Bobmark Regevsiegel Speaks

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

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

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

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

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

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Shoes for Me-Shell

The one benefit of NPR's seamless (seamy) integration into the corporate media (e.g. Liasson and Williams on Fox, Roberts on ABC, and Norris on Chris Matthews) is that we get a further glimpse into the sensibilities and "character" of these characters.

Here is Michele Norris playing comedian on The Chris Matthews Show yesterday (on the clip slide forward until the counter is down to about 3 minutes, 50 seconds). After showing the video clip of the shoes being thrown at Bush, Matthews says laughingly, "Michele, this is the real world out here; this isn't even a side show; this is a carnival of 2008. What was the Chutzpah prize?"

To which all Me, all Shell answers:

"I gotta go with the flying shoes. I mean, someone who would throw a pair of Oxfords - Oxfords, it doesn't even look like he bothered to untie those shoes - at a sitting President, with the President of his own country standing next to him was [cackling and comments] that takes part of his anatomy [more laughter]..."

Yeah man, that is some funny, funny stuff. I mean a guy who "covered the U.S. bombing of Baghdad's Sadr City area earlier this year and had been 'emotionally influenced' by the destruction he'd seen" is just rich for ridicule. What Chutzpah, what a nut case! You'd think like maybe a million of his countrymen had been killed in the war or 4 million displaced - har,har...

And Oxfords! hee, hee, and not even untied! No wonder no one at NPR heard Muntazer al-Zaidi cry out "Killer of Iraqis, killer of children!" (McClatchy again) as he was being tackled and beaten after throwing the shoes at Bush.

And really, who cares if this heroic journalist (and not just a hero to Arabs, thank you very much) has been tortured - it's just so darn hilarious...

Real Achievements

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

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

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

What Do They Pay This Guy?

Juan Williams was on Saturday morning with Scott Simon (what a combo!). Supposedly "news analyst" Williams was going to provide some insights on Pres. Elect Obama's proposed stimulus plan. Williams was nearly hyperventilating:

"...here's the problem...a plan that could reach a TRILLION dollars Scott! You know a billion here and a billion there and soon you're talking a trillion [Simon can be heard snickering in the background] and what you've got is a feeding frenzy...then you've got people who are doing some really strange things - the zoo and aquarium group want some tax breaks for zoos and aquariums Scott...I don't know if you Scott Simon need a tax break but this would be the time to ask...so he [Obama] is coming in with a deficit, the deficit is going to grow larger..."

Seriously, this sniping rubbish passes for commentary. As Krugman points out about people like Williams (and Simon), "Here’s how I see it: the opponents of a strong stimulus plan don’t really have an alternative to offer. They don’t even have a really coherent critique." Amen.

The hypocrisy of Williams "concerns" about wasted government money are astounding. I don't recall a single critique from "people are praying for you" Williams regarding the hundreds of billions of dollars poured down the Operation Iraqi Fiefdom rat hole?

Since so much of NPR's support comes from listeners, it owes it to us to post the salaries of all its on-air hosts and reporters so we can decide if our donations to NPR stations are such a good idea after all. Also, NPR should require Foxistas such as Williams and Liasson to disclose how much loot they receive for their efforts on that dismal outlet.

Q Tips

NPR related comments are welcomed and encouraged. Please keep obscenities to a minimum...thanks.

Defending Missile Defense

The US isn't the only one selling missile defense. Arch foe of Iran, Peter Kenyon, teams up this morning with Sec. of War Robert Gates and Centcom Commander David Petraeus to frighten us about the Iranian threat - again. Starting the sales pitch is Linda Wertheimer:

"US officials also want the UAE to purchase another missile defense system for more than twice that amount. As NPR's Peter Kenyon reports, they're hoping to deter the potential threat from Iran."

Kenyon doesn't disappoint:

"Gates made sure to remind delegates of the threat from Iran. [reluctant servant Gates] 'Now when it comes to Iran's missile programs...it is clear that this year Iran has tested...can hit any country in the Middle East...has continued its pursuit of a nuclear program...geared toward developing nuclear weapons...'"

"General David Petraeus, head of the Central Command, followed up with a five point plan for enhancing security in the region - near the top of the list missile defense. [Petraeus] '...expand existing bilateral air and missile defense initiatives...multilateral cooperation in this defensive area...active missile defense measures underway are vital elements of regional deterrence...'"

"US officials have been making the case for a Persian Gulf missile defense system for several years now. As gulf economies boomed in recent years...the argument took on a sharper edge: invest in protection against Iranian missiles or risk losing the confidence of overseas investors."

You have to admire the skill with which NPR seamlessly combines US military (and corporate weaponsmakers') propaganda into this report. Never is the assertion that Iran is a threat called into question (and conveniently, no mention is made of why the UAE would be a target of Iranian missiles).

Kenyon does mention that the effectiveness of anti-missile technology has a "mixed record at best" and that missile defense could spark a new arms race, but he closes his report with this Orwellian twist:

"Analysts say it's not clear when missile defense technology will be a truly effective deterrent...."

Missile defense [even if it is technically successful] is the opposite of a deterrent. At best it can be seen as defensive, and practically, it is likely to encourage offensive adventurism on the part of those who possess it.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

F air and B alanced I nformation

Dina Temple-Raston takes on her role of press spokesperson (e.g. 7/27/08, 7/06/08, 10/05/07, etc.) for the FBI and Renee Montagne lends a hand, too. Reporting this morning on the Fort Dix convictions, Montagne makes this astounding claim for the FBI:

"The challenge for the FBI was to decide when to move. Arrest the men too soon and the case against them could collapse. Wait too long and an attack could actually happen."

Temple-Raston, however, is not satisfied to make this claim only for the Fort Dix case, but extends it to all FBI terrorism cases:

• "Their [the FBI] attempts to make terrorism arrests preemptively before an actual attack takes place have met with mixed results."

