Some Families are More Equal Than Others

(click the photo for the 9/11 families that NPR omits)

If you've listened to NPR's coverage of the Obama/Holder decision to send just five 9/11 suspects to New York for civilian trials, you've probably heard something about the families of 9/11 victims.

Wednesday's (Nov. 18th) ATC featured this clip:

Senator Jon Kyl (R., Arizona): "How could you be more likely to get a conviction in federal court when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already asked to plead guilty before a military commission and be executed?"

Ari Shapiro: "In the audience, families of 9/11 victims applauded. Kyl's questioning became more pointed and for the first time in the hearing the perpetually cool attorney general seemed to get upset."

In case you missed the importance of the 9/11 families Dina Temple-Raston was hard at it the next morning.

Thursday's (Nov. 19th) ME:

Senator Jon Kyl (R., Arizona): "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already asked to plead guilty before a military commission and be executed. How could you be more likely to get a conviction in an Article 3 court than that?"

Temple-Raston: "Families of the 9/11 victims in the audience applauded quietly before they were shushed by the chairman."

Kind of leaves the impression that all the 9/11 families want are the extralegal military commissions and some sort of hurried executions.

As in its coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, NPR is careful to avoid families who break from the official US/Pentagon script. I guess that's why - during the coverage of the proposed New York trial venue for the five suspects - we'll never hear from 9/11 families who WANT trials that uphold due process and the rule of law.

Given the rest of NPR's coverage of this Holder/Obama decision, the exclusion of critical 9/11 families is no surprise. NPR - as a proudly mainstream news outlet - has failed to put the Holder/Obama decision in its proper context. As Glenn Greenwald has so cogently noted, the Obama/Holder decision is little more than the "show trial" feature of a multitiered, irregular system of justice featuring some civilian trials, irregular military commissions, and Orwellian indefinite detention.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

More from the Stupid Aisle

How would you complete the following sentence:

For nearly two years the US economy has been battered by a recession brought on by _________________.

I would guess most semi-informed people would mention the housing bubble and mortgage backed securities (unless you are so completely incompetent as to not know about the $8 trillion dollar housing bubble!). Somewhere in the discussion one would hope to hear about the sub-prime lending spree that hugely profited unscrupulous mortgage brokers and victimized many borrowers. Right?

Not if you're Liane Hansen chatting with Marilyn Geewax (get out the Q Tips!); according to Hansen the recession was brought on by "excessive borrowing - millions of people took on far too much mortgage debt or maxed out their credit cards." Yep, it was all those foolish Americans frivolously maxing out their credit cards and buying houses willy-nilly. At this point you hopefully gave NPR one of its well deserved Dial-away™ moments and switched to some other station, otherwise you were subjected to even more astute economic insights about Americans and their savings.

After Geewax explains that a study found that "about half of all Americans said they couldn't scrounge up $2000 even if they turned to their relatives for help," Hansen asks, "Why do so many people live on the financial edge?" A reasonable question. You might expect to hear something about depressed wages, exhorbitant health insurance fees, predatory lending, skyrocketing college expenses, union busting, etc. or as one of the commenters on the NPR site writes,

"This was a very poor presentation of the issue by NPR. Despite an introduction, followed by an interview, not a thing was said about American wages. They mention how generations ago, we had a greater savings rate, never mind that back then, families could live well on one income."

Geewax is not about to answer the question, but continues on with scolding the current generation of Americans,

"We've just sort of step by step, generation by generation, gotten more accustomed to this idea of easy credit...has lead to a kind of financial illiteracy, we don't read the fine print, we don't really think about compounding interest and so people kind of lost track of the financial risks..."

If all this weren't bad enough, Geewax and Hansen then turn the whole story into a condescending commercial for NPR. Geewax explains that to save up $2000, all a couple has to do is each "put $20 in a cookie jar every time they listen to Lianne Hansen on Sunday mornings, by the end of the year that couple would have $2000." Wow why didn't I think of that? Better yet, if everyone put a dollar in the cookie jar every time they heard something stupid on NPR news, we'd all be millionaires by years end!

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

I'm In the Stupid Aisle

Okay, Chana Joffe-Walt actually said, "I'm in the the soup aisle" as she spoke to her partner in inanity, David Kastenbaum on their Planet Money story on this Friday's ATC. NPR Check reader, Grumpy Demo, picks apart the Planet Monkeys latest effort in the Q Tips below and in the comments section of the NPR story:

I don't think NPR has ever packed more stupid into any single story, here's just a sample:

No. 1 There is no "Rule" that the same goods have to have the same price. This is not taught in ANY economics or business class. If you reporters weren't apparent economic illiterates and had attended at least one economics class you would have known that price is a function of supply and demand. In fact, this proves this imaginary NPR "Rule" is nonsense.

No. 2 The reporters compare prices of canned pasta and announce that a price of $1.00 is pretty close to a price of $1.09. NO IT'S NOT. There's a 9% difference in price, which is a significant difference (Would your reporters take 9% less in pay because its "pretty close"?) Less than a minute into the report, and the "Rule" doesn't work.

No.3 Most hospital are not businesses, they are non-profits, so contrary to your reporter's contention, their goal is to serve the public not achieve maximum profits.

No.4 Why does no one on Planet Money have the foggiest grasp of the concept in "inelastic demand"? Which proves that comparing health care to canned pasta is bogus.

