Sneering, NPR Style

Reader Porter Melmoth commented below about Robert Smith's Friday ATC takedown on Oliver Stone's film about Hugo Chavez. Porter notes,

"I just heard Robert Smith's assessment of Oliver Stone's Hugo Chavez film. You think WE'RE snotty at this blog? Smith couldn't help but mock and snipe and complain. 'Stone didn't even ask Chavez one challenging question!' he moans."

Listen Smith, Stone's not doing public broadcasting. He's doing an independent film. That means he can make a film of Chavez' cufflink collection if he wants to. At NPR, the home of consistently challenging questions, I guess the serious reporters there just don't remember stuff like that."

It is a point well-taken. I heard the review, and was taken aback by Smith's snide and superior attitude. Here's a sample of Smith at his NPR best:

• [on Chavez' attire] "chic tomato colored turtleneck"
• "he [Oliver Stone] does dabble in documentaries"
• "it might be difficult to call this movie a documentary"
• "the most outlandish things that the US media has said about Hugo Chavez....Oliver Stone takes the film to the opposite extreme....show an angel sent to save South America."
• "Stone, the man famous for his conspiracy theories and questioning of the official story, never asks a single challenging question."
• "he doesn't talk about the Amnesty International report criticizing the country for human rights abuses. Stone never interviews a single average citizen of Venezuela instead he jets around the region to talk to Chavez's allies and hang out with them."
• "the point as always in an Oliver Stone film is that Oliver Stone keeps complete control. That's a trick that even Hugo Chavez might admire."

Well, how about those assertions? Since when is a turtle-neck chic? Dabbles in documentaries...does Smith fancy that NPR ever does more than dabble in journalism? The opposite extreme - as if praising Chavez is the same as claiming he's as bad as Bin Laden or as undemocratic as Castro. Doesn't ask a "challenging question" - not like NPR's history of challenging questions. Doesn't talk about the Amnesty report? Since when does NPR give a rats ass about Amnesty Reports (Colombia, Honduras, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.)? Chavez's allies - I think Smith means virtually all the leaders of South America except for Uribe of Colombia. And what film director doesn't exercise complete control? Oh, but that little swipe helps him slur Chavez.

It is worth considering this piece of unoriginal, lazy and utterly predicable Chavez-bashing in light of Glenn Greenwald's latest piece on how the US corporate and corporate-loyal media treats "good guys" and "bad guys" around the world (even NPR gets a mention!)

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Around the Web - NPR Stinkies

Dean Baker calls out the bubble-headed Planet Monkeys for missing the $8 trillion housing bubble on Friday morning.

Glenn Greenwald takes Insqueak to task for bold questions about torture to that president (OMG!, they can say "torture" on NPR.)

It's also worth reading Greenwald's take on the consistently wrong, pompous warlover (and regular NPR personality) - David Brooks.

Shilling for Shale, Fronting for Fracking, What a Gas...Naturally

(graphic was featured on NPR's website)

As commenters have noted, Tom Gjelten and Peter Overby brought NPR ME listeners a three part commercial from their sponsor ANGA. It's worthwhile to take a look at the comments beneath each story's web link (Part I, Part II, and Part III) and click on "Most Recommended." Let's just say shale ain't the only thing getting drilled... For example, part II of the series had Gjelten claiming that most of the drilling and fracking is done by "mom and pop" operations. An NPR listener wrote

"Another poorly researched piece. The main companies working the Marcellus Shale in NE Pennsylvania include: Chesapeake (7,600 employees), Hess (13,500 employees), and of course Schlumberger (87,000 employees). Fortuna Energy is a subsidiary of Talisman (2,388 employees). These companies have global reach and oil as well as natural gas interests. Cabot (notorious for environmental violations and fracturing fluid chemical spills around Dimock, PA) has 560 employees - again, no 'mom and pop' operation."

On the infomercial sidebars that accompany the NPR stories you can see the following:

The perversely named American Clean Skies Foundation is a front organization for the same mom and pop Chesapeake Energy corporation mentioned by the listener [if in doubt, click on the "About US" tab on the "Clean Skies" page, and look at the chairman, Aubrey McClendon of Chesapeake Energy Corporation!] Oh, and that friendly sounding, Ground Water Council, is the organization of STATE ground water regulators, which are the very organizations that gas drillers want to deal with to get around federal environmental rules!

This gas series began without any critical reservations whatsoever, touting the shale gas reserves as a nearly limitless supply of clean energy, where the only concern is the economic feasibility of fracking it out of the shale rock. Given the firestorm of criticism evidenced in the comments section under each of the stories, NPR obviously tried to run some hasty last minute, "balancing" operations. They expanded the "series" page to include a May 27th piece more critical of fracking and tacked on a web article also. The final report of the series offers this sad little gassy seep of concern:

"Well, remember, Steve, from one our earlier pieces, to get gas out of shale rock you've got to fracture the rock. They do this by blasting water into it. The concern is that that might cause some contamination of drinking water supplies. There are chemicals that are used in that water."

Would have been nice to include some of those concerned stakeholders in this series, like real journalists do. Apparently that would have ruined the three-day, 20-plus minutes of drill baby drill hype that NPR wanted to frack us with.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Beuabien Plugs for Grandpa

Zelaya returned to Honduras and Jason Beaubien was spinning for his new, fiesty grandpa. Robert Siegel asks Beaubien, "Tell us a bit about Zelaya's politics and what led to his ouster?"

The version I transcribed Monday evening about 8pm:

Mentioned Zelaya shifting taxes away from the poor and onto the rich - and

"what really was the final straw was that he was attempting to put together a referendum that would have allowed him or someone else to run for president for a second term and that is when he was arrested. On the morning of June 28th soldiers burst into his bedroom, guns drawn, threw him on to a plane in his pajamas and dumped him on the airport in Costa Rica so that's basically what led to his ouster. Immediately after that, the next in line constitutionally was elevated to the president, and that's Roberto Micheletti..."

