Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Some Journalists are More Equal Than Others

(graphic by Jim Conte - used with permission )

In the post below regarding a letter to the Ombudsman, I noted that Simon referred to former Vice President Al Gore in a story on the two US journalists detained in North Korea. The detention deserves coverage, as did some coverage of Saberi's arrest in Iran (though not the wall to wall attention given by NPR).

In the May 23rd open thread comments, a reader posted a link to this LA Times article on another irregular (illegal?) detention of a journalist. In this case the journalist was seized by US forces and its allies. The reader noted the lack of NPR coverage on the abduction/detention of Ibrahim Jassam, complaining that NPR has voiced "not a word" - which this search of NPR proves.

A glance at the Committee to Protect Journalists report for "Attacks on the Press in 2008: United States" reveals that Jassam's case is not an anomaly (e.g. Jawed Ahmad). What is not an anomaly is NPR's utter disregard for, and refusal to investigate, attacks against journalists that are initiated by the United States government / military. Jeremy Schahill has written incisively about the US strategy of violence and intimidation against critical media and the complicity of mainstream US media outlets (such as NPR) in covering it up.

Consistently Inconsistent

I contacted the Ombudsman regarding Scott Simon and the "Your Letters" feature on yesterday's Weekend Edition Saturday. Here's my letter, and I'll definitely post any response (in the unlikely event that there is one that is not a robo-response):

In the "Your Letters" portion of the program Scott Simon stated,

"We'd like to clarify an issue first. Many of you wrote in to complain that NPR news analyst Juan Williams and I referred to Dick Cheney as Vice President Cheney during our discussion last week. Several correspondents said that because Mr. Cheney is no longer in office, he should not be addressed by that title. Like many other media organizations, NPR treats titles like Vice President, President, or Senator as lifetime honorifics - that's why you'll hear us continue to call former elected officials by their titles like Justic O'Connor, President Clinton, and Vice President Cheney and the policy's applied uniformly regardless of political party or ideology."

This sounds like a statement of NPR policy and if so it clearly inaccurate and strikes me as unprofessional.

First NPR sometimes refers to former officials by name only (search Al Gore or Jimmy Carter in the NPR search bar for examples) without any reference to previous office.

Second, the suggestion that an elected office bestows a grant of "lifetime honorific" on a person is an arbitrary conclusion, and one which runs contrary to the spirit the US founders and of representative democracy .

Third, this usage can be confusing, whereas the use of "former _______ " makes perfect sense and is ironically used by Scott Simon during the same show in the piece on "Jailed American Journalists in N. Korea" where he refers to "former Vice President Al Gore."

Lastly, Simon cites "Justice O'Connor" as an example of "former elected officials" whereas Supreme Court justices are appointed - and to life terms at that!

How about if NPR simply uses the elected title when referring to actions carried out in the past while holding said office (e.g. President Reagan met with Mr. Gorbachev in Iceland, etc.), or refer to people as "former _______" when discussing them in the present regarding present activities (e.g. Former Vice President Cheney defended the practices in a speech.) Wouldn't that be simple and consistent?

Thanks for considering this. I would love to hear your opinion on the matter.

Matthew Murrey (Mytwords)
NPR Check

With Friends Like These - More Fair and Balanced from NPR

A reader of this blog earlier noted his letter to the OMBOTsman regarding NPR's habit of always having supposedly liberal Daniel Schorr balanced out on every show by a more rightwing voice (can you say Foxista Juan Williams?).

This morning featured Juan Williams (and Scott Simon) parroting the right wing talking points on the Sotomayor nomination:

(Williams) "But on the face of it Scott, you'd have to say that her language - and if you took it for what it was worth - was racist."

That was the view from the right, but what about the liberal views on the weeks news? Consider these statements from Schorr talking with Simon later in the program:

• "We have not witnessed a nuclear explosion in anger since 1945..."
• "Nuclear weapons going steadily into more and more hands and not very responsible hands..."
• "Probably the most immediate dangerous is what's called proliferation. Israel has already had to bomb an installation in Syria which apparently had North Korean help in getting a nuclear weapon."
• "And so for the civilized world right now the immediate thing is to prevent further proliferation which may mean having to board and search ships at sea."