No.5 Why does Planet (worship the)Money ALWAYS frame health economics terms of Right Wing Freeper world view? On Planet Money (and NPR) there is absolutely no moral component to health care. Which seems to explain your reporter being perplexed as to why an emergency room can't turn anyone away.

Please, please find someone at that understands basic math, I've given up on any hope of you finding someone that understands economics.

Doesn't NPR have editors?

Ouch...

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

A Safe Port for Wade Goodwyn's Determination

Wade Goodwyn is NPR's point man for covering Tuesday's ceremony at Fort Hood. On Tuesday's ATC, Goodwyn does some creative reporting. In answering Melissa Block's question about what struck him most about the ceremony, Goodwyn reflects on the emotions of the event, offers praise for the stock patriotic sentiments of President Obama's speech, and then states,

"And for the soldiers, I think, renewed determination. They got hit at home and that has made plenty of these men and women angry."

Block asks if he spoke to any of the soldiers attending the ceremony and Goodwyn responds,

"I mean, there used to be a sense that this was a safe port; that's gone now. People here have a feeling that something valuable was stolen from them, like coming home and finding a thief rifling through the house, who has taken some of your most precious possessions."

Finally, Block asks about the issue of the accused shooter's Muslim faith. Goodwyn notes,

"certainly this kind of thing does not help our Muslims in uniform. Who knows what Major Hasan allegedly was trying to achieve with this act, but whatever that might've been, it did the opposite. It seems to me this has just hardened the Army's determination to achieve the missions. The shooting only facilitated the Western character of Muslims as violent extremists...."

Two issues in Goodwyn's comments really stand out. The first is his trumpeting of determination and missions. He claims that the massacre at Fort Hood has produced "renewed determination" in the soldiers. Determination to do what? Continue with the six year old supreme international crime called the Iraq War? Continue waging war and occupation in yet another country that doesn't want our troops there? Goodwyn conveniently never explains what this vague "determination" is for, but he returns to it and amplifies it as "the Army's determination to achieve the missions." Missions? Missions to do what? Are we supposed to believe that our nation's permanent war syndrome actually has some kind of missions (besides enriching the war industry and rotting away whatever liberal democratic principles remain)? Goodwyn's absurd logic would be laughable if it weren't so perverse: after admitting that Hasan's motive is unknown, he then proceeds to conclude that "whatever that might have been, it did just the opposite."

The second issue is Goodwyn's ridiculous assertion that Fort Hood was "a safe port." What planet has Goodwyn been living on? Did he do ANY research about Fort Hood (in Killeen, TX) - which has experienced previous carnage and - like all of the US military - is not a safe port for women. It's not surprising that Goodwyn ignores rape and sexual assault in the US military, since NPR news has not covered it (though the subject was featured on one NPR's Day to Day show in 2007 and found its way to NPR's website via The Nation).

Pierre Tristam, a writer for the Daytona Beach News-Journal, notes that

"The reality is that what Hasan did is a more American act than anything else. Killeen, of all places, has a history of violence, the kind of violence that is more essentially American than Arab or Muslim, just as terrorism's ground zero in the United States, before the World Trade Center, was Oklahoma City."

Tristam's work is what journalists are supposed to do. In contrast Goodwyn (as he did three years ago) does just the opposite: parrots the empty patriotic cliches of the Pentagon and the President, while ignoring relevant history and the underlying issues that really threaten what's left of our democratic principles.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

(Be sure to notice the 2009 Weblog Awards link in the sidebar - any assists are appreciated!)

OMG! Only 45 Shopping Days Left

Monday meant that there were only 45 shopping days before Christmas, and NPR was in crass commercialism high gear.

If you were casually listening to Morning Edition, you might have thought NPR was reporting on its own newsreader stars - Montagne, Inskeep, Siegel, Norris, and Block -

"[They]...have names like Mr. Squiggles, Chunk, Pipsqueak....[and] are embedded with a computer chip so they can squeak, chirp and respond"

- and not the $10 MUST HAVE TOY of the season - computerized hamsters:

By the time All Things Considered [emphasis on Things] rolled around the cost level of the embedded commercials had gone up a notch.

Melissa Block spent more than 4 minutes with Omar Gallaga going over stuff like Motorola's Droid phone

[Gallaga]"...it's a very kind of masculine metal dense in your hand, kind of feel, not curvy like the iPhone. So, I think it's definitely a good alternative to the iPhone. If I were shopping for something outside of the iPhone universe...."

Dell's newest thin laptop

[Gallaga] "I got some cuddle time with it as I like to call it....It's very, very thin....there's some very interesting design things going on...It all sounds good so far. But the downside is that it starts at $1799."

And a new video game starring Mickey Mouse

[Block] "Disney is going to be a using a video game to help reinvent, re-imagine one of its most beloved characters. The game is called Epic Mickey. What can you tell us about it?"

Fortunately Americans now have some way cool stuff to spend those unemployment benefits on. Are we feeling stimulated yet?

I see the product placements continue this morning (Tuesday) with Inskeep hawking Call of Duty 2 (No, not Obama's supposed Afghanistan war plans!), the video game.

Q Tips

NPR related Precious Moments™ comments welcomed.