The transcript on the NPR site looked different and so I listened to it. It had indeed changed - I guess Micheletti wasn't the only one discombobulated by Zelaya's return! Beaubien again notes Zelaya's leftist politics, indicates that he shifted resources to the poor, and

"his opponents say he was basically trying to put in a Hugo Chavez's Venezuelan style socialist state. And on the morning of June 28, he was about to hold a referendum on whether or not the president could run for a second term."

One can debate about the legality of Zelaya's attempts to push a non-binding referendum - but the referendum would not have allowed anyone to run for a second term, it only would have allowed people to vote on whether a call for a constituent assembly should be made. You can read the text of the referendum here and get a moderate's reasonable view of the issue.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Checking Polls on Czechs and Poles or How NPR Makes Stuff Up

A reader in the most recent open thread noted that, in covering the Obama administration's scrapping of the so-called missile shield, NPR claimed that popular support for the US missile program was "mixed." The reader asked, "Is it 'mixed'?"

It's a good question. I spent a little time searching for polling data on how Czechs and Poles reacted to the US plans to install missile defense in their countries. The remarkable thing was that most polls showed opposition to the US plans outweighed support in both Poland and the Czech Republic. Opposition among Czechs has been far stronger than in Poland and there was some increase in Polish popular support during the Russia-Georgia conflict in the summer of 2008.

The best analysis of polling data can be found here at Monkey Cage, with the added benefit being that the author, Joshua Tucker, includes links to the various polls. Robert Dreyfuss of the Nation did an admirable summary of Eastern European public opinion toward US missile plans back in the spring of 2009.

So given the documented public opposition [somewhat "mixed" in Poland, and adamant in the Czech Republic] to US desires to expand its militarism into those countries - how does NPR present this?

On Friday's ME feature that a blog reader commented on Eric Westervelt claims that "for some there was a sense of betrayal. The Poles had steadfastly supported George W. Bush's policies." Of course by "the Poles" he means the rightwing Polish government. After letting two apologists for the missile "shield" weigh in, Westervelt does note that "Key political elites in Poland and the Czech Republic supported the original missile plan, but public opinion in both countries was always much more divided." Of course no numbers or facts are allowed to intrude in this fuzzy statement.

On Saturday's ATC Guy Raz talks to the Atlantic's James Fallows. Their discussion of missile defense features this interchange:

Raz: "The U.S. has scrapped plans to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, a program...that the Poles and the Czechs wanted."

Mr. Fallows: "Opinion in the Czech Republic seems to be divided, whereas the Poles are more enthusiastic."

So the muddled "much more divided" of Westervelt has been discarded for the completely dishonest assessment from Raz that the US missile defense was something "that the Poles and Czechs wanted" - while Fallows' uses the lazy and dishonest description of "seems to be divided" to ignore overhelming Czech opposition, while defying published data to claim that the less overwhelming popular Polish opposition is actually enthusiasm(!). Hmmm, maybe ignorance is strength after all.

Hello Darkness My Old Friend

(source of graphic and source of post title - enjoy)

If you watch or listen to Democracy Now! you know about the latest study on insurance and mortality in US adults. It's no big deal, just some wacky research indicating that tens of thousands of people (45,000 actually) in the US die every year because they don't have health insurance.

NPR is definitely challenged when it comes to counting, math and timekeeping - though they are the gold standard for tallies that comfort the powerful and celebrate death from the skies. But some numbers are just so confusing and troublesome, why deal with them at all - especially if it might ruffle the death health insurance industry? Consider the old, way-back-then study of 2002 from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) which determined that, in the US, 18,000 people a year die from lack of health insurance, or the Urban Institute 2008 update that raised the mortality estimate to 22,000. And now in the thick of the health insurance reform debates and policy maneuvers, there is a new study doubling the mortality estimate to 45,000.

So how has NPR done on covering these deadly numbers? Lets consult the NPR death panel search engine:

On the 18,000 fatalities:

• Morning Edition - nothing.
• All Things Considered - Dan Schorr mentioned it.
• Weekend Edition Saturday - zilch.
• Weekend Edition Sunday - nada.

On the 22,000 figure:

• Morning Edition - zero.
• All Things Considered - zip.
• Weekend Edition Sunday - nothing
• Weekend Edition Sunday - not a peep.

On the 45,000 figure:

• For all NPR programs. Got a guess? It's less than one, but greater than negative one (sort of).

To be fair to NPR - 45,000 is a pretty puny number compared to that big, scary TRILLION number which does get lots of attention from the journalists at NPR when it comes to health care.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

NPR Rediscovers Honduras and Gets a Big, Feisty, Grandfather of a Man

In spite of NPR's magical map of Central America, they do know where Honduras is - and, like Lanny cha-ching Davis, they certainly know how to spread all the coup government's talking points. The report on Wednesday's ATC was purportedly meant to illustrate the economic toll that sanctions against the coup regime are having in Honduras, but after a cursory look at that, NPR's Jason Beaubien features a glowing assessment of the coup president and claims, contrary to fact, that the failure to resolve the crisis in Honduras is the fault of both the coup government and the ousted Zelaya government.

Here's Beaubien introducing Mr. Coup himself, Micheletti:

"The de facto president, Roberto Micheletti, is a big, feisty, grandfather of a man with a crushing handshake."

And here's Beaubien summing up Grandpa's explanation for being a coup tyrant:

"Micheletti insists that this was not a coup because Zelaya had violated the constitution. Micheletti was next in line to the presidency and he was quickly sworn into office. He says Zelaya was being controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who was plotting to impose a communist dictatorship in Honduras."

No factual attention is paid to these outright lies - debunked here and here. Instead Beaubien counters them with the standard, lazy "he said - she said" relativism: "Zelaya denies this." In fact that's the extent of the "other side" that NPR gives in this piece. That may be all we hear from opponents of the coup regime, but Beaubien is not about to deprive Grandpa his microphone. Micheletti gets quite a bit of airtime to make these laughable claims:

"The Zelaya people, they are our brother, our sisters, you know. We love them. But we're going to let them to rule this country because they believe in communist and we are not. We are democratic people and we're going to sustain our democracy."

