Monday, March 23, 2009
Got Blood?
On Saturday NPR returned to the scene of the crimes of El Salvador's 1980s bloodbath - a US-nurtured extreme-right orgy of torture and murder against organized labor, the poor, church leaders, and leftists (and their families, friends, associates, or potential associates).There were a few problems with the report. Jason Beaubien's reporting isn't great; he does a little plastic surgery on history, claiming "The Reagan administration jumped into the Cold War conflict spending billions of dollars to fight the Marxist guerrillas while Cuba and other communist states backed the FMLN." That's a rather tidy and truncated version of the long history of US support for the murderous right in El Salvador - gathering steam and corpses especially in the 1960s. It also ignores the historical record of who killed most of those 75,000 plus civilians in the "Cold War conflict." But the really nasty propaganda is front loaded by Lianne Hansen in introducing the report:
"The FMLN is a coalition of left wing groups, but it's dominated by the communist party. One of the biggest questions after the FMLN victory is how far to the left the President Elect Mauricio Funes will move El Salvador."Dominated by the communist party? That's a stunning assertion. Dominated by revolutionaries and former guerrillas - okay. But the communist party? In all the articles I found, the communist party is mentioned as important, but not dominant. In the report Jason Beaubien comments that "El Salvador appears at times to be stuck in the Cold War." (Psst, Jason, I think El Salvador's not the only one!)
Finally for Hansen to claim that "one of the biggest questions...is how far to the left...blah, blah, blah" is quite telling. No surprise, but that seems to be the big question keeping some Foxes awake at night. That's definitely the question of the profiteers and oligarchs who have exploited El Salvador mercilessly, but it's not the question troubling the Catholic Church in El Salvador or the progressive movement in the United States.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
pitchfork rebellion
I didn't intend to write about a four-day-old article, but as I was sorting through NPR's coverage this week of the AIG bonuses, I came upon this gem from Mara Liasson on Tuesday's ATC. The premise of Liasson's article "AIG Complicates Obama's Strategy" is that "a wave of populist outrage" over the AIG bonuses presents political difficulties for the Obama administration. However, something ugly was going on with Liasson's use of the word "populist."
The most common definition of "populism" is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite. Indubitably, there has been plenty of outrage over the use of the taxpayer-funded bailout to give bonuses to wealthy financial executives. However, another common definition of populism, with a much more negative connotation, is: "a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people." It is this second connotation that drives Liasson's story.
This was most clear when Liasson claimed that Obama "let the stage directions show, just a little bit," when he joked that a catch in his throat was due to being choked up with anger over the AIG bonuses. Her point evidently being that the entire press conference was merely posturing necessary to "surf a wave of populist anger."
Of course, I don't know the hearts of Obama, Geithner, et al., any better than Liasson does, but this is an extremely cynical take, considering that are very good reasons to have serious concerns regarding the bailout of AIG and other financial institutions. Rather than admit those concerns, Liasson dismissed them as "populist backlash," and described the Congressional debate over the issue as a "fullblown pitchfork rebellion."
The problem, according to Liasson, is not the very real and justifiable concerns about the bailout, but the fact that the Obama administration is now "torn between attacking and defending some of the financial entities it needs to prop up in order to secure economic recovery." Obama's challenge, she says, is to convince voters/taxpayers that "the bailout money won't be used again in a way that insults taxpayers values." Excuse me, but these issues involve significant, quantifiable realities--budgets, salaries, layoffs, not to mention the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars of public funds--not simply taxpayers' values (read "opinions").
Needless to say, it would be much more informative and useful if NPR were to report on the substance of the economic policy issues, rather than simply engaging in political scorekeeping while dismissing the actual debate as merely calculated posturing to mollify the pitchfork-wielding rubes.
The most common definition of "populism" is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite. Indubitably, there has been plenty of outrage over the use of the taxpayer-funded bailout to give bonuses to wealthy financial executives. However, another common definition of populism, with a much more negative connotation, is: "a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people." It is this second connotation that drives Liasson's story.
This was most clear when Liasson claimed that Obama "let the stage directions show, just a little bit," when he joked that a catch in his throat was due to being choked up with anger over the AIG bonuses. Her point evidently being that the entire press conference was merely posturing necessary to "surf a wave of populist anger."
Of course, I don't know the hearts of Obama, Geithner, et al., any better than Liasson does, but this is an extremely cynical take, considering that are very good reasons to have serious concerns regarding the bailout of AIG and other financial institutions. Rather than admit those concerns, Liasson dismissed them as "populist backlash," and described the Congressional debate over the issue as a "fullblown pitchfork rebellion."
The problem, according to Liasson, is not the very real and justifiable concerns about the bailout, but the fact that the Obama administration is now "torn between attacking and defending some of the financial entities it needs to prop up in order to secure economic recovery." Obama's challenge, she says, is to convince voters/taxpayers that "the bailout money won't be used again in a way that insults taxpayers values." Excuse me, but these issues involve significant, quantifiable realities--budgets, salaries, layoffs, not to mention the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars of public funds--not simply taxpayers' values (read "opinions").
Needless to say, it would be much more informative and useful if NPR were to report on the substance of the economic policy issues, rather than simply engaging in political scorekeeping while dismissing the actual debate as merely calculated posturing to mollify the pitchfork-wielding rubes.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
We will all be long, long gone
[Hello, all. As my signature suggests, my name is Brian and I'll be an occasional contributor to NPR Check, writing once or twice a week primarily on the issues of national politics and environmental policy. I've spent the past 10 years or so working in public policy and politics, and of course listening to way, way too much NPR.]
Although one reader (biggerbox) already beat me to the punch in a comment, this morning's ME article about Antarctic sea ice deserves note. Actually, Richard Harris' explanation of the Nature article and the underlying science was fine: researchers have determined that the West Antarctic ice sheet has repeatedly deteriorated over the past few million years, and is likely to do so again if the surrounding ocean temperature increases by 5C. This finding made the climate researchers "nervous," since such a scenario would probably involve sea level rises of 15 to 20 feet.
However, the article placed a bizarre emphasis on the relatively long time it takes such large masses of ice to melt. Harris noted that the researcher "figures that will take at least 1,000 years, and more likely 2,000 to 3,000 years, " and Renee Montagne introduced the piece by saying, "maybe this will make you feel a bit better, we will all be long, long gone before it could happen." No reason to worry, right?
I can't help but feel that they got the focus a little backwards. For example, Harris notes that "while the full effect may not unfold for thousands of years, it would transform the planet into a place we would not recognize today." However, Antarctic ice sheets are already melting rapidly--losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice per year. Also, although NPR didn't report it, the same climate scientist noted elsewhere that the 5C tipping point was a "rough number," and that "It could be 3C or it could be 6C." Considering that the scientific consensus is that the earth has already been committed to more than 2C of warming by the end of this century, the possibility of reaching 3C, or even 5C, seems far too likely.
It might have been more appropriate to emphasize that the planet is already changing so dramatically that we are now forced to consider the very real possibility that a 527,000 cubic-mile chuck of ice could melt away entirely, whether or not we are alive to see it. Thankfully, the article ends with a glaciologist calling for efforts to curb global warming, but the point is not well connected to the main body of the article, and it would be hard for a listener not to mistakenly take away the implication that the worst impacts of climate change are a thousand years away.
