NPR Pitches a Shut Out

The day after Brazil's Presidential election I got an email from a fellow NPR critic in Wisconsin who noted:

"My, my! Yesterday, Brazil just elected its first female president with 56% of the votes and nary a word about it on National Public Radio... nor any mention of it on Wisconsin Public Radio.

Brazil is not Palau: it is larger than the continental United States and is the 8th largest economy on earth.

Nothing on News on the Hour. Nothing on Morning Edition.

Well done, Skippy!"

Ok, I thought - surely NPR is just a working on a more in-depth story on the Brazil election. As the AP reportage on the election points out, not only is Brazil the 8th largest economy, it's predicted to be the 5th largest economy by 2016. But here it is Tuesday evening and - guess what? - NPR has done nothing - ZILCH - on air regarding the Brazilian election. Compare this to the coverage the World Series has garnered on NPR. What gives?

I'm not here to trash sports, I watched the World Series and enjoyed the pitching dominance of the Giants. And speaking of pitching, there was definitely news to cover: Game 3 featured a war criminal, admitted felon and torturer throwing out the ceremonial first pitch - oops, never heard that on NPR. Hmmm, maybe NPR's discomfort with naming torture torture, might explain its shutout of Brazil's presidential election. After all, Brazil's president elect Rousseff was a victim of the US-backed torture regime that ruled Brazil in the 1960s and 1970s. One can see that for NPR it might be hard to talk about Rousseff without mentioning the fact that torture ( I mean enhanced interrogation ) and its export from the US to South America has a long tradition.

NPR's blackout on the seamy role of US foreign policy and global predatory capitalism in South America may also explain why the death of Nestor Kirchner of Argentina also merited such in-depth coverage.

The Big Stick of Enforced Amnesia

NPR's constant erasure of the US role in the history of Latin America comes in very handy as they offer a completely one-sided report on the expulsion from Bolivia of US Ambassador Philip Goldberg. The report is not really a report, but a transcription of Golberg's claims against Bolivian President Evo Morales (with back-up provided by the aptly named Michael Shifter who worked for that favorite spawn of Reagan, the National Endowment for Democracy).

Kelemen (taking the side of the US State Department) says:

"Goldberg called it a roller coaster ride, saying President Morales often used the US and the US embassy as a foil, a distraction from the problems inside Bolivia....he says the Bolivian government aired what he called a propaganda infomercial about him on TV."

Goldberg then follows:

"It was a vile piece of propaganda, accusing the United States, accusing opposition members, too of taking instructions from the US, making links with people I never met. It really is a sad display."

It's a vile piece of propaganda only if you are completely ignorant or completely dishonest about what the US has been up to in South America for well over a hundred years. Jim Shultz of the Democracy Center of Bolivia, in an excellent post on the crisis in Bolivia points out:

"The U.S. has a long history of intervention in Latin America, and Bolivia has not been spared. For nearly two decades Bolivian governments been pressured by Washington to wage a "War on Drugs" in Bolivia, with serious collateral damage to human rights."

And of Goldberg, Shultz notes

"Goldberg himself, who took over as Ambassador shortly after Morales' 2006 inauguration, has proved to be an inept diplomat over and over again. In June 2007 the military attaché at the Embassy in La Paz, a U.S. Army Colonel, decided to have a relative carry down 500 rounds of 45-caliber ammunition packed in her suitcase. The event spiked Bolivian fears of U.S. intervention and Goldberg made the public uproar even worse by going against the advice of senior aides, trying to downplay the incident as a minor mistake.

Last February, a young U.S. Fulbright Scholar revealed to ABC News that an Embassy official had asked him to gather intelligence on Cubans and Venezuelans in Bolivia. It also turned out that the Embassy was systematically asking U.S. Peace Corps volunteers to do the same – a direct violation of the laws governing both programs. Again Goldberg tried to downplay the incident as an innocent error. The Morales administration threatened to prosecute the official involved and he left the country."

You won't hear that on NPR!

For a rather biting take on Bolivia and the US role in destabilizing that country BoRev.net is always provocative. Or you can cozy up with the US Government (the same one that had nothing to do with the Pinochet Coup of 9/11/73) side of the story by tuning into NPR or reading the Washington Post.