Finally Beaubien just makes up the idea that "both sides" are to blame for the conflict dragging on:

"...the Zelaya and the Micheletti camps. Two groups that appear unable to reach common ground....in every social conflict, eventually the parties come to a point where they sit down and work out their differences. The problem in Honduras...the parties aren't yet ready to do that."

This last claim is simply a lie, since the Zelaya camp agreed to the proposals for resolving the conflict as set out by Arias over the summer. Something NPR conveniently failed to report on back when it happened.

Beaubien's piece may be a mish-mash of distortions and outright lies, but he can take consolation in the fact that Grandpa will be very proud of him.

Set This One Aside for the Future

On the hourly news summary this morning Paul Brown described the laudable White House plans to scrap a missile defense boondoggle in Eastern Europe as follows:

"The decision would reflect a US determination that Iran's long-range missile program has not progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the US and Europe."

No mention, of course, that Iran's missile program has NEVER been a threat to the US or Europe - (unless the US or a European country is planning a war of aggression against Iran). Instead the threat is treated as real and factual - just reduced, so it can be pulled off the shelf later.

Click the "missile defense" tag below to see how doggedly NPR has been about hawking the Iranian "threat" all along.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

NPR and the Resistence of Memory

Monday's Morning Edition featured another NPR exclusive on Afghanistan. Mary Louise Kelly was on to explain all about the Two-Clock Theory of War. Opening the report Renee Montagne explains:

"We begin this morning with Afghanistan and a story about two clocks: one ticks in Washington, the other in Kabul. They measure progress in the war. The challenge: they are moving at very different speeds" [notice the bloodless euphemisms - "progress" and "challenge"].

All perspectives in the story are provided by war advocates [Peter Feaver -Bush speech-shaper, warmakers Petraeus, Gates, and Mullen - and Steven Biddle, CFR fellow, who Kelly notes is "part of a team advising General Stanley McChrystal...on his war strategy"].

According to Kelly and all her experts, there are always two clocks in US warmaking: the grown-up, big-boy clock of the presidents, generals, and admirals as they bomb, occupy, kill, and destroy. This serious and mature clock ticks very slowly and takes years to produce progress and - ultimately - victory. Opposed to this is the childish, impatient clock of the American public which whizzes away at double or triple time and leads the uninformed masses to reject the wisdom of the wars that the serious grown-ups are running. Kelly's guest Feaver states that "A longstanding criticism of democracies, but especially the American democracy, is that Americans are impatient. They want to see success sooner than later."

Listening to this report, I realized that there is something grimly comical that Kelly has forgotten to tell us about: The Third Clock.

The third clock is the one that doesn't tick at all. In Kelly's report she notes something I've been hearing a lot about since Obama took over the Afghanistan War: the 12 to 18 month "window of opportunity." In Kelly's report we hear Admiral Mike Mullen state

"I do believe we have to start to turn this thing around from a security standpoint over the next 12 to 18 months."

Kelly reiterates this by noting, "So, progress within the next 12 to 18 months. But is that on the Washington clock or the Kabul clock?"

The date of Kelly's report is September 14, 2009. Let's see how the NPR clock ticks out this magical 12 to 18 month time frame.

THREE MONTHS ago, General McChrystal told Tom Bowman, "So, we see it as very, very important, probably over about the next 12 to 24 months, that we absolutely get a trend where we are clearly winning....I think that the next 18 months are probably a period in which this effort will be decided."

TWO MONTHS ago Robert Siegel talked to Sir Jock Stirrup [not joking], head of the British war staff, who stated, "Well, I think our judgment is probably the same that has been reached here in the United States, which is that over the course of the next 12 to 18 months, we need to be able to demonstrate convincingly to our people that we are making the right degree of progress."

ONE MONTH ago Inskeep chatted with Anthony Cordesman of CSIS about the coming victory in Afghanistan. Speaking on the US war policy in Afghanistan, Cordesman claimed, "If these tactics are to work, we'll know in 12 to 18 months."

Holy smokes! NPR's clock must be an Einsteinian relativity clock that appears to be moving normally to everyone at NPR, but in the real world is virtually standing still. What do you want to wager that next summer NPR will still be dutifully reporting on the need to show progress in Afghanistan within the critical 12 to 18 month time frame? Who knows, by then maybe they'll have dropped this catch phrase about Afghanistan and be explaining how the US has "turned a corner."

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

The Protector

On Weekend Edition Sunday, Lynn Neary, speaking to NPR's Tom Bowman about the possibility of more US troops being sent to Afghanistan, asks, "Will General McChrystal be asking for more troops?"

In explaining that McChrystal probably will ask for more troops Bowman states,

"The big effort he's making is protecting the population and to do that you need more troops."

And this passes for journalism?

Buffing Turds at NPR

Part I - School Daze

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

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

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

Part II - You Lie

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

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

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

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

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Referral To the Dean's Office

On this blog, several readers have recommended links to various critiques of NPR written by Dean Baker. I have a link to Baker's "Beat the Press" in the sidebar, but I'm happy to refer people again to his work. He does a great job of nailing the shenanigans of NPR news, and occasionally giving credit where credit is due. Here are some recent pointed articles:

• On NPR's anti-Democrats' framing - Sept. 2, 2009
• On NPR Paulson worship - Sept. 2, 2009 [deja vu all over again!]
• Housing bubble, what housing bubble? - Sept. 4, 2009
• Planet Monkeys Get Spanked - Sept. 4, 2009

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

NPR Do Love It Some CIA

NPR achieved quite a feat Thursday morning: without even mentioning the CIA, NPR aired two CIA-friendly stories. First, NPR featured rehabbed heroin addict, author, filmmaker, and macho-schmaltz purveyor Richard Farrell imagining that his son's going to Afghanistan as a soldier is directly related to his own heroin addiction in the 80's:

"I'm deeply troubled, wondering if my son will be trying to wipe out the crop that nearly killed me 22 years ago. Back then, I was an involuntary customer who helped create a demand for the drug. I was the last link in a system that produced and distributed heroin, the very system my son William will be trying to break."

