NPR Check

Q Tips

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:31:00 +0000

NPR related comments welcomed.

(Be sure to notice the 2009 Weblog Awards link in the sidebar - any assists are appreciated!)

OMG! Only 45 Shopping Days Left

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:51:00 +0000

Monday meant that there were only 45 shopping days before Christmas, and NPR was in crass commercialism high gear.

If you were casually listening to Morning Edition, you might have thought NPR was reporting on its own newsreader stars - Montagne, Inskeep, Siegel, Norris, and Block -

"[They]...have names like Mr. Squiggles, Chunk, Pipsqueak....[and] are embedded with a computer chip so they can squeak, chirp and respond"

- and not the $10 MUST HAVE TOY of the season - computerized hamsters:

By the time All Things Considered [emphasis on Things] rolled around the cost level of the embedded commercials had gone up a notch.

Melissa Block spent more than 4 minutes with Omar Gallaga going over stuff like Motorola's Droid phone

[Gallaga]"...it's a very kind of masculine metal dense in your hand, kind of feel, not curvy like the iPhone. So, I think it's definitely a good alternative to the iPhone. If I were shopping for something outside of the iPhone universe...."

Dell's newest thin laptop

[Gallaga] "I got some cuddle time with it as I like to call it....It's very, very thin....there's some very interesting design things going on...It all sounds good so far. But the downside is that it starts at $1799."

And a new video game starring Mickey Mouse

[Block] "Disney is going to be a using a video game to help reinvent, re-imagine one of its most beloved characters. The game is called Epic Mickey. What can you tell us about it?"

Fortunately Americans now have some way cool stuff to spend those unemployment benefits on. Are we feeling stimulated yet?

I see the product placements continue this morning (Tuesday) with Inskeep hawking Call of Duty 2 (No, not Obama's supposed Afghanistan war plans!), the video game.

Q Tips

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:51:00 +0000

NPR related Precious Moments™ comments welcomed.

Election 2009 Trash Talk

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:59:00 +0000

If NPR's Repulican dominated discussions of the 2009 elections (e.g. Inskeep's Nov. 5 ME schmooze with Mike Murphy, Don Gonyea's afternoon friendly with Murphy, and Fox New/NPR "analyst" Liasson's lie fest with Frank Donatelli) have you scratching your head - it's nothing new. The 2006 national elections should have removed any doubts about NPR's rightwing tilt when it comes to electoral coverage; in 2006 NPR hammered away at the made-up claim that the clear repudiation of Republicans was actually a national call for bipartisanship.

I've posted below on Inkseep's pathetic interview with Murphy, and I was pleased to find a withering post at Daily Kos concerning Mara Liasson's hackery. Beyondleft writes,

"I didn't know it was possible to pack so many lies into a 5 minute radio report, but Mara Liasson surpassed my expectations."

Indeed! Besides flogging Liasson the dKos piece contains a link to Randy Lobasso's Philly2Philly.com wrap up on the elections. It's about the best summary I've read. After reading it you can't help notice the utter lack of NPR/corporate media coverage of the John Garamendi victory in the CA-10 House race where a progressive democrat won a seat formerly held by a rightwing democrat. Guess that kind of result just doesn't fit in the GOP landslide - warning to Democrats spin that NPR and other conventional press outlets are trying to sell.

Q Tips

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:39:00 +0000

NPR related comments welcomed.

Inskeep Works Hard for the Money

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:32:00 +0000

On Thursday morning, Inskeep interviews Mike Murphy (the classy Republican strategist) about the huge, massive, overwhelming Democratic gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia on Tuesday evening - oops, that was in 2001 - I meant the similar 2009 Republican triumphs in those states that are a "slap in the face" to Obama and the Democrats.

