Nonstop Praise of Reagan

If he'd been alive, Ronald Reagan would have turned 100 on Sunday, February 6th. Starting on the morning of February 3rd, NPR began running numerous stories on Reagan's legacy. Listen to the first six stories and - aside from two brief mentions of the Iran-Contra scandal and one mention of the Beirut barracks bombing as a "failure" - you will hear no criticisms of the Reagan presidency. A couple of the stories (e.g. 2-4-11 ME & 2-5 WE Saturday) - positively framing Reagan as a pragmatist - noted that contrary to popular beliefs, Reagan did raise taxes and deficits - and did negotiate with the Soviets.

Only in the seventh and final piece, Sunday's ATC interview, is any pejorative assessment of Reagan voiced; the director of an HBO Reagan documentary, after noting many positive aspects of Reagan, states that Reagan "came in many ways to betray that [small town] America...hurt the very America that I know he identified with." This one critique is lost in the flood of praise heaped on Reagan:

2-3-11 ME

• (Tom Brokaw) "A pure product of Main Street, Heartland America...People were comfortable with him from the start."
• (Pete Wilson) "Brilliant."
• (Jaffe) "If there was any disagreement...it was over where Ronald Reagan ranked in the pantheon of American presidents."

2-4-11 ATC -

• (Liasson) "...upbeat, forward-looking and self-consciously optimistic - the definition of Reaganesque."
• (Lou Cannon) "The American people aren't fools. Reagan was able to run on Morning in America because for millions of Americans, it was morning in America."
• (Liasson) "Doug Brinkley says President Obama is wise to identify himself any way he can with the 40th president."
• (Doug Brinkley) "Reagan...He's in the DNA of America at the moment. He is beloved by the American people."

2-5-11 ATC

• (Wertheimer) "Ronald Reagan...was part of almost every campaign, mostly invoked by Republicans, but also occasionally by Democrats and sometimes by President Obama." (Fallows) "You could take this as a good sign of the possible harmony and unity in American history that....representatives of all political parties and all political heritages find things in this background, of this tradition they want to align themselves with."

2-6 WE Sun

• (Reagan hometown local) "Nice man. Good person."

2-6 WE Sun

• (Hansen) "...his stature has continued to rise among conservatives...as well as with the general public."

Somehow, NPR inadvertently left out a few details regarding that "upbeat, forward-looking" "nice man" who was Ronald Reagan: his disastrous War on Drugs, his deadly lack of action on AIDS, his promotion of terror, war and torture in Central America and Africa, his riddled-with-criminals administration, his assault on the environment, his crushing of wages and war on unions, and his success in creating a sophisticated, murderous organization of Islamic extremists. Other than that, it was a very fair and very balanced assessment of the Reagan years.

Can You Find the Watchdog?

Has anyone else noticed that NPR seems to be interested in journalism now that the Liar in Chief has departed Washington. Obama wasn't even sworn in and NPR was selling the "Obameter." Yesterday on ATC they brought out Folkenflik to give lip service to the the ethics of journalism. He airs Bill Nichols, managing editor of the utterly uninspired online and print publication Politico:

"I just also want to be sure that the President and the people who work for him are being subject to people who are trained as journalists and who are asking the question that perhaps some of the people watching things from out there in the country are not able to ask."

Folkenflik then introduces "veteran CBS reporter Bill Plante" talking about the Obama administration's transgression of offering a White House produced photo from the Oval Office. Folkenflik notes that Plante "said news outlets needed to draw the line." We then hear Plante:

"Do you originate the material or do you function as a transmission belt for handouts from the government. The whole idea of an independent press as guaranteed by the the First Amendment is that it would serve as a watchdog and check on the power of government."

Folkenflik also claims that

"in a conventional model of news gathering - think of what the Washington Post does - journalists are supposed to be watchdogs and surrogates for the public, trained to see patterns in data and ask informed questions, though some critics argue there's more bark than bite."

Holy cow! If NPR had been doing any of these things, I'd gladly shut this blog down.