Holy smokes! However - civilized, responsible Schorr wasn't done yet. With a prompt from Simon, he's off an running on Iran:

(Simon): "Does the policy of extending a hand in friendship look a little naive this week?"
(Schorr): "I don't know if it looks, if it is naive, but it looks as though it's not getting very far..."

I'm not sure what hand of friendship Simon and Schorr are fantasizing about. Maybe they mean one of the AIPAC enriched palms of Dennis Ross - chief of Obama's non-diplomacy policy toward Iran.

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

The Counterinsurgency Channel

If you were listening to NPR last night you might have thought Tom Bowman was describing US foreign policy in Afghanistan when he said, "picture a Brinks truck on steroids." Actually he was simply describing a US armored vehicle.

The report itself is meant to promote an aspect of US counterinsurgency in Afghanistan - the training of Afghan police as part of Task Force Phoenix [what dumb ass names these operations anyway?]. The report opens with some great editorializing from Michele Norris:

"If American policy is ever to be successful in Afghanistan, it will be because of people like Army Major Jim Contreras; he's the top American police trainer in Helmand province in Southern Afghanistan. Afghan police are key to fighting insurgents: they know the neighborhoods, the people, who is an insurgent and who is not."

In spite of the likely failure of the US "mission" in Afghanistan - and the dismal (and lucrative) history of the US training program for Afghan police forces, Norris assures us that this will be the "key to fighting insurgents." It's striking, too, how apropos of nothing, Norris confidently asserts that they know "who is an insurgent and who is not"?

There is nothing in the report to indicate how disastrous the new Bushama/Obamush War in Af-Pak will be, instead there is the focus on one program (and one man) that will deliver that ever elusive, mythical (can you say Phoenix?) success that empires are always gunning for in Afghanistan.

The Economists Who Couldn't Shoot Straight

This morning NPR featured a National Association of Business Economics survey (available to members only) which predicts a modest upturn in the US economy. Here's David Greene introducing this "news":

"We've taken a look at a new survey of top economists and they conclude that this recession will probably end by the second half of this year but according to that survey from the National Association of Business Economics the job market will still remain weak..."

Frankly, when a news station tells me that some non-public survey predicting economic recovery reflects the opinion of top economists - I want to know who they are and whose interests they represent. Especially when the organization sponsoring the survey brags on its website:

"Past Presidents have included several former Federal Reserve Governors, the former Chairman of the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan, and other senior business leaders."

In addition to the basic information about who these surveyed jokers are, it would have helped to note that NABE's previous survey predictions have been less than accurate - as noted by blogger, Walt Thiessen and by Barry Ritholz at RGE Monitor.

Q Tips

(source of graphic)

NPR related comments welcomed.

NPR hosts Obama-Cheney debate

President Obama engaged former vice president Dick Cheney in a heated debate last week on both administrations' use of torture and other violations of human rights.

Actually, the debate never happened; the two men were in completely different locations, each attacking the policies of the other administration and defending their own positions in speeches in front of friendly audiences unable to challenge them. Nonetheless, ME presented them as a face-to-face debate between the two men, alternating soundbites from each.

Yes, this is the same Dick Cheney who determinedly avoided all forms of open information and accountability during the eight miserably long years he was VP, and who has every motivation to cover up the various crimes committed under his reign in the Bush administration. So one might reasonably ask, Who gives a shit what Dick Cheney has to say now?

Well, evidently NPR does, because they gave Cheney equal billing with the president in a piece titled "Obama, Cheney: Different Views on National Security." The title is offensive not only because it presents Cheney's views as equally relevant as the current president's, but also because it refers to the crimes of torture, the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and indefinite detention without trial, as simply "national security." (At least the extended web version of the "debate" is titled "Obama, Cheney face off on torture.")

And in case you were wondering who won the debate, Steve Inskeep introduces the article with:

"Cheney warned that the new administration was tearing down the policies that kept America safe, yet the new president also faces criticism for keeping the essence of many Bush administration policies in place."

I am not going to get into the details of the misreprentations and dissembling in both speeches. These have been covered well elsewhere. My point here is to just to ask why NPR decided it was appropriate to present Cheney's blatantly self-serving propaganda as anything remotely relevant to current policy.