For those of us living in the reality-based sphere, we recall that Obama and Democrats made all kinds of concessions for the stimulus bill - only to get NO Republican votes in the House. We remember that team Obama squelched single payer and backed corporate insurance "reform" only to have the Republican nihlists savage these timid reforms. And any of us who give a crap about the Constitution, are seriously disturbed by the extremist Bush-Obama efforts to enshrine the absolutism of the security state.

Keeping these troublesome facts in mind, consider the statements that were made by Mike Murphy as Steve Inskeep interviewed him this morning:

"...hopefully to have some Democrats now start thinking about a bipartisan approach, where they can sit down with Republicans and actually compromise, rather than asking Republicans to vote 99 percent Democrat and call that compromise."

Inskeep's challenge to this nonsense: "We'll talk about that a little bit, but I want to ask a little more about these elections...." When that "later" roles around, here's his big confrontation,"Why do you think, as you suggest, that these election results would cause Democrats in Washington and Congress to work a little more collaboratively with Republicans?" Yes, Inskeep just rolls over, and accepts the lie that Democrats have been obstructing bipartisanship and running roughshod over Republicans.

Seeing that Inskeep knows how to "work collaboratively" with him, Murphy states,

"Because I think the great mistake of the Obama presidency...is they were elected as a bipartisan problem solver, almost a post-partisan politician. But from the day they've been in, they got a little drunk on the power and they've governed as a one-party liberal party....the Democrats, in my view, are governing too far to the left. They're losing the middle of the country...."

Drunk on power? One-party liberal party? Too far to the left? Seriously, did I miss the Democrats pushing for a Roosevelt-style jobs program? Was I sleeping when the Democrats insisted on pursuing single-payer health insurance, or a full public option open to all with no "triggers" or provisos attached? Are the Democrats seeking to have the Bush torture architects and practitioners investigated and tried? Did the banks get nationalized? Did the Pentagon budget get slashed?

And Inskeep's rejoinder? - "Now, when you say the Democrats should learn a lesson of not being too focused on health care, I mean, they're in it. I mean, they're going to try to pass a bill. How should this affect the health care debate for them?" In other words, NOTHING - no challenge, no fact check, no mention of the recent past. I guess that's how Inskeep earns that whopping $353,390 a year salary (+ $38,698 to "employee benefit plans") *[from page 57 of the NPR FY 2008 IRS 990 filing.]

*Or simply click on graphic at the top of this post to see the 5 highest paid NPR employees in 2008 - how Alex Chadwick fits in there is anybody's guess.

Q Tips

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:21:00 +0000

NPR related comments welcomed.

Bend It Like Beck - Ahem

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:05:00 +0000

"I've said it before, and I will reiterate it. NPR is a mainstream news outlet." - Alicia Shepard, Nov. 2, 2009

I have to hand it to NPR's ombudsman, Alicia Shepard, when she posts on her blog, she really knows how to put ugly out there. This was manifest in her June21, 2009 defense of not calling torture torture and her similarly enhanced defense of the same on June 30, 2009. If you've not read Glenn Greenwald's critique of Shepard on this matter, it is well worth the read.

On her Monday, Nov. 2 post, Shepard's back with a doozy, distorting her critics' positions and selectively misquoting herself in order to defend her stated desire to have MORE conservative voices on NPR news.

Shepard is writing about a complaint she received regarding comments she made on the Kojo Nmadi show on the Washington, DC public radio affiliate, WAMU. A caller had just hung up after noting - with examples - that NPR's usual range of experts/pundits ranged from the hard right to slightly left of center at best. Shepard's response (starting at about the 42 minute mark) was telling:

"Public radio listeners are very passionate about what they hear...people hear things selectively....people hear groups that they think shouldn't be on NPR and then they latch on to that and I think that's just how we're wired as human beings..."

and then comes

"...do I think NPR could do a better job? I think of having more conservative voices on NPR ah, you know rather than saying that they pander to conservatives, I just think some of the conservative names Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck. I mean when Glenn Beck is on NPR I can be assured that there will be a lot of emails about that, and I feel like, 'Hey you should hear what Glenn Beck has to say. You know, like it or not, he is influential.' "

It's crucial to note that there is absolutely nothing in Shepard's on-air comment indicating that she thinks it's important to report on the views of people like Beck and Limbaugh - to hold their statements up to facts and to explore the phenomenon of the popularity of hate and misinformation news-opinion shows. Is there any other way to interpret Shepard's remarks, except to conclude that she believes more conservative voices such as Beck and Limbaugh should be on NPR?