Although one reader (biggerbox) already beat me to the punch in a comment, this morning's ME article about Antarctic sea ice deserves note. Actually, Richard Harris' explanation of the Nature article and the underlying science was fine: researchers have determined that the West Antarctic ice sheet has repeatedly deteriorated over the past few million years, and is likely to do so again if the surrounding ocean temperature increases by 5C. This finding made the climate researchers "nervous," since such a scenario would probably involve sea level rises of 15 to 20 feet.
However, the article placed a bizarre emphasis on the relatively long time it takes such large masses of ice to melt. Harris noted that the researcher "figures that will take at least 1,000 years, and more likely 2,000 to 3,000 years, " and Renee Montagne introduced the piece by saying, "maybe this will make you feel a bit better, we will all be long, long gone before it could happen." No reason to worry, right?
I can't help but feel that they got the focus a little backwards. For example, Harris notes that "while the full effect may not unfold for thousands of years, it would transform the planet into a place we would not recognize today." However, Antarctic ice sheets are already melting rapidly--losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice per year. Also, although NPR didn't report it, the same climate scientist noted elsewhere that the 5C tipping point was a "rough number," and that "It could be 3C or it could be 6C." Considering that the scientific consensus is that the earth has already been committed to more than 2C of warming by the end of this century, the possibility of reaching 3C, or even 5C, seems far too likely.
It might have been more appropriate to emphasize that the planet is already changing so dramatically that we are now forced to consider the very real possibility that a 527,000 cubic-mile chuck of ice could melt away entirely, whether or not we are alive to see it. Thankfully, the article ends with a glaciologist calling for efforts to curb global warming, but the point is not well connected to the main body of the article, and it would be hard for a listener not to mistakenly take away the implication that the worst impacts of climate change are a thousand years away.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Rhee-form Experts
On Monday's ME Claudio Sanchez offers a case study in slick storytelling as he cobbles together another genuflection to Michelle Rhee. Sanchez limits his story to lots of airtime and rhapsodizing about first-year teacher Meridith Leonard who seems to be a critical part of Rhee's media dog-and-pony show (that also includes principal Brian Betts who features prominently in Sanchez's story).
Here's a sample of Sanchez' radio spin:
Not surprisingly this piece (which might as well have been produced by the American Enterprise Institute) relies on trashing teacher unions and trashing (and ignoring) the researched based findings about the effects of poverty on student performance - something NPR has done before.
Here's a sample of Sanchez' radio spin:
"Leonard is what school reform experts call a new breed of teacher -mostly twenty-somethings fresh out of college....Many are receptive to the changes that DC chancellor Michelle Rhee is proposing: merit pay and doing away with tenure - all good ideas (pause), says Leonard."As someone who works all the time with many incredibly talented, hard-working, inventive, passionate, and undervalued public school teachers - this kind of lazy journalism drives me crazy. His piece is all about the great value of these "new" unconventional teachers who don't have a clue about the value of unions and instead are so excited about dog-eat-dog competition between teachers rewarded for for high test score student performance . Sanchez twice relies on unnamed school "reform experts" and then quickly slips in the far right think tank, American Enterprise Institute, "expert" Rick Hess.
"It's all about change now, says Leonard....It's her first year, but she exudes confidence."
"Leonard's 6th graders have made remarkable progress - this particular class is 100% proficient in reading according to the latest test scores." (I hate to tell Sanchez, but if that's true then whoever had those kids in the last year or two is responsible - not six-month Leonard).
"Leonard doesn't believe poverty is an excuse for kids not learning."
"....that difference [between new teachers and teachers who've been in the system for a long time] reform experts say is what chancellor Michelle Rhee is trying to reconcile as she moves aggressively to try to remake the city's teacher corps. (Audio clip: 'Younger teachers obviously they don't have as much at stake.') Rick Hess is a senior researcher at the American Enterprise Institute. Unlike younger teachers, says Hess, veteran teachers believe they have a lot to lose when people start talking about change..."
Not surprisingly this piece (which might as well have been produced by the American Enterprise Institute) relies on trashing teacher unions and trashing (and ignoring) the researched based findings about the effects of poverty on student performance - something NPR has done before.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Same Slaughter, Same Reporter
I think it's time to drug test JJ Sutherland - the man seems to be hyped up on testosterone in a big way. I was going to pass on last week's clipped-sentence tough-guy narration of an Air Force Cross won by a US airman for a firefight and assault in Afghanistan - until I heard him again this morning using the uber-macho style to sing the praises of the the US air-war machine again.Here's a sample of last week's Sutherland:
"They came in at first light. Giant helicopters swooped into Shak Valley....'kind of trapped ourselves,' he says. Their mission had changed; now it was all about getting out alive....calling in air strikes from above: F-15s, Apaches, A-10s; it goes on for hours....had to call in air strikes practically on top of his own position: rockets, cannons, bombs. Nothing worked. Finally, they had only one option left....a TWO THOUSAND POUND BOMB."Interestingly, in Sutherland's wargasmic homage he didn't mention a bit of information I found buried in an Air Force write-up of the attack:
"By the end of the fight, between 150 and 200 insurgents were killed, according to reports." We all know how accurate the US military has been about killing "insurgents" (i.e. If they kill you, you're an insurgent).I also found that Afghans had a bit of a different take on the "mission."
That was last Tuesday, and then there was this Monday morning's quasi-religious worship of the fighter pilot, or as NPR titled it "Same Swagger, Different Jets."
Sutherland was at it again, chopping his sentences into manly Hemingway-size chunks:
"Fighter pilot: confident, swagger, ego...those who survive the competition are supremely confident. Ask any fighter pilot and he'll tell you a dogfight is no place for self-doubt. Results are what matter. Everyone in your squadron knows whether you succeeded or choked....the swagger's the same as it was when Yeager was flying P-51 Mustangs over Germany....at 9-Gs the blood is forced from your brain. It's hard to breathe, let alone talk, let alone be twisting around in your seat looking for someone trying to kill you....It's hard to imagine hearing this ['I feel the need, the need - for speed - ow!'] coming from a cubicle."Yeah, nothing like all that supreme confidence when you're napalming peasants, cluster bombing Afghan villages, and flattening cities in Iraq. No place for questioning orders, no place for morality, just swagger - like JJ, radio warrior.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
A Day Late
On one hand I was pleased to hear Jackie Leyden interview Mark Danner on Sunday's ATC regarding his recent articles in the New York Review of Books and the NYT about the ICRC-documented evidence of torture ordered by the Bush administration and practiced by the CIA. On the other hand it's frustrating that NPR is again the Johnny-come-lately to a story of such importance - covering it only when it is safely established. As Danner notes in his NY Review of Books article, the story of US torture is nothing new - it's been sitting out there just waiting for serious reporting since late in 2002, citing part of an article from the WaPo in December 2002 and noting "A similarly lengthy report followed a few months later on the front page of The New York Times ('Interrogations: Questioning Terror Suspects in a Dark and Surreal World')."
One can wish that NPR would follow up this long overdue report with information on the Convention Against Torture which, as Glenn Greenwald noted last month, the US signed under Reagan and ratified in 1994, and which obliges (with no exceptions allowed) the US government to investigate and prosecute any government officials who participated in or were complicit in torture. One can wish, eh?