Election 2009 Trash Talk

If NPR's Repulican dominated discussions of the 2009 elections (e.g. Inskeep's Nov. 5 ME schmooze with Mike Murphy, Don Gonyea's afternoon friendly with Murphy, and Fox New/NPR "analyst" Liasson's lie fest with Frank Donatelli) have you scratching your head - it's nothing new. The 2006 national elections should have removed any doubts about NPR's rightwing tilt when it comes to electoral coverage; in 2006 NPR hammered away at the made-up claim that the clear repudiation of Republicans was actually a national call for bipartisanship.

I've posted below on Inkseep's pathetic interview with Murphy, and I was pleased to find a withering post at Daily Kos concerning Mara Liasson's hackery. Beyondleft writes,

"I didn't know it was possible to pack so many lies into a 5 minute radio report, but Mara Liasson surpassed my expectations."

Indeed! Besides flogging Liasson the dKos piece contains a link to Randy Lobasso's Philly2Philly.com wrap up on the elections. It's about the best summary I've read. After reading it you can't help notice the utter lack of NPR/corporate media coverage of the John Garamendi victory in the CA-10 House race where a progressive democrat won a seat formerly held by a rightwing democrat. Guess that kind of result just doesn't fit in the GOP landslide - warning to Democrats spin that NPR and other conventional press outlets are trying to sell.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Inskeep Works Hard for the Money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Bend It Like Beck - Ahem

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

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

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

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

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

and then comes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then she selectively edits her statement from the WAMU show,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

An Afghanistan Strategy That Works

"But the big fool said to push on." - (click photo for graphic source)

Is Sorya Sarhaddi Nelson really and truly in Afghanistan? I've heard her interviewed the last day or so regarding the fortunes of of the US debacle in Afghanistan - in light of the non-runoff runoff and the "victory" of Hamid Karzai - and I can't say I've learned anything from it.

Nelson was on ATC Monday talking to Michelle Norris and this exchange occurred:

Norris: "With Hamid Karzai now declared the official winner of the presidential election, to what degree does that now solve the political uncertainty in Afghanistan?"

Nelson: "Well, for the West it gives them - in particular, President Obama - a green light to move ahead in redefining and setting an Afghanistan strategy that works, in terms of international involvement here. But the question remains whether Afghans will accept this government as a legitimate one. I think much can be forgiven, including the fraud, in a very lengthy and disappointing election process if in fact the new Karzai administration delivers services and delivers security, which is what people here are really wanting."

Keep that little nugget in mind as you read Tony Karon's brutal assessment of Sen. Kerry's mission to Afghanistan where he rather publicly retied the strings to the wayward US puppet - and was hailed as some kind of diplomacy wizard by "the spoon fed media."

Or consider Nelson's open ended optimism ("a strategy that works, in terms of international involvement there" and "whether Afghans will accept this government as a legitimate one") as you read just the first two or three paragraphs of Tom Engelhardt's depressing assessment of where things stand in Afghanistan and how the US is likely to proceed there.

Or consider Gareth Porter's Halloween article in the Asia Times about the US-warlord ties.

Can anyone in her right mind still pretend that there is a US-led Afghanistan strategy that works, or that the Afghan people (whoever that vague constituency is) will come around to welcome the US-Karzai-NATO occupation?

Q Tips

As you may have noticed, I'm definitely scaling back on the frequency of posting. So keep the NPR news observations and comments rolling.

Definitely from the Monkey Planet

Juan "Toss" Ensalada (of the Ombot's blog fame) posted in the most recent Q Tip section the following note, pointing out once again another Dean Baker takedown of NPR economic monkey business:

The chimps over at Planet Monkey are still trying to type that masterpiece, or wash that cat in the sink, or whatever. I am not really sure.

Here is their little screed about GM taking the money and not being able to pay it back.

Here is Dean Baker's retort.

I have ceased being amazed at how much Planet Monkey can get wrong is such a short space, but then I remember, "They are not human beings!"

Ok, So It Took Eight Years

I think it must be a record for me: two positive notes about NPR news in one week. I was pleased - and frankly surprised - that NPR gave a prime slot of Thursday's ATC to an interview with Matthew Hoh, the Iraq war veteran and recent State Department official in Afghanistan who resigned his post as a protest of the US mission in Afghanistan.

I think this must have been a first for NPR, featuring someone who is not just quibbling with the "tactics" or "strategy" of a US war - but is questioning the whole project.

I realize that it is long, long overdue, but I'm also aware that NPR could have just ignored this story.

Definitely Not from the Monkey Planet

I thought I'd toss out a brief compliment to NPR News regarding their willingness to turn to Simon Johnson regarding financial policy under the Obama administration. Johnson, a former chief economist at the IMF is pretty bold about critiquing the way that the banking giants have been supersized by the Bush-Obama bailout program (his appearance on Bill Moyers Journal is worth the watch).

He was on ATC on October 9th - how often do you get to hear someone say this regarding the financial system that operates in the US:

"It's a very sophisticated sort of oligarchy that we've created..."

NPR again turned to him this week on ATC (October 28th) to weigh in on whether the mega-banks should be broken up. Again, refreshing comments such as,

"And the view that our banks are only good and forces for all kinds of progressive change is, I have to say, a little New York-biased. Most of the people in the rest of the world don't see it that way, and with good reason."