And so she received an angry email from a listener who wrote,

"I was outraged by your comment today on the Kojo Nnamdi program that NPR should have more people like Glenn Beck who represent a certain point of view not heard on NPR."

Seems like a pretty open and shut case of Ombudsman says something stupid and unethical, gets caught, and should issue an apology/retraction. Not in Shepard's "Beck and Me" land. First she whines,

"Usually I am the one examining those on air, and now I know how it feels to be on the other side of the mic, where it is perceived that I did something wrong."

Then she selectively edits her statement from the WAMU show,

"When Glenn Beck is on NPR I can be assured that there will be a lot of emails about that, and I feel like, 'Hey you should hear what Glenn Beck has to say. You know, like it or not he is influential.' " [Notice how she removes the damning opening to her statement "...I think of having more conservative voices on NPR ah, you know rather than saying that they pander to conservatives, I just think some of the conservative names Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck.]

And finally she distorts her critic's opinion so that it is easier to dismiss,

"That quote does not indicate that I think Beck should be on NPR every day..."

It's worth re-reading the complaint she's referring to: "I was outraged by your comment today on the Kojo Nnamdi program that NPR should have more people like Glenn Beck who represent a certain point of view not heard on NPR." Is there anything in that quote alleging that Shepard wants Beck on NPR every day?

I can't think of a column that makes a stronger case for what I've been attempting to show in this blog - NPR news is indistinguishable from the pandering-to-power corporate/mainstream media news outlets in this country. Alicia Shepard - with her thirty years of journalism experience! - says it better than me:

"I've said it before, and I will reiterate it. NPR is a mainstream news outlet. Its duty is to inform the public of all that is going on - and that means airing voices and stories that many listeners might not like or agree with."

This begs the question of just what unique perspective or qualities NPR contributors are getting for their donations that they can't get on CNN, FOX, etc.

Q Tips

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:52:00 +0000

NPR related comments welcomed.

An Afghanistan Strategy That Works

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:10:00 +0000

"But the big fool said to push on." - (click photo for graphic source)

Is Sorya Sarhaddi Nelson really and truly in Afghanistan? I've heard her interviewed the last day or so regarding the fortunes of of the US debacle in Afghanistan - in light of the non-runoff runoff and the "victory" of Hamid Karzai - and I can't say I've learned anything from it.

Nelson was on ATC Monday talking to Michelle Norris and this exchange occurred:

Norris: "With Hamid Karzai now declared the official winner of the presidential election, to what degree does that now solve the political uncertainty in Afghanistan?"

Nelson: "Well, for the West it gives them - in particular, President Obama - a green light to move ahead in redefining and setting an Afghanistan strategy that works, in terms of international involvement here. But the question remains whether Afghans will accept this government as a legitimate one. I think much can be forgiven, including the fraud, in a very lengthy and disappointing election process if in fact the new Karzai administration delivers services and delivers security, which is what people here are really wanting."

Keep that little nugget in mind as you read Tony Karon's brutal assessment of Sen. Kerry's mission to Afghanistan where he rather publicly retied the strings to the wayward US puppet - and was hailed as some kind of diplomacy wizard by "the spoon fed media."

Or consider Nelson's open ended optimism ("a strategy that works, in terms of international involvement there" and "whether Afghans will accept this government as a legitimate one") as you read just the first two or three paragraphs of Tom Engelhardt's depressing assessment of where things stand in Afghanistan and how the US is likely to proceed there.

