Please Post

I'll be out of computer land for about a week. If you hear any really strikingly bad NPR reports please mention the show (and date and time) in the comments section.

Thanks

Cuba Libre?

NPR gives an uninformative spot on US "plans" for a post-Castro Cuba. First let me say that I have no fondness for the Castro dictatorship and would recommend readers to look at Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International for information on Cuba. However, to give space to US State Department hypocrisy on Cuba is really inexcusable without examining the ugly record of the US-led assault on human rights in other Spanish-speaking countries over the last 50 years (Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Argentina, Chile, etc.). Lastly, NPR should report on the history of US policy toward Cuba and anti-Castro terrorists which would reveal the hypocrisy and doublespeak of the US policy both in the "war on terror" and toward Cuba specifically.

More Pentagon Reporting

NPR's morning edition "covers" the US military Iraq scandals/atrocities that are receiving attention lately. Steve Inskeep interviews NPR's Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman. After discussing the rape/murder investigation and the Haditha Massacre investigation, Inskeep asks Bowman "why all this is coming to light now." Bowman answers this by saying, "What we do know is that Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli who runs the day to day operations in Iraq is very concerned about the deaths of innocent Iraqis; he’s very concerned about fighting this in a classic counter-insurgency way which is to gain the trust of the Iraqi population, get information on the bad guys, and that’s how you end an insurgency. You don’t end an insurgency by using heavy handed tactics: kicking doors in, shooting indiscriminately and using bombs, so Chiarelli I would say again is--he understands how to fight the insurgency and is much more adept than some of his predecessors." This is simply mind-boggling for its complete lack of evidence or truthfulness. What proof is there that Chiarelli cares one iota about Iraqi deaths? What is the "classic counter-insurgency?" Is it what Chiarelli learned at Fort Benning when he was being trained there January to July of 1978 (Ft. Benning being the home of the Latin America torture/massacre counter-insurgency training center, the "School of the Americas." The bad guys? Just who are the "bad guys"--our troops occupying the country illegally, the interior ministry police torture/death squads we helped train, the militias, the foreign jihadis, the nationalist insurgents? Then to finish the piece with the refrain of "he understands how to fight the insurgency." This isn't reporting; it's nothing but Pentagon propaganda. If you want Dept. of Defense information on Chiarelli you can look at the Multi National Corp - Iraq website.

Nightmare Begins Responsibility

Apologies to Michael Harper for the title. Tonight NPR's Jamie Tarabay reports on the unfolding horrors of sectarian violence in Iraq. This is good, but now reporters need to raise the realities of Iraq with the fanstasies and lies of the Bushists. They could also remind listeners of the vicious "Salvador" option that the US implemented (see my earlier post). They also might want to interview people like Juan Cole or Robert Fisk who have been warning for YEARS about how US policy in Iraq has been driving the country to the brink of sectarian disaster. Otherwise the story of the horrors will play into the cynical Republican designs of blaming the disaster on the Iraqis instead of on themselves and those (such as the many Democrats) who voted for this war and continue to vote for its funding.

Mexico (Ohio - Florida)

NPR is not alone in providing frustrating coverage of the Mexican election. Tonight's coverage with Debbie Elliott and Lourdes Garcia-Navarro doesn't really do justice to the context of this election. Garcia-Navarro tells us that Obrador has "always used the power of the people to reinforce his political point" and "has always painted himself as a victim of the political machinations of the right and his followers really do respond to that." The report mentions that international observers did not cite any evidence of vote fraud. I think the report would have been strengthened by citing the history of the 1988 stolen presidential election and by interviewing Greg Palast about the discrepancy of exit polling and the Bush actions during the campaign and election. Of course to do this might stir up the history of our own deplorable presidential "elections" of 2000 and 2004.

Oink!

A pretty good report by Adam Hochberg on the Smithfield Foods Pork processing plant in Tar Heel, N.C. The report mentions that the courts and the National Labor Relations Board did find that Smithfield used unfair practices during the unionizing efforts by the United Food and Commercial Workers union in 1992 and 1997. However the article downplays the problems at the plant and the grievous nature of the offenses committed by he company. The piece on NPR also doesn't put the actions at Smithfield in the larger context of the awful conditions in the meat industry--so bad they have drawn the attention of Human Rights Watch as in this report. Given that even the worker that the company put forth to praise her job at Smithfield had to concede that injuries are a fact of life at the plant, I wanted to know what medical benefits and compensation are available to injured workers. For readers wanting to learn more about the Smithfield case take a look at a few of these links: the Washington Post, and the UCFW.