Heckuv a Job

At least on ABC's feel-good Extreme Home Makeover program they don't try to convince you that the luxurious house at the end of the show is the same run-down junker of a home that was there at the beginning of the show. They actually show you their crew tearing down the old one and putting up a new one. NPR's Extreme President Makeover is not so forthcoming. NPR struggles mightily to convince listeners that there is some grand, noble "legacy" that will exist when the Bush administration leaves the White House.

Today was a shameless homage to George W. Bush as the "normal, regular guy." Yeah, Bush is such a likable guy! Linda Wertheimer's slavish send-up of Bush is notable for its lack of any serious, critical voices; instead Wertheimer turns to a friend of Bush, and administration insider, and a charmed reporter clucking about George:

• "Dan Bartlett works in Austin now, but he was a close White House aide for seven years."
• "Cox Newspapers' Ken Herman, who has covered Bush for years, says the president prefers a quiet life."
• "Don Evans, secretary of commerce in the president's first term and a friend of 40 years, says that act [quitting abusing alcohol] demonstrated the president's commitment to his family and to the Bush family's belief in public service." [trans. "public self-service"!]

Frankly, even if Bush were a likable character, it doesn't matter a whit. Likability is an utterly worthless measure of a leader's behavior as characters like Stalin, Idi Amin and Milosevic among others have proven. This excerpt from the article, "Amin's Economic War Left Uganda On Crutches" by Patrick Luganda are painfully apt:

"'Popular and a natural leader of men, but simple and practically illiterate; a man of the people... An imposing presence, 6'3" in height; once a good distance runner good heavyweight boxer and mountain biker rugby player. As Head of State, has shown an engaging lack of formality and a disregard for his personal safety. Benevolent but tough. Well-disposed to Britain perhaps to an extent damaging to him in the African context. Speaks passable English. God fearing and deeply religious....,' read the notes."

The American King

From Parallel Earth, yesterday's Morning Edition brought us our Criminal-in-Chief all dressed up and playing royal-boy to the Queen of England. Unfortunately, NPR wasn't being the least bit facetious. Consider this priceless interchange between NPR's Rebecca Roberts and Dana Milbank of The Washington Post:

Roberts: "Now white-tie involves a tail-coat, is very formal. This President not very famous for his formality. How did he do?"

Milbank: "...I must say that I think he enjoyed it enormously and when you think about it – you know there’s a poll out yesterday that says his support is down to 28% - but here was a chance for him to behave as the head of state as opposed to the head of government and you know essentially be the American King: the cannon batteries, the fife and drum corps, the Air Force Band, and to actually escort the monarch around for a review of the troops. So this is a chance for the President to step out of the daily dreariness of the Iraq War and sort of bask in all the trappings of being the President."

Roberts: "Do you think he took advantage of the opportunity? Did he succeed?"

You could spend a bit of time unpacking this sad waste of airtime. I found that last little bit about the "daily dreariness of the Iraq War" to be really sickening - daily dreariness?! Oh, and readers may be wondering if Roberts hard-hitting final question was ever answered. Yes, and it was a winner:

Milbank: "Well probably one day does not turn things around..."

I'll say.

Inskeep Shines

I've been waiting since November for NPR to host Jimmy Carter; today they finally got around to bringing him on for an interview. Steve Inskeep gets the nod for this hatchet job on Carter's latest book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. This interview is remarkable for it's complete unwillingness to address the substance (Israeli oppression of Palestinians and land confiscation) of Carter's book and for the fact that every question Inskeep asks is an attack.

Here's how this slam on Carter's book begins (before the interview even starts):
Renee Montagne: "He’s been accused of getting some facts wrong, of mislabeling maps, and slanting the book against Israel."
Steve Inskeep: "Some supporters of Israel were especially unhappy with the title, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. Some members of an advisory board at his Carter Center resigned."

