonight does Michele Norris say, "Newly elected Keith Ellison created a sensation last month when he announced that he planned to take the oath of office on the Quran." Ellison didn't "create" the sensation; a bigoted rightwing columnist and an ignorant, racist representative created the sensation. Media Matters early on pointed out how misleading it is when the media attributes the controversy to Ellison and not to the bigots who want to make worship of the Judeo-Christian Bible a litmus test for holding office (and even citizenship in the case of Goode). How is this firestorm of bigotry described by Norris? She says "His decision to use the Muslim holy book...drew criticism."

That is kind.

State Department Peaceniks

When it comes to the Middle East, here is what we get from NPR :

• "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has pledged new efforts toward Arab-Israeli peace…but US officials have long complained that Israel has no partner for peace..." (Michele Norris)
• "The US considers Hamas a terrorist organization…the US ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, told reporters at the State Department recently that Hamas has been busy arming itself..." (Michele Kelemen)
• "a State Department official says for now the US is gently pushing Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, to continue making overtures, to Palestinian leader Abbas, and to take confidence building steps..." (Michele Kelemen)

NPR is "covering" the US policy of arming Fatah (see earlier post) in the apparent US-Israeli effort to bring the latest rule by civil war strategy to Palestine. Sadly, for criticism of this policy, where does NPR turn? To "former US consul general in Jerusalem," Edward Abbington and "a former State Department official with a long record in Middle East peacemaking," Aaron David Miller! That's it. No official from Hamas. No outspoken critic of the overall US-Israeli policy, no one from the Israeli Peace and Justice movements. Aaron David Miller seems like a decent guy, and it's fine to get his viewpoint, and Abbington is an employee of Mahmoud Abbas and has lobbied for the Palestinian authority so he's a worth hearing from--BUT what a tiny, narrow, pathetic range of opinion--and all framed within the basic premise that the guiding principle of US foreign policy in Palestine is to seek a just peace.

One shouldn't be surprised, considering that even an insider like former President Carter can't get a hearing on NPR news due to the fact that he has ever so slightly lifted the curtain on the US-Israel government policy of carving up Palestine, maintaining the biggest illegal settlements, and relegating Palestinians to a permanent second class status.

Open Thread - Wednesday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Skirting the Issue

This morning NPR does something that drives me nuts. They take on an issue that I don't know a lot about, and then they present it in a way that makes me think I'm being played a fool.

I'm not very well informed about the Medicare Drug Prescription Benefit, but I do know that I really hate the health care system in the US. I know that I hate paying $700 a month to get crummy health insurance for myself and my family - and having my employer pay $375 more a month into a plan so that an insurance company can turn a profit. I know I hate seeing senior citizens have to sweat over which one of forty for-profit insurance companies they want to sign up for to cover their drug costs instead of having ONE government plan that covers everyone!

So this morning Renee Montagne talks to David Wessel of the Wall Street Journal so they can tell us how GREAT the Medicare Drug Prescription Benefit plan is and how successful it is. Montagne begins the show telling us, "It remains controversial, but it’s turning out better than some of its toughest critics warned." Wessel's main input is that a study from J.D. Powers shows that most people in the plan are satisfied with it (in fact "45% were delighted").

Now this is interesting to me. I recall hearing that the main, substantive criticism of the benefit plan is that it was virtually written by the health care/pharmaceutical lobby and that it was an overly expensive program because so much of the funds for the program ended up back in the insurance and drug company coffers (this was Hightower's contention this past summer). But instead of discussing these meaningful points, NPR presents us with a popularity poll that is supposed to convince us how successful the plan is. Especially galling is the fact that David Wessel knows the fallacious nature of this argument. Back in September he pointed out that consumer satisfaction with their health plans had no correlation whatsoever to the actual quality and effectiveness of their plans, and yet here he is making exactly that argument regarding the Medicare Drug Benefit - very sneaky!

There's nothing wrong with NPR giving some coverage to the J.D. Powers study - it is interesting, but clearly their agenda is to spin this one study (with a little help from the Wall Street Journal) into a glowing report on the scam of the Medicare Drug Benefit Program. If you want to find out more about the problems with the plan, you might want to look at this Public Citizen site, or you might want to see how a scuzzy insurer like Humana, Inc. is currently gouging the seniors they were able to corral into their plan using an initial low premium lure. I don't think those folks are going to be "delighted."

Non Sequitur

Put yourself in this situation: You are interviewing the parents of a soldier killed in Iraq and you ask, "Would your son’s death...weigh on you less if you...believed that things were going well?" The father answers, "No (long pause). I would say if they were going well, well that’s a difficult question, I would say no, it wouldn’t weigh on me less because I never believed that this was a necessary war."

What would a reasonable follow-up comment or question be?

• "Did your son know how you felt?"
• "You never felt that this war was necessary?"
• "So how did you handle it when he was called up?"
• "I'm so sorry, that must make your loss even more terrible."

Today on Morning Edition Renee Montagne found herself in exactly this situation. And her next question was, "What mementos do you have of your son?"

MEMENTOS! For God's sake, the poor man has just mentioned that his son died in a war that he believes was UNNECESSARY and all Renee Montagne can ask about are mementos. I was floored. Either Montagne is a dithering automaton or the sound editors (censors) decided that we shouldn't be exposed to any more unpatriotic ideas. Whatever the case, it was a bizarre moment. Fortunately, NPR at least did run the piece, which allowed us to hear the name of the organization that the parents started, Families of the Fallen for Change. Also, by searching the father's name, listeners can find this very moving essay by Paul Schroeder which fleshes out his comments about the war.