ME on Friday morning dedicated an entire 47 seconds to the news that the Obama administration is set to issue new fuel economy standards for automobiles, requiring 30.2 mpg for cars and 24 mpg for trucks by 2011. You might argue that 47 seconds is plenty long for an article about the technicalities of federal regulations -- I sometimes work on fuel economy regulations, and the specifics can indeed be mind-numbing -- but Steve Inskeep somehow missed the most interesting (and perhaps alarming) part of the story: The standards announced Friday by the Obama administration are even lower (worse) than the standards proposed last year by the Bush administration. Bush had proposed 31.2 mpg for cars and 25 mpg for trucks.
If he had covered the story a little more deeply, Inskeep might have reached all the way back to January 26 when President Obama ordered his Department of Transportation to develop higher automobile fuel economy standards, saying: "The days of Washington dragging its heels are over." Maybe the issue was mentioned in subsequent articles this same weekend on the continued bailout of GM, but if it was I missed it.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Restoring Faith
I'd love to know what it costs NPR to station Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson in Afghanistan. I heard her on the morning hourly news bulletin and then later this afternoon. Here's her report:"Karzai told reporters that he welcomes the increased American focus on Taliban and al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan. Those sanctuaries have soured relations between Afghan and Pakistani officials. He also says the plan will help restore Afghans' faith in western efforts in their country (Karzai: 'It's exactly what Afghan people were hoping for and seeking, therefore it has our full support.') The strategy also calls for sending forces to provinces in southern and eastern Afghanistan to fight the growing Taliban threat. Meanwhile in the southern province of Helmand, Afghan and coalition forces killed 12 militants Friday night during a raid of their compound."Good thing she's actually there and can verify what Karzai said, including that awesome, exclusive voice recording of Karzai himself speaking -wow! And it's amazing that she was able to scoot down to Helmand province to confirm that those twelve Friday night "kills" were actually "militants." I mean, seriously, if she weren't actually there, I might think that she was just reading this crap on Voice of America and Stars and Stripes.
Tristan Who?
(Click on photo to see the actual graphic in context)How about NPR's stellar coverage of the Israeli attack on US citizen Tristan Anderson? Click the graphic below to see for yourself.
Coming 6 years after the murder of Rachel Corrie, I guess one shouldn't be surprised. As Mondoweiss points out, this is typical for the US press - but, really, with the videotaped evidence of the unprovoked attack and with ABC and even the AP covering it, you might think it would get a mention. Oh, but wait, unlike the Rachel Corrie killing, which NPR did cover, the US State Department hasn't cleared the way for our intrepid NPR journalists by calling for a probe first.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thinktankistan
When the armed-and-dangerous (and well funded, and well connected) in Washington cook up their insane (and murderous) ideas for global victory, you can count on NPR to spice up the crock o'crap and serve it up as a perfectly tasty and rational proposal. All that's needed is a quick trip to the pantry of well-funded/connected (and dangerous) think tanks that are soooo... fond of the projection of US power. This morning was a case in point with experienced tank chef Jackie Northam chattering on about a splendid recipe for drone-bombing the Baluchistan province of Pakistan.
The range of opinions Northam puts in the pot is telling:
- NPR regular Anthony Cordesman (winner of the "Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal") of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
- Daniel Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR)
- U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill (former NATO commander in Afghanistan who by retirement should be ripe for think-tank or con$ultant harvesting!)
- Seth Jones of the Pentagon-lovin' RAND Corporation.
In fairness, I have to give Markey a nod. Despite his claim that there appears to be at least passive support for Baluchi Taliban within Pakistan's military, he points out that US bombing in Baluchistan would "cross a red line" and "fuel further unrest" (unrest!!?). Beside that tepid dissent, the rest of the piece features Northam cooking up the apocalyptic alarmism that Juan Cole and other analysts (hee-hee) have derided:
- "Cordesman and other analysts say the Taliban operates openly in Baluchistan...."
- "Removing the leadership in Quetta could severely disrupt Taliban operations in Afghanistan. Some analysts say if the Pakistanis won't do it, the U.S. should take action."