What! is the US military leading a campaign against the CIA and its mujahadeen chums from the 80's? Though the Taliban is now profiting from the heroin trade, poor Farrell is very mixed up indeed, demonstrating a complete lack of awareness that heroin production was virtually zero under the Taliban, and only spiked dramatically under US occupation. As Alfred McCoy has documented, the CIA has been at the nexus of the Heroin trade for a long time. Farrell's ignorance may be genuine, but NPR's spotlighting of this mangled history is inexcusable.

For its second non-CIA, CIA story, NPR turned to "Vahid Brown...an FBI instructor at West Point's Combating Terrorism Center" who is on to "educate" us about the Haqqani Network and its relation to the Taliban. He describes how the Haqqani network extremely brutal, even more violent than the regular Taliban. He explains that what sets the Haqqani Network apart is its "willingness to use foreigners and to cooperate with international jihadists organizations in Afghanistan." What Brown and NPR purposely fail to mention is that the proud father of the Haqqani Network is the CIA. Anand Gopal of the Christian Science Monitor has reported on this sordid lineage. Brown also conveniently omits that fact that the CIA strategy in the 80s, like Haqqani's, was to issue an open invite to the most violent and ruthless international jihadists it could find.

Not bad for a non-CIA infiltrated (hee, hee!) news organization - not one, but two phony history features that cover-up CIA criminality in one morning news show.

The Haqqani story also had a real laugher embedded in it. Brown, explaining the Taliban's reluctance to accept foreigners states, "Mullah Omar and the Taliban are very careful to portray their movement as an Afghan nationalist movement." To which Montagne chimes in, "Because in fact Afghans in general don't like what they call foreigners, as in al-Qaeda foreigners." Hmmm, I wonder what other foreigners Afghans aren't so crazy about?

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Tea Party Radio

Fox News makes no bones about endorsing the extreme-right, proud-to-be-stupid Tea Party Express, but NPR is a bit more subtle in its pro-Tea Bagger coverage. Over the last three days it has provided this reactionary tour frequent, uncritical broadcasting time:

On Sunday's Weekend Edition Liane Hansen introduces NPR's Jay Brady who is traveling with this road show. In a completely uncritical report Brady makes these statements:

• "Well, I've been to four rallies now, in two days, and talked with quite a few people. Most of them, I'd say they're over 40 years old, and in general, they appear to be folks who work pretty hard for a living." (unlike the dirty hippie crowd who show up at antiwar functions).
• "And they talk about all kinds of issues....But I think the one thing that just about everyone had in common is that they feel like they're not being heard." (No mention of the really thoughtful signs about "dictator" Obama, and his birth certificate.)
• [describing the "mood" at the rallies] "You know, they feel a lot like a small county fair. People are serious about what's being discussed at the rallies, but it seems like they're also there to have fun." (I can imagine time traveling Brady using the same description reporting on early 20th century lynchings.)

In case you didn't get enough of this poison tea, Jeff Brady is back on Monday morning, giving more love to these hard working, honest volk who no one listens to:

• "A political action committee from California is sponsoring the bus tour...the Our Country Deserves Better PAC. The goal is to bring together different groups concerned about what he calls heavy handed government policies."
• "At the tea party rally, there were few, if any, fans of Mr. Obama and plenty of critics."
• "...There were also people holding signs criticizing government involvement in health care and excessive federal spending. The scene a few hours away in Ely was similar. This is a place where people are comfortable using language most others left behind with the end of the Cold War." [followed by a woman claiming "We don't need a communist nation. And that's what Obama's taking us to."]
• "Tea Party Express Chief Strategist Sal Russo says people, who come to these rallies aren't super focused on specific issues. He says they are motivated by broad ideals."
• "A lot of people attending these rallies say they feel left out, as if no one in Washington is listening to them anymore."

Of course Brady and the Morning Edition hosts offer no check to the utter insanity of claims of socialism or communism - on the contrary NPR lends respectability and legitimacy to the extremist ideology of the Tea Bagger movement through Brady's repetition of the claim to "broad ideals" and his earlier remarks about participants being "serious about what's being discussed."

Still not sold on the salt-of-the-earth charm and idealism of these Tea Party know-nothings? Well, Tuesday evening's spotlight on the singing darling of the tea party mob should win you over for sure. Gosh, but golly, not only is he spouting the Obamunist-communist stupidity and encouraging populist reactionary zeal, but "he's black, has a ponytail and wears an earring"! Brady assures us that

"what's surprising about Marcus is that while he can be a little pointed at times, he also appears to have a lot of fun" and "Marcus knows what he believes and he's sticking with it."

One really disturbing angle of NPR's favorable coverage of the public face of this movement, is how it completely ignores how similar the ideology and rhetoric of the Tea Bagger movement is to the resurgent militia movement. Also, as readers have noted, compare this positive saturation coverage of the Tea Party reactionaries to NPR's negative and non-coverage of the anti-war movement and you can't help but notice how far to the right NPR's editorial preferences lean...

Q Tips

I'm going to go back to the old format of just Q Tips, so put any NPR related comments here.

The Art of Framing at NPR

There are many ways you could frame the role of Senator Kent Conrad, one of the gang of six senators who are working very hard to preserve the profitable dominance of private health insurance in the US. A report marvel at why six senators representing less than 3% of the US population is controlling the fate of health insurance reform. A serious report might look at the obscene amounts of campaign cash flowing into these senators coffers from the for-profit health insurance industry and its allies.