Or consider Gareth Porter's Halloween article in the Asia Times about the US-warlord ties.

Can anyone in her right mind still pretend that there is a US-led Afghanistan strategy that works, or that the Afghan people (whoever that vague constituency is) will come around to welcome the US-Karzai-NATO occupation?

Q Tips

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:18:00 +0000

As you may have noticed, I'm definitely scaling back on the frequency of posting. So keep the NPR news observations and comments rolling.

Definitely from the Monkey Planet

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:11:00 +0000

Juan "Toss" Ensalada (of the Ombot's blog fame) posted in the most recent Q Tip section the following note, pointing out once again another Dean Baker takedown of NPR economic monkey business:

The chimps over at Planet Monkey are still trying to type that masterpiece, or wash that cat in the sink, or whatever. I am not really sure.

Here is their little screed about GM taking the money and not being able to pay it back.

Here is Dean Baker's retort.

I have ceased being amazed at how much Planet Monkey can get wrong is such a short space, but then I remember, "They are not human beings!"

Ok, So It Took Eight Years

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:01:00 +0000

I think it must be a record for me: two positive notes about NPR news in one week. I was pleased - and frankly surprised - that NPR gave a prime slot of Thursday's ATC to an interview with Matthew Hoh, the Iraq war veteran and recent State Department official in Afghanistan who resigned his post as a protest of the US mission in Afghanistan.

I think this must have been a first for NPR, featuring someone who is not just quibbling with the "tactics" or "strategy" of a US war - but is questioning the whole project.

I realize that it is long, long overdue, but I'm also aware that NPR could have just ignored this story.

Definitely Not from the Monkey Planet

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:37:00 +0000

I thought I'd toss out a brief compliment to NPR News regarding their willingness to turn to Simon Johnson regarding financial policy under the Obama administration. Johnson, a former chief economist at the IMF is pretty bold about critiquing the way that the banking giants have been supersized by the Bush-Obama bailout program (his appearance on Bill Moyers Journal is worth the watch).

He was on ATC on October 9th - how often do you get to hear someone say this regarding the financial system that operates in the US:

"It's a very sophisticated sort of oligarchy that we've created..."

NPR again turned to him this week on ATC (October 28th) to weigh in on whether the mega-banks should be broken up. Again, refreshing comments such as,

"And the view that our banks are only good and forces for all kinds of progressive change is, I have to say, a little New York-biased. Most of the people in the rest of the world don't see it that way, and with good reason."

I just hope NPR doesn't Kevin Phillips him. You remember him don't you? He used to be a moderate Republican regular on NPR until he got too honest for them - pointing out the obvious sad truths of our dying republic (e.g. the Bushogarchy, the plutocracy we live in, American theocracy and Bad Money). The fate of Johnson on NPR will be interesting to watch.

Q Tips

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:07:00 +0000

NPR related comments welcomed.

The Art of Enhanced Distraction

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:59:00 +0000

On Friday I was staying late at work and before leaving heard this promising start to a story on All Things Considered:

"This week, we've been reading a vivid narrative in the New York Times by the journalist David Rohde. He was held captive for seven months by the Taliban. He was moved frequently from house to house all over remote parts of Pakistan. And one detail in this story made us particularly curious."

Holy cow! I thought, NPR is going to allude to the three rather stunning observations contained in Rohde's articles which Glenn Greenwald so aptly wrote about a few days ago:

The actions of the US in killing countless civilians (especially Muslims) in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine have "galvanized the Taliban."
The US practice of holding detainees in abusive conditions "for years without being charged" has also has strengthened the Taliban.
How much more humanely Rohde was treated by his captors compared to the treatment meted out to similarly innocent captives at the hands of US military and intelligence agencies. As Rohde notes, his captives gave him bottled water, let him walk outside, and "never beat me."

In my head I was already composing the positive post I'd put up on this blog about NPR taking on this obvious - but still controversial - angle.