Valiant Shield

NPR produced a piece on the build-up of US military might in the Pacific that might as well have come from the Pentagon. The piece--highlighting a massive US war game, "Operation Valiant Shield"-- is completely uncritical; we hear about the growing dangers of China (from Rumsfeld!), North Korea, and "terrorist" threats in the Philippines, Indonesia, and the Malacca Straits. The thrust of the story is that the US must project its military might as a counterweight to China and that the US military buildup and presence there makes us (and the world) safe. Significant is any lack of information on the cost of such a buildup, the effect it might have on human rights in places like the Philippines, or the possibility that it may actually increase the arms race in the area. Is it really impossible for NPR to find a scholar who questions the assumption that the US has the right to dominate every corner of the globe? Is it so hard to find someone who can counter the premises for militarism given by the Pentagon? Is NPR unable to find even one "expert" citizen from one of the countries of the Asia/Pacific area who might critique the military (dare one say imperial) ambitions of the US in this region--or even some US critics? In reality even the most cursory bit of research would have turned up some possibilities such as the signatories at the bottom of the Statement of the Asia-Pacific People's Forum on Sustainable Development (Nov. 25-26, 2001 in Phnom Penh) or some folks from the American Friends Service Committee.

Worse Than Worthless on AIPAC

A few complaints about Steve Inskeep's talk with Dennis Ross on AIPAC. During the interview Inskeep asks, "Why do you think it is that large swaths of the world look at US policy toward Israel and say the US is just overly devoted to Israel, has overlooked so many things that in the point of view of many Arabs are terrible things that Israelis have done and that this is a huge liability for the United States." This is inexcusably sloppy and distorted. Notice how Inskeep inserts the qualifying statement "in the point of view of many Arabs" to imply 1) that there is no objective standard by which to judge US-backed Israeli actions over the years, and that 2) only Arabs have any objections to Israeli actions. Inskeep is wrong on both points. Israeli actions since 1967 have ruthlessly and flagrantly defied international law (see Wikipedia's entry on this, or browse the resources on the Foundation for Middle East Peace website). As for his second point Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and BT'selem from Israel hardly qualify as an Arab point of view! Instead of the unsupported statement of "terrible things that Israelis have done," Inskeep/NPR could have done a few minutes of research and simply mentioned a few of the documented acts that the vast majority of the world finds so objectionable.

A few last notes about this interview. Though this piece is presented as a rebuttal to the Walt/Mearsheimer interview yesterday (see post below), NPR fails to noted that though Walt/Mearsheimer are scholars with no connection to AIPAC or any pro-Palestinian lobby, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy that Ross is with has close ties to AIPAC! I also found it fascinating that though Ross is supposed to dismiss the idea that AIPAC has undue influence on US foreign policy regarding the Middle East he does say that "its weight is mostly felt on the congress" where it has "considerable influence," including the election of members and is a "significant force on the hill." He also makes a slip of the tongue that is quite telling: when asked if he ever met with AIPAC while working for Bush I and Clinton he says yes, but "with American groups as well" (critics of AIPAC have frequently requested that it be registered as an agent of a foreign government).

Antisocial Personality Disorder

All Things Considered presented information on antisocial personality disorder in relation to the ex-soldier being charged with rape and murder committed while serving in Iraq. Here are the characteristics of such a person as given in the report:

• "is extraordinarily manipulative and willing to expoit others and has no sense of guilt"

• "to their advantage to be deceitful, and not conform to laws, and to exploit other people"

• "don’t seem to care about other people"

• "they don’t feel guilty about the kind of transgressions somebody would ordinarily feel guilty about"

• "they tend not to follow conventional societal rules"

• "most people with the condition are very good liars"

The disturbing ironies of this description were too much for me to overlook...and this man is from Midland, Texas too.

Mearsheimer and Walt

This morning NPR interviews professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt whose paper on the Israel Lobby created a firestorm of criticism. If you are interested in this issue you should definitely look at this critique by Michael Massing from the New York Review of Books which does an excellent job of surveying the reactions to the Mearsheimer/Walt piece and of critiquing the paper in a scholarly fashion (You may be surprised by Massing's conclusions!) This interview by NPR is pretty thin on substance which is why I recommend the Massing article.

A few further notes of interest in this interview. Inskeep says, "Gentlemen can we get to the underlying issue beneath all of this debate: is it in the US national interest to provide support to Israel?" (I thought Inskeep was going to say that the underlying issue is the charge of anti-Semitism cast on the authors--or, for that matter, anyone who criticizes Israeli expansionist/repressive policies.) Walt answers the given question by stating his belief that support for Israel's existence and defense is a crucial US interest and one that he and Mearsheimer support, but "...it's a separate question whether the United States should be providing unconditional backing for Israel and all of Israel's policies, most notably the continued occupation and control over the Palestinians and the refusal to negociate a long term peace settlement with the Palestinians." To this Inskeep cuts in to say, "I should mention, Steven Walt, just to note that Israeli spokesmen would dispute almost every phrase of what you just described..." and when Walt tries to respond Inskeep cuts him off by asking, "John Mearsheimer, what do you think?" This filling in as a hypothetical spokesperson for an antagonistic viewpoint is an interesting role for Inskeep to take, given that Israeli spokespeople frequently get unchallenged airtime on NPR. What do you think?