Don Gonyea attempted to explain it by saying: "The administration seemed to relish the mano a mano competition, pitting the popular Mr. Obama against an unpopular former vice president."

Actually, it was NPR that seemed to relish it most. And, of course, Gonyea couldn't help but jump into the make-believe debate himself, with his own thoughts on just how darn difficult it is to stop torturing people:

"But the real battle for President Obama is not in outshining Dick Cheney but persuading a reluctant Congress and public that he can shudder Guantanamo without compromising security."

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

On NPR Supermax is Super Funny

Considering whether Guantanamo detainees might end up in the Florence, Colorado Supermax prison, NPR put Melissa Block on the phone with Bob Wood. According to Block "He's publisher of the Florence Citizen; his newspaper was active in helping bring Supermax to Florence and he says the prison is good for the local economy." Essentially, Wood tells block that bringing Guantanamo prisoners to the Supermax in Florence is not a controversial issue at all.

Block glibly closes the interview with this anecdote:

"By the way we also called the mayor of Florence, Colorado - Bart Hall - who told us this: 'Florence is used to having very bad boys at the Supermax. We weren't expecting it to house a bunch of kindergartners."

Oh man, that is so funny. Unlike those bitter, humorless Quakers, I just laughed and laughed to think of "more than twenty thousand prisoners in the United States...in special super-maximum security facilities....locked in small, sometimes windowless, cells....A few times a week...let out for showers and solitary exercise....[with] almost no access to educational or recreational activities...." What a riot! Ho! and kindergartners....yes, the idea of children in inhumane detention is just so clever and witty....

I just hope that NPR will hurry up and call up some of America's finest torturers enhanced interrogators so they can regale us with torture humor. Oh Melissa, you certainly are a very bad girl!

Q Tips

NPR related comments are always welcomed.

Summer Camp With Steve and Jackie

At the top of the hour Thursday morning I had to hear Inskeep cheerily remark that NPR would visit Guantanamo where prisoners are "taking art classes, growing tomatoes, and learning English..." Inskeep also described the prisoners as "terror detainees."

Jackie Northam was the tour guide for this Potemkin trip to Gitmo where we heard from chummy US military personnel about the inmates of Camp 4 - the "highly compliant" inmates who get to stay outside their cells, use basketball and soccer facilities, take art classes, garden and learn English.

There were a few details missing in this story about current conditions at Guantanamo. Somehow Jackie missed out on the rough and tumble fun of detainee v. Immediate Reaction Force games. She could have found a redacted history of these brave competitors at the UC-Davis Human Rights Center or talked with one of the detainee players. Amazingly, Jackie also missed the family-style feedings attended by 10% of Guantanamo "terror detainees."

Maybe I'm not being fair to Jackie and Steve. After all, change is in the air (not), summer is almost here, and things are just so much improved at Guantanamo...aren't they?

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Criminal Reporting

Poor Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson couldn't do a decent report out of Afghanistan if someone else wrote it and handed it to her. On Tuesday's ATC she describes an assassination attempt against one of the sleazy Karzai brothers [this one - not this one] as follows:

"For now, provincial council members meet in the well-guarded home of council chair Ahmed Wali Karzai...the brother of Afghan President. He was himself the target of an assassination attempt outside Kabul last week when gunmen ambushed his convoy."

Given that Ahmed is widely believed to be a key drug lord in the thriving Afghan heroin trade you might expect that information to find its way into the story. Not a chance; the possibility that the assassination attempt was related to Ahmed's criminality doesn't fit NPR's narrow script of good guys (the US and any and all followers) v. bad guys/Taliban (any Afghan who takes up arms against the US-led occupation of Afghanistan). Introducing Nelson's report, Michele Norris reinforces the narrative with this bit of speculation:

"In Kandahar...just yesterday suspected Taliban militants tried unsuccessfully to assassinate the brother of President Hamid Karzai...head of the area's provincial council."

To add insult to injury, not only does Nelson stick with this interpretation but then she hands the microphone to this thug so he can lecture us about "the struggle" (I think it's called Enduring Freedom...hee, hee):

"This is a war for justice and for freedom and for democracy, and we're not going to just run away from it. So it's tough but we will continue with our struggle against the terrorists and al-Qaeda."