I just hope NPR doesn't Kevin Phillips him. You remember him don't you? He used to be a moderate Republican regular on NPR until he got too honest for them - pointing out the obvious sad truths of our dying republic (e.g. the Bushogarchy, the plutocracy we live in, American theocracy and Bad Money). The fate of Johnson on NPR will be interesting to watch.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

The Art of Enhanced Distraction

On Friday I was staying late at work and before leaving heard this promising start to a story on All Things Considered:

"This week, we've been reading a vivid narrative in the New York Times by the journalist David Rohde. He was held captive for seven months by the Taliban. He was moved frequently from house to house all over remote parts of Pakistan. And one detail in this story made us particularly curious."

Holy cow! I thought, NPR is going to allude to the three rather stunning observations contained in Rohde's articles which Glenn Greenwald so aptly wrote about a few days ago:

1. The actions of the US in killing countless civilians (especially Muslims) in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine have "galvanized the Taliban."
2. The US practice of holding detainees in abusive conditions "for years without being charged" has also has strengthened the Taliban.
3. How much more humanely Rohde was treated by his captors compared to the treatment meted out to similarly innocent captives at the hands of US military and intelligence agencies. As Rohde notes, his captives gave him bottled water, let him walk outside, and "never beat me."
   

In my head I was already composing the positive post I'd put up on this blog about NPR taking on this obvious - but still controversial - angle.

Alas, I couldn't have been more wrong. What was that "one detail" which made the collective "us" at NPR so curious?

"Rhode got a letter from his wife through the International Red Cross. How in the world did the Red Cross deliver him a letter when no one knew where he was? Well, the online magazine Slate found out for its "Explainer" column. Here's Andy Bowers with the answer."

Granted, the operations of the Red Cross in trying to contact hostages is pretty interesting - as The Guardian noted way back in 2004 (and MSNBC) and McClatchy detailed in 2008. And it's not a closed issue as this 2009 Newsweek article on ghost detainees reveals. Seems like those stories never gained much traction for the journalists at NPR news.

Interestingly, another Red Cross angle found its way into a Greenwald analysis today - Netanyahu's declaration that hiding prisoners from the Red Cross is a war crime (!?). Could there be two more polar opposite attitudes revealed by comparing Greenwald's work to NPR's? In one the focus is on the hypocrisy of those in power and the ways in which their deceit and misdeeds make the world more violent and dangerous for all of us. In the other, there is a perverse effort to focus on the most trivial and distracting details - even when such details are painfully ironic.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

News From the Cryosphere

(source of graphic)

You've probably heard the rather depressing poll numbers about US citizens and climate catastrophe awareness (NPR's AP website feed picked it up). Essentially folks in the US have grown even more ignorant about climate science over the past two years. Perhaps some of them have been listening a bit too much to NPR:

• (March 2007) - Richard Harris and Renee Montagne quibble with minor inaccuracies in Al Gore's generally cogent arguments.
• (Dec. 2007) - Harris and Siegel deride Gore for calling the Bushists obstructionists in climate talks.
• (April 2008) - David Kastenbaum lauds the work of 16 year old non-scientist who claims climate change is not caused by humans.
• (March 2009) - Montagne and Harris reassure listeners that the Antartic Ice won't be gone for at least 1,000 years.
• (April 2009) - NPR covered the little details of the Catlin expedition but (oops!) forgot to report the expeditions findings (the north pole ice is going bye-bye).

I was struck by the Democracy Now! report this morning on the 350.org world-wide protests - and by the non-coverage of the event on NPR. (Even US soldiers in Afghanistan got into the act!). Perhaps I'm jumping to judgment; maybe NPR is waiting until the actual day of the event (Saturday) to cover it - like they did for the Equality March - not! or like they did for the Tea-Party rally (where they only gave it a whole week of glowing lead-up coverage) before the big celebration.

[for information on the cryosphere - check out this resource]

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

This Is What a Double Standard Looks Like

If you've forgotten the great Iranian bogey man of 2007, who could blame you? At the time NPR was acting as a Pentagon-to-radio live feed of completely unsubstantiated claims that Iran was behind every attack on US forces in Iraq (e.g. Feb 2007, April 2007, early May 2007, late May 2007, June 2007, and Dec. 2007). There was never any concern for evidence, no matter how ludicrous the Pentagon's claims were - NPR just dutifully repeated the accusations.

So now Iran has had several dozen people (including high ranking Revolutionary Guard leadership) killed in a suicide bombing carried out by the Baluchistan-Pakistan based group Jundallah and is claiming that the US was involved - and not just Iran is making such claims. On Tuesday's ATC, Melissa Block interviews RAND expert (uh-oh), Christine Fair, looking for answers. Block notes,

"There have been charges in the press and statements made by Pakistani officials that the US is somehow tied to Jundallah - supporting them, in some cases with money, with arms, in other cases what's described as arms-length support. What are those allegations based on and is there any truth to these charges?"

Not a bad question. And here's Fair's answer:

"Well, I have no ability to assess whether or not there's truth to these charges....the Americans, we have a presence in Baluchistan...[on] the Pakistani side...Baluchistan houses the military bases where we launch Predator attacks, so this is where the suspicion enters."

That's kind of funny, because actually suspicions enter due to some pretty weighty indications that it's true - Asia Times, the UK's Telegraph, the New Yorker, and ABC News. But Fair is not done, she continues,

"The allegation is that the Americans would like to poke at Iran in the way in which it has poked at us in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan...there is an ability and there is certainly a motive. Whether or not there's evidence is another story."