• "In the Fort Dix case, they held back and allowed the evidence to accumulate....in earlier cases law enforcement tended to move in early."

• "Monday's guilty verdict has made the Fort Dix case Exhibit A for those who say law enforcement has found the right balance between moving too soon and losing a conviction, or waiting too long and risking an actual attack."

• "....says Europe has been trying to get the United States to strike this balance for some time."

Temple-Raston doesn't offer a single shred of evidence to back up her assertion that the FBI has moved on cases too early because of the possibility of imminent attacks. In fact in the Liberty City case, one of the most egregious examples of the FBI rolling out a weak case, even the Wall Street Journal (!) noted that the political benefit of the Bush administration seemed to be the motivating factor:

"When the seven men from the Liberty City area of Miami were arrested a few months before the 2006 elections, then-AG Alberto Gonzales said the men had been taped promising to fight a 'full ground war against the United States.'"

Temple-Raston simply claims that what the FBI learned in the Liberty City case was that "boots and crazy talk aren't enough to convince a jury." Boots and crazy talk? Now that is a professional assesment....

Instead of informing us of how sloppy, dishonest, and undemocratic the FBI has been under the Bush administration and how cases have been rushed for political advantage, Temple-Raston simply manufactures a false dichotomy between the FBI acting or facing a terrorist attack.

Q Tips

NPR related comments are always welcome.

Spooky

It's a little scary how jazzed NPR reporters get for the CIA and its "colorful" employees.

On Friday morning JJ Sutherland is on to sing the praises report on "reluctant servant" Robert Gates. Inkseep starts off this fair and balanced assessment with the following introduction:

"...he was once a controversial Cold War spy, now he's considered a wise man of national security and something of a rock star."

JJ Sutherland then jumps in with, "In his two years at the Pentagon the reviews have been good." To back this up we hear from

• Brent Scowcroft, "close friend" and former National Security Advisor : "He's a professional to the core. He is a devoted patriot and someone that I thing everyone can respect."
• William Cohen, former Defense Department head under Clinton: "Secretary Gates has brought the Pentagon some distance back towards where it optimally would be."
• And Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the Navy and Obama advisor: "The building collectively heaved a huge sigh of relief after Bob came, and they saw how he worked and how he dealt with them."

And for opinions of someone outside the military industrial complex? Nothing...

As far as Gates CIA career is concerned, Sutherland tells us that Gates "was tough, ambitious and didn't suffer fools...Also an unapologetic Cold Warrior." Sutherland mentions that Gates was associated with the Iran-Contra scandal, and we do get to hear from Mel Goodman a former "close friend" and CIA colleague who alleges that Gates "fixed" intelligence regarding the Soviets and the assasination attempt on the Pope in the 80s.

In the report Sutherland manages to put in a plug for the idea that the US is "winning" in Iraq. He notes that Gates, in his confirmation hearing in 2006, stated that the US was not winning in Iraq. Sutherland then conjectures "Today, Gates might answer differently."

So what is missing?

Notably, there's not one non-Pentagon, non-CIA affiliated source in Sutherland's piece. This guarantees that we'd never guess that Gates accomplishments since 2006 might make him worthy of war crimes indictments.

We never hear from an investigative reporter like Robert Parry, one of the reporters who broke the Iran-Contra scandal back in the 1980s. Parry has some interesting tidbits about Gates, particularly his involvement in delaying the Iran hostage release in 1980.

It would have been fascinating to hear from John Prados of the National Security Archives regarding details of Gates role in the Iran Contra scandal and in Latin American drug dealing, death squads, and mercenaries.

To contact and include sources such as these would require reporters such as Sutherland to have an interest in providing a diversity of opinion on US foreign, military and intelligence policies - as opposed the endorsement of such policies that a story like this represents.

Q Tips

NPR related comments are welcomed.

Mission Accomplished

Amazingly, the two following letters ended up by accident in my inbox:

Dear NPR,

Thanks so much for your loyal news summary this morning; I couldn't have scripted it better myself. Michele Kelemen did an excellent job representing the US State Department point of view regarding the Somali piracy issue. I've really appreciated your stellar record on muting any analysis of how our own foreign policy has lead to the dramatic rise in piracy. I also appreciate that bit about peacekeeping - nice - we definitely plan to keep Somalia in pieces for as long as possible.

Sincerely,
Condeleezza Rice

The other letter was from the big dog himself:

Dear NPR Reporticators,

I felt very gratificated for your kind warm-up for the War Collage speech that I'm going to presentify this afternoon. I just loved how Carl Kasell pointed out that there hasn't been any big terrorism attack on the Fatherland since I assumptioned to power on 9-11. He really warmed to my successful domestic security blanket successfulnesses. I definitely would like to have Carl fill out my legacy report card.

Mr. Kasell defintitely went above and out of the bounds of dutifulness in crediting my securification of America for my undisputed electoral reelection victoriousness in 2004. And it was a nice little twist of argumentation for him to note that the problem with the Iraq Freedom Campaign is weariness.

Thanks Carl, oh and I'm a big fan of the wit and suffocafistication of that Wait Wait funny show you do on NPR. I just loved the funnin' you had with CIA Hayden.

Sincerly,
George W. Bush

If you missed the news summary this morning, here are the sections that Rice and Bush were referring to:

Kelemen: "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who was in the Security Council for the vote says the resolution goes a long way to help countries coordinate their response to what she called 'the scourge of piracy.' It authorizes nations to pursue pirates not only at sea, but on land in Somalia. Rice said the council should also address the root causes of the piracy problem: the poverty, instability and lawlessness that have plagued Somalia for decades. She said it's time for the UN to consider a peacekeeping operation though that will be a much longer diplomatic battle."