To cut her a bit of slack, perhaps Nelson featured this truth, justice and the American way cant because she was afraid of what freedom-lovin' Ahmed Karzai might do to her if she did any actual reporting on him...

Q tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Simon Says as Simon Does

This morning Scott Simon - one of America’s most admired writers and broadcasters [hee, hee] - retreads a valid point made four days ago by HuffPo' Phil Bronstein: homophobe Carrie Prejean and Barack Obama have made similar statements about gay marriage. Ah, but Simon is wanting to be extra-clever and so hired actors to recite Prejan's jumbled anti-gay marriage statements with a "sophisticated" British accent, followed by Obama's anti-gay marriage statement read with a middle-American plain accent.

After each statement he challenged us to guess "Who said that?"

Well, let's play Simon's game with Simon's [and a different President's] own words. We'll go back to October of 2001.

For the first speaker, imagine a well meaning, gentle, oh-so sincere, sensitive man-voice reading:

"Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader. Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground....We're a peaceful nation. Yet, as we have learned, so suddenly and so tragically, there can be no peace in a world of sudden terror....We defend not only our precious freedoms, but also the freedom of people everywhere to live and raise their children free from fear....Today, those sacrifices are being made by members of our armed forces who now defend us so far from home."

For the second, imagine a clipped, faux-Texas, folksy, tough guy macho voice saying,

"In confronting the forces that attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, American pacifists have no sane alternative now but to support war....People who try to hold certain American policies or culture responsible are trying to decorate the crimes of psychotics with synthetic political significance....But those...who have been pacifists must admit that it has been [their] blessing to live in a nation in which other citizens have been willing to risk their lives to defend [their] dissent....Only American (and British) power can stop more killing..."

So, who do you think was the speaker of the first? Your choices are either Scott Simon or George W. Bush. And what about the second speech - Bush or Simon? It's hard to tell, isn't it? The first is Bush announcing the US assault on Afghanistan in October of 2001 and the second is Scott Simon justifying that same war in the Wall Street Journal.

Simon ends this morning's piece with the usual smug, self-congratulatory bit of moralizing:
"It makes it a bit harder, but more important, to do real journalism and sometimes tell an audience, 'We know what you think you know. But listen to this.'" Real journalism...yeah, listen to this...

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

Obama v EPA; Shogren v memo

Tuesday's ATC carried a story titled "OMB criticizes EPA finding on greenhouse gases." OMB refers to the White House Office of Management and Budget, and the story asserts that the Obama administration disagrees with the recent EPA ruling that greenhouse gases and global warming are a threat to public health and welfare.

Here is how Robert Siegel introduced the piece:

"A White House document has reignited the debate over whether the government should regulate greenhouse gases... The document that's come to light raises questions about the EPA's findings."

And here is Elizabeth Shogren's summary:

"Some industry representatives say the White House document shows that the EPA might be stretching the science to increase its regulatory might."

No.

These are basically the talking points from the oil industry and the Senate Republicans who promoted this story, but it is not quite true.

David Roberts at Grist explains that Republican senators are promoting a memo that had been submitted in response to the EPA’s call for comments on the recent “endangerment finding” on greenhouse gases. The memo is extremely critical of the EPA’s greenhouse gas decision. But rather than the official position of the Obama White House, the OMB memo is a compilation of comments and opinions from staff in various federal agencies, including Bush administration officials. The comments were compiled over the first couple months of the Obama administration, when Bush officials were still in place and before the Obama administration had appointed new agency leads.

As Grist's Roberts puts it: "The OMB is not challenging the EPA. All these memos show is that there are people somewhere in the vast federal bureaucracy, either now or from the Bush era, who don’t like the idea of the EPA regulating greenhouse gases."

Far be it from me to defend the Obama administration, but it seems quite a stretch for NPR to portray this as the official position of Obama or the OMB. So why are Siegel and Shogren parroting propaganda from the global warming deniers? I don't know. But to cap it off, Shogren ends the story with,

"Some environmentalists...say there is no doubt that greenhouse gases endanger public health."

Again, no. It is not just those pesky environmentalists who say that greenhouse gases and global warming are a problem. It is the EPA who says so.

Q Tips

NPR related comments are always welcomed.