And here are the questions Inskeep asks:

• "Could you just make briefly the best case you can for why apartheid is the right word to use?"
• "Why not just describe that rather than bring in this word that’s freighted with so much history from another place?"
• "Would you describe for us, simply because the book has been criticized for its details, how did you write the book?"
• "Well, you’ve been challenged in your recollections of meetings....it’s been alleged....less reasonable than might actually have been the case. What was your version based on? Did you go back to notes and other documents that you had from the time?"
• "But when you recollect...were you working from your own notes?"
• "Ken Stein...has alleged that his recollection of that meeting is somewhat different."
• "There’s also been some criticism which you addressed this week at Brandeis...a sentence on page 213 of your book...."
• "Has that set you flipping through the pages of the book to see if there’s anything else there that you maybe just wasn’t expressed the way you intended?"
• "You mention you’ve been labeled an anti-Semite. You do use the word apartheid...which defenders of Israel regarded as a label that called into a lot of bad associations...would you agree that kind of labeling is not very productive?"

I don't have any problem with challenging Carter, but Inskeep doesn't even once probe any of the following assertions that Carter makes: "Forced separation within the West Bank…total domination and oppression of Palestinians by the dominant Israeli military," "the horrible oppression and persecution of the Palestinian people," "massive Israeli confiscation of land and colonization of its choice sites," and "the apparently permanent acquisition, confiscation and colonization of choice sites throughout the West Bank." Instead, Inskeep attacks Carter's book with innuendo and second-hand criticism because if he were to address the issue of Israeli oppression and land confiscation, the facts of Israeli injustice would be irrefutable and indefensible.

Oh, and if this slam weren't enough, Inskeep promises that a critic of Carter's book will be interviewed on tomorrow's show. I'll wager that it won't be so hostile.

The Pardon - A Kid's Perspective

On September 8, 1974, I was 11 years old and was just beginning the 7th grade. My father was an ardent Nixon supporter and defender of the Vietnam War, and my mother one of Nixon's "silent majority" supporters. I was old enough to know that the past summer's Watergate hearings were historically very important, and that I should be watching them - but I found the narrative and details confusing and kind of boring (after all it was summer and I was 11). I was basically a conservative kid, growing up in a conservative Catholic household in the South. At the time I looked with awe upon all US presidents, thought Kissinger was a genius, and figured that our country had to be doing the right thing in Vietnam--in other words to say I was no Nixon critic is an understatement.

But, I do distinctly remember being stunned when the new President gave a full and complete pardon to Nixon on that fateful September day. I had been raised under the the naive American ideal that no one (not even the President) was above the law - and yet here was a man who was clearly being put, not only above the law, but out of the reach of the law. As time went on, it would only goad me even more that the pardon allowed Nixon to live off of the taxpayers on a generous pension that far exceeded the salaries my working parents ever attained, and allowed him to worm his way back into the public sphere as an "elder statesman" instead of the enemy of the Constitution that he clearly was. I'd say he made out pretty well with the help of his dear friend, Gerald Ford.

So now, more than 30 years later, I have to hear the Gerald Ford love-fest on NPR day after day. How many times have I heard them replay Ford's hypocritical statement, "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men." I've yet to hear one NPR reporter comment on the sad irony of that phrase "laws and not of men" - when Ford in fact turned that on its head just a month into his presidency by protecting the man from facing accountability of the laws.

Personally, I could care less about "hating Nixon" or the desire for revenge, but what irks me about NPR's slavish coverage of the legacy of Ford's pardon is its complete lack of consideration of how it has encouraged further presidential attacks on the Constitution--Reagan's shadowy shredding of checks and balances to fund his drug-running thugs known as the Contras, and of course George W. Bush's more overt assaults on basic Constitutional rules such as habeus corpus and unreasonable search and seizure protections. In my opinion Ford's pardon set a precedent of impunity that has emboldened Constitutional outlaws who gravitate to the White House, offering them the knowledge that they will never be held account for their high crimes and misdemeanors.

Oddly enough, one of the best articles I've found on the Ford pardon is in Slate which co-produces Day to Day with NPR. So maybe NPR could bring on the author of the article, Timothy Noah, for a little corrective angle on the infamous Ford Pardon. But I doubt they will.

The Bells

If you've never read it, check out Poe's poem "The Bells." Before you subject yourself to Linda Wertheimer's banal bell tribute to Gerald Ford on today's Saturday Morning Edition, consider these lines from Poe's lovely work:

Hear the tolling of the bells,
Iron bells!
What a world of solemn thought their monody compels!
In the silence of the night
How we shiver with affright
At the melancholy menace of their tone!

