I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
MWO not there for me.
Well this should get interesting.
Atrios - a puppet master! You can annoy people without even trying. That's power. On to e-mail Dvorkin...
Jeez, what an asshole Dvorkin is. But I'm afraid more emailing to him on this subject right now will only (in his little mind) prove his own point, which he obviously uses as a crutch to avoid doing his job.
Someone please explain what this is about. MWO does not seem to have any info on NPR.
I am concerned about two occasional themes I see popping up on this site:
1) Anyone who has ever expressed a single pro-Bush or anti-Dem thought is part of the VRWC (eg, Gregg Easterbrook, Tim Noah, William Saletan, etc. etc.)
2) Anybody who takes a paycheck from Roger Ailes is same.
You want to talk about Mara Liasson and Juan Williams, you should actually consider what they say, not just where they say it. Liasson was the White House correspondent for NPR for many years and did a superb job. Juan Williams is, among many other things, a Pulitzer Prize winning author (for a bio of Thurgood Marshall.)
You don't like something they say? Fine, call them out, argue with them. But don't assume that just because they work for Fox they're right wing apparatchiks, and then tar NPR with that same brush.
Sounds to me like Mr. Dvorkin has much too thin of a skin to be an ombudsman.
If he can't take the heat...
Ummm--I'm at work. Don't quite dare to log onto any site with the word "whores". Bummer.
Anyone who has ever expressed a single pro-Bush or anti-Dem thought is part of the VRWC (eg, Gregg Easterbrook, Tim Noah, William Saletan, etc. etc.)
Pull your head out of your ass. It's far far from "a single...thought". It's more like a recurring theme. Come back when you have read a little more of these characters.
The whole issue of mass emailings sent out at someone's suggestion is an interesting phenomenon that has really just recently hit the world stage. Witness all the attention MoveOn is getting over the "Heil Bush" flap.
It'd be GREAT if this technique could REALLY catch fire (i see it happening in the upcoming campaign, TrueMajority is doing great things)...what can we do to keep it from rocketing out of control? Will "targets" start to ignore all input, thinking it's just blog-minions jammin up their inboxes?
i LIKE being a blog minion (but careful to write my own thoughts)...i feel like i'm taking part...
Does the Ombudsman have a boss?
Like Jack said..
"You are soo fired."
Mr. Dvorkin's tenderness proves the writer's point.
Corporate support of NPR has drastically increased; the change in editorial twang has been noticed.
Sure sign of rethug infiltration; shooting the messenger.
Thanks for the NPR ombudsman's email address, Atrios. I was looking for it this morning after hearing Juan Williams belittling "news" report about the Democratic radio debate today. While I have come to expect this kind of "reporting" from NPR, today I feel like I need to let Mr. Dworkin know that I believe Williams and his editors should be fired for failing to take the nomination process seriously. I don't see them belittling the president whenever he has one of his (very rare) news conferences!
Dvorkin is a creep- I suggest people not only write to his boss, but copy your local stations complaining about this. His snarky tone is outrageous.
I think Mr. Dvorkin has issued a challenge, of sorts.
Let's keep a keen eye on every single report that Williams and Liasson do this election season (Whore Watch!). Provide specific examples of their creamy whore-y goodness to Mr. Dvorkin.
perhaps contacting Dvorkin is not the answer. Perhaps it would be more effective to contact the Board of Directors who control your local PBS affiliate. I bet Dvorkin does not tell them about any of this.
It was odd, I heard on NPR this morning an advertisement (?) for "organically grown beef." Nothing makes sense to me anymore.
>I think Mr. Dvorkin has issued a challenge, of sorts.
>Let's keep a keen eye on every single report that Williams and Liasson do this election season (Whore Watch!). Provide specific examples of their creamy whore-y goodness to Mr. Dvorkin.
Oops!
I meant to second what Renato said.
Concerned Guy -
You should check out the Daily Howler's archives before you go on about the allegedly stellar quality of Liasson's and Williams' journalistic work.
www.dailyhowler.com
It won't change the fact that Williams did win a Pulitzer. But perhaps it'll shed some light on their more recent "accomplishments."
As a long-time listmaster for a history discussion list, I'm always amused when obvious incompetents proclaim themselves historians - it simply must be the designated justifier for all kinds of bizarre conduct. As though somehow claiming to be an historian validated their intellectual pretensions more than anything like actual effectiveness, competence or capability.
Weirdly, for awhile anyway, Henry the K was claiming to be an historian - being a political scientist wasnt classy enough I guess.
Actually, Liason was not very bad yesterday. She seemed to be focused on objectively discussing the candidates.
Williams, on the other hand, is clearly in attack mode. For example, he will present the anti-Dean opinions of the other candidates, and then grudgingly state Dean's response. I say grudgingly because I swear that I heard him finish by refuting Dean's defense.
Williams is definitely the weaker of the two, but both are obviously and woefully biased. The verly least NPR should do is identify their Fox affiliations when introducing thier segments.
A Pulitzer doesn't exonerate all future work. See: Will, George.
Wait--should I be attacking NPR, Liasson and Williams, Dvorkin, or all of them? Please advise.
I'm a proud blog minion. Our e-mails are nothing compared to what Rush Limbaugh can do with a single offhand comment -- but still, it's all we've got right now.