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Lethal Contradictions
NPR's Wednesday ATC touts the praise that a counterinsurgency expert has put on Obama's coming Afghanistan strategy. Who is this expert brought on for an interview with Robert Siegel? It would have to be one of NPR's two favorite counterinsurgency hucksters: Super-Duper Soup-with-a-Knife Nagl or Kill-and-Cull-em Kilcullen.Turns out that Wednesday's story features Kilcullen playing a bit of Jekyll and Hyde - something that Siegel completely misses (no surprise there). As the kindly Dr. Jekyll, he tells Siegel:
"The accidental guerrilla is a person fighting us not because they hate the West - but because they've been co-opted by a very small clique of radicals in their area, and/or because we just turned up in their valley with a brigade, shot their cousin you know, dispossessed their land and so on - and it's a backlash against our presence. "To deal with this he suggests that the US-NATO forces need to
"...focus a little less on full-time main-force guerrilla columns...and focus more on protecting people where they live. That is building relationships with people in local villages, in valleys, major towns and so-on....partnering with local communities to make them self-defending."Sounds downright hunky-dory. But when Siegel asks how long "we" will be in Afghanistan Mr. Hyde reveals:
"I would say that we have three to five years of major engagement with Afghanistan and of that a substantial amount will be heavy combat in the next year or two. If that goes well - and that's a big if - then we will probably find ourselves in a situation where we need to support the Afghans from perhaps one step back if you like, as they handle the problem for another five or ten years or so - and then after that they will handle the problem."A year or two of "heavy combat"? You'd think Siegel would ask his esteemed expert how the US and NATO are going to engage in heavy combat without slaughtering more civilians and how that won't create more "accidental guerrillas"? Apparently the thought never entered Siegel's mind.
Back to being the gentle Jekyll, Kilcullen claims that "....the way they [counterinsurgencies] end is you drive the threat down to the level at which the locals can handle it, and then they just handle it." As is always the case on NPR, there is no reality check on the atrocities and carnage that have been the hallmarks of the counterinsurgencies that Nagl and Kilcullen are so enamored of.
Lastly, something worth reading is a telling (and very defensive) reaction from Kilcullen to a review by Andrew Bacevich of Kilcullen's Accidental Guerrilla book.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Got Blood?
On Saturday NPR returned to the scene of the crimes of El Salvador's 1980s bloodbath - a US-nurtured extreme-right orgy of torture and murder against organized labor, the poor, church leaders, and leftists (and their families, friends, associates, or potential associates).There were a few problems with the report. Jason Beaubien's reporting isn't great; he does a little plastic surgery on history, claiming "The Reagan administration jumped into the Cold War conflict spending billions of dollars to fight the Marxist guerrillas while Cuba and other communist states backed the FMLN." That's a rather tidy and truncated version of the long history of US support for the murderous right in El Salvador - gathering steam and corpses especially in the 1960s. It also ignores the historical record of who killed most of those 75,000 plus civilians in the "Cold War conflict." But the really nasty propaganda is front loaded by Lianne Hansen in introducing the report:
"The FMLN is a coalition of left wing groups, but it's dominated by the communist party. One of the biggest questions after the FMLN victory is how far to the left the President Elect Mauricio Funes will move El Salvador."Dominated by the communist party? That's a stunning assertion. Dominated by revolutionaries and former guerrillas - okay. But the communist party? In all the articles I found, the communist party is mentioned as important, but not dominant. In the report Jason Beaubien comments that "El Salvador appears at times to be stuck in the Cold War." (Psst, Jason, I think El Salvador's not the only one!)