Alas, I couldn't have been more wrong. What was that "one detail" which made the collective "us" at NPR so curious?

"Rhode got a letter from his wife through the International Red Cross. How in the world did the Red Cross deliver him a letter when no one knew where he was? Well, the online magazine Slate found out for its "Explainer" column. Here's Andy Bowers with the answer."

Granted, the operations of the Red Cross in trying to contact hostages is pretty interesting - as The Guardian noted way back in 2004 (and MSNBC ) and McClatchy detailed in 2008. And it's not a closed issue as this 2009 Newsweek article on ghost detainees reveals. Seems like those stories never gained much traction for the journalists at NPR news.

Interestingly, another Red Cross angle found its way into a Greenwald analysis today - Netanyahu's declaration that hiding prisoners from the Red Cross is a war crime (!?). Could there be two more polar opposite attitudes revealed by comparing Greenwald's work to NPR's? In one the focus is on the hypocrisy of those in power and the ways in which their deceit and misdeeds make the world more violent and dangerous for all of us. In the other, there is a perverse effort to focus on the most trivial and distracting details - even when such details are painfully ironic.

Q Tips

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:09:00 +0000

NPR related comments welcomed.

News From the Cryosphere

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:40:00 +0000

(source of graphic)

You've probably heard the rather depressing poll numbers about US citizens and climate catastrophe awareness (NPR's AP website feed picked it up). Essentially folks in the US have grown even more ignorant about climate science over the past two years. Perhaps some of them have been listening a bit too much to NPR:

(March 2007) - Richard Harris and Renee Montagne quibble with minor inaccuracies in Al Gore's generally cogent arguments.
(Dec. 2007) - Harris and Siegel deride Gore for calling the Bushists obstructionists in climate talks.
(April 2008) - David Kastenbaum lauds the work of 16 year old non-scientist who claims climate change is not caused by humans.
(March 2009) - Montagne and Harris reassure listeners that the Antartic Ice won't be gone for at least 1,000 years.
(April 2009) - NPR covered the little details of the Catlin expedition but (oops!) forgot to report the expeditions findings (the north pole ice is going bye-bye).

I was struck by the Democracy Now! report this morning on the 350.org world-wide protests - and by the non-coverage of the event on NPR. (Even US soldiers in Afghanistan got into the act!). Perhaps I'm jumping to judgment; maybe NPR is waiting until the actual day of the event (Saturday) to cover it - like they did for the Equality March - not! or like they did for the Tea-Party rally (where they only gave it a whole week of glowing lead-up coverage) before the big celebration.

[for information on the cryosphere - check out this resource]

Q Tips

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:29:00 +0000

NPR related comments welcomed.

This Is What a Double Standard Looks Like

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:33:00 +0000

If you've forgotten the great Iranian bogey man of 2007, who could blame you? At the time NPR was acting as a Pentagon-to-radio live feed of completely unsubstantiated claims that Iran was behind every attack on US forces in Iraq (e.g. Feb 2007, April 2007, early May 2007, late May 2007, June 2007, and Dec. 2007). There was never any concern for evidence, no matter how ludicrous the Pentagon's claims were - NPR just dutifully repeated the accusations.

So now Iran has had several dozen people (including high ranking Revolutionary Guard leadership) killed in a suicide bombing carried out by the Baluchistan-Pakistan based group Jundallah and is claiming that the US was involved - and not just Iran is making such claims. On Tuesday's ATC, Melissa Block interviews RAND expert (uh-oh), Christine Fair, looking for answers. Block notes,

"There have been charges in the press and statements made by Pakistani officials that the US is somehow tied to Jundallah - supporting them, in some cases with money, with arms, in other cases what's described as arms-length support. What are those allegations based on and is there any truth to these charges?"

Not a bad question. And here's Fair's answer:

"Well, I have no ability to assess whether or not there's truth to these charges....the Americans, we have a presence in Baluchistan...[on] the Pakistani side...Baluchistan houses the military bases where we launch Predator attacks, so this is where the suspicion enters."