Through his thuggish dismissiveness, Dworkin has escalated the conflict.
I'm off to e-mail him, and his bosses.
Actually I think Mr. Dvorkin may be in the right. Certainly I don't think we can write him off as an asshole. How many social critics of "Bad Santa" actually SAW the movie? The ones who did have a much stronger argumen than the ones who just KNOW, idealogically, that the film was symptomatic of moral decay blah blah blah...
The real question of his intergrity is how much attention DOES he pay to the listeners who complain? That's the issue - is he doing his job, period?
Jay, follow your orders, because that's what we do here, issue orders.
[/sarcasm]
well, mr. dvorkin.. I don't listen ANYMORE because I just can't stand it. This from a decades-long former NPR listener.
Concerned guy,
You are naive to think that anyone who works for Fox New is NOT an apparatchnik.
Fox is NOT a news service. They are a political propaganda service established for and run by rightwing groups.
It is naive NOT to question every jot and tittle of what they "report".
I am concerned about two occasional themes I see popping up on this site:
Second this.
My commitment to a political party starts and ends at the point where its policies, performance, and strategic potential for success connect to an honest and reasonable approach towards key domestic and foreign policy goals.
The alternating bitchfest/circle jerk on lefty sites is disheartening to me because it is evidence of so much constipated thinking. As if, because Bush is such an awful president, it doesn't matter at all whether Democrats are offering something coherent or achievable. Although clearly there aren't many Kucinich idealists in this neighborhood, there is a similarly obsessive fixation on how the "SCLM" is (1) full of "whores", (2) possessed by right-wing conspirators, (3) actively trying to disenfranchise Americans.
I'm more interested in the kind of thinking that Atrios often supplies than listening to the echoes of the disaffected.
Dr. Kevorkian was on NPR?
Anyone who heard Juan Williams unbelievable on-air smear of Sydney Blumenthal should have no doubts as to where Williams' allegiance lies. The NPR interview was supposed to be about Blumenthal's book, but Williams BEGAN the interview by listing a litany of right wing slurs and complaints against Blumenthal and basically asked why anyone should take his book seriously. The interview did not become more "balanced" as it progressed.
Dvorkin's response is both bizarre and disingenuous, since Ann Little described herself as an NPR supporter in her first letter to Dvorkin. He ought to be called on this.
"As NPR's ombudsman, I
tend to pay more attention to the former than the latter."
He must mean: "I am less likely to dismiss and demean the former than the latter."
As the Club For Growth says, aren't we all NPR listeners?
Juan Williams is a supercilious snot. I once heard him refer to a guest he was interviewing as 'my co-star!" Modest putz isn't he?
It must be convenient to be able to pick and choose what you think is a valid complaint based on your psychic ability to perceive how often and which radio station people listen to.
Maybe they need a ombudsmans' ombudsman?
I have an ombudsman for my posts here.
Replicant and Concerned Guy-
As consistent lurker and occasional poster here, I think that the hyperbole befitting open unedited comments need to be taken with a grain of salt and that while some dissent with the party line is occasionally shouted at, when topics are broached with the proper humility (anything short of curt arrogance) and tone people are for the most part respectful of differences of opinion.
Meanwhile, back on-topic, an ombudman's job is to concern himself with the public reponse in a politic (not "political") manner, and Dworkin has obviously failed at that task. I see nothing wrong with the act of pointing this out to him. It's his job.
Fair enough point on the NPR guy's part. Remember he must have to deal with incessant email campaigns from the right.
I think the real point is that NPR ought to send its ombudsman to anger management classes. Sheesh!! Judging from his e-mails, the guy's got all the impulse control of a 14 year old.
Yes. It's all so clear now. Atrios is like Landru in that Star Trek classic episode, Return of the Archons. It is the will of Atrios. Are you here for the Festival? Peace and Joy to you Brothers.
Hey! I once heard Bill O'Reilly won a Pulitzer...
ottoe, guy,
But anne little's point is never addressed by Dvorkin, yet it is perfectly relevant regardless of how often she listens or what her personal politics may be and whether or not Dvorkin is getting tons of mail asking the same question. How can NPR claim to be providing unbiased coveraged of the Dem. campaign when they allocate two of the most blatantly skewed hacks to the beat, hacks that are clearly unable to separate their punditry from their journalism?
There's something profoundly mistaken in the view that "oh, we'll get the GOP'ers on our staff to cover the Dem's, that'll balance things out nicely." If that were their logic, i'd like to see NPR hire a union rep to do Marketplace.
Remember he must have to deal with incessant email campaigns from the right.
Yes, I hear that all the time from these guys. But ol' Jeffrey had better learn how to answer the criticism without insulting the writer. People are angry, on the right and the left, and they help to support NPR, Dvorkin, and the rest of the people who work for NPR. How about providing some kind of better defense of his reporters. Doesn't he have one?
What is NPR's mission statement anyway?
Hell, if po' li'l Jeffy cain't take a bit o' flack, then I'll be more than happy to take over for him and accept his paycheck as well.
I listen to NPR all day long while at work. I've written Dvorkin a few times without ever having my questions or concerns addressed. I've come to the conclusion that he sees his job as being to deflect criticism from the right that NPR has a liberal bias.
How outrageous is Jeffrey