The Italian Job

This morning NPR's Steve Inskeep covers the story of the CIA 's kidnapping and rendition of Mostafa Hassan Nasr Osama (Abu Omar) from the streets of Milan on February 17, 2003. (See these older pieces for basic information: Newsweek or the Washington Post. ) This suspected terrorist was living in Milan, Italy at the time and was under close surveillance by Italian intelligence (NPR's Sylvia Poggioli provided good factual information on this story when it broke back in March 2005).
Today's piece highlights TWO significant problems with current NPR coverage of the "war on terror." First, Inskeep states that rendition is "the secret seizure and transfer of international terrorism suspects." That's it. Not one word about torture. Second, there is no discussion of how damaging the US kidnapping was to real security in this case. If you go back and listen to the Poggioli report above or her later one on June 30, 2005 you learn that valuable anti-terrorism intelligence was being gathered by the Italians from their surveillance of Abu Omar, and that the US kidnapping terminated this valuable source of information (a source which was leading to other cells in Europe). Given that he offered such rich information while being surveilled, any credible journalist would question why the US was so keen on kidnapping this man and sending him off to Egypt to be tortured, but to ask this might call into question other agendas behind the Bush/US "war on terror" and so the issue is not even raised.

Battles and Battlefields

On ATC yesterday David Greene covered of Bush's 4th of July maneuvers at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. Bush (as usual addressing an audience that is NOT free to express dissent) celebrated our Independence Day by giving a speech to the 81st Airborne troops at Ft. Bragg. Greene covers Bush's speech and activities with almost no critical commentary. We do learn that, as Greene puts it, Bush was "determined to find a more upbeat mood." What I found compelling in this coverage was the use of the term "battle" and "battlefield." We get to hear the following from Bush's speech: "....when the job in Iraq is done, (pause) it will be a major victory in the battle against the terrorists...." and then without pause David Greene's voice comes in saying, "it's a battle in which Ft. Bragg has carried much of the burden...." This subtly both accepts and reinforces Bush's assertion that the adventure in Iraq is a battle against terrorists, and that Iraq is just one set piece in the grand "War on Terror." This is straight Bush propaganda. There is immense debate and disagreement (even within the mainstream) on all aspects of the Iraq war and its relationship to terrorism. Just days ago 80% of "security experts" polled believe that the "war on terror" is a failure and that Iraq is one primary reason why.
Finally--after airing a clip of Bush describing the compassionate soldiers treating Zarqawi before he died--Greene states, "at a time when some Democrats are calling for a timetable to bring US troops home Mr. Bush repeated an argument that has infuriated his critics including some military families--he said one reason he'’s determined to stay the course in Iraq is to honor those who have already died on the battlefied." Notice how skillfully this acknowledges Bush critics, without giving any of their reasons, and then proceeds to undermine these critics by returning to the battle/battlefield argument. After all, if the war in Iraq really is an essential "battle" against terrorists (and can be "won" like any traditional battle) then who can argue against just leaving the "battlefield" where so many soldiers have already died?

Happy 4th

Enjoy the 4th of July. It was nice to wake up to Judy Muller's commentary this morning on NPR.

Oh, Osama!

Listen to NPR's piece on the failure to catch (or kill) Osama Bin Laden. There are some interesting aspects to the story. At one point in the report Mary Louise Kelly notes that Gary Burnson (former CIA field commander in Afghanistan after 9/11) "scoffs at the notion that war in Iraq has drained resources and distracted attention from the pursuit of Bin Laden." She states this as if this argument were given airtime earlier in the report, which would make sense given that many consider the War in Iraq to have been a huge diversion from really achieving security success in Afghanistan (see this Democratic Policy report--be sure to look at its references). I had to re-listen to the report and found it astounding that nowhere in the report is this argument made! So all we have is Burnson's judgment call on this.
Other interesting items are the really scary comments dropped about Pakistan and Musharaff by several counterterrorism "experts." Basically they all hint that his hold on power is precarious, that his government is rife with Bin Laden sympathizers, oh...yea...and that Pakistan has lots of nukes. The obvious questions that come to my mind are, What realistic non-proliferation policies is the US pursuing both for itself and the region? Are US actions in Iraq building sympathy for Bin Laden within Pakistan? What do polls suggest Pakistanis think of the US, of Musharaff, etc.? Unfortunately these never come up.
Readers should also take a look at these "old" but still quite relevant pieces: one from the New Yorker and the other from Knight Ridder(through Common Dreams).