Notice how cleverly the "allegation" about the Americans is now based on the FACT that Iran..."has poked at us in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan..." I must say it's a strange use of the word "poke" - be careful if Christine tries to friend you on Facebook!

Melissa Block, of course, makes no challenge to the allegation that Iran has done similar things to the US. Instead she simply recoils from the very idea that the blameless US could EVER do such things,

"That's quite a hot allegation - the idea that the US would have ties to an extremist group based in Pakistan, that has close ties to al-Qaeda."

Fair uses this naivete to rehash an equally "hot allegation" about Iran being a sanctuary for al-Qaeda (where have I heard this scenario before?), "I think that's a strong argument for why we wouldn't be doing it...Iran has been accused of harboring al-Qaeda leadership so it had the strong incentive to characterize these as al-Qaeda."

Barbara Bradley Hagerty - God Help Us

(Update I & II below)
I received a heads up on Facebook regarding Monday morning's piece by Barbara Bradley Hagerty about THE HUGE SCHISM that has atheists ripping each other apart (not). The tip mentioned that Hagerty has been the recipient of a fellowship from the Templeton Foundation (a subject of controversy for being a conservative front organization with a religious devotion to the "free" market and openness to intelligent designers - see Wikipedia). On Hagerty's web site her bio states,

"She was one of 10 journalists selected for a Templeton-Cambridge fellowship in science and religion in 2005, where she and her colleagues spent weeks questioning world-class scientists and theologians at Cambridge University."

The first thing I did was see if Hagerty's "work" had appeared on the NPR Check radar. Well, what do you know, she garnered NPR Check honors twice :

(In May of 2007) Hagerty gave a sympathetic report about the creation museum...seriously. Here is some of what Hagerty noted back then:

• "...the vast majority of scientists say dinosaurs predated man by 65 million years."
• "this is as much a Bible museum as an attempt at science. The museum tries to use scientific evidence to show that Genesis is true"
• "the creation museum argues that everyone works from the same material...they only differ in interpretation, but this interpretation is nothing if not controversial....one of the museum's founders says it's more than educational..."

(In February of 2009) A even more dishonest piece of Hagerty's journalism was on display as she put a positive spin on the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival and its organizer, Doug Phillips. Hagerty completely ignored the Christian dominionist Vision Forum that backed the festival.

No surprise then that Hagerty is back this morning trying to stoke anti-atheism by focusing on the most radical actions of atheists (e.g. desecrating communion wafers) and simply conflating it with the more uncompromising positions of popular atheist authors Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

The thing that really ticked me off, as an atheist, is that I think there is interesting material for discussion and debate about the more dogmatic approaches of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens versus a more accommodationist approach. But Hagerty's piece does little justice to this terrain - and her sneering contempt for atheists that runs throughout her feature becomes especially evident when expected interviews fall through at the Center for Inquiry Office in Washington, D.C., and she says

"Now, he could speak his mind, since he's a volunteer. But interviews with others associated with the Washington office were canceled shortly before we arrived — curious for a group that promotes free speech."

Maybe the folks there did a little background check on Hagerty and decided to avoid the hatchet job that her past sympathies indicated was in the works.

Update I: This post by P.Z. Meyers - whom Hagerty interviewed in the story - describes the distortions and dishonesty of the piece. Looks like the folks at the Center for Inquiry were right!

Update II: If unethical journalism was a crime, Ms. Hagerty would have quite a rap sheet:

• March 2004 - Atrios on Hagerty's ties to the "unapologetic Christian point of view" World Journalism Institute.
• May 2004 - Better Angels points out Hagerty's long list of documented mideeds and ties to rightwing Christian organizations.
• May 2004 - About.com's Austin Cline outs Ms. Hagerty's lousy, dishonest reporting.
• May 2005 - Media Matters takes the witness stand.

Q Tips

NPR related comments are welcomed.

The Economy Just Happened

It kills me how clueless the supposed brightest lights in our nation often are. Yesterday on Morning Edition, Inskeep interviewed Gail Collins about a book (When Everything Changed) she wrote looking at the transformation of American women since 1960. I heard this little exchange and scratched my head.

Inskeep: "I feel like reading this, that you do get a sense of women not necessarily grasping an opportunity, but assuming an economic obligation."

Collins gets around to explaining this as follows:

"Before World War II, we lived very simple lives....then the war changed, the post-war economy came in. Everything boomed and suddenly on one person's salary, because of the GI bill and the loans, the home loans, you were able to have a house, to have a car, to have a TV, to expect to send your kids to college....And they got it on one person's salary often in those early years.

But then the '70s came and the economy just no longer could support families like this on one person's salary. But that was really the point at which people realized that if you wanted to have a middle-class lifestyle, you needed to have two people working. And it - now I believe women grow up with the same expectations men do for the most part, that it's their job."

You know, this kind of aggressive-passive assertion just drives me nuts. Where was the interviewer saying, "Yes, that postwar boom was POLICY driven." During and right after WWII national loan, tax, and education policies pushed the income gap a bit closer and helped create a larger middle class."

It wasn't that the economy just magically stopped supporting single income families in the 1970's. It was that the 70s marked the beginning of a new policy of directing the nation's wealth up. This policy really gained steam under Reagan, of course, and has only accelerated of late. It's pretty sad - that as we are living through a virtual financial coup d'etat by the wealthy and further economic depression of the middle and lower classes in this country, all we get from NPR is such vacuous, sloppy analysis.