Of course, no NPR story on South America would be complete without a BushCo. approved swipe at Venezuela's elected President, Hugo Chavez. Kelemen trots out Michale Shifter to end the piece, including this:

"Chavez seems to have in this moment got a bit feisty. The challenge for the US is how to sort of deal with this situation in a sort of step by step calm quiet approach which is not always easy."

Ah yes the feisty natives, and the need to walk softly - seems like I've heard that sentiment somewhere before...hmmm.

Happy Times on the Plantation

Any doofus who knows anything about the history of South and Central America knows that most of the countries there have suffered for centuries the horrors of the latifundia /hacienda system whereby tiny, extremely violent elites held nearly all the arable lands. Slavery, murder, torture and terror were used to crush resistance and enslave workers in these plantations. In the twentieth century the US was often the generous provider of arms, funds, and training for the elites that ruled these countries.

But in Venezuela the problem according to six-figure Steve Inskeep is that "President Hugo Chavez uses revolutionary rhetoric that has incited poor squatters to invade large farms. Chavez says rich land owners care little about the poor." And the solution is..."one of those landowners..." Honestly, "one of those landowners"!

Unlike the misfired New Yorker cover, this story is not parody. It's dead serious. Yep, from the centuries of hacienda hell (which is not ancient history), NPR worked hard to find the one exception, Alberto Vollmer, a rich hacienda owner who seems to have both power, wealth and morality. The guy seems like an interesting man, and if one can believe Forero's report - and that's always a big if with Forero - the policies of the democratically elected Venezuelan government (including Hugo Chavez) have created an opportunity where the extremely wealthy can use their holdings to better the lives of others instead of destroy them.

But God forbid that any credit go to the government of Venezuela. No the only hope is from the plantation master, who in spite of everything has a heart of gold.

The Little Laptop that Could

Tom Gjelten has been very busy little operative reporter of late on NPR (gosh, seems like it was just Friday that he was singing the praises of a CIA agent who left his mark on Latin America). He's back on with some unfinished company business on Colombia and that "miracle laptop" taken in the Colombian attack on Ecuador. Despite all the doubt about the truth surrounding the laptop and it's non-evidence, NPR just runs with it full bore.

Here's Montagne: "The fear of a terrorist group getting a nuclear weapon was revived last month. Colombia announced it had found evidence on a seized computer that a rebel army there was interested in buying uranium. Not necessarily to make a bomb but possibly to trade on the terrorism market..."

And Gjelten, follows with: "There's no evidence the left wing rebels in Colombia thought about engaging in nuclear terrorism themselves, more likely explanation for their interest in uranium is that they would have sold it - maybe even to al-Qaeda..."

One wonders if we'll ever get any unbiased examination of this supposed laptop. Probably not, but to treat this legendary little piece of hardware as hard evidence is stunning. Gjelten at least started his piece off with three words of truth - "there's no evidence." Amen!

Slaughterhouse Jive

When Juan Forero reports you really have to listen, this guy is a slick operative. I saw that he was reporting this morning on "Colombian Army Units Killing Peasants," and thought "Wow, maybe this will be a decent report." It's not.

You know how the bad apples spin carried the day during the Abu Ghraib revelations - well Forero and Inskeep are trying to pass off the same line on the long, sordid history of the Colombian military/paramilitaries atrocities (and the US role in creating and supporting them).

Here's Inskeep carefully enunciating his way through his morning script:
"In recent years the [Colombian] government appears to have made progress...Not for the first time though the government faces questions about its methods. Human rights groups say army units are under pressure to produce results, and that may explain why some rogue army units are accused of killing peasants, civilians..." Dang those rogue army units! If only they could use some of those refined graduates of SOA/WHINSEC.

Inskeep having set the table, Forero carries on with this theme. Here are some lowlights:

• The war in Colombia "has been marked by atrocities, committed by rebels, by death squads, by soldiers - but little was known about what are called extrajudicial executions until now." Actually a lot has been known for a long time, and though the FARC commits atrocities, the overwhelming bulk of torture and killings have been carried out by the military and its allied paramilitaries.
• There is "concern among reform-minded officials in the ministry of defense."
• "The army's reliance on the body count...is contributing to the problem"
• "The defense minister has issued new rules of engagement...assigned consultants to combat units...and the attorney general's office is also prosecuting dozens of soldiers...
• "...military officials say there's a command and control problem."

Not only does Forero decontextualize the history of the paramilitaries, but he pushes the argument that the Colombian government and military have cleaned house and are struggling with rogue elements who commit atrocities. Even a cursory look through the human rights records of the Colombian government show that that simply was a lie several years ago and continues to be a lie now.