Finally for Hansen to claim that "one of the biggest questions...is how far to the left...blah, blah, blah" is quite telling. No surprise, but that seems to be the big question keeping some Foxes awake at night. That's definitely the question of the profiteers and oligarchs who have exploited El Salvador mercilessly, but it's not the question troubling the Catholic Church in El Salvador or the progressive movement in the United States.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
pitchfork rebellion
I didn't intend to write about a four-day-old article, but as I was sorting through NPR's coverage this week of the AIG bonuses, I came upon this gem from Mara Liasson on Tuesday's ATC. The premise of Liasson's article "AIG Complicates Obama's Strategy" is that "a wave of populist outrage" over the AIG bonuses presents political difficulties for the Obama administration. However, something ugly was going on with Liasson's use of the word "populist."
The most common definition of "populism" is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite. Indubitably, there has been plenty of outrage over the use of the taxpayer-funded bailout to give bonuses to wealthy financial executives. However, another common definition of populism, with a much more negative connotation, is: "a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people." It is this second connotation that drives Liasson's story.
This was most clear when Liasson claimed that Obama "let the stage directions show, just a little bit," when he joked that a catch in his throat was due to being choked up with anger over the AIG bonuses. Her point evidently being that the entire press conference was merely posturing necessary to "surf a wave of populist anger."
Of course, I don't know the hearts of Obama, Geithner, et al., any better than Liasson does, but this is an extremely cynical take, considering that are very good reasons to have serious concerns regarding the bailout of AIG and other financial institutions. Rather than admit those concerns, Liasson dismissed them as "populist backlash," and described the Congressional debate over the issue as a "fullblown pitchfork rebellion."
The problem, according to Liasson, is not the very real and justifiable concerns about the bailout, but the fact that the Obama administration is now "torn between attacking and defending some of the financial entities it needs to prop up in order to secure economic recovery." Obama's challenge, she says, is to convince voters/taxpayers that "the bailout money won't be used again in a way that insults taxpayers values." Excuse me, but these issues involve significant, quantifiable realities--budgets, salaries, layoffs, not to mention the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars of public funds--not simply taxpayers' values (read "opinions").
Needless to say, it would be much more informative and useful if NPR were to report on the substance of the economic policy issues, rather than simply engaging in political scorekeeping while dismissing the actual debate as merely calculated posturing to mollify the pitchfork-wielding rubes.
The most common definition of "populism" is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite. Indubitably, there has been plenty of outrage over the use of the taxpayer-funded bailout to give bonuses to wealthy financial executives. However, another common definition of populism, with a much more negative connotation, is: "a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people." It is this second connotation that drives Liasson's story.
This was most clear when Liasson claimed that Obama "let the stage directions show, just a little bit," when he joked that a catch in his throat was due to being choked up with anger over the AIG bonuses. Her point evidently being that the entire press conference was merely posturing necessary to "surf a wave of populist anger."
Of course, I don't know the hearts of Obama, Geithner, et al., any better than Liasson does, but this is an extremely cynical take, considering that are very good reasons to have serious concerns regarding the bailout of AIG and other financial institutions. Rather than admit those concerns, Liasson dismissed them as "populist backlash," and described the Congressional debate over the issue as a "fullblown pitchfork rebellion."
The problem, according to Liasson, is not the very real and justifiable concerns about the bailout, but the fact that the Obama administration is now "torn between attacking and defending some of the financial entities it needs to prop up in order to secure economic recovery." Obama's challenge, she says, is to convince voters/taxpayers that "the bailout money won't be used again in a way that insults taxpayers values." Excuse me, but these issues involve significant, quantifiable realities--budgets, salaries, layoffs, not to mention the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars of public funds--not simply taxpayers' values (read "opinions").
Needless to say, it would be much more informative and useful if NPR were to report on the substance of the economic policy issues, rather than simply engaging in political scorekeeping while dismissing the actual debate as merely calculated posturing to mollify the pitchfork-wielding rubes.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
We will all be long, long gone
[Hello, all. As my signature suggests, my name is Brian and I'll be an occasional contributor to NPR Check, writing once or twice a week primarily on the issues of national politics and environmental policy. I've spent the past 10 years or so working in public policy and politics, and of course listening to way, way too much NPR.]