* * *

Kasell: "President Bush speaks today at the US Army War College in Carlyle Pennsylvania. He plans to return to the theme that helped him win a second term: preventing another terrorist attack against the United States. The President is expected to point to his record on national security emphasizing that terrorists have not struck again since the 9-11 attacks when Homeland Security became his focus. The President is also expected to promote the steps the administration has taken such as reshaping the intelligence community and disrupting terrorist financing. Mr. Bush won a tough reelection battle in 2004 largely because of his advantage among voters on the national security issue. Since then a turbulent second term has eroded his public approval, the country has grown weary of the war in Iraq, and more recently the staggering economy."

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Tampering with a Crime Scene

Sometimes there's silence when war crimes are being covered up - and sometimes there's just plain old disinformation. This morning Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, reporting on Bush's trip to Iraq opts for the latter:

"In many ways the Iraq War defined Mr. Bush's presidency....more than 4200 US service members have died, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis..."

Imagine the firestorm of criticism that would result if NPR reported that "hundreds of US service members have died." And imagine how galling it would be if NPR continued to do this not once but over and over. The outrage would be immediate and well deserved.

And yet, NPR reporters feel completely comfortable reducing the Iraq death toll by a factors of ten. In June of 2007 John Ydstie silently accepted the low figure of 75,000 deaths "on both sides of the Iraq War," and in August of 2007 Robert Siegel used the comforting rhetoric of "tens of thousands of Iraqis" having died in the war. And sometimes it's simply deafening silence or distortion when reality intrudes on the fantasy of Iraq that NPR and the US government is trying to sell. As Media Bloodhound points out, NPR is right in the mainstream on this coverup of the slaughter that the US has wreaked on Iraq - but that doesn't make it any less criminal...

As always, for more on the well researched Iraqi civilian death toll take a look at Just Foreign Policy.

Q Tips

NPR related comments are always welcomed.

Mission: Whitewash #1

A reader noted in the Q Tips section below that the AP reported (and the NYT and the Voice of America and...) on the Senate Report on Torture which tied the US torture of detainees to Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon officials. The reader noted having searched NPR's site for coverage of the report, but come up empty handed!

Also, as I noted in a post on Wednesday, NPR relegated the damning testimony of a leading US interrogator to its Talk of the Nation program. In contrast, a spot on Friday's Morning Edition is given to US Army interrogator, Eric Maddox, who has co-authored a book (Mission: Blacklist #1) about his role in capturing Saddam Hussein. Maddox makes the US interrogations in Iraq from the summer through December of 2003 sound like they were being run by the Boy Scouts.

Inskeep: "Did you end up like those detectives on television with a bulletin board of some kind covered with photographs and names and lines connecting...?"

Maddox: "We did."

On a positive note, in the interview, Maddox advocates non-brutal interrogations ("...does me no good to be threatening or to be brutal...") - although he does use the threat of unending detention as pressure ("the situation of undetermined, long term detention" as he puts it.) But given the the disgusting and systematic US torture and abuse of detainees during that time period, any fool claiming to be a journalist would have a few questions for Good Cop Maddox.

Inskeep could have asked, "What did you know of the torture and abuse that was occurring in Iraq at the time you were stationed there?" If denied, a follow-up might be "You say you 'interrogated several hundred prisoners' and yet you never found evidence of abuse?" In fact what Jack Bauer Inkseep asks reveals a lot about his character:

"There must have been people who immediately cooperated with you and people who were extremely uncooperative - which makes me wonder if you ever did get close to a moment where you really wanted to hit the guy?"

Yep, nothing about rampant torture by US forces (noted by AI as early as June 2003), nothing about massive roundups of innocent Iraqis, nothing about the very tactics that were inflaming the insurgency - no consideration of the possibility that what made Maddox's prisoners so malleable was the knowledge of what awaited them during that "undetermined, long term detention" facing the uncooperative. Instead just Inskeep fantasizing about hitting detainees and a comic book portrayal of the good guys getting their man.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

What They Carry

Talking about US air power in Afghanistan on Thursday's ATC Tom Bowman informs us,

"Those Predators can carry two 100-pound bombs. There's also a jumbo version, the Reaper, which holds three 1,000-pound bombs."

What he modestly failed to mention is that - when it comes to carrying water for the Pentagon - nothing can compete with the Tom Bowman drone (except maybe Mary Louise Kelly).

According to Bowman drones are going to be VERY important in Afghanistan:

"...it's not just helicopters that commanders are demanding, they also want more drone aircraft — the kind President Bush bragged about in a speech this week at West Point." We actually get to hear the Bragger-in-Chief say, "We're arming Predator drones. We're using them to stay on the hunt against the terrorists who would do us harm."

As Bowman notes, "Besides hitting targets, the drones also see the battlefield, which in this case is the entire country of Afghanistan." I think we can all guess that there will be a few civilian casualties when the entire country is the battlefield.

Civilian casualties? Not to worry with the super-vision, high resolution, extra-humane Reaper. According to Air Force Col. Eric Mathewson, who works on a special task force at the Pentagon, the Reaper is so precise that "from five miles away I can pick out what color clothes you're wearing." (I wonder if that means they'll be able to tell when folks are dressed up for a wedding...) If you're still not convinced, the NPR website of the story has a little snuff video of the US "on the hunt" which you can watch - compliments of the Department of Defense.