It's Just Rhetoric (to Dittoheads)

On Wednesday morning NPR weighed-in (sub-mini flyweight) on the nation's favorite hate-monger Rush Limbaugh and his bid to buy an NFL team.

Montagne asks Tom Goldman to "remind us what caused that fire storm in the first place?" to which Goldman responds,

"Well, Limbaugh is well-known for making statements that could be called racially polarizing. A few years ago, he lost his job as an ESPN pro football broadcaster when he said Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb, who is African-American, was overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback do well. And then in 2007, Limbaugh said the NFL often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons."

Toward the end of the program Montagne says to Goldman, "And Rush Limbaugh himself, now he loves a good controversy. Is he loving this particular one?"

Here's Goldman's answer:

"I don't know if he's loving it, but he is speaking out. He blasted his critics yesterday. He accused them of a full-fledged smear campaign. And on his radio show, Limbaugh said he's trying to get apologies and retractions, with a threat of lawsuits, from journalists who have repeated incendiary quotes attributed to him, quotes where he allegedly said James Earl Ray, the man sentenced to prison for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination, deserves a posthumous medal of honor. And another one, that slavery had its merits because the streets were safer after dark.

Limbaugh said yesterday he never said that stuff...."

That's how facts are established at NPR. Somebody said one thing, someone else denied it - oh well, the rhetoric sure is heating up! And notice how the story ends with Limbaugh's allegations and his challenge against unsubstantiated comments. Does anyone at NPR EVER do a little basic research? There's no "could be called racially polarizing" aspect to the documented racist garbage that Limbaugh airs. Media Matters does the obvious task of finding and annotating many of Limbaugh's low-lights (h/t to Crooks & Liars).

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Experts Estimate - or Making Stuff Up Again

Readers noted the Monday Morning Edition report that blames rising health costs on patients who demand too many pills and procedures.

Alix Spiegel runs this unique story and makes this claim:

"Experts estimate that anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of the health care costs are driven by patients in this way."

Has anyone seen any such research? I couldn't find any matching reports or studies. If it exists, I'd love to know who funded it and who published it? If anyone can find it, please post in the comments.

Q Tips

(Parting seas of misinformation since...Independence Day, 2008)

NPR related comments welcomed.

Are We Going to Win This War on Terrorism or Not?

(source of graphic)

Reader Benoit Balz points out, in the Q Tips below, the Pentagon friendly propaganda put out on Sunday morning by that Tea Party-animal himself, Jeff Brady. Brady is covering the recent deaths of 8 soldiers in Afghanistan and its impact at Ft. Carson in Colorado. He reports:

"A few days earlier at a press conference, Major Daniel Chandler said the affected unit over in Afghanistan is keeping its spirits up. He said surviving soldiers know their dead colleagues helped to win that particular battle. [Chandler] 'There were a lot of heroes on that day and they're really rallying around themselves and morale in the 4th brigade combat team is high and it's getting stronger.'"

Later in the story Brady talks to a college student whose father was in the army. Brady tells us, "She chose to focus on the sacrifice the soldiers made. [Student] 'I'm more thankful than anything...I'm thankful that somebody at least went over there and did it.'

Brady raps things up by talking to a priest in the area - the rightwing Father Carmody - who tells Brady, "People around here want to make sure that they didn't die in vain, and what I mean by that is, 'Are we going to win this war on terrorism or not?'"

I realize that it must be difficult for any news organization to cover the issue of US military personnel killed in combat. There is the tragedy of young people being violently killed and there are considerations to make for the feelings of the families and friends of those who have died. But could NPR ever - even just once - not use the trite and empty rhetoric of heroics, sacrifice and gratitude to talk about the war dead? Has NPR ever interviewed surviving family members who denounce the leaders and policies that have squandered the lives of their loved ones? When was the last time you ever heard members of Gold Star Families for Peace or Gold Star Families Speak Out interviewed on NPR? Have you ever heard on NPR from men or women who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan and then have become resisters of conscience?

It is worth reading the comments under the story at the NPR site. This one really nails it:

"WE SHOULD NEVER 'QUIETLY MORN' THE SNUFFED OUT LIVES OF EIGHT YOUNG AMERICAN SONS, BROTHERS, FATHERS - WE SHOULD SHOUT OUT OUR RAGE AND FRUSTRATION WITH A WAR WE CAN'T WIN AND A PAST PRESIDENT WE CAN'T INDICT - GET OUT NOW"

Unfortunately, hoping for such an angle from Jeff Brady (or NPR) is pretty hopeless; when covering an antiwar protest of over a thousand people, he gave all the coverage to a tiny contingent of pro-war counter demonstrators.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Creative Assassinations - For NPR's Shapiro It's Elementary

Consider these two screen shots from NPR's website:

From a story on Thursday's Morning Edition:

and from Thursday's All Things Considered

Any grade schooler with a rudimentary understanding of the innocent until proven guilty concept could figure out what is wrong with the titles of these web articles: both refer to TERRORISTS, when what is at issue are detainees of the US government suspected of involvement in terrorism (or guerrilla warfare) who have NEVER faced any semblance of legitimate due process that would justify calling them "terrorists." In fact, someone with just a bit more knowledge of recent US detention policies would suspect that most detainees in the US "war on terror" are probably innocent.