Ah but not on NPR. Yesterday, on Friday's ATC Andrea Seabrook explains Kent Conrad's opposition to the pubic option and offer of health insurance co-ops as the result of his expertise on fighting government deficits and his commitment to centrism and bipartisanship.

Before introducing Seabrook's report, Siegel sets the tone, "Conrad's focus on the deficits and debt makes him a pivotal figure in the health care debate." After that it's all Seabrook:

"he's keenly aware of the long-term problems the United States faces when it comes to government spending and the national debt. And when it comes to health care? Conrad sees big, new problems with the idea of big, new government programs."

"Democratic leaders could ram a health care bill through the Senate; they'd have to use a special set of rules known as reconciliation. Conrad knows this; he just thinks it's a terrible idea."

"Now, because Conrad is at the nexus of budget expertise and political centrism, Senate Democratic leaders and committee chairs asked him to devise a plan that could pass the Senate and get some Republican votes."

"Health care co-ops would be to private insurance companies what credit unions are to private banks. The co-op would provide health insurance, but it would be a nonprofit business owned by its members. A big plus, says Conrad, they'd be a lot cheaper in the long-term. The idea already has support from centrists of both parties."

"He could end up being the guy who represented the rational middle or the guy who killed real reform."

There's just one little, tiny problem with all this emphasis on expertise, budget deficits and BIG, NEW PROBLEMS, great co-ops, and winning Republican votes: it doesn't wash. First there is no consensus that deficit spending is a bad thing. As far as the danger of a BIG, NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAM costing sooooo much more money than what we've got - that's a factually challenged assertion, too. But Health Insurance Co-ops are a good thing, like Credit Unions, right? Wrong, they are a sham. Well, at least the bit about getting Republicans on board makes sense, yes? Wrong again.

Listener Care - NPR Style

Earlier this month I posted on NPR's false claim that in Israel "hate crimes are almost unknown." In addition to the post I contacted the Ombudsman with the following:

On Sunday, August 3rd, during the hourly five minute news updates, I repeatedly heard Linda Gradstein assert in reporting on the anti-gay killings in Israel that "The shooting has shocked many in Israel where hate crimes are almost unknown." This is false and misleading: 1) In May of 1990 an Israeli gunman killed 7 and wounded 10 Palestinian day laborers not far from Tel Aviv in Israel. 2) On August 5, 2005 an Israeli gunman killed four Israeli Arabs and wounding 13 others on a bus in Israel and 3) on August 17, 2005 - though not in Israel proper - an Israeli citizen killed 3 and wounded 2 random Palestinians near a settlement in the West Bank. Does NPR only consider deadly, unprovoked attacks "hate crimes" only if they don't involve Arab Israelis or Palestinians. You owe your listeners a correction and an apology.

Well, about a week ago I received a "response" in my email from "NPR - Listener Care" :

Dear Listener;

Thank you for contacting the NPR Office of the Ombudsman. We appreciate your taking the time to write regarding NPR's Middle East coverage and take your comments seriously.

For future reference, some of your concerns may be addressed on the Ombudsman's weekly column, which you can find on NPR's Ombudsman page.

Like many media outlets, NPR faces challenges in reporting events in the Middle East and elsewhere. No matter what the issue, however, NPR strives to adhere to the highest journalistic standards. Our goal is to report the stories factually and in context. The balance between the day's news and the historical context is always considered.

Because of intense interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, NPR makes available free transcripts of its coverage.

NPR's commitment is to ensure that its reporting of Middle East events will continue to provide an important and reliable service to our listeners.

Journalism is an imperfect craft and mistakes can occur. Your concern will be forwarded to the appropriate person within NPR's news division.

Sincerely,

Office of the Ombudsman
NPR

Oh wow, NPR takes my comments seriously! And they might or might not address them on the Ombudsman's erratic (and often irrelevant) column. But no matter how inaccurate and slanted the coverage - NPR adheres to the highest journalistic standards. Hey, even if you point out specific falsehoods, NPR claims a commitment to factual reporting with historical context! If there were distortions and outright lies, no big deal because, you know, journalism is such an imperfect craft and mistakes can occur.

I am so reassured...

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

News Check

Longer critiques of specific stories on Morning Edition, All Things Considered, or Weekend Edition Saturday/Sunday programs.

Enhanced Absurdity from NPR

NPR's refusal to call torture torture when committed by the US or its agents leads to some unbelievably stupid statements. On the hourly news bulletins this morning the aptly named David Schaper states the following regarding the forthcoming report on CIA torture (forced out by a FOIA from the ACLU - not NPR):

"The report is expected to be harshly critical of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques used inside of the agencies secret prisons...report will detail how agents used mock executions in their interrogations...one prisoner was allegedly threatened with a gun and a power drill."

Any simpleton can read the US Law on torture [ 18 U.S.C. § 2340 et seq. ] and see that torture is clearly defined as "threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering" or "the threat of imminent death." There is no gray area here - unless one's organization is committed to propaganda - it is not "harsh interrogation" or the disgusting "enhanced interrogation" that Schaper calls it. It's friggin' TORTURE.

Raz Gets a Lesson (or Two)

First, praise is in order for whoever lined up guests for two shows on Saturday's All Thing's Considered. Guy Raz was hosting the show and for a report on Afghanistan's election NPR turned to "Jean MacKenzie, a correspondent for GlobalPost.com and the director for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting in Afghanistan." To cover the forthcoming report on CIA torture Raz spoke with former CIA agent, Robert Baer.

Here's what happens when guests are not the usual parrots for the US military or government:

On the Afghanistan election:

RAZ: "Jean, we're hearing from some officials in Afghanistan, western officials, that this election has gone off better than expected, not much violence, high voter turnout, a free and fair process. Is that what you've been saying?"
Ms. MACKENZIE: (laughs out loud) "That sounds very far from the perception of people who have been intimately involved in the process, I would say. I think the threshold of success for this election has been getting lower and lower."