That's kind of funny, because actually suspicions enter due to some pretty weighty indications that it's true - Asia Times, the UK's Telegraph, the New Yorker, and ABC News. But Fair is not done, she continues,

"The allegation is that the Americans would like to poke at Iran in the way in which it has poked at us in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan...there is an ability and there is certainly a motive. Whether or not there's evidence is another story."

Notice how cleverly the "allegation" about the Americans is now based on the FACT that Iran..."has poked at us in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan..." I must say it's a strange use of the word "poke" - be careful if Christine tries to friend you on Facebook!

Melissa Block, of course, makes no challenge to the allegation that Iran has done similar things to the US. Instead she simply recoils from the very idea that the blameless US could EVER do such things,

"That's quite a hot allegation - the idea that the US would have ties to an extremist group based in Pakistan, that has close ties to al-Qaeda."

Fair uses this naivete to rehash an equally "hot allegation" about Iran being a sanctuary for al-Qaeda (where have I heard this scenario before?), "I think that's a strong argument for why we wouldn't be doing it...Iran has been accused of harboring al-Qaeda leadership so it had the strong incentive to characterize these as al-Qaeda."

Barbara Bradley Hagerty - God Help Us

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:28:00 +0000

(Update I & II below)
I received a heads up on Facebook regarding Monday morning's piece by Barbara Bradley Hagerty about THE HUGE SCHISM that has atheists ripping each other apart (not). The tip mentioned that Hagerty has been the recipient of a fellowship from the Templeton Foundation (a subject of controversy for being a conservative front organization with a religious devotion to the "free" market and openness to intelligent designers - see Wikipedia). On Hagerty's web site her bio states,

"She was one of 10 journalists selected for a Templeton-Cambridge fellowship in science and religion in 2005, where she and her colleagues spent weeks questioning world-class scientists and theologians at Cambridge University."

The first thing I did was see if Hagerty's "work" had appeared on the NPR Check radar. Well, what do you know, she garnered NPR Check honors twice :

(In May of 2007 ) Hagerty gave a sympathetic report about the creation museum...seriously. Here is some of what Hagerty noted back then:

"...the vast majority of scientists say dinosaurs predated man by 65 million years."
"this is as much a Bible museum as an attempt at science. The museum tries to use scientific evidence to show that Genesis is true"
"the creation museum argues that everyone works from the same material...they only differ in interpretation, but this interpretation is nothing if not controversial....one of the museum's founders says it's more than educational..."

(In February of 2009) A even more dishonest piece of Hagerty's journalism was on display as she put a positive spin on the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival and its organizer, Doug Phillips. Hagerty completely ignored the Christian dominionist Vision Forum that backed the festival.

No surprise then that Hagerty is back this morning trying to stoke anti-atheism by focusing on the most radical actions of atheists (e.g. desecrating communion wafers) and simply conflating it with the more uncompromising positions of popular atheist authors Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

The thing that really ticked me off, as an atheist, is that I think there is interesting material for discussion and debate about the more dogmatic approaches of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens versus a more accommodationist approach. But Hagerty's piece does little justice to this terrain - and her sneering contempt for atheists that runs throughout her feature becomes especially evident when expected interviews fall through at the Center for Inquiry Office in Washington, D.C., and she says

"Now, he could speak his mind, since he's a volunteer. But interviews with others associated with the Washington office were canceled shortly before we arrived — curious for a group that promotes free speech."

Maybe the folks there did a little background check on Hagerty and decided to avoid the hatchet job that her past sympathies indicated was in the works.

Update I: This post by P.Z. Meyers - whom Hagerty interviewed in the story - describes the distortions and dishonesty of the piece. Looks like the folks at the Center for Inquiry were right!