One can wish that NPR would follow up this long overdue report with information on the Convention Against Torture which, as Glenn Greenwald noted last month, the US signed under Reagan and ratified in 1994, and which obliges (with no exceptions allowed) the US government to investigate and prosecute any government officials who participated in or were complicit in torture. One can wish, eh?
Yum!
I'm really wondering how Michael W. Davidson (US Army ret.) scored an interview on NPR for his new book Victory at Risk or why NPR felt compelled to offer him an interview for it. His talk with Hansen lacked any original views or unique insights and instead was a hodgepodge of commonplace predictions (e.g. al-Qaeda setting off a nuke in NYC), conventional beliefs about the US need for massive military might, and pedestrian distortions about US history. As you might guess, none of these were challenged in any way by Hansen.
Hansen launches this one with a rather unappetizing metaphor:
"What do you think the appetite is for Americans to get involved in a war is, given what has been going on for the last eight years?"Davidson's answer is a doozy:
"The appetite is not where it needs to be, and it's not where it should be...have to address things like strategic visionary leadership...things like will Americans believe a President when he or she says something."Seems like it would have been a reasonable time to ask how appetizing 4.7 million refugees, 1 million-plus dead civilians, and tens of thousands of wounded and thousands of dead US soldiers is. I know, I know that is such a downer....
Davidson notes that the US will have to be ready militarily when it's next attacked by al-Qaeda, but then later he claims, "we are a global power not because of our warships our warplanes our formations of soldiers and marines. We are a global power because of our commitment to freedom - that's why we have succeeded for 250 years as a nation..."
Seriously, when someone says something like that could the interviewer please just ask if that 250 year commitment to "freedom" included slavery, killing American Indians, lynching, stealing territory, invading other countries, overthrowing governments, disrupting elections, etc. - sheesh...
From the Inbox
I got a thoughtful email from someone who read the comment I posted on the NPR site regarding Alicia Shepard's comments on NPR's "Monkey See" blog [re: "See No Irony" post below]. Here's the email which I'm posting by request from the sender:
You wrote:I appreciated the work that Roesler did to find this piece and the positive response of listeners. Siegel's interview does fit with my challenge. He does confront a White House spokesperson with what he has said and with what the facts are. Siegel does a decent job of contextualizing the conversation by noting that even for a $60,000 income family of four - health insurance coverage can be extremely expensive and burdensome. However, even as Siegel points out, the support for the SCHIP expansion was shared by most newspaper editorials and several prominent Republicans. I guess what I found most hopeful is that listeners seem to be hungry for a higher quality of reporting even though it's rare on NPR.
"I challenge Shepard (or anyone for that matter) to show any examples in the last 10 years where NPR's main news shows (ME, ATC, WE-Sat or WE-Sun) "held people in power accountable for what they said,[or] put it in context." I've been carefully critiquing NPR for almost 3 years and NPR News consistently echoes and champions the opinions and assertions of the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and free market corporatism."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2009/03/the_extended_uncut_daily_show.html
I've only heard one instance of NPR actually standing up to spin by an
interviewee:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15046448
I've never heard anything like it since, and I listen almost every day.
As I recall, there were tons of people who wrote in letters showing
support and calling for more:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15198525
Please indicate this on your blog. I couldn't find it anywhere.
Daniel Roesler
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
See No Irony
On NPR's "Monkey See" blog the Stewart-Cramer spanking was posted. If you look at the comments section and click on "Most Recommended" in the little "Recent First" drop-down box, you'll see a post put there by NPR's Ombudsman, Alicia Shepard (Lisa). With not a whit of irony (or embarrassment) she wrote:
Jon Stewart is one of the best journalists in America. We can all take a lesson from him. He holds people in power accountable for what they say, he puts it in context and makes it riveting to watch. That's the definition of a good journalist.
Strangely, I fully agree with Shepard's operating definition of a "good journalist" - but could NPR be further from such an ideal?
I couldn't resist adding my own post. Feel free to visit and "recommend" it if you are so inclined - you don't have to register, just click.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Under Fire
If you haven't heard yet, Chas Freeman - Obama's pick to head up the National Intelligence Council - has been torpedoed by the neocon "pro-Israel" extremists. NPR's threadbare coverage of this important story bears comparison with another Obama appointee who withdrew under criticism of his record: John Brennan.
I posted quite a bit on NPR's (and especially Tom Gjelten's) distortions regarding the withdrawal of Obama's first pick to head the CIA, John Brennan back in late November-early December last year. At the time several significant journalist bloggers strongly criticized the appointment of Brennan due to his praise of intelligence gathered by CIA torture and his explicit support of torture/rendition flights and illegal wiretapping. NPR repeatedly claimed that Brennan's only fault was being a CIA associate during the time that such practices were going on. Furthermore NPR frequently used derogatory terms to belittle the efforts of bloggers to highlight Brennan's documented shortcomings: "a campaign of liberal bloggers," "the hubbub these liberal groups were raising," and "those people who were stoking the fires of criticism."
Compare this with the general and normative descriptions given to the radical crew of Likudist neocons who attacked the Freeman nomination:
On Tuesday's ATC Gjelten stated that "in recent years as a private citizen Freeman has been an outspoken critic of some US policies, especially regarding China and Israel. Because of that his appointment...was vigorously criticized..."
Again on Tuesday, Mary Louise Kelly stated, "Freeman has a record of speaking his mind on policies regarding China and Israel in particular, so Freeman's nomination faced opposition from the start..."
Oddly we NEVER get the substance of Freeman's remarks. His thinking on Israel can be found here, and as Andrew Sullivan points out, the outrageous nature of his "anti-Israel" comments are as follows:
Amazingly NPR never presents Freeman's remarks or focuses on the sleazy nature of the organizers of the attack on Freeman. Tonight Siegel had a thin and tepid interview with Freeman offering him the opportunity to rebut one critique of him, which he did quite effectively - but that's it.
Again, when presented with an easy opportunity to offer informative and substantive reports on a pressing issue - NPR fails to deliver.
I posted quite a bit on NPR's (and especially Tom Gjelten's) distortions regarding the withdrawal of Obama's first pick to head the CIA, John Brennan back in late November-early December last year. At the time several significant journalist bloggers strongly criticized the appointment of Brennan due to his praise of intelligence gathered by CIA torture and his explicit support of torture/rendition flights and illegal wiretapping. NPR repeatedly claimed that Brennan's only fault was being a CIA associate during the time that such practices were going on. Furthermore NPR frequently used derogatory terms to belittle the efforts of bloggers to highlight Brennan's documented shortcomings: "a campaign of liberal bloggers," "the hubbub these liberal groups were raising," and "those people who were stoking the fires of criticism."
Compare this with the general and normative descriptions given to the radical crew of Likudist neocons who attacked the Freeman nomination:
On Tuesday's ATC Gjelten stated that "in recent years as a private citizen Freeman has been an outspoken critic of some US policies, especially regarding China and Israel. Because of that his appointment...was vigorously criticized..."
Again on Tuesday, Mary Louise Kelly stated, "Freeman has a record of speaking his mind on policies regarding China and Israel in particular, so Freeman's nomination faced opposition from the start..."