On the CIA report:

RAZ: "I mean, our country, Robert Baer, like other countries, sometimes has to do dirty things, right?"
Mr. BAER: "No. You know, this goes back to Nuremberg - the Nuremberg defense...."

It is really telling when a former CIA agent has to remind a journalist about Nuremberg and the rule of law (maybe there is hope after all) - and the outright laughter from Jean Mackenzie was one of the most honest moments I've heard on NPR all year.

Open Thread vs. News Check

In an effort to keep NPR Check alive - and to maintain my humanity - I'm committed to listening to NPR less and only blogging about 1 post per week. I've noticed in the "Q Tips" open thread discussions that people will frequently present an excellent critique/analysis of a particular story on one of NPR's news stories. Therefore, I'm going to try something a little different:

When I put up the "Q Tips" post I'll also put up a separate "News Check" post. If you hear a story on Morning Edition, All Things Considered, or the Weekend Edition shows and want to thoughtfully critique it (especially with links) - go ahead an put it in the "News Check" comments section, and I'll periodically select one (or more) to repost as separate blog entries (with attribution, of course). Hopefully this will keep things interesting and fresh - but will also allow me to lighten my work load in relation to NPR Check.

News Check

Readers' critiques or analyses of specific news reports from Morning Edition, All Things Considered, or Weekend Edition Saturday or Sunday.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

The Murderer Known as Prince from the Company Formerly Known as Blackwater

UPDATED BELOW:

Leave it to NPR to find a way to "cover" the Blackwater assassination squad and drone squad story without ever mentioning Erik Prince's uber-creepy dominionist Christian vision and lust for wiping out Muslims. And of course no point in bringing up charges that Prince may have a room on his hit list for employees who might cooperate with federal investigators.

Instead of turning to Jeremy Scahill, the expert who literally wrote the book on Blackwater - NPR turns Robert Siegel loose for a comfy chat with loyal New York Times reporter Mark Mazetti who in the course of the interview, incredibly claims that the New York Times has determined that CIA-employed Blackwater hitmen never killed anyone (I guess someone at the CIA confirmed that for him?) Mazetti also finds time to tell us that drones have been used for attacks on militants (no civilians there).

All we learn from Mazetti is that Blackwater was involved in the "never-used" hit squads and was helping provide security and operations for loading missiles on drones in the AfPak region. Mazetti downplays the significance, attributing it to the US being shorthanded when it comes to running covert operations...sheesh....

UPDATE:
Here are the remarks of Mazetti mentioned above:

• [Regarding all the civilians killed by US drones.] "...the pilotless drone airplanes, the Predators or the Reapers...are used regularly to attack militants in Pakistan."

• ["Confirming" that black ops were never committed.] "As we've reported over the last month, there was never an actual operation performed as part of this program."

• [As to why the CIA hired Blackwater - no mention of the obvious benefit of "plausible deniability"] "The security officers are needed in other parts of either Afghanistan and Pakistan or other parts of the world. And the feeling is that having Blackwater employees do the security and some of this more maintenance-type work is a good value for the government."

- and -

• When 9/11 happened and all of a sudden the CIA and the Pentagon and intelligence services became a lot busier, they all of a sudden had more to do than they actually had people for. So they looked to outside contractors to fill in the gaps."

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

More Warrior Worship at NPR

(photo of a Vietnam era soldier reading a Navy antiwar newspaper - from Sir No Sir site)

In November of 2007 NPR's Allison Keyes trotted out the tired old myth about Vietnam vets being assaulted, harassed and showered with hate on returning from the war. The editors at NPR apparently felt like it was time to drag this corpse of a lie out again - so this afternoon they turned to Blake Farmer of WPLN in Nashville to report on a Vietnam veterans propaganda event being hosted by Fort Campbell in Kentucky. Siegel opens the report by claiming that returning vets "were often greeted with anger about the war," then Farmer takes the baton and is off and running:

• "....and for some the only greeting as they walked off the airplane was from angry war protesters - until now."
• "....says he was lucky, lucky he wasn't tossed into the hostility that awaited other discharged service members."
• "Larry Hamm from West Chester, Pennsylvania recalls angry crowds lining the airport fence, throwing rotten eggs..."

There are a few little problems with Farmer's reporting. To start with, that bit about "until now" overlooks the 200,000 Vietnam Vets and 500,000 adoring spectators who turned out in Chicago in 1986 to honor the vets and pretend that the US military didn't actually slaughter about 4 million Vietnamese. The exaggeration of "crowds lining the airport fence" and "throwing rotten eggs" would be hilarious if it weren't being reported as fact. Jerry Lembcke carefully researched the claims of Vietnam Vet abuse and could find no substantiated evidence of their veracity - not one article, photo, or news broadcast. You probably can guess how interested NPR is in Lembcke's work.

UPDATE:

I posted the following comment Monday afternoon on the NPR site for the story and had it removed as "inappropriate":

What a load of historical erasure this story is. NPR continues to cover up the active role Vietnam Vets played in ending the Vietnam War and their role in the "angry" antiwar movement. Frankly, the people claiming the nonsense about "spitting on vets" have no evidence to back up their claims and - in fact - a Vietnam vet, Jerry Lembcke, exhaustively researched the claims and found no evidence - none.

NPR could do us all a favor and cover the real heroes of US wars - people like Camilo Mejia and Victor Agosto who have shown the true courage of exposing US wars for what they are. Of course that would take some courage on NPR's part - something noticeably lacking these days...

I have no idea what made it "inappropriate," but I went ahead and posted this similar but revised version:

This report is full of hearsay and debunked inaccuracies. First, there was a huge Vietnam Vet welcome parade in Chicago in 1986. Second, many Vietnam Vets played an active role in the "angry" antiwar movement of the 60s and 70s. And third, people claiming the abusive treatment of vets have NO evidence to back up their claims and - in fact - a Vietnam vet, Jerry Lembcke, exhaustively researched these kinds of claims and found no evidence - none.