Update II: If unethical journalism was a crime, Ms. Hagerty would have quite a rap sheet:

March 2004 - Atrios on Hagerty's ties to the "unapologetic Christian point of view" World Journalism Institute.
May 2004 - Better Angels points out Hagerty's long list of documented mideeds and ties to rightwing Christian organizations.
May 2004 - About.com's Austin Cline outs Ms. Hagerty's lousy, dishonest reporting.
May 2005 - Media Matters takes the witness stand.

Q Tips

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:21:00 +0000

NPR related comments are welcomed.

The Economy Just Happened

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:56:00 +0000

It kills me how clueless the supposed brightest lights in our nation often are. Yesterday on Morning Edition, Inskeep interviewed Gail Collins about a book (When Everything Changed) she wrote looking at the transformation of American women since 1960. I heard this little exchange and scratched my head.

Inskeep: "I feel like reading this, that you do get a sense of women not necessarily grasping an opportunity, but assuming an economic obligation."

Collins gets around to explaining this as follows:

"Before World War II, we lived very simple lives....then the war changed, the post-war economy came in. Everything boomed and suddenly on one person's salary, because of the GI bill and the loans, the home loans, you were able to have a house, to have a car, to have a TV, to expect to send your kids to college....And they got it on one person's salary often in those early years.

But then the '70s came and the economy just no longer could support families like this on one person's salary. But that was really the point at which people realized that if you wanted to have a middle-class lifestyle, you needed to have two people working. And it - now I believe women grow up with the same expectations men do for the most part, that it's their job."

You know, this kind of aggressive-passive assertion just drives me nuts. Where was the interviewer saying, "Yes, that postwar boom was POLICY driven." During and right after WWII national loan, tax, and education policies pushed the income gap a bit closer and helped create a larger middle class."

It wasn't that the economy just magically stopped supporting single income families in the 1970's. It was that the 70s marked the beginning of a new policy of directing the nation's wealth up. This policy really gained steam under Reagan, of course, and has only accelerated of late. It's pretty sad - that as we are living through a virtual financial coup d'etat by the wealthy and further economic depression of the middle and lower classes in this country, all we get from NPR is such vacuous, sloppy analysis.

It's Just Rhetoric (to Dittoheads)

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:29:00 +0000

On Wednesday morning NPR weighed-in (sub-mini flyweight) on the nation's favorite hate-monger Rush Limbaugh and his bid to buy an NFL team.

Montagne asks Tom Goldman to "remind us what caused that fire storm in the first place?" to which Goldman responds,

"Well, Limbaugh is well-known for making statements that could be called racially polarizing. A few years ago, he lost his job as an ESPN pro football broadcaster when he said Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb, who is African-American, was overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback do well. And then in 2007, Limbaugh said the NFL often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons."

Toward the end of the program Montagne says to Goldman, "And Rush Limbaugh himself, now he loves a good controversy. Is he loving this particular one?"

Here's Goldman's answer:

"I don't know if he's loving it, but he is speaking out. He blasted his critics yesterday. He accused them of a full-fledged smear campaign. And on his radio show, Limbaugh said he's trying to get apologies and retractions, with a threat of lawsuits, from journalists who have repeated incendiary quotes attributed to him, quotes where he allegedly said James Earl Ray, the man sentenced to prison for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination, deserves a posthumous medal of honor. And another one, that slavery had its merits because the streets were safer after dark.

Limbaugh said yesterday he never said that stuff...."

That's how facts are established at NPR. Somebody said one thing, someone else denied it - oh well, the rhetoric sure is heating up! And notice how the story ends with Limbaugh's allegations and his challenge against unsubstantiated comments. Does anyone at NPR EVER do a little basic research? There's no "could be called racially polarizing" aspect to the documented racist garbage that Limbaugh airs. Media Matters does the obvious task of finding and annotating many of Limbaugh's low-lights (h/t to Crooks & Liars).

Q Tips

mytwords@yahoo.com (Mytwords) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:49:00 +0000

NPR related comments welcomed.