Although one reader (biggerbox) already beat me to the punch in a comment, this morning's ME article about Antarctic sea ice deserves note. Actually, Richard Harris' explanation of the Nature article and the underlying science was fine: researchers have determined that the West Antarctic ice sheet has repeatedly deteriorated over the past few million years, and is likely to do so again if the surrounding ocean temperature increases by 5C. This finding made the climate researchers "nervous," since such a scenario would probably involve sea level rises of 15 to 20 feet.
However, the article placed a bizarre emphasis on the relatively long time it takes such large masses of ice to melt. Harris noted that the researcher "figures that will take at least 1,000 years, and more likely 2,000 to 3,000 years, " and Renee Montagne introduced the piece by saying, "maybe this will make you feel a bit better, we will all be long, long gone before it could happen." No reason to worry, right?
I can't help but feel that they got the focus a little backwards. For example, Harris notes that "while the full effect may not unfold for thousands of years, it would transform the planet into a place we would not recognize today." However, Antarctic ice sheets are already melting rapidly--losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice per year. Also, although NPR didn't report it, the same climate scientist noted elsewhere that the 5C tipping point was a "rough number," and that "It could be 3C or it could be 6C." Considering that the scientific consensus is that the earth has already been committed to more than 2C of warming by the end of this century, the possibility of reaching 3C, or even 5C, seems far too likely.
It might have been more appropriate to emphasize that the planet is already changing so dramatically that we are now forced to consider the very real possibility that a 527,000 cubic-mile chuck of ice could melt away entirely, whether or not we are alive to see it. Thankfully, the article ends with a glaciologist calling for efforts to curb global warming, but the point is not well connected to the main body of the article, and it would be hard for a listener not to mistakenly take away the implication that the worst impacts of climate change are a thousand years away.
Although one reader (biggerbox) already beat me to the punch in a comment, this morning's ME article about Antarctic sea ice deserves note. Actually, Richard Harris' explanation of the Nature article and the underlying science was fine: researchers have determined that the West Antarctic ice sheet has repeatedly deteriorated over the past few million years, and is likely to do so again if the surrounding ocean temperature increases by 5C. This finding made the climate researchers "nervous," since such a scenario would probably involve sea level rises of 15 to 20 feet.
However, the article placed a bizarre emphasis on the relatively long time it takes such large masses of ice to melt. Harris noted that the researcher "figures that will take at least 1,000 years, and more likely 2,000 to 3,000 years, " and Renee Montagne introduced the piece by saying, "maybe this will make you feel a bit better, we will all be long, long gone before it could happen." No reason to worry, right?
I can't help but feel that they got the focus a little backwards. For example, Harris notes that "while the full effect may not unfold for thousands of years, it would transform the planet into a place we would not recognize today." However, Antarctic ice sheets are already melting rapidly--losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice per year. Also, although NPR didn't report it, the same climate scientist noted elsewhere that the 5C tipping point was a "rough number," and that "It could be 3C or it could be 6C." Considering that the scientific consensus is that the earth has already been committed to more than 2C of warming by the end of this century, the possibility of reaching 3C, or even 5C, seems far too likely.
It might have been more appropriate to emphasize that the planet is already changing so dramatically that we are now forced to consider the very real possibility that a 527,000 cubic-mile chuck of ice could melt away entirely, whether or not we are alive to see it. Thankfully, the article ends with a glaciologist calling for efforts to curb global warming, but the point is not well connected to the main body of the article, and it would be hard for a listener not to mistakenly take away the implication that the worst impacts of climate change are a thousand years away.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Rhee-form Experts
On Monday's ME Claudio Sanchez offers a case study in slick storytelling as he cobbles together another genuflection to Michelle Rhee. Sanchez limits his story to lots of airtime and rhapsodizing about first-year teacher Meridith Leonard who seems to be a critical part of Rhee's media dog-and-pony show (that also includes principal Brian Betts who features prominently in Sanchez's story).
Here's a sample of Sanchez' radio spin:
Not surprisingly this piece (which might as well have been produced by the American Enterprise Institute) relies on trashing teacher unions and trashing (and ignoring) the researched based findings about the effects of poverty on student performance - something NPR has done before.