It would be great if NPR could even once seriously cover the war resisters - people like Camilo Mejia and Victor Agosto who have shown the courage of exposing US wars for what they are. I won't be holding my breath though, since I don't think NPR has the courage to challenge the militarism and worship of war that is so pervasive in the US...

We'll see how it fares.

On the Leash with Montagne

Renee Montagne takes a "good news" tour and interview this morning with Ambassador Eikenberry in Afghanistan. Renee might as well have been Eikenberry's spokesperson. Here's Montagne on Eikenberry and role model Governor Atta Mohammad.

• "Karl Eikenberry makes it his business to travel EVERYWHERE in Afghanistan..."
• "...he's sincere in the idea that getting out of his armored car and in front of Afghans is important."
• "Governor Atta Mohammad, he's the man who's credited with making this entire province secure enough to prosper after he helped drive out the Taliban...one of the most successful examples of a mujahadeen commander, turned warlord, turned politician - an educated man, comfortable with power, striding through the bazaar in a well-tailored suit alongside the American ambassador."

Things are as bad in the interview:

• Montagne: "Is Masar i Sharif one possible future for Afghanistan?"
• Eikenberry: "It is! There's prosperity, there's hope, there's order there and yes it should give us confidence that if we can get the government up and running...it's possible to get things right in this country..."

and then later

• Montagne: "and oftentimes walk right down through a market with the two of you [he and his wife] together showing a couple that are partners. Of course these aren't totally natural visits to markets and whatnot; you are surrounded by heavy security, often by the local press, what are you trying to acheive...?"
• Eikenberry: "she's putting a spotlight on women's affairs in Afghanistan....assure the Afghan people that we are here for the long haul."

Montagne allows Eikenberry to close out the interview crowing propaganda: "The 20th of August will represent the first election of a president of Afghanistan ever led by the Afghan people in their history...a defeat for the enemies that we face, and that's international terrorism."

Death Panels and Pretty Militant

Cokie "but the Democrats" Roberts was on this morning to provide "analysis" with Steve Inskeep. Here are highlights:

Roberts: "and they [Republicans] make a big deal about something that distracts and frightens the voters like those so-called death panels - then the Democrats drop that and Republicans find something else to object to...."

Inskeep: "What about President Obama's core supporters, they've been pretty militant - I think that's a fair word - in saying that there must be a public option."

I'm enjoying many of the comments under NPR stories - a lot of listeners are dogging NPR for its lousy work. This story was no exception. I'd encourage all critics of NPR to post there, too.

Of course NPR has failed to provide any meaningful coverage of what a public option would actually be and how it would work - and why it is not "militant" but the bare minimum to any meaningful reform of the health insurance system in the US.

Back from Florida

I listened to all of about 5 minutes of NPR during the whole week - now that's a vacation. Anyway, had safe travels, fished for trout, tubed down a river and swam in the ocean. Enjoyed reading all the comments in the Q Tips when I got back.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Road Trip

Did I mention that I grew up in Florida? I'm driving down to see family and won't be listening to NPR or posting for at least a week (Aug. 10-17). On returning my goal is to post about once per week. I really am trying to listen to less NPR news and want to help my hands continue to recover.

Blackwater Blackout

On Tuesday, August 4th Jeremy Scahill broke the story about two sworn statements implicating Blackwater (now Xe) founder Erik Prince in the murder of employees or former employees who were cooperating in the federal investigation of Blackwater. He also revealed that sworn statements indicated that Blackwater was organized and run as an anti-Muslim, Christian identity paramilitary force. By any measure this is a major news story. It was picked up by ABC, Boston Herald, CNN, the Times, etc. Of course, DemocracyNow! featured Scahill the next day for a substantial interview and Scahill also was promptly featured on Olberman's Countdown on MSNBC. How about our nation's public radio news? I'll give you a hint it's less than one...

JACKPOT!

Shhhhh...whatever you do, don't say scramble on NPR when you talk about Africa. No matter how obvious (and crass) the military, energy and economic objectives of US foreign policy in Africa are - and no matter that others know a scramble when they see a scramble - keep the focus on the US military or State Department talking points about how noble the aims of the US in Africa are - or at least how they will stop the spread of terrorism there. Zwerdling interviewed Fisher of the BBC about Clinton's trip to Africa:

Zwerdling: "What are a couple of the countries there the US has the most potential problems ahead and what could they do to help you know ameliorate them?"

Fisher: "....but it seems like perhaps Somalia seems to have been a real focus of this trip meeting with that president in Kenya and also Zimbabwe here...two areas...hoping to push things forward..."

Zwerdling: "For example, Somalia, it's been an endless civil war there are apparently huge numbers of militants and extremists crossing the border into Kenya almost unchecked. What realistically could the US do about that?"

Fisher: "...al-Shabab this Islamist group which is causing great concern in Washington, it's said to have links to al-Qaeda and the great fear is that Somalia as a failed state might act as a springboard for further terrorist activity....so Somalia is one of these very difficult problems which Africa has had to grapple with. It's been in a state of almost non-stop civil war since the early 90s so it's not a problem which is going to be solved overnight..."

Not only are the real motives of expanding US hegemony not discussed, but when the focus is on Somalia the recent history of US destruction of stability in Somalia is censored, as it always is on NPR (see April 2007 and November 2007 for two glaring examples). You can't help but sense that to honestly discuss what Uncle Sam is up to in the world might just lead someone to connect the dots and conclude that...STOP! We are not an empire, we are not an empire, we are not, not, not, not....

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Bedeviled

Scott Horsley states the following this morning:

"President Obama complained to Time magazine recently that the press had...reduced the story to a conventional battle between government-run health care and the free market....Mr. Obama has tried to substitute his own conventional narrative: in this one the insurance industry is cast as the VILLAIN. (soundbite of Obama) 'The truth is we have a system today that works well for the insurance industry but it doesn't always work well for you.' That makes insurance companies a convenient if not altogether appropriate foil."