Unfortunately, this hawking of the Afghanistan air war is just "the second of a three-part series on the American military strategy in Afghanistan." Yesterday it was the buildup of ground troops, today the ramped up air war, and tomorrow will be about supply routes. Dronin' Tom Bowman is working overtime to spiff up and sanitize the bloody, ugly "aimless absurdity" of the Afghanistan war and sell it to us from the Pentagon's perspective. What he'll never tell us is how this rattle-trap, illegal junker of a war is just the latest retread of a Soviet retread of an fine, old British wreck of imperial map stabbing:

Seriously, on Wednesday Bowman talked to Brig. Gen. Mark Milley, a senior American officer in Afghanistan, who said that the incoming US troops "will change the nature of the game in the particular areas we're going to employ them." Bowman noted that "Milley stabbed at a point on a map — a spot near Kabul, Afghanistan's capital, where Taliban forces are blowing up bridges and attacking buses and trucks heading to the city."

NPR's three part series so far has done nothing to indicate the moral cesspool that the US effort in Afghanistan has been from the beginning and the quagmire that it may well become. One only hopes that the incoming Obama administration will have more sense than Team NPR....

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed - but please keep the language in the PG-13 range...

Two Bold Fresh Pieces of ___________ !

It's a twofer on NPR this morning. There's a gentle 7 minute tea chat between Michele Kelemen and war criminal Sec. of State Rice. A bit later in the program Renee Montagne leads an O'Reilly infomercial for his latest book, A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity.

The only positive element of the Kelemen interview was her use of the word "torture." Kelemen says to Rice, "And Guantanamo wasn't sort of the only issue that tarnished the U.S. image. There is also the treatment of terror suspects, waterboarding, other methods of torture..."

Rice cuts off Kelemen and huffs, "Oh, well, you know that I'm going to have to object, because the United States has always kept to its international obligations, which include international obligations on the convention on torture. The President was determined after Sept. 11 to do everything that was legal and within those obligations, international and domestic laws, to make sure that we prevented a follow-on attack."

And Kelemen's follow up is...NOTHING. She doesn't politely ask, "Are you saying beatings, forced nudity, bolting to the floor and letting people defecate on themselves are keeping with 'international obligations?' I guess that would take a bit of spine. That would take a bit of spine.

Kelemen lets Rice state such comical absurdities as "Well, I'll certainly give my advice to the incoming team, and I'll do so privately. There are obviously some things that are under way. I think that the Annapolis process will eventually lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state." Not once does she even timidly note the string of foreign policy disasters that Rice/Bush have had their hand in.

And of course, it wouldn't be a morning edition interview without the banal. Kelemen asks, "And you've said that we were not — we're not going to hear from you very much. I wonder if you're going to be ready for life out of the limelight, away from the blogs that follow your hairstyles and shoes?" (By shoes does she mean Condi's Katrina shopping spree?)

With O'Reilly, Montagne is downright collegial - chuckling at his jokes, comparing childhood memories (and perhaps wondering when she can get a Mara/Juan gig over at Fox). There's not one mention of O'Reilly's lies, bigotry, hatred, rudeness and general rightwing stupidity.

What They Don't Carry

You've got to love all the coverage NPR News gives to the US interrogator who tracked down al-Zarqawi and recently wrote an explosive piece for the Washington Post on how the Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales torture programs helped kill thousands of US troops.

Can you say, "Memory Hole"?

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Crash Test Dummies

If you haven't been reading the Q Tips (open thread) of late, you've missed some excellent commentary on NPR's coverage of the Big Three Auto Crisis/Bailout. I think it's worthwhile to put some of it here - and add a few more links to boot.

Woody commented that NPR has featured Senator Richard Shelby in it's coverage of the Big Three's request to congress. Woody writes that, "Shelby is critical of efforts to save the 'Big 3.' The story quoted him extensively, without ever mentioning that Shelby was NOT an honest commentator: Alabama's auto business--Honda, Hyundai, and Toyota all have (non-unionized) manufacturing plants in the State." As Woody pointed out in another comment, Crooks and Liars exposes how the corporate owned/leaning media has refused to exposed what a hypocrite Shelby actually is.

Another reader, War on War Off, provided this great link to Jane Hamsher's piece at Firedoglake pointing out the truly massive government subsidies provided to the foreign automakers in the US.

In NPR's Friday ME report Frank Langfitt states:

"But other senators remain skeptical, especially Richard Shelby from Alabama, the committee's ranking Republican....some critics of the Detroit companies suggest they should head to bankruptcy court. There, they say, a judge could enforce the tough, painful restructuring necessary for the firms' survival."

Since Langfitt brings up the elusive "some critics" recommending bankruptcy, it's worthwhile to consider another Crooks and Liars link regarding what is not said when Republicans (and Frank Langfitt) suggest the crash test of bankruptcy as a solution.

It's really too bad that all things are never considered on NPR, because the big three crisis offers a rare opportunity to explore the complexities of auto energy efficiency, union work, labor, wages, tax subsidies, previous bailouts, and - of course - the relationship of the auto crisis to the health care crisis.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

CIA Tom Strikes Again

Agent Gjelten was on this morning defending his CIA buddy John Brennan again (as Yogi Berra said "This is like deja vu all over again"). Gjelten got things rolling with a deliberate distortion (dare I say LIE?) about John Brennan withdrawing his name from consideration to head the CIA:

"liberal bloggers had mounted a campaign against him judging he'd been tainted by his service in the CIA at a time when the agency was using coercive interrogation methods"

No, what the "quaint" liberal bloggers like Glenn Greenwald rejected was Brennan's on the record (News Hour & CBS News) support for criminal kidnapping/torture rendition flights, torture "enhanced" interrogations (CBS News) and illegal wiretapping (CBS).

Gjelten then cites "several intelligence professionals and analysts interviewed by NPR, including Democrats" to suggest that liberal bloggers are against "anyone who served at the CIA during the Bush years." That is simply ridiculous. What Gjelten doesn't ask is whether anyone who actively supported (or quietly went along with) Bush's torture, kidnapping, illegal spying, and "fixed" intelligence programs should now lead US intelligence agencies. On the contrary, he turns to just such a disgraced CIA figure , John McLaughlin (can you say destroyed torture tapes?) to bolster the case for handing over US intelligence to just such people. McLaughlin states:

"Whoever steps into these positions has to be well prepared, schooled in the business, savvy about the world and have excellent judgement about how to proceed. In fact thinking back over recent transitions I would say that more than in any transition in my memory and I've served eight presidents there will be less time for on the job training this time around than at any previous moment."

And just what "well prepared, schooled in the business, savvy about the world and...excellent judgement" folks was old Number 2 McLaughlin working with from 2000 to 2004? I guess he means all those super-smart, perky folks who missed 9/11 coming, fixed intelligence for the Iraq war, and were setting up enhanced detainee hotels in Guantanamo, Bagram, and Baghdad!

I just keep wondering how stupid NPR thinks its listeners are...

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

How About Contracting Zwerdling?

Holy crap, Daniel Zwerdling demonstrates some of the basics of what NPR ought to be doing all the time: digging up information on government policies, asking probing questions, providing historical context, seeking out varied opinions from those in positions to know information, and providing numbers and data (and pointing what information is hidden from public knowledge or simply unknowable). Perhaps NPR could shut down for a few weeks and hire Zwerdling provide a little in-house training to remind his colleagues that their job is to question and probe the powerful - not just be their loyal spokespersons.

On Monday morning, Zwerdling explores the burgeoning phenomenon of contracting out government services and functions. Amazingly, he puts the privatization of government in a historical context. He notes that some contracting out of government services has always occurred in the US, but "you could say the modern era of contracting began on Jan. 20, 1981, when President Ronald Reagan was sworn into office...Reagan said one of the best ways to solve this problem was to turn over government jobs to private industry. Then, a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, embraced the same strategy....and, actually....did even more to contract out work than Reagan....[and] made it easier for companies to get government contracts without competing. And then came President Bush, who said 'big government is not the answer' and shattered all the previous records for contracting out."

Zwerdling considers the assumptions that underlie privatizing government ("Businesses often know better than government how to do things right — and cheaper.") and then goes to the GAO (nonpartisan agency) for the facts about how so many contracts are completely unsupervised and accountable to no one.

Today, was just as pointed. Zwerdling lays out the vast array of critical government services that are now contracted out, and then he does something amazing - points out the threat that such privatization poses for a democratic society: "federal workers, at least, have to swear an oath to defend the Constitution, just like soldiers do. Not contractors." As a Congressionally appointed oversight commissioner tells Zwerdling, "These contractors, they're not under the normal democratic accountability at all....Contractors are motivated by the dollar."

Zwerdling manages again to go back in time to evoke the warnings of Eisenhower regarding the military industrial complex, and connects it growth to the extensive growth of private contracting.

Imagine if all news reports on NPR had the basic features of this series - I could stop writing this Godforsaken blog! But I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Listening to Zwerdling's reports was refreshing, but ultimately sad for how it stands out as the exception to the usual practice of NPR's news.

(BTW, the graphic is me...of course)

Q Tips

NPR related comments are always welcomed.

The Archangel Simon

Scott Simon sermonizes about evil this morning. Simon decides that the premeditated killing of civilians doesn't deserve to be probed for motives:

"A word like 'motive' seems to imply there was reason or purpose. It suggests that, however profane their actions, the terrorists had the incentive of some goal in mind."

He notes that when human beings are "the very objects of damage" it is simply evil, no matter how "terrorists and apologists may ultimately embroider the assault with supposed political significance."

Maybe Simon is right when he says "that evil men and women see no innocents in the world. They will slaughter mothers without conscience and their children, too, because mothers give birth to children who can grow up to be their opponents." Given this new, righteous Scott Simon, I'll look forward to his denouncing ALL targetings of civilians whether done by terrorists in India or by the US government and it's friends and proxies.

Privatizing Public Radio

On Thursday morning Steve Inskeep spoke to Reva Bhalla about the events unfolding in Mumbai. It was an odd interview, because as the interview went on, it was clear that Bhalla didn't really know much about what was going on. Here's a sample of here "expert" analysis:

• "...what's more likely is that this is part of a larger outfit India Mujahadeen which has been on the militant scene for a while now...."
• "...already there are some indications when they're bringing up the boats where the militants supposedly came by, um, some hints of Pakistani links..."
• "...so far it looks like there's seem to be some reports of them being Pakistani, more Kashmiri...so were looking most likely at Islamic militants."

Really, Bhalla offered nothing that any listener to the BBC couldn't have come up with: blah, blah, blah...India Mujahadeen...blah, blah, blah...the boats where the militants supposedly came by...blah, blah, blah...Pakistan...etc.

The only explanation given by Morning Edition for spending several minutes with Bhalla was that "she is director of geopolitical analysis at Stratfor, which is a private intelligence company in Austin Texas." The striking thing about Stratfor, is how little you can find out about it. Barron's ran an interesting article about Stratfor back in October of 2001. You can also find Stratfor produced and purchased information featured by several right-wing sites such as Bill O'Reilly, Right Side News and Right Bias. A critic, Al Giordano of NarcoNews has pointed out how in line with the US State Department policy Stratfor's information and analyses are (which coincidentally makes it a perfect fit with NPR News.) Some information on Stratfor can be found at Sourcewatch and almost nothing from their own corporate site.

As far as information on Ms. Bhalla, I similarly could find almost nothing, except her byline on Statfor published articles. However I did find that she has a profile on Facebook which notes that she is a Texas alum '04 (UT Austin I presume) and a Georgetown grad student.

Wondering how NPR justifies using such a "source" I sent an email to the Ombudsman noting the inaccessibility of information on Bhalla and Statfor and asking "why NPR uses Stratfor as a news source when it is not open to any kind of public scrutiny. Does NPR pay Stratfor, and if so how much?"