Or better still listen to Phil Ochs fine rendition of the poem (it's free).

Now gear yourself up for the Wertheimer's minutiea of how the bells will ring at the National Cathedral for Gerald Ford's funeral. You'll learn how the biggest bell will ring slowly 38 times for the 38th President, how there will be a muffled bell ringing where the bells will have their clappers wrapped in leather "to soften the strike and signal that this is a somber and important occasion." The details and the weepy emotionalism are excruciating. Linda tells us that on Tuesday she'll listen to the funeral on the radio ("maybe sneak a peak at TV"!) - but she'll "also step out on [her] back porch and listen to the bells mourning his death and marking his life."

I'd like to recommend that she do a little compassion exercise while she's worshiping deceased Dear Leader. She could imagine that the great, big bell ringing just once a minute for each of the 250,000 East Timorese that Gerald Ford helped to wipe off the face of the earth. That minimal tribute would take 4167 hours or 174 days. I guess that would be asking a lot of any sane person, so how about just one peal each second. That would only take about 70 hours, or not quite three days. Or she could - like NPR - just figure that those people's lives not only don't merit a ringing of bells, but aren't even worth mentioning.

Compare and Contrast

NPR is rightly giving a lot of coverage to the continuing horror of genocide and warfare in Darfur. Now imagine if the slaughter in Darfur led by the Sudanese government had been given the go-ahead by a sitting US President, and imagine that the US was continuing to supply the Sudanese and the Janjaweed with the weapons they were using. You'd hope that when that President died, NPR would give significant coverage of such vile behavior.

Today offers a comparable situation. By any comparison, the Indonesian genocide against East Timor was as grievous as the situation in Darfur. At the time, President Gerald Ford was an active participant in launching the genocidal invasion of East Timor by Indonesia in 1975 and his administration continued to arm and support the Indonesians. In addition to that disgrace, Ford contributed to the horrors in Chile, Argentina, and Angola. That is the history, but on NPR's eulogies for President Ford you won't hear one word about it. Here's what was aired this morning:

• "...he successfully led the country through a difficult period." (Renee Montagne)
• "...a man whose calm and straightforward demeanor helped steer the nation through some turbulent times." (Pam Fessler)
• "Every American young and old owes [Ford] a heartfelt thanks." (from the 2000 Republican Convention)
• "Did he in fact help heal the nation?" (Renee Montagne) and John Greene answers "There’s no question that the country believed he helped heal it."

NPR neglected to mention the Ford - East Timor connection last month, and today continues this whitewashed history. Listeners do have other options, especially Democracy Now! which had much fuller coverage this morning of the Ford legacy.

Manufacturing Stature

John Ydstie this morning informs us that in light of Republican defeats in the midterm elections,"observers at home and abroad are watching closely to see whether the setback would affect Mr. Bush’s stature and behavior on the world stage." Is Ydstie thinking of Bush's stature on the world stage in 2003,early in 2004or later that year after his reelection, or perhaps just before last month's elections?

Next, Don Gonyea comes on to tell us that Bush, at recent meetings in Asia, was not the same Bush who "dominated these summits in the past." Dominated? (Was that with wit, intelligence, or his grasp of the issues?) But don't fear, after a sound bite of Bush recently saying, "we’re gonna stay in Iraq to get the job done" Gonyea says, "That felt like the old President Bush talking..." And then in keeping with NPR's current past-Presidents obsession, he tells us that "the last two American Presidents who served two terms in office – Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan – each overcame big political troubles at home to score notable victories overseas in their final two years in office.... President Bush could find a similar opportunity in the current chaos in Iraq or in ending the nuclear threat from North Korea or Iran..."

See, there just might be a silver lining in this chaos in Iraq: the chance for Bush to score a notable victory overseas - just like Reagan and Clinton.

Where's Jimmy?

I waited several days before posting this because I thought surely NPR news would interview former President Carter about his new book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. I'm not one to gush over Carter (I've never gotten over his support of government by death squad in El Salvador), but his remarks on Palestine are truly breathtaking. They reveal how hollow, stupid and and rabidly pro-Zionist the usual Newspeak on the Israel/Palestine issue is (think Gradstein and Westervelt for example). If you missed him on PBS' Newshour, it's worth watching, listening to, or reading here.