How Business Views Mexico

On the day of an important election we get analysis of the competing candidates from corporate risk management spokesperson, Pamela Starr of the Eurasia Group. We learn a few choice things during this interview. We hear that the US government is "fairly sure they're not going to get another Hugo Chavez." Debbie Elliot asks Starr, "there are some reports in the press that Obrador may be more open to relationships with Latin American leftist policies--is that something the United States should be worried about?" Interesting, just who is this United States? It's definitely not me--leftist policies in Latin America are fine by me. We also learn that US corporations are exporting some production processes to Mexico and that our economy depends on "using Mexico to keep its global costs of production low." I wonder how that impacts US worker wages and the standard of living for Mexicans? Are there any connections between this outsourcing and immigration issues? Starr also concludes that to export these "production processes" it "needs the Mexican economy to be sound." Sound for who? The wealthy Mexicans? The wealthy US CEOs? It's not that NPR shouldn't let us know what the corporate sector thinks--this is important since they do hold immense power and influence. But here are a few interesting sources for alternative views: the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre and Human Rights Watch.

IDF News

How many more times will NPR and all the MSM sources echo the Israeli Defense Forces line that their actions against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are being done "in an effort to free an Israeli soldier." Again tonight they repeated that refrain without any evidence to support such a claim.

Hard Hearted

Listen to Eric Westervelt reporting from Gaza if you can bear it. Debbie Elliott introduces the piece describing the Gaza crisis as "the tense situation." There is a lot about "militant" Palestinians, divisions within Hamas, violent struggles between Palestinians, Israeli artillery barrages, tanks massing, etc. But there is nothing from the host of All Things Considered or from Westervelt to indicate the immense suffering that the Israeli military attacks are having on the lawful inhabitants Occupied Territories. Nothing about the illegal attacks on power stations, bridges, etc. In fact nothing about international law. We do learn that Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last summer "is not working [Elliott]" and caused Israelis to be "traumatized" by the Qassam rockets fired into nearby Israeli towns (Yes, these rocket attacks are wrong, wrong, wrong--but reporting them without reporting on the extreme violence and daily degradations that Israel wages against Palestinians civilians leaves listeners with no sense of what is happening in Gaza or the West Bank.) Westervelt tells us that less than a year after leaving Gaza, "it appears Israel could become entangled even more deeply in a military operation in Gaza" (there's that passive construction again as if the Israeli government just has no other alternatives.) This is the report I'd expect from the IDF not from a news source that claims to be professional and credible.

Schorr Misses the Point

Daniel Schorr talking with Scott Simon completely misses the point about the alleged rape and murder of Iraqis by US soldiers. First Schorr just brushes it aside as part of the typical brutality of war. Second he strongly praises the US military leadership for aggressively pursuing all allegations of atrocities. The record shows that the leadership only pursues these cases when there is evidence that can't be hushed up or has been made public (Not to mention that many of the miltary's standard operations in Iraq -- broad house invasion searches, detention of thousands of uncharged Iraqis, airstrikes, etc. -- could be called atrocities. However, the point that Schorr misses is that even if you think this event is isolated--it will be so offensive to Iraqis and Muslims that it will further enrage people who are already justifiably enraged at US hypocrisy and brutality in the "war on terror."

Simon Takes on Moore

Scott Simon uses the death of a Marine in Iraq to try to rip Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911. The Marine was one of the recruiters in Moore's film who is shown trying to get young people to join up. The portrayal is not flattering, but then again there's nothing particularly flattering about recruiting teenagers for the military anyway. Simon tries to make it sound like the film attacks the recruiters for being smug and safe while they get young people to go off and fight. My recollection of the film is quite different. Moore goes to great lengths to acknowledge his respect for people in the armed forces. The target of his film is the leaders who use and frankly kill the young people who out of idealism or economic necessity join the military. His movie makes a strong case that the people behind the war in Iraq are motivated mostly by greed, arrogance, and a lust for power. Moore's film (and his continuing work since) also consistently shows that one of the great passions that motivates Moore is his desire to see no more US troops killed or injured.

Apparently Defensive

This morning Scott Simon mentions the US Army's investigation into at least 5 of its soldiers on charges of rape and murder in Iraq by saying that the soldiers are "apparently accused." It seems Simon is trying so hard to hold any allegations of US wrongdoing to the most rigorous standards of proof that he can't even say the fact that they are accused. I realize this was probably a slip and he meant to say that the accused men are alleged to have committed the crimes in question. This is typical of NPR's defensive coverage of US and ally crimes and wrongdoing, and stands in stark contrast to the unqualified reporting of so many "militants," "insurgents," "terrorists," or "Taliban" killed that occurs daily on NPR (the information almost always solely based on US military reports). I almost never hear them say "alleged" militants or "alleged" Taliban fighters. Of course, as the record often reveals (usually weeks or months later), these supposed combatants are often civilians mistakenly (or not mistakenly) targeted.