Here's a sample of Sanchez' radio spin:
"Leonard is what school reform experts call a new breed of teacher -mostly twenty-somethings fresh out of college....Many are receptive to the changes that DC chancellor Michelle Rhee is proposing: merit pay and doing away with tenure - all good ideas (pause), says Leonard."As someone who works all the time with many incredibly talented, hard-working, inventive, passionate, and undervalued public school teachers - this kind of lazy journalism drives me crazy. His piece is all about the great value of these "new" unconventional teachers who don't have a clue about the value of unions and instead are so excited about dog-eat-dog competition between teachers rewarded for for high test score student performance . Sanchez twice relies on unnamed school "reform experts" and then quickly slips in the far right think tank, American Enterprise Institute, "expert" Rick Hess.
"It's all about change now, says Leonard....It's her first year, but she exudes confidence."
"Leonard's 6th graders have made remarkable progress - this particular class is 100% proficient in reading according to the latest test scores." (I hate to tell Sanchez, but if that's true then whoever had those kids in the last year or two is responsible - not six-month Leonard).
"Leonard doesn't believe poverty is an excuse for kids not learning."
"....that difference [between new teachers and teachers who've been in the system for a long time] reform experts say is what chancellor Michelle Rhee is trying to reconcile as she moves aggressively to try to remake the city's teacher corps. (Audio clip: 'Younger teachers obviously they don't have as much at stake.') Rick Hess is a senior researcher at the American Enterprise Institute. Unlike younger teachers, says Hess, veteran teachers believe they have a lot to lose when people start talking about change..."
Not surprisingly this piece (which might as well have been produced by the American Enterprise Institute) relies on trashing teacher unions and trashing (and ignoring) the researched based findings about the effects of poverty on student performance - something NPR has done before.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Same Slaughter, Same Reporter
I think it's time to drug test JJ Sutherland - the man seems to be hyped up on testosterone in a big way. I was going to pass on last week's clipped-sentence tough-guy narration of an Air Force Cross won by a US airman for a firefight and assault in Afghanistan - until I heard him again this morning using the uber-macho style to sing the praises of the the US air-war machine again.Here's a sample of last week's Sutherland:
"They came in at first light. Giant helicopters swooped into Shak Valley....'kind of trapped ourselves,' he says. Their mission had changed; now it was all about getting out alive....calling in air strikes from above: F-15s, Apaches, A-10s; it goes on for hours....had to call in air strikes practically on top of his own position: rockets, cannons, bombs. Nothing worked. Finally, they had only one option left....a TWO THOUSAND POUND BOMB."Interestingly, in Sutherland's wargasmic homage he didn't mention a bit of information I found buried in an Air Force write-up of the attack:
"By the end of the fight, between 150 and 200 insurgents were killed, according to reports." We all know how accurate the US military has been about killing "insurgents" (i.e. If they kill you, you're an insurgent).I also found that Afghans had a bit of a different take on the "mission."
That was last Tuesday, and then there was this Monday morning's quasi-religious worship of the fighter pilot, or as NPR titled it "Same Swagger, Different Jets."
Sutherland was at it again, chopping his sentences into manly Hemingway-size chunks:
"Fighter pilot: confident, swagger, ego...those who survive the competition are supremely confident. Ask any fighter pilot and he'll tell you a dogfight is no place for self-doubt. Results are what matter. Everyone in your squadron knows whether you succeeded or choked....the swagger's the same as it was when Yeager was flying P-51 Mustangs over Germany....at 9-Gs the blood is forced from your brain. It's hard to breathe, let alone talk, let alone be twisting around in your seat looking for someone trying to kill you....It's hard to imagine hearing this ['I feel the need, the need - for speed - ow!'] coming from a cubicle."Yeah, nothing like all that supreme confidence when you're napalming peasants, cluster bombing Afghan villages, and flattening cities in Iraq. No place for questioning orders, no place for morality, just swagger - like JJ, radio warrior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