There's no excuse for NPR news not to host Carter for an extended interview as soon as possible (Fresh Air picked him up recently, after all). And in light of NPR's recent enthusiasm for ex-presidents (see posts below), what are they waiting for? It's sad that anytime Bush opens his mouth to bumble through a canned speech, NPR is there to rehash and repeat it, but when a former President, winner of a Nobel Prize, and strong critic of current US policy in Israel/Palestine speaks out with intelligence and conscience on such a vital issue, it is treated as a non-story.

The Pageant of History

Is this Presidents' Week, or is NPR just in an Orwellian mood to rewrite a few chapters of the sordid history of our nation's highest office (see Sunday's post)? This morning David Greene presents his "reporter's notebook" on second- term presidents, which is a feeble attempt to reassure us that the future may prove that the current Bush administration is not the train wreck that we all know it to be.

Greene's battle against reality follows a twofold strategy. First, he treats US Presidents and their policies as if all that ultimately counts are approval ratings and the judgment of some historians. Thus we get Truman, father of our National Security State, presented as the hero "who did set forces in motion that did eventually end the cold war." We hear Truman's 1947 Truman Doctrine speech (spliced together with one from G.W. Bush!) with no mention given that the assistance to Greece and Turkey that Truman was calling for helped preserve two repressive, far right regimes and set a pattern for fostering torture and dictatorship throughout the Cold War. Instead all that matters is that Truman was unpopular toward the end of his presidency, but now is revered by loyal historians and pundits alike. Similarly, President Reagan's sordid and violent Presidency is recalled because - in spite of scandals - "Reagan left office with nearly 6 in 10 Americans approving of his performance."

The second front in Greene's war on truth is to trivialize Presidential assaults on Constitutional safeguards and law by treating them as nothing more than scandals that overtake passive Presidents. In this way Reagan's secret arms-hostage trading with Iran to support his illegal war on Nicaragua is nothing but "the Iran-Contra scandal which engulfed Ronald Reagan’s White House." And what matters is that "Reagan reenergized his administration with some new faces and he made himself a prominent player on the world stage with trips like this to Berlin" (we hear wild cheering as Reagan makes his "Mr. Gobachev, tear down this wall" speech). So Bush can relax, knowing that his disastrous Iraq War, his torture policies, his secret prisons, his unauthorized eavesdropping, etc. won't stand in the way of the eventual popularity that history or unforeseen events will bestow on him.

If you are angry, disturbed, disgusted by the actions of the Bush administration, calm down! Remember that the "march of freedom" doesn't follow a straight path, and as David Greene says, "President Bush himself talks about leading freedom’s march; that march has taken him today to a moment of political uncertainty."

Of Guns and Presidents - The Presidents

NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday chose to highlight two books for its show today. One on the AK-47 and one on the lives of ex-Presidents. Both are telling as much for what is said as what is not said.

OF PRESIDENTS

NPR interviews Mark Updegrove, author of the book, Second Acts: Presidential Lives and Legacies After the White House. Now, I don't know about you, but my memory of Reagan's post presidency is how shamelessly he turned his status to a mulitmillion dollar cash machine in Japan. My recollection of George H. W. Bush (41) is that he also used his government experience and influence to cash-in - especially with the nasty Carlyle group. As for Nixon, who unfortunately was pardoned by his appointed Vice President Ford, he "rehabilitated" himself with just this kind of "feel good" media assistance. Now Carter, at least, does seem to put his name and status to some decent use in the world (e.g. the Carter Center).

Notice how Carter stands out from this crew. But here is what Andrea Seabrook says, "it seems like Carter, Bush, to some extent Reagan – although of course he battled Alzheimers in his post presidency - and now Bill Clinton - they all sort of center on human rights issues, poverty, health care. Is that the theme that seems to be rolling out?"

Human rights? Poverty? Health care? Reagan, Nixon, Bush?

All right, well maybe it's just that Seabrook is just profoundly ignorant and the author will gently set the record straight. So how does Updegrove respond? "You’re right, that is a common theme." So much for history.