Consider Horsely's verbal sleight of hand. He equates a completely false distortion - characterizing the tepid Democratic health reform proposals as "government-run health care" in opposition to "the free market" - with a completely fact-based statement - "we have a system today that works well for the insurance industry but it doesn't work well for you [the public]." Yes, the system works well (insurance profits more than quadrupled from 2000 to 2007) but not for the public which pays more for less and suffers about 22,000 deaths a year from the insurance industry's commitment to not covering people. How could anyone cast them as the villain?

Having set up this falsehood, Horsely turns to health insurance industry vampire representative, Karen Ignani (no stranger at at NPR - see March 7, 2009 and June 13, 2009), so she can claim how wrong Obama's statement is because the mob her industry supports "reforms."

Horsely ends this report with a bit of moralizing against the Democrats, noting that "Brookings scholar Hess thinks it's unfortunate the Democrats have chosen to demonize health insurance companies." Demonizing the health insurance companies, now why would anyone do that?

* I'm not sure but I think the Bosch painting shows claims adjusters at work in the offices of Blue Cross or Aetna.

Free Pass for Right-Wingers

Linda Wertheimer hosted Senator Kyl for a stop-health-insurance-reform commercial this morning.

Here's Kyl repeating chief insurance lobbyist, AHIP's talking points (pdf. file):

"91% of people, according to a Rasmussen survey, say that they have insurance and 84% of them rate their insurance as excellent or good."

That 91% should have raised a flag with any decent interviewer. A simple calculator shows that with at least 47 million Americans without health insurance divided by a population of 307 million means that 15.3% are without. The highest possible number of insured would then be 84.7% - and with the jobless rate spiking that 47 million is probably closer to 50 million. Of course, if you are a Fox News Poll lover (pdf. file) then you would get the EXACT numbers that Kyl was spouting - what a surprise! The Rasmussen poll in question gives no number for the insured and does claim a rise to 80% of covered respondents rating their insurance good to excellent a rise from 70% back in May. I've yet to meet anyone who pays a lot for private health care say they are satisfied with it - so I'd be curious to see numbers teased out for those with generous employer provided coverage or Medicare.

It must be reassuring to be a radical free-marketeer, corporate blood-sucker, warmonger or miscreant going on NPR - knowing that you can say or make up anything and never have it questioned.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Superhumans and Subhumans on NPR

(more information about Shaloman)

Covering the anti-gay shootings and killings in Tel Aviv, NPR's hourly news bulletin this Sunday morning stated the following:

(Dave Pignanelli): "Officials say they believe it is the worst hate crime in in Israel in decades."
(Linda Gradstein): "The shooting has shocked many in Israel where hate crimes are almost unknown."

Worst hate crime in decades? Hate crimes almost unknown? Ignoring the bitter irony of "hate crimes almost unknown" in a state that has a general policy of state run hate crimes against non-citizens in territory it controls - can one find evidence of deadly attacks by individual Israelis against people based solely on race, religion, etc?

Here are a few I found in about 5 minutes of Googling on the Internets:

• May of 1990 a lone Israeli gunman killed 7 and wounded 10 Palestinian workers not far from Tel Aviv in Israel.
• November of 1992 a grenade attack on an Arab market in Jerusalem killed 1 and wounded 11. Palestinians.
• August 5, 2005 an Israelis gunman killed four Israeli Arabs and wounding 13 others on a bus in Israel.
• August 17, 2005 - though not in Israel proper, an Israeli citizen killed 3 and wounded 2 random Palestinians near a settlement in the West Bank.

These incidents are clearly recognizable as standard hate crimes, but if your news coverage is almost always pro-Israeli government/military, it's hard not to adopt the same (widespread and very much alive) racist ideology that fuels Israeli expansionism and militarism and degrades the humanity of Arabs to the point where they have simply been erased.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Another Scott Natural™

(re: NPR sponsor Scott Naturals™ and flushable wipes)

Scott Simon really oozed about Corazon Aquino this morning:

• "Cory Aquino often told interviewers that those years in exile were her happiest. When your husband is thrown into jail for what he believes, in a country ruled by a dictator's words and whims, it is hard to trust that your children can be safe."
• "'I am just one of the thousands and millions of victims of the Marcos dictatorship,' she told crowds."
• "She displeased both leftists who wanted more radical land reform, and rightists who didn't want to talk to leftist radicals."
• "Corazon Aquino didn't have the life she expected—and because of it, gave hopes to others that they could make better lives, too."

Notable is Simon's remark that "she displeased both leftists...and rightists." At NPR that is the mark of excellence in leaders and journalism: not courage, not facts, not truth, not a consistent set of moral or legal standards - but a perverse insistence that criticism from left and right validates any policy or action.

Sadly, Simon's tribute reduces Aquino to a one-dimensional heroic caricature, but her legacy was far more complex. Aquino clearly helped move the Philippines away from dictatorship - but she also tolerated gross human rights abuses and was close to many military leaders who helped overthrow Marcos - but were steeped in traditions of torture and repression.

The most glaring problem with Simon's praise is the complete lack of historical context (a typical feature of NPR reports). Simon fails to mention that the Marcos dictatorship and its "thousands and millions of victims" would not have been possible without staunch US support over many years.

Simon's omissions are quite relevant to current events both in the Philippines and here in the US. In the Philippines a surge in human rights abuses (and US involvement) has occurred since 2001 and continues up to the present under the Arroyo regime (including a US citizen who reported being recently tortured). As the Alfred McCoy link above and his book, A Question of Torture, indicate - there are obvious links between the CIA-assisted Marcos torture regime and the current US torture regime of slappings and beatings, "stress positions," sexual humiliation, waterboarding, sensory deprivation, etc. Perhaps most chilling are McCoy's conclusions that the intoxicating power of the torturers can lead them to attack the very governments they supposedly serve. As McCoy notes, the ability of the torture architects and practitioners to secure amnesty in the Philippines has allowed many of them to stay in power - and for their practices to resurface.