Unfortunately, instead of a grade schooler, NPR's two pieces on US rogue detention are led by "a magna cum laude graduate of Yale," Ari Shapiro. During the Morning Edition piece Shapiro claims that "[d]uring one incident late in the Bush administration, OFFICIALS SAY, a terrorist from Somalia was brought to Afghanistan...." Setting up listeners for his ATC follow-up, Shapiro states, "...the Bush administration used Guantanamo, the United States and Bagram to hold detainees. Because all of those possibilities are problematic, the Obama administration is now thinking more creatively about this issue....and we'll explore those possibilities tonight on All Things Considered.

NPR certainly does explore certain possibilities. Ari's Morning Edition story seems positively innocuous compared to his All Things Considered feature which Melissa Block introduces with the observation that "government lawyers are exploring more creative options." In the piece Shapiro completely embraces the terrorist-until-proven-innocent meme:

• "...virtually everyone interviewed for this story agreed: the United States would rather not be in the terrorist detention business."
  
• "President Obama has said that he will continue - rendition...would continue sending terrorists to foreign countries."
• "...says the Obama State Department is playing a major role in finding places to put terrorists..."

and makes his report an apologia for (US government approved) assassinations/extrajudicial executions:

"So if the US picks up twenty al-Qaeda members tomorrow and they cannot be held...where can they go? [Ken Anderson voiceover] 'To be perfectly blunt, I don't think they'll pick them up at all.' Ken Anderson of the Hoover Institution has written about these issues. [Anderson] 'I think we've actually allowed the courts to arrange the incentives to kill rather than capture.' Many national security experts interviewed for this story agree. It has become so difficult for the US to detain people that in many instances the US government is killing them instead."

It floored me to transcribe reread this. Shapiro and Anderson are blaming the courts (!) because some have actually upheld the law. Well, given those harsh restrictions, when the US suspects people of involvement in terrorism outside the US, what "creative" options does it have - except to kill them. Though appalling, it's not surprising that these NPR stories have such a mafia ethic; consider the sources that Shapiro assembled for his ATC work:

1. "Columbia law professor Matthew Waxman handled detainee affairs at the Pentagon UNDER PRESIDENT BUSH."
2. "CIA SPOKESMAN Paul Gimigliano"
3. "Cardozo law professor Vijay Padmanabhan was an attorney adviser at the State Department IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION."
4. "John Bellinger, who was legal adviser to State UNDER PRESIDENT BUSH."
5. "Ken Anderson of the Hoover Institution"
6. "University of Michigan law professor Monica Hakimi worked at the State Department IN THE LAST ADMINISTRATION."

Now that is some creative journalism.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Surging Inhumanity

Know what I learned from Guy Raz on Saturday? The Surge™ worked! Ignore the role of ethnic cleansing, and forget about there still being 4+ million refugees and internally displaced persons (and no major improvements in sight), a death squad and human rights abusing regime in place - because, according to Guy Raz, "before the surge in Iraq, we kept hearing that there were no good options for Iraq. This is a choice between bad and worse. But the surge seemed to have worked out."

Well, how about that. Everybody thought the outcome could only be bad or worse - but the miraculous Surge™ turned out to be GRRREEEAAAT! It's not really surprising since NPR has been hawking the Surge™ , and Raz was talking to one of NPR's favorite Bushista military men, Jack Keane. Raz does seem to be feeling the love keanely when he not only compliments him on the Surge™ but also on his strategic genius:

"Jack Keane, the counterinsurgency plan you wrote for Iraq worked at the time. You were instrumental in getting David Petraeus installed as the ground commander there. Do you think that kind of plan could work in Afghanistan?" (kiss, kiss)

Hmmm, somebody must be thinking about a 2012 Petraeus-Keane dream team...with you know who for White House Press Secretary...

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Honest Debate - NPR Style

Last Saturday Scott Sermon made this claim about the US war in Afghanistan:

"There is honest debate now about whether the United States should commit more troops to Afghanistan, or withdraw them."

I'm not sure where Simon was hearing "an honest debate" - definitely not on NPR. A case in point was this Friday's ATC which featured a report from Don Gonyea on Obama's coming decision about troop levels in Afghanistan. Following the Thursday feature on Iran (see below) where NPR opted for a thoroughly discredited former UN inspector over one whom history has vindicated - NPR turns to the same playbook, aiming as low as possible in seeking an "expert" to weigh in on whether President Obama will, as Robert Siegel says, "approve a huge troop buildup there."

Most of the piece features über-Neocon Eliot Cohen attacking the possibility that Obama might not follow the advice of General McChrystal to send 40,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan. The most unbelievable statement from Cohen was the following:

"If people come away from this thinking, well, the reason why he cut down the request from 40,000 to 25,000 is to make this more palatable for Nancy Pelosi, he has just created another set of problems for himself. And what's worse, he's created problems for our soldiers in the field."

Gonyea doesn't question or challenge this slur from a man who, in an homage to aggression, wrote in the WSJ in November of 2001, "the U.S. should continue to target regimes that sponsor terrorism. Iraq is the obvious candidate, having not only helped al Qaeda...." In April of 2002, Cohen also signed on to this kind of rubbish that contributed to the death of over 1,000,000 Iraqis and 4000 US soldiers:

Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel. Iraq has harbored terrorists...and it maintains links to the Al Qaeda network.