Who Wants to Be an Anti-American Nemesis?

Since Bush started his trip through Latin America I've heard the word "nemesis" on NPR more times than I care to count - always in reference to Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.

This got me to thinking about "nemesis." A little rummaging around turned up this lovely definition from Greek Mythology Link:

"Nemesis, the messenger of Justice, is Retribution or Divine Vengeance....This goddess is implacable to men of violence, but she is best known for deeply disliking the absence of moderation, and for...the punishment of excesses of pride and undeserved happiness. Nemesis puts to sleep presumptuous boasting and checks offensive words, exacting a heavy penalty for them."

And this from Encyclopedia Mythica:

"Nemesis is the goddess of divine justice and vengeance. Her anger is directed toward human transgression of the natural, right order of things and of the arrogance causing it. Nemesis pursues the insolent and the wicked with inflexible vengeance."

She clearly has been busy of late!

But one term has even outstripped "nemesis" in the NPR word-repetition count: "anti-American." NPR is liberally(!) applying it both to Chavez and - more generally - to any march, protest, government, or caring human being who dares oppose the foreign policy of the United States. But wait, I'm also dissatisfied with US foreign policy; I don't like funding death squads, overthrowing elected governments, breaking unions, invading countries, bombing civilians, and torturing people...I guess that makes me anti-American too...and - for that matter - if I were a goddess of retribution, I'd also want to be taking our little puffed-up, don't-read-newspapers, "bring'em on" twit down to size too!

The Iranian Threat to...South America!

Thursday was a real stinker! Whether it was the militaristic thrill of "the suck" (see previous post), the surge into Sadr City portrayed more as a delivery of Girl Scout cookies than the military operation of an occupying army, or the coverage of "softer gentler" Bush trip to South America.

Consider Morning Edition's story on the Bush trip to South America. NPR prominently featured Bush touting the figure of $1.6 billion in aid to Latin America as being mostly "social justice money." There was absolutely no attempt made by NPR to challenge this statement or analyze the numbers (this report from the Library of Congress shows that a lot of the money goes to "anti-drug" programs and "stabilization" efforts.) And, it goes without saying, there was no historical context provided regarding the violent nature of US aid to the region as in Colombia. A serious look at US aid, as in this lengthy article, would reveal the many contradictory effects of aid (e.g. how food aid - food dumping - often is part of the agricultural subsidies that undermine farmers in the recipient countries).

All this was bad enough, but the whole framing of the debate in the story was ridiculously narrow. There were Bush and Bush loyalists, such as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon, arguing that the Administration is simply handing out aid for altruistic reasons. The opposing opinion was that this generous aid was too little, too late to counter what Steve Inskeep called "anti-American government's on the rise." The shining moment of this piece had to be Renee Montagne grimly reminding us that "other lawmakers, including Rep. Ron Klein, a Democrat from Florida, warned that the Bush administration has been ignoring the region at its peril — that it's not just Chavez making inroads, but Iran as well."

IRAN! - of course!

Audacious

This morning Julie McCarthy does some serious seat-of-the-pants analysis in her reporting on the Iranian President's trip to South America. Here is the core her statements:

"He’s isolated Iran in the world...and many in Iran are not happy with this isolation and Ahmadinejad appears keen to show that he has backing that counters this, this, this isolationism. And there seems to be few more audacious ways to do that than in the backyard of the United States, his bitter enemy."

I found myself wondering how she knows that "many in Iran are not happy with this isolation?" Does she frequently read the Iranian press? Does she talk to various Iranians in Iran on a regular basis? Or is she just guessing?

Then there's the term audacious. Curious, but I don't recall hearing the US invasion of Iraq (or the latest posting of another aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf) described as audacious - why not? And backyard? Haven't heard that one since Reagan warned us about the Nicaraguans sneaking up on us through Brownsville, Texas! If Venezuela is our "backyard" what does that make Iraq, our corner gas station? Imagine if an NPR reporter called Iraq Turkey's front porch, Iran's back door, or Russia's backyard! To do that would contradict the unspoken assumption that the Middle East is our neighborhood. So much for sovereignty (and sanity). Listening to McCarthy did a least bring back nostalgia for the good old days of Teddy Roosevelt when our backyard WAS our backyard whether the people there liked it or not.