Oddly we NEVER get the substance of Freeman's remarks. His thinking on Israel can be found here, and as Andrew Sullivan points out, the outrageous nature of his "anti-Israel" comments are as follows:
"Tragically, despite all the advantages and opportunities Israel has had over the fifty-nine years of its existence, it has failed to achieve concord and reconciliation with anyone in its region, still less to gain their admiration or affection. Instead, with each decade, Israel's behavior has deviated farther from the humane ideals of its founders and the high ethical standards of the religion that most of its inhabitants profess."As far as Freeman's China remarks go, they appear to have been dishonestly obtained and purposely distorted. Other rather tame and rational ideas of Freeman's can be seen here. The important story is that the successful attack on Freeman indicates that even mild and perfectly rational critiques of US-Israeli foreign/military policy are not open for debate or discussion. (A policy which dovetails well with NPR's coverage of Israel-Palestine issues.)
Amazingly NPR never presents Freeman's remarks or focuses on the sleazy nature of the organizers of the attack on Freeman. Tonight Siegel had a thin and tepid interview with Freeman offering him the opportunity to rebut one critique of him, which he did quite effectively - but that's it.
Again, when presented with an easy opportunity to offer informative and substantive reports on a pressing issue - NPR fails to deliver.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
NPRbie's Dream Studio
A few days ago a reader of this blog complained that NPR was overloading it's Barbie coverage with two feature stories in one week. If only it were just two. Yesterday's ME offered another Barbie feature - a 3 minute oooh-aah from Melissa Jaeger-Miller (an aspiring Nprbie - apparently) over Mattel's REAL LIFE BARBIE'S FANTASY MALIBU DREAM HOUSE.
If you think 3 stories is all NPR is up for, just try "Barbie" in their search bar - SCARY! Talk about some serious news, but it's almost spring and that means the Kentucky Derby; I just hope they move on from Barbie to Barbaro soon.
If you think 3 stories is all NPR is up for, just try "Barbie" in their search bar - SCARY! Talk about some serious news, but it's almost spring and that means the Kentucky Derby; I just hope they move on from Barbie to Barbaro soon.
From the Bart Simpson School of Journalism
Whew! talk about dumb. On ATC NPR reported on Obama's lifting of the stem cell research ban and played some decent clips of President Obama speaking to scientists who loudly cheered him. Michele Norris then turns to Joe Palca, one of NPR's expert science reporters to ask, "Now why did this order on scientific integrity draw cheers from the crowd?"
Seems like Norris must have woken Joe up from a nap or interrupted him during an intense round of Tetris. He answers:
The comment beneath the web story nails this one and is worth a look.
Seems like Norris must have woken Joe up from a nap or interrupted him during an intense round of Tetris. He answers:
"Well, I think Aretha Franklin captured the idea when she said, 'R-E-S-P-E-C-T.' I think scientists have spent the last eight years feeling dissed. That's the way they felt; it wasn't true a hundred percent of the time, but that was the gestalt in the scientific community. And I think now they're saying, they're hearing a president say, 'We love you, and we respect your ideas,' and you know - that feels good."They actually pay this guy? Does he have access to Lexis-Nexis? Does he read anything these days? A very short search turns up reams of factual material about the Bush administrations dismal record on science from beginning to end; and it has nothing to do with how scientists feel. And to frame Obama's stance on science as "we love you" is pathetic.
The comment beneath the web story nails this one and is worth a look.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Smooth Operators
FAIR busts the media - including NPR - for its lockdown against reporting on a single-payer health plan for the US. So it was rich to hear Maura Liasson covering President Obama's Forum on Health Reform. Liasson feels no irony in stating "even the White House is careful to say it's open to ANY ideas that meet its goals of controlling costs" while never mentioning the single-payer option. Not only does this idea get no mention, Liasson's whole report is a shameless spin operation by two major players for the Hospital and Health Insurance Industry.
We hear a lot from Chip Kahn who's biography notes that
"Prior to joining the Federation of American Hospitals, he was one of the nation's foremost leaders of the health insurance industry. From 1998 to 2001, while serving as President of the Health Insurance Association of America."Liasson's report also leans heavily on the comments of Karen Ignagni - president and CEO of - what do you know - the America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). We get to hear Ignani explain how she helped wreck the 1994 Clinton attempt at health care reform because her group was "very concerned about the role of government in that plan" but now - according to Liasson - AHIP "wants to help craft not kill a health reform bill." Isn't that sweet?
Liasson also lets us hear from Rahm Emmanuel who claims that the White House approach puts "everyone at the starting gate together." Seems like it would have been a good time to ask why single-payer representatives were only allowed in at the last minute, and why single-payer has been essentially eliminated from consideration by the administration (and by NPR too).
The one story NPR did on single-payer recently (Dec. 24, 2008) was interesting for how much time it spent trying to distort and dismantle the accepted fact that single-payer is viewed rather favorably by most people in the US. A good deal of that Christmas Eve program was turned over to Robert Blendon who tries to spin one poll into a rejection of single payer. NPR cleverly identified Bob Blendon as "an expert in health care public opinion at the Harvard School of Public HealthHarvard School of Public Health." What they failed to mention is that he's on the board of directors of Assurant, Inc., a corporate powerhouse which provides, among other things, "individual health and small employer group health insurance; group dental insurance." An honest oversight, I'm sure...
Friday, March 06, 2009
Snark is Alive and Well
Just had to love tonight's ATC report giving lots of time to the vacuous whining from Iain Martin who got his undies in a bunch over Obama's gifts to Brown. Golly, if only Obama could have given Brown a gift like, say, an invasion of a non-aggressor with all of its promises of glory, and profit (and a million dead Iraqis).
Seems like NPR goes dredging/drudging for stories in the same cesspool as some other hard-hitting outlets such as FOX, or PolypPundit, Will to Power Line, and Hot Air.
It's Alive
The usually unresponsive OMBOTsman actually does occasionally respond - and with even more than a cut a paste reply. BigGuy, a reader of this blog, sent me the interchange he had with NPR's ombudsman Alicia Shepard. It speaks for itself:
BigGuy wrote to NPR with the following:
Nearly every time Daniel Schorr is on, some person from the Right is also invited to give comments later on. In contrast, whenever Juan Williams or David Brooks is on, someone from the Left is NOT presented. Why do you have so many commentators from the Right? Why so few from the Left? Why do we hear from Juan Williams and/or David Brooks nearly every week, and from Katrina vanden Heuvel and Eric Alterman from the Nation on the Left at most once a quarter, usually only once or twice a year?
To which he received the following response:
Dear BigGuy -- thank you for taking the time to contact the Ombudsman's office. I do however want to correct some misconceptions in your email.Needless to say, BigGuy felt compelled to follow up with a few corrections of Shepard's misconceptions:
There is never anyone on after Dan Schorr speaking for the right. I do think it would be good if NPR had someone on who had counter thoughts/political leanings than Dan Schorr.
You mentioned David Brook. I checked with NPR's political editor and he is never on without the left-leaning E.J. Dionne. They are always a duo on Fridays -- except when Brooks can't make it and then NPR gets another conservative to sub or vice versa if Dionne isn't able to make it. EJ Dionne is way more liberal than Brooks, who is a moderate conservative.
As for Juan Williams, I don't know that he's so easy to pigeonhole as being on the right or left. One can't make that assumption just because he's also on Fox News, as Mara Liasson is also on Fox.
I did pass on your point to the political editor that you would like to see people like Alterman and vanden Heuvel.
Thank you again for writing. I hope this helps clear up misconceptions. Try to listen on Fridays to All Things Considered and you will hear Brooks-Dionne.