It is truly mind-blowing how NPR and the corporate media operates. No matter how dishonest, inaccurate, corrupt and servile history has proven certain characters to be - there is not only no accountability for previous behavior, but these figures are featured again and again as objective and disinterested experts. All Gonyea felt necessary to tell us about Cohen was this innocuous introduction: "Eliot Cohen is a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies in Washington." How charming...

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

A real Déjà Vu

Once again NPR faced a tough choice after the talks between Iran and the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China resulted in Iran's agreement to open inspections of its new nuclear facility at Qum. Who should NPR turn to for expert opinion about the reliability of inspections and whether such inspections will head off hostilities between the US and Iran? NPR could look back to the run-up to the Iraq War and ask if there were any inspectors who got it right in spite of the US decision to attack Iraq regardless of what inspectors found.

Actually there was one former UN inspector who got it EXACTLY right before the Iraq war and campaigned tirelessly to stop the horrors of the Iraq war before it began. That person - Scott Ritter would be a logical person to have on a news show to talk about the Iran agreement.

-OR-

You could go with a former UN inspector, David Kay who was thumping his chest for "regime change" back in December of 2002 . Best thing is that this "expert" has lots of ties to the mililitary/intelligence/industrial complex.

God, what a tough decision. Who to choose? If only you could pop into old Déjà Vu machine and match the two inspectors in a head to head debate about inspections and war. Well, dang, what do you know? You can! Turns out that Scott Ritter and David Kay appeared with Margaret Warner on PBS in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. I know that was like two hundred years ago, but here's what each had to say:

• David Kay: "I think the age of inspection is over....as long as Saddam is in power, I think it would be foolish of anyone to believe that you could carry out effective inspections in Iraq. Now inspections are over. The Iraqis had their chance to cooperate; now is the time for another strategy."
• Scott Ritter: "The bottom line is inspection worked. That's the fact. No matter what Dick Cheney says in terms of rewriting history, inspections worked and if given a chance could work again."

So of course NPR goes with...David Kay! And Kay doesn't have to work at all to get the sabers rattling against Iran. Robert Siegel leads off with this amazing bit of pure hearsay,

"Based on the Iranians' record of not disclosing this plant near the city of Qum until it was evident that the U.S. and other countries were aware of it, can Iranian declarations about the nuclear program be accepted or be trusted?"

To this bit of unsubstantiated, unsourced propaganda, David Kay gets all nostalgic for his glory years of 1991-2002 and says,

"Well, this takes me back to a real déjà vu. I remember in 1991 explaining to very senior Iraqi authorities that if they continued deception and lying and letting us discover stuff before they declared it, eventually we would not believe them even if they started telling the truth. I think the Iranians are on the cusp of that point where even if they are fully cooperative in this inspection that is now going to be taking place at this facility, no one will be terribly satisfied about it."

Yeah, when a government lies and manipulates facts again and again, and shows that it is willing to launch wars of aggression, there just comes a point where you can't trust anything it says - takes me back to a real déjà vu, too.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

The All Clear Has Sounded

Yesterday, I heard for the first time on NPR about how the public option has "widespread public support." Here's Melissa Block on Tuesday's ATC:

"Senators on the finance committee defeated attempts to add the government run option to health care legislation - that's despite the fact that it has widespread public support beyond Capitol Hill."

Talk about too little, too late. All summer while rabies was sweeping townhalls and tea parties, NPR never mentioned "widespread public support." I guess once the Insurocrats have passed their pharma/insurance industry overhall and Pres. Obama has signed it, NPR will also mention that other thingy that has wide public support...uh...what do you call that...oh, yeah, single payer.

Teachers in the Crosshairs

(source of photo)

NPR Check reader "Gope" noted in the open thread of Sept. 25th that NPR is launching a yearlong series on education. As Gope states "Horrors, a teacher quality series is launched.

'over the next year NPR will explore [efforts to improve teacher quality.] We'll take a look at the latest crop of teachers entering the profession. NPR's education correspondents, Claudio Sanchez and Larry Abramson are in the studio.'

Gope notes that Sanchez has favorably reported on the disaster that was "educational entrepreneurs" in Chicago, pointing out that NPR hasn't exactly covered the latest stall of the Chicago experiment.

Gope highlights this sloppy hearsay of Sanchez regarding teacher colleges when he tells Hansen, "There are roughly something like 1300 colleges, and I've had people tell me that only 50 are doing a good job." Ohhh, some people have told him - then it must be true!

I have to say that I'm doubtful that anything original or progressive will come of NPR's series. Sanchez has also shown a fondness for the conservative education star, Michelle Rhee, while Abramson delivered a shameless promotion of a Louisiana junk-science education initiative.

My biggest complaint with NPR and its education coverage is how in spite of the dominant influence of socioeconomic status on student achievement, NPR insists on focusing on the far smaller influence of teachers. In the introduction to the series Hansen states,

"Everyone from President Obama on down seems to agree that a good teacher can make a huge difference in a child's life. American schools have been trying for decades to improve teacher quality. The results are mixed. Over the next year, NPR will explore those efforts and we'll take a look at the latest crop of teachers entering the profession."

You have to love how in a month when census reports indicate that income disparity in the US is growing (hitting those at the bottom very hard), NPR takes a fine sentiment about how teachers can make a difference in a child's life (obviously) and turns it into a tool for placing the responsibility for student achievement at the feet of the teachers - instead of the institutions that continue to siphon the nation's wealth into the hands of the richest 1% of the population.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.