I'll add an update to this if I hear anything back.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

The Company They Keep

Inskeep and Gjelten host a euphemistic pity party for John Brennan -- CIA supporter of torture, Gestapo tactics, I mean "enhanced interrogation" practices. Listening to Inskeep and CIA apologist (employee?) Gjelten you'd never know that Brennan strongly supported rendition/torture flights, illegal FISA spying, and torture. Instead you'd think that he was some hapless employee of the CIA who has been tarred soley for associating with the torture big boys like George Tenet.

Inskeep opens the feature by lamenting that "liberal bloggers recently mounted a campaign against Brennan" and then closes the story with noting that Brennan withdrew his consideration "after a campaign by liberal bloggers against him...."

In between these bookmarks we get Gjelten complaining that "it's this campaign that's being waged against him...he said he feared that the hubbub that these liberal groups were raising about him would prove to be quote 'a distraction to the work of the intelligence community...'" Gjelten is pretty smooth how he reduces the substantive critiques of Brennan by people like Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, and Scott Horton to nothing but "hubbub."

One of the most remarkable things about the piece is that in spite of Inskeep beginning with "let's set aside the distractions for a moment and talk about the facts" the story is notable for having virtually no facts in it. To argue for Brennan's sterling qualifications Gjelten quotes himself ("the truth is that John Brennan is pretty much in the mainstream...He's not by any means a hardliner on intelligence issues") and "one Democrat on Capitol Hill" who "said it's sad that Brennan felt he had to withdraw."

Actually what is sad is Gjelten and Inskeep's little CIA inspired homework assignment that they foist on us. No references to Brennan's statements in favor of torture, rendition and domestic spying. No quotes from experts on human rights or international law who might not feel so "sad." And of course, no one to discuss the CIA's long and sordid record on human rights abuses.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

An Ironclad Strategy

Lianne Hansen this morning introduced WaPo/NPR agent Juan Forero's piece from Venezuela with the following remarks:

"In Venezuela socialist president, Hugo Chavez and his allies are facing a tough challenge from opposition candidates in today's elections for governors and mayors. It's the first time in years that the populist leader's ironclad hold on power has been challenged."

Ironclad hold on power? That's a rather curious way to describe a country's leader and his allies who have been elected and re-elected by overwhelming majorities in very free, and very fair elections.

It's interesting to note this description from Global Research of the right's strategy in today's elections in Venezuela:

"The right-wing, pro-Washington opposition has dramatically changed their electoral strategy in these elections. Instead of focusing on personal insults of the President or spouting ideological bromides, they have concentrated on local issues....The opposition and its mass media have launched frontal attacks on deficiencies in garbage collection and the accumulation of rotting waste in the popular neighborhoods, increasing personal insecurity due to crime...."

This description aptly describes Juan Forero's "reporting" from Venezuela, which can't help but make you wonder just who's signing off on Forero's little paychecks.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed...as always. Please refrain from obscenities in your posts. Thanks.

Inskeep Freaks

Last night on Crooks and Liars I saw this post about Iran and wondered how long it would take NPR to join the orchestra of FEAR. Well, dang, they didn't waste anytime. This morning Inskeep was pounding the "Iran Might Go Nuclear" drum as hard as his rich little hands could bang it. Echoing his kindred spirits over at Fair and Balanced, Inskeep was very afraid about Iran having 1400 lbs. of enriched uranium which could, possibly, if, maybe, theoretically, someday become enough highly enriched uranium for...1 bomb!

Inskeep worried, "So that sounds kind of frightening. Is it?"

Mike Shuster (no investigative journalist himself) again and again emphasized the utterly hypothetical nature of this uranium ever being highly enriched. But Inskeep was undeterred; he asked, "So should the rest of the world be concerned....[and] how concerned should President-elect Obama be about a problem that he's going to inherit?"

Holy crap, if Inskeep really wants to scare himself silly he could lay awake nights and think about all that potential nuclear bomb material just hiding under the soil of Iran which someday, perhaps in the future, if the decision is made, just might possibly somehow get turned into not one but dozens of nuclear bombs....Seems like somebody wants to get his war on.

Q Tips

NPR related comments? Keep them coming, but please avoid obscenities.

History? Arrr!

On Tuesday morning one listens in vain for any contextual history as the shallow Gwen Thompkins reports on the seizure of a Saudi supertanker by Somali pirates. Anytime NPR covers Somalia be ready to have your memory scrubbed and reprogrammed.

On the other hand, if you turn to some far-flung leftist, conspiratorial news source like...say...the Voice of America you'll find this little nugget of information:

Pirate activities in Somalia stopped briefly in 2006 under the Islamic Courts Union, the group that seized power from Mogadishu-based factional leaders and quickly gained popular support by restoring law and order in many parts of the country. A ban on piracy was strictly enforced.

As the Islamic courts began consolidating under the control of militants, neighboring Ethiopia, with the support of the United States, intervened in December 2006, ousting the Islamic Courts Union and installing a secular - but deeply unpopular transitional government.

I'm not saying that the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) was a noble government, but for God's sake they were bringing much desired stability to Somalia and were even sending overtures to the US. Instead of encouraging the moderate elements of the ICU and dealing with them diplomatically, the US opted for the Ethiopian invasion and violent overthrow of the ICU. This policy has been linked not only to a rise in Somali piracy, but has had the effect of strengthening the most radical and dangerous Islamist factions in Somalia. (Can you say, "Blowback.")

You'd would think any story on Somali piracy would have at least some mention of this history - unless, of course, the goal of the reporting is to obscure the historical context and misinform listeners.

But Some Are More Equal Than Others

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

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

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

For All the Whos Down in Whoville

You know the scene: Cindy Lou Who asks the Grinch, "Santy Claus, why? Why are you taking our Christmas tree, why?" The Grinch, of course, lies, "I'm taking it home to my work shop, my dear. I'll fix it up there, then I'll bring it back here." The Narrator explains, "And his fib fooled the child. So he patted her head, he gave her a drink and he sent her to bed."

At least Cindy Lou Who - "who was no more than two" - had the good sense to challenge the Grinch with a question as he was stealing her tree, whereas, Poor Lynn Neary on Saturday's weekend edition never questions the utterly sleazy Newt Gingrich as he promotes himself as a visionary Republican man of "new ideas." Not once does Neary raise an objection to Gingrich's assertions, but instead gives him a friendly mike for the following:

• He touts his "Center for Health Transformation which is developing a totally new health based health reform approach to how we think about health reform in America." (That would be his "totally new" basic neoconservative, market-based health care reform.)
• He praises his "American Solutions, the organization which launched the Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less petition drive...repealing the Sarbane-Oxley regulatory bill...moving towards a zero capital gains and 12% corporate income tax rate strategy for economic growth..." (Neary has nothing to say about the nonsense of Drill Here, Drill Now or any mention of Newt's anti-environmental agenda.)
• Gingrich claims that Democrats have an attitude toward business that tries "to harass it and destroy it."
• Of Detroit's demise, he blames "the current Democratic politics of Detroit [which] have been a disaster for the human beings..." (And I thought the history of Detroit was a bit more complicated).
• Gingrich claims he (and the new Republican party) will be "willing to go out and actually represent everyone everywhere." (Except for non-Christians and evil secularists).

Yes, little Cindy Lou Who showed some mettle in confronting the thief in front of her, while Neary not only didn't challenge the crooked Gingrinch, but helped him as he "crupt to the chimney and stuffed the tree up."

Q Tips

NPR related comments are always welcomed.

A Lot of Awful Work Has Been Done

...or "an awful lot of work has to be done" to shut down Guantanamo - so says former Air Force lawyer and current Duke professor, Scott Silliman. It is telling that on the day after the release of a report on the "shattered lives" of released Guantanamo detainees, NPR and Jackie Northam are doing the awful work of convincing listeners that closing the prison camp will be a lot more complicated than they might have thought "during the heady days of the presidential campaign...[when as Northam reminds us] Obama spoke with easy assurance about his plans for Guantanamo Bay and the handling of terror suspects...."

Listen in vain to NPR's report for anyone mentioning torture, war crimes, violations of international law at Guantanamo. Conveniently, with such acts unmentioned, the issue of accountability and restitution never comes up. For Northam the only important issue is the difficulties that closing Guantanamo will present for the US government, "specifically what to do with the roughly 250 prisoners still held at Guantanamo."

To articulate the quandries of the poor, befuddled US government, who better to turn to than US government/military insiders such as Scott Silliman (see above), Commander Glen Sulmasy (of the Coast Guard Academy), and Matthew Waxman (of the Pentagon, State Department and Hoover Institution). One outsider, Vincent Warren with the Center for Constitutional Rights is mentioned for a very brief comment on favorable international attitudes to the new Obama administration. Here's how the cast performed:

• Silliman (who can't decide whether torture is effective) is on to argue for courts martial type proceedings as opposed to normal court proceedings that can be too "long and complicated."
• Sumasy, who is gung-ho for a more focused "war on terror" (in spite of what Juan Cole and Tony Karon think), is featured in this report for his advocacy of "hybrid courts or national security courts."
• Waxman (who to his credit fought against torture from his Pentagon posting) is on to emphasize that the only problem with sending the detainees somewhere like Bagram Air Base (Bagram!) is that it would not address the fundamental issue of what legal process detainees are "entitled" to. You have to ask why NPR wasn't covering Waxman back in October of 2007 when it mattered.

Listening to this NPR story I wondered when we will hear from about Gitmo from someone at Amnesty International, or the ACLU, or the Center for Constitutional Rights (to actually talk about their work). Maybe it will be tomorrow...or the day after that...or...

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

If It's Not Unanimous You Can't Have It

What a bizarre report from Julie Rovner on health care reform and the recent election. As everyone knows the the voters who helped elect Obama President want and expect major health care reform. Explaining the reasons why even reform (instead of complete overhaul) might not happen the way you thought it would when you cast your ballot, Rovner makes this statement:

"So obstacle one is a public that's divided between wanting more and less government involvement in in health care."

Divided? That's funny...I could have sworn there were some serious majorities out there who support government led universal health care. I did a little searching and - whew - I wasn't just hallucinating again. Let's see what some of the polls show:

• A Kaiser Poll of October 2008 (pdf file) shows 84% believe that "Health care should be provided equally to everyone, just as public education is," 76% believe that "access to health care should be a right," and "over 6 in 10 (63%) favor the government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes."
• A Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey from August 2008 shows "A government guarantee of universal health insurance, even if it means raising taxes, continues to attract broad support. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) favor such a proposal, while 34% are opposed."
• CNN Opinion Research Opinion poll of May 2007 (pdf) finds 64% of Americans "think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes."
• A CBS/New York Times poll of March 2007 finds that "most Americans believe government can play a role in fixing the health care system. Two-thirds say the federal government should guarantee that all Americans have health insurance."

Yeah, that's real division. I mean 37% to 63% is like, wow, almost a 50-50 deadlock with just a little 13% change in each direction. Honestly, does Rovner think she can just make up any lie that fits NPR's general opposition to universal health care and pass it off as fact?

Hey Rovner - busted!

Squirrels, Rabbits and The Greatest Frickin' Generation

Saturday with the Simonizer found him putting a shine on those two pillars of nationalism - God and country. He was having a little chat with two of Billy Graham's shysters grandchildren who have written a book glorifying their humble grandpa who lives in "log cabin" and who we find out "used to preach to squirrels and rabbits." Funny how the corporate/mainstream media like NPR love books that lionize Billy Graham but just can't seem to find the time to cover books that are well researched (and critical of America's greatest war preacher).

Just wouldn't be militaristic enough for Scott Simon without a gooey tribute to the warrior ethos. What better way than a grandfatherly sort who reenlisted after September 11th and now at the age of 60 is in Iraq. Ignoring that the war in Iraq has made many of us citizens of the planet poorer, unsafe and - of course - dead, we get to hear his wife tell us how her granddaughter "who's in about the fifth grade...was very happy to know that Papa Jim was trying to do something to keep the country safe." Aargh...

Lastly, I was struck by a piece from Jackie Lyden on Sunday's ATC. It's a decent enough report about the problems that the tanking housing market has created for WWII era retirees. When I heard her start the story I thought she called them the "Grayest Generation" which seemed a witty turn of Brokaw's sloppy "Greatest Generation" cognomen. But alas, NPR and Leyden have decided that this inaccurate (and propagandistic) label should stand as objective truth.

Gosh, and I didn't even get around to mentioning Sunday's fluffy, feel-good "This I Believe" piece about the power of Teddy Bears...from a veteran of Bagram in Afghanistan...yeah, that Bargram - home of cuddly, feel-good American soft-power...

My Pet Fox

More problems with blurred lines between NPR and Fox News was evident in yesterday's report on Brit Hume's announcement that he was stepping down from his anchor position at Fox News. The piece featured David Folkenflick barely articulating the most timid critique of Fox News, while mainly claiming that that Brit Hume "brought the news channel credibility."

Only in the Orwellian world of NPR News could a loyal mainstay of the venomous Fox News channel claim that he's lost enthusiasm for his job because of "this poisonous atmosphere in Washington over the past, oh I'd say 14 or 15 years. It makes news because sparks are struck; sparks are what make news — there's dissent and disagreement, intense feeling and so on, which all contribute to an untidy and ugly at times, but nonetheless newsworthy, atmosphere."

So does Folkenflik challenge Hume's hypocrisy with a list of Hume's own lies and ugly smears? Barely. He notes euphemistically that "Fox News is itself a home for all kinds of rancor..." (I guess this counts as rancor) and then politely asks, "How much do you feel that your own channel has contributed to that?"

Hume responds that "We've certainly been a forum, as everybody else has, for the arguments of the day. We are more a reflection of it, I think, than a cause." A forum? Like everyone else? Does Folkenflik follow up with evidence to show that Fox News has been far more than a forum, and is not like everyone else? Here's his response:

"Hume cuts an elegant figure in pinstripe suits and pocket squares, and he's known for his mordant wit and his love of a good story."

Clueless Folkenflik might want to watch this interchange with Chris Wallace on the Daily Show and notice how at the 3 minute mark Wallace is presented with evidence of Fox's sorry excuse for journalism. I know evidence is soooooo left leaning and biased.

The story ends noting that Hume wants to spend more time with family and read the Bible...

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Execrable Takes on Great Expectations

(click picture for source)

In the comments of the "Crystal Ball" post below there were some angry (and informative) posts about Mara Liasson's Foxist assault on the expectations of Obama supporters. You have to love the bottom of the tank "scholars" that Liasson stitches together for her report (in order of appearence):

• Norman Ornstein of the extreme right American Enterprise Institute
• Michael Gerson, former Bush speech-writer (his bio at the Council on Foreign Relations lists his "Expertise" as -get this - "Democracy promotion; human rights issues; health and disease; religion and politics.")
• Bob Kagan who Liasson calls "a foreign policy scholar."
• Michael O'Hanlon - sorry hack of the Brookings Institution.

With the aid of these characters Liasson puts together her septic rant:

Regarding solving "the huge problems he's inheriting" Liasson says that "On the campaign trail he made it sound easy. The only sacrifice he asked people to make was (sarcastic tone) turning off the lights and checking the pressure in their tires." Funny how Liasson ignores Obama's campaign calls for sacrifice and service, but revives the ignorant Republican attack on tire gauges.

She then lets Ornstein make claims for "the left." He whines, "if the expectations are high generally, their highest on the left. You've got a group of people who think - first of all - that it's their victory, who believe that Obama is one of them..."

After Ornstein, it's on to Gerson who she says worries that "nothing Obama said during the campaign indicates when or if he might push back against the Democratic leadership in Congress." Seriously, a Bushist speech-writer worried about a President who won't "push back" against his party's leadership in Congress.

Next it's on to money. Liasson warns that "Then there's the clash of campaign promises with dollars and sense reality." Yes, Liasson has just been all over "dollars and sense reality" for that little war that she is so fond of.

As the "tire gauge" jab above shows, Liasson is interested in reviving old Fox News/Republican attacks from the campaign. She revisits the covertly recorded remarks of Biden predicting that Obama would be tested by an international crisis. Liasson says, "His running mate made it clear what he expected in the first six months for a young president just four years out of the Illinois state legislature. 'Mark my words,' Joe Biden told a group of Democratic donors. 'Mark my words.' (This is followed by the distorted recording made of Biden's remarks). This sleazy use of the Biden remarks leaves one wondering where Liasson's gig with Fox ends and her work for NPR begins.

Her piece winds down with Bob Kagan warning that Obama will need to take a complex view of Pakistan and Afghanistan, because "there are no easy answers"--this from easy-answer Kagan himself. It ends with O'Hanlon ratcheting things up on Iran and admitting that Obama does have world popularity.

This from what Montagne calls "NPR's national political correspondent." Astounding really...and disgusting.

Crystal Ball

Assuming the election is not stolen by the right, any guesses on how NPR will frame election results when the Republicans get trounced?