Best,
Alicia Shepard NPR Ombudsman
Thank you very much for your considerate reply. I rarely have received a reply from NPR other than a form letter.
That said, what you wrote below is partly untrue. Whenever Daniel Schorr is on, someone from the Right is also on the Saturday show, although not immediately after, but about 15 to 30 minutes later. Usually, it's someone from AEI or the Cato Institute or the like. It's true that they are not set up to be directly a counterpoint to Mr. Schorr.
Check your records and you'll see that when Daniel Schorr is broadcast, someone like Eric Alterman or Katrina vanden Heuval or Greg Palast is NEVER broadcast on the same show. NPR hardly ever has someone from the Left to give commentary about anything when Daniel Schorr is broadcast.
Mara Liasson and Juan Williams continually skew to the Right as does Cokie Roberts, almost without fail. You say their politics are not clearly on the Right and I should not mistake their appearances on Fox (and ABC) TV as representing their politics. But you are mistaking their appearance for their political convictions. They look like many liberals, but they are conservatives, nearly always. You're handling a radio broadcast so it'd be helpful if you wouldn't be distracted by appearances. All three skew to the Right and sometimes the Center, but hardly ever the Left.
Just because the Right has been "working the Refs" by claiming that NPR skews to the Left for years does not mean that NPR does skew to the Left. That's simply FALSE. NPR does not skew to the Left.
Again, thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate being acknowledged and appreciate the time and trouble taken to write back to me.
BigGuy
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
If It Walks Like a Hawk, Talks Like a Hawk and Acts Like a Hawk , Then It Must Be...a Dove!
Worse than worthless. How else can one sum up NPR's coverage of the Israel - Palestine conflict?
Yesterday morning first featured Michele Kelemen redelivering Secretary of State Clinton's talking points (Hamas is a terrorist organization, blah, blah, blah, Hamas has to renounce violence, blah, blah, blah, US is giving tons of money to Gaza, blah, blah, etc.). OK, so she's accompanying Clinton on the trip, what else can you expect from NPR?
After that four minute-plus State Department summary what does NPR offer? Who would you go to for expert analysis? How about someone who has "has advised six American Secretaries of State." Yep, NPR serves up the stale ideas of Aaron David Miller - again. Miller has a way with words that only a six Secretary of State big league hitter could have. Here he is explaining Netanyahu:
It would be hard to do more pro-Likud, pro-Zionist coverage of the Palestine conflict. That someone on an NPR news report can claim in all seriousness - with no challenge from the the NPR host - that a person with such far-right and low ethical standards as Netanyahu is in fact the real pragmatist and the real peacemaker says far more about NPR's current orientation than it does about anything actually happening on the ground in Israel and Palestine.
Yesterday morning first featured Michele Kelemen redelivering Secretary of State Clinton's talking points (Hamas is a terrorist organization, blah, blah, blah, Hamas has to renounce violence, blah, blah, blah, US is giving tons of money to Gaza, blah, blah, etc.). OK, so she's accompanying Clinton on the trip, what else can you expect from NPR?
After that four minute-plus State Department summary what does NPR offer? Who would you go to for expert analysis? How about someone who has "has advised six American Secretaries of State." Yep, NPR serves up the stale ideas of Aaron David Miller - again. Miller has a way with words that only a six Secretary of State big league hitter could have. Here he is explaining Netanyahu:
"He's an ideologue; there's no question - leaning and ensconced in the right. But he's also capable of tremendous pragmatism...the history of peacemaking in Israel has really been a history dominated by the right or the center right. It's really a question in Israel of doves talking the talk, and hawks walking the walk. The right in Israel has been capable of actually making agreements with the Arabs and actually delivering on them."Miller mentions Netanyahu's negotiations with Arafat at the Wye River and the Hebron withdrawal. Throughout the interview, Linda Wertheimer just nods along like a bobblehead. I think she forgot to see how the actual settlement policies went under Netanyahu back when he was Prime Minister. Nothing about what that great Hebron concession really meant for Palestinians. Nothing about Netanyahu's provocations that even an editor from the rightist WINEP takes note of. Nothing about Netanyahu's Jerusalem expansionist efforts.
It would be hard to do more pro-Likud, pro-Zionist coverage of the Palestine conflict. That someone on an NPR news report can claim in all seriousness - with no challenge from the the NPR host - that a person with such far-right and low ethical standards as Netanyahu is in fact the real pragmatist and the real peacemaker says far more about NPR's current orientation than it does about anything actually happening on the ground in Israel and Palestine.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Something Decent
Today I get a rare chance to make a positive comment about something on NPR news - and with Scott Simon involved, too. Next thing you know, it'll be snowing in Alabama!
On WE Sunday, NPR talked to a former guard about abuses he witnessed at Guantanamo. In spite of a few misfires - e.g. Simon claiming that "there have been few first hand accounts of what the military prison at Guantanamo Bay is really like" - I have to say that (though way too late) it was a good start.
The best part of the story was the reference in the report to the Guantanamo Testimonials Project at UC Davis's Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas. I can't believe I actually learned about a new information resource from NPR! On the story web site NPR even provides this link to the guard's testimony based on the UC Davis site.
On WE Sunday, NPR talked to a former guard about abuses he witnessed at Guantanamo. In spite of a few misfires - e.g. Simon claiming that "there have been few first hand accounts of what the military prison at Guantanamo Bay is really like" - I have to say that (though way too late) it was a good start.
The best part of the story was the reference in the report to the Guantanamo Testimonials Project at UC Davis's Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas. I can't believe I actually learned about a new information resource from NPR! On the story web site NPR even provides this link to the guard's testimony based on the UC Davis site.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
There's No Place Like Home
(That's Keene helping Liasson Get Home)Mara Liasson got back to
- "The keynote speaker at CPAC, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin was attacking the stimulus bill, or what he called the 787 billion dollar monstrosity."
- "....indeed Keene [President of the American Conservative Union which sponsors the CPAC event] says, conservatives are feeling liberated because George W. Bush - who many on the right felt undermined their cause - was out of office."
- Mark Ace (Poldark) notes how in spite of conservatives running the country for at least the last 14 years, Mara didn't ask one challenging question. He asks, "How about assigning an interviewer who actually asks a material question rather than just transmitting the talking points of the conference?"
- Grumpy Demo (Former NPR member), who has posted here, provides two links that reveal the rather nasty side of the CPAC which, of course, Mara didn't note in her report.
Shell Game
(that's Inskeep on the half-shell and Odum blowing)Inskeep takes on Marvin Odum, Shell Oil's president of operations in the Americas. Yeah, Inskeep was really tough on this guy - he asked him about a House committee investigation into Shell and Interior department improprieties (and the letter Odum received from Rep. Markey); he pointed out that wind (and solar energy) could provide all US energy needs if the commitment were made to the infrastructure needs; he brought up Shell's dismal ethical rankings on Covalence; he even brought up Shell's involvement in human rights abuses in Nigeria. Just kidding.
Really Inskeep had a cozy, comfortable (oily, odious) schmooze session with Odum. Inskeep is just so curious as to how the Shell's Angels are going to deal with rising demands for oil, and if more offshore drilling really will provide enough oil for our needs. If you ever wondered what Inskeep's moral vision of Corporatism is, he lays it out in this interview. He asks Odum,
"...but if you think of us as a leaky ship, let's say, I mean do you worry as a corporate executive, that you'll do some well-intentioned things and you'll have the right motivations, and you'll plug a few leaks in the ship...but in the end the ship is still sinking."Why of course Shell Oil does "well-intentioned things" and has "the right motivations," after all they have the profits to prove it.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Hoisted by His Own Petard
Steve Inskeep arriving at the airport in far away Tehran had a big insight:
"I regretted abandoning them [three books about Iran] as soon as my turn came in line, because my bags weren't searched after all. That's the genius of certain governments: They get you to censor yourself."Oh my God! Imagine censoring yourself so as not to offend those in power!
- Media Bloodhound notes that NPR's own On the Media bemoaned the utter lack of coverage regarding the Russell Tice bombshell revelation that journalists have been the targets of NSA spying. Gladstone might want to start her critique right at home!
- This past Sunday night BBC radio was constantly headlining Amnesty International's denunciation of Hamas and Israeli war crimes and its stunning call for an arms embargo against Israel. Here's NPR's coverage of this story.
- On Monday Binyam Mohamed, victim of extraordinary rendition and horrendous torture at the hands of the US and friends, was released back to the UK. And NPR's coverage?
Blood & Gold
BLOOD
Yesterday on ATC Jason Beaubien's piece on El Salvador's coming election features the usual erasure and distortion of history. Block introduces the feature with this winner:
"In the 1980s, the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front drew the U.S. into a bloody Cold War conflict in Central America."And were the Serbs "drawn in" to the bloody war in Bosnia or Kosovo? Were the Janjaweed "drawn in" to the conflict in Darfur, etc?
From Beubien we get the usual blather about El Salvador being a "front" in Reagan's "battle against the spread of communism in the Americas." Oh, and by the way, "more than 70,000 people died in the war, " though he fails to mention that the vast majority were atrocities against civilians carried out by the US backed government.
GOLD
This morning Lourdes Garcia-Navarro is on for a reprise of her previous cover-up of civilian deaths in Iraq (remember the "Gold Standard"?). There's no mea culpa in this morning's report. More of the same about how unknowable the death count in Iraq is and how "controversial" the Lancet report was - although it's a bit better than her previous report in that it conveys how completely death and violence have touched virtually everyone in Iraq.
I did go ahead and drop a comment on the NPR site beneath the story. I'd recommend occasionally reading listeners' comments - as they are often quite pointed and astute.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Of Extremists and Militants
Seriously, if you were a reporter and you found out that a "Christian" film festival featured an independent "Christian" film that was the largest grossing independent film of 2008, and you found out that this film festival was offering a grand prize of $100,001 - wouldn't you be curious to know more about the groups and people organizing and funding such things? Not NPR, and definitely not Barbara Bradley Hagerty who apparently has never heard of Google or Lexis Nexis or investigative journalism.
She tells us that the festival is called the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival and that Doug Phillips is its organizer. I'd call those leads, and with just a little research you can find some very interesting things about them.
Take the festival for example. Here's it's website, and you will notice in its header it states that it is a project of Vision Forum Ministries. Do a little poking around this "Christian" film festival website and you'll find some fascinating movies on the program page, including this culturally sensitive gem of a film set in Togo which "begins with the meeting and marriage of a young man and woman. After multiple miscarriages, the family asks for help from the local charlatan."
Don't stop at the festival site, though. Take a gander at the Vision Forum Ministries site and be sure to see what these "conservative Christians" (as Scott Simon calls them) believe about biblical patriarchy. And don't miss out on festival organizer and Vision Forum Ministries president, Doug Phillip' biography. If you still don't quite get what these Christofacists are up to you might want to read Doug's blog post from June 2004 where he notes - among other things -
She tells us that the festival is called the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival and that Doug Phillips is its organizer. I'd call those leads, and with just a little research you can find some very interesting things about them.
Take the festival for example. Here's it's website, and you will notice in its header it states that it is a project of Vision Forum Ministries. Do a little poking around this "Christian" film festival website and you'll find some fascinating movies on the program page, including this culturally sensitive gem of a film set in Togo which "begins with the meeting and marriage of a young man and woman. After multiple miscarriages, the family asks for help from the local charlatan."
Don't stop at the festival site, though. Take a gander at the Vision Forum Ministries site and be sure to see what these "conservative Christians" (as Scott Simon calls them) believe about biblical patriarchy. And don't miss out on festival organizer and Vision Forum Ministries president, Doug Phillip' biography. If you still don't quite get what these Christofacists are up to you might want to read Doug's blog post from June 2004 where he notes - among other things -
- "Vision Forum opposes the pagan notion of pluralism....America should serve only Jesus Christ and acknowledge Him alone as the true lawgiver."
- "...we seek to drive from the land every manifestation of homosexuality. Furthermore, Sodomy was a punishable crime at common law and should remain such."
- "The Bible makes no distinction between homosexuals, pedophiles, bestials and rapists. All are criminals, the toleration of which brings judgment on the land and devastation to children."
Talking Swat
Last Tuesday on ATC I heard a rather typical Jackie Northam piece regarding the Pakistani truce with TNSM in the Swat valley. She interviewed the usual smorgasbord of CIA, US State Department, and National Security Council shills and - what do you know - they all had basically the same opinions, or as Northam so pointedly stated:
"....none of the analysts interviewed for this report thinks that the truce in the SWAT valley will hold for long."Honestly, I just didn't have the time, stomach or basic knowledge to sort out Northams lousy (and lazy) journalism, so I emailed Manan Ahmed who posts at the informative ICGA (associated with the other Informed Comment) and who produces the really fine blog, Chapati Mystery. If you haven't visited it, don't let it remain a mystery for too long. I asked him if he'd be willing to post on the NPR piece and allow me to cross-post it here, which he kindly agreed to. Well, he went above and beyond the call - putting NPR in the context of the other rather poor coverage of the Swat valley story. Here's the opening of his post:
READING SWATTo continue reading.
Increasingly, I am convinced that the discourse on Pakistan within the United States needs some major intervention. My fear, or maybe paranoia, is that Pakistan is en-route to be declared "mentally incapacitated" by United States aka "failed state". The impact of such a declaration (whether stated or not) would be that US will need to put a "care-taker" in charge of the mess. The rising frequency of the drone attacks, the extension of missile strikes, the troop "surge" in Afghanistan read as concrete steps towards a radically intrusive strategy towards Pakistan. I will have more to say on this. But I wanted, for the moment to simply bring to your attention some recent writings on Swat.
1. Jackie Northam, "Pakistan Deal With Taliban Draws Critics", All Things Considered, Feb 17, 2009.
Perhaps the worst of all recent pieces - NPR could only find 1. CIA Station Chief, 1. State Department Official and 1. NSC Official to declare that the Swat deal basically meant that Afghanistani Taliban have basically invaded and taken over Swat and that this means the Pakistani army is ridiculously weak. Between the lines, you should understand that the nukes are about to fall into the Taliban hands. Also al-Qaeda. Thank you, NPR.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Any Damn Thing Considered
I guess now that President Science himself is gone, NPR feels compelled to take up the slack and give as much airtime as possible to complete creationist BS dressed up as science. For a while it seemed that NPR was expelling some of this Intelligent Design sludge every year or so [e.g. May 2007 and April 2008], but - gad! - it's getting to be a weekly thing now [e.g. Feb. 13th and today]. I guess this is how Fair and Balanced NPR celebrates the centenary of Darwin's Origin of Species.Today features Jon Hamilton presenting a typical "he said, she said" debate on Intelligent Design and the "problem of the mind." Now, those of us who actually use our minds are well aware that the mind is a complex and mysterious entity, and if you are a believer in God or a nonbeliever like me, hopefully if fills you with wonder and curiosity to know more. But if you are a creationist always angling for a way to present your bankrupt ideas (or a news organization wanting to promote creationists as legitimate skeptics) then the fact that "scientists don't know [exactly] how the brain causes the mind" is a golden opportunity. As Hamilton explains "here's where the Darwin doubters come in." He might as well have added that the doors to NPR studios are also where the Darwin doubters come in.
I don't have a problem with NPR covering the resurgence of creationism under its various guises - it's a sad and important phenomenon in our country. But to treat this warmed-over creationism again and again as legitimate scientific skepticism and to give it equal footing with the the scientific community is both irresponsible and misleading.
You just have to love the neurosurgeon creationist NPR turns to in this report. We are told he believes that "an intelligent designer that had a hand in producing not only the brain but all living things and certain features of the universe." According to Hamilton, this man believes that "without this designer, the brain would be just a meat computer made up of brain cells." Given the content of NPR of late, maybe he's got a point!
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Bling and Style
Glitter Graphics
Newsflash: NPR actually does know how to send reporters out to investigate a story!
On Tuesday's ATC Melissa Block said that "we sent reporter Jesse Baker to the heart of the diamond district in Manhattan" to see what the creepy Lorraine Schwartz was cooking up for the glitterati of the upcoming Oscars. WOW, Jesse was just breathless with excitement for this one:
She confidently states that "If Beyonce wants someone to 'put a ring on it,' that ring had better come from Lorraine Schwartz." And speaking of Beyonce, Schwartz in her best faux artiste voice
croons, "you couldn't aaahhhsssk for a better canvas to show your jewelry on."
Baker notes that "Schwartz put pink diamonds on Barbara Streisand...was selling jewelry to Justin Timberlake back when he was still buying gifts for a girl named Britney...house calls to Elizabeth Taylor..." This aspiring NPRer was practically panting and tried to wax poetic: "...you let the jewels overtake you...it's like opening a treasure chest...pink gold, jade, titanium, gems set in gems....
I'm not sure, but I think Ari Shapiro must have been a bit jealous that it wasn't his assignment to worship at the altar of conspicuous consumption, but he wasn't about to be outdone. He was on this morning interviewing - OMG! - Sally Singer, Vogue magazine's fashion news and features director. Ooh, I just got goosebumps thinking about the fashion shows and all in New York. Ari dives in with just the right mix of shallowness and depth: "...in the shows this week are you seeing fantasy escapism or is it more depression-era chic."
And Singer is indeed up to the challenge of filling NPR's target shoppers (h/t to Juan "Toss" Ensalada) with fashion wisdom: "....style can be a place where you can be exuberant, you can be creative, you can be talented, you can be interesting--that doesn't change....this is a moment to say that times can be tough, but that's exciting, that's what brought on punk, that's what brought on the great kind of fun movements in self-expression that have trickled through you know all the booms and all the busts that have followed...
Are we having fun yet?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Amnesiastan
A rather major problem with nearly all of NPR's reporting is the "history scrub." You can guarantee that if the essential background history to a story reflects poorly on the actions of the US government - that history will be deleted, scrubbed, sanitized - sent down the memory hole. Afghanistan proves no exception on Tuesday's ATC.
Michelle Norris blandly explains that thousands more US troops are headed off to Afghanistan and doesn't even chuckle in noting that the United States Institute of Peace [tee-hee] released some new policy recommendations for Afghanistan. To discuss the report, Norris interviews Seth Jones, co-author with Christine Fair of the report (both authors are connected with the RAND Corp).
In fairness, a lot of what Jones says comes off as fairly informed and reasonable. His basic thesis is that Afghanistan has been most stable in the past when there were stable functioning rural/regional leaderships that had a lot of autonomy but were connected and cooperative with a central/urban leadership. He even offered corrective to Michelle Norris' knee-jerk assumption that the answer to all problems in Afghanistan is more US troops and military might:
I find it fascinating to occasionally hop into the way-back machine and re-read cartoonist Ted Rall's piece on Afghanistan written at the time when most were crowing about the stunning US victory over the Taliban. His piece in the Village Voice from December 2001 is provocatively called "How We Lost Afghanistan," and it is disturbingly prescient. Consider just this nugget:
Michelle Norris blandly explains that thousands more US troops are headed off to Afghanistan and doesn't even chuckle in noting that the United States Institute of Peace [tee-hee] released some new policy recommendations for Afghanistan. To discuss the report, Norris interviews Seth Jones, co-author with Christine Fair of the report (both authors are connected with the RAND Corp).
In fairness, a lot of what Jones says comes off as fairly informed and reasonable. His basic thesis is that Afghanistan has been most stable in the past when there were stable functioning rural/regional leaderships that had a lot of autonomy but were connected and cooperative with a central/urban leadership. He even offered corrective to Michelle Norris' knee-jerk assumption that the answer to all problems in Afghanistan is more US troops and military might:
Norris: "...since so much of the problems in Afghanistan are so widespread, this strategy policy would seem to require many more troops, many more advisers to work at the tribal level to gain that trust and build some sort of security."What I found so stunning is that neither Norris nor Jones ever mentioned that the baseline of stable functioning "legitimate" local leaders was essentially destroyed and replaced by the most ruthless, fanatic and illegitimate leaders that the US could recruit and train in its 1980s campaign to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. Even US News & World Report acknowledges this basic history. On NPR, though, it's as if this nasty little chapter of US involvement in the sorrows of Afghanistan never even happened - or that it had no continuity with the current configuration of the US-Afghanistan project.
Jones: "I would actually say it's the reverse....local forces can a) protect themselves and b) provide services."
I find it fascinating to occasionally hop into the way-back machine and re-read cartoonist Ted Rall's piece on Afghanistan written at the time when most were crowing about the stunning US victory over the Taliban. His piece in the Village Voice from December 2001 is provocatively called "How We Lost Afghanistan," and it is disturbingly prescient. Consider just this nugget:
"Now a Third Afghan War is wrapping up its final act around Kandahar, and a laughable band of charlatans has lobbied in Bonn, Germany, for the right to rule the unruly. Somehow, if the Bushalopes and the Annanites are to be believed, a New Democratic Afghanistan will be cobbled together from the Hekmatyars and Dostums and Rabbanis, all united under the banner of an 87-year-old king who owes more to Fellini than to Shah Mohammed."I have a suggestion for NPR. How about airing the views and opinions of people who got it right for a change - instead of only consulting the same old stale bunch of State Department, CIA, and Pentagon lovin' pundits and scholars that you rely on again and again and again.
Monday, February 16, 2009
No Comment Department
Gregory Feifer during Sunday's ATC reporting on the ground from - Moscow:
"...the Mujahedeen rebels would attack the Soviet forces and then climb into the mountains out of reach, and the Red Army really took out its revenge on the local population that was supporting the rebels. US and NATO forces today are trying to do exactly the opposite."
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Going Nowhere with Juan Forero
This morning Juan Forero was on the anti-Chavez beat for the second day in a row. On Saturday he runs a fine CIA-inspired piece about how anti-democratic the Chavez government and its supporters are. This morning he was beating the drum again, but with a twist. In the piece, we hear Chavez supporters chanting "Oooh, aaah, Chavez no se va!" and Forero claims that it translates to "Oooh, aaah, Chavez is going nowhere!"
My Spanish is not fluent, but it is adequate - and I'm confident that "no se va" never means "going nowhere." An accurate translation would be "Chavez is not going away" or "Chavez is not abandoning [the struggle]."
It's no secret that Juan Forero works very hard to discredit and misinform listeners about the situation in South America, but I was surprised that he would employ such an easily discredited mistranslation to forward his agenda. I mean it's not like the mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's Farsi statement about Israel's Zionist government "vanishing from the pages of time" being stated as "wiping Israel off the map" - where hardly anyone in the US speaks Farsi. There are millions of people in the US who speak Spanish fluently and millions of others who know enough Spanish to catch such a crude mistranslation as Forero employs.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to matter how inaccurate and misleading Juan Forero's "reporting" for NPR is, he definitely "no se va" - Que lastima [What a pity.]
Related update: Last week I posted on Forero's nasty piece alledging how anti-Semitic the Chavez government is. I won't be holding my breath for a correction, now that the case has been solved - with aggressive action by the Chavez goverment.
My Spanish is not fluent, but it is adequate - and I'm confident that "no se va" never means "going nowhere." An accurate translation would be "Chavez is not going away" or "Chavez is not abandoning [the struggle]."
It's no secret that Juan Forero works very hard to discredit and misinform listeners about the situation in South America, but I was surprised that he would employ such an easily discredited mistranslation to forward his agenda. I mean it's not like the mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's Farsi statement about Israel's Zionist government "vanishing from the pages of time" being stated as "wiping Israel off the map" - where hardly anyone in the US speaks Farsi. There are millions of people in the US who speak Spanish fluently and millions of others who know enough Spanish to catch such a crude mistranslation as Forero employs.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to matter how inaccurate and misleading Juan Forero's "reporting" for NPR is, he definitely "no se va" - Que lastima [What a pity.]
Related update: Last week I posted on Forero's nasty piece alledging how anti-Semitic the Chavez government is. I won't be holding my breath for a correction, now that the case has been solved - with aggressive action by the Chavez goverment.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Junk News Loves Junk Science
NPR do have a thing for "controversial" non-science:
Abramson introduces the piece claiming that the Science Education Act "protects teachers who engage in what's known as critical thinking about all controversial science - about climate change, cloning, and - of course - evolution." He also tells us that a school administrator and proponent of the law "never brought up God or creation...he and others appear confident that they can use the idea of critical thinking to poke holes in the theory of evolution without bringing God into the equation. That may be why Darwin defenders are so worried."
Abramson simply adopts the Orwellian "critical thinking" language of the law. He also calls sound science "controversial" (which it is if you are in favor of reactionary ignorance). It is also odd that Abramson labels those who want to base the teaching of science on - well - science, as "Darwin defenders" (earlier he described them as "supporters of evolution"). Once again NPR pretends that there are two equally valid sides on this issue. I don't want to waste my time rehashing the mountains of scientific consensus against these anti-science efforts (much of what I posted on the Ben Stein story applies to this piece as well). What I will note is some of what Abramson could have done:
He could be sloppy and lazy and spend most of the report talking to an administrator and a science teacher who want to challenge that wild-eyed, seat-of-the-pants, riddled-with-errors theory of evolution.
- April 2008's selling of something Ben Stein expelled.
- April 2008's celebration of a global warming wunderkind skeptic
- May 2007's commercial for the creation "museum."
Abramson introduces the piece claiming that the Science Education Act "protects teachers who engage in what's known as critical thinking about all controversial science - about climate change, cloning, and - of course - evolution." He also tells us that a school administrator and proponent of the law "never brought up God or creation...he and others appear confident that they can use the idea of critical thinking to poke holes in the theory of evolution without bringing God into the equation. That may be why Darwin defenders are so worried."
Abramson simply adopts the Orwellian "critical thinking" language of the law. He also calls sound science "controversial" (which it is if you are in favor of reactionary ignorance). It is also odd that Abramson labels those who want to base the teaching of science on - well - science, as "Darwin defenders" (earlier he described them as "supporters of evolution"). Once again NPR pretends that there are two equally valid sides on this issue. I don't want to waste my time rehashing the mountains of scientific consensus against these anti-science efforts (much of what I posted on the Ben Stein story applies to this piece as well). What I will note is some of what Abramson could have done:
- He could have talked to NPR's own Ira Flatow who has an excellent chapter on the Dover creationist case in his new book Present at the Future.
- He could have investigated the Louisiana Family Forum and it's sugar daddy in Washington and their recommended creepy "additional materials" (textbook addendum and DVDs) that the Louisiana law allows teachers to bring into their science classes.
- He could have spent 15 minutes researching the National Center for Science Education website.
- He might have tried reading Scientific American's article on the issue.
- He could have consulted the Louisiana Coalition for Science featuring the writings of Barbara Forrest who was an expert witness in the Dover case (and Trojan Horse author).
He could be sloppy and lazy and spend most of the report talking to an administrator and a science teacher who want to challenge that wild-eyed, seat-of-the-pants, riddled-with-errors theory of evolution.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
From the Peanut Gallery
With the latest salmonella outbreak from the Georgia peanut processing plant being investigated, NPR puts Joanne Silberner on the case with an assist from Renee Montagne.Montagne asks, "...are foods getting less safe?"
To which Silberner chirpily responds,
"Well, we're changing the way we eat and it's, we're coming up with more and more problems and the inspections can't keep up. I mean the FDA hasn't really picked up on its number of inspectors. It hasn't been funded to do that. They've got much more to inspect; there's food coming from all over the world. You can't be everywhere...."Is that seriously the best Silberner can come up with - "the inspections can't keep up" and "You can't be everywhere"? Has she heard of DEREGULATION? (It's been in the news a bit lately.) I don't know what alternate universe Silberner and Montagne were living in in the 1980s, but I'm old enough to remember Honest Ron rolling back safety in the food industry with a vengeance (it weren't pretty). And the problem has worsened over the years - and accelerated under the government-killing stewardship of the Bushistas. As the New York Times noted in 2006, "Cutbacks in staff and budgets have reduced the number of food-safety inspections conducted by the F.D.A. to about 3,400 a year — from 35,000 in the 1970s. The number of inspectors at the Agriculture Department has declined to 7,500 from 9,000."
It's not like you have to have a PhD in Food Sciences to figure out that the problem (which Nader again pinpointed almost a year ago) is the greed of the food industry coupled with the gutting of safety regulations and budgets. It's obvious if you are paying attention, as this Atlanta Journal Constitution writer is, or doing any research. But not to NPR's finest.
Silberner tells Montagne that "it's really the new food reality that companies like Kellogg or Keebler, they will buy products from all over, and then put them into their products, then we eat that final product. We no longer eat locally grown foods from a single source; foods are combined." Yeah, like we were all eating locally grown foods just a few short years ago - hmm, was that 50, 75 or 100 years ago that Silberner's recalling?
UPDATE:
Be sure to check out Grumpy Demo's comment on the NPR site. In his comment he also has a link to this great Atlanta Journal Constitution story showing the connections between the peanut boss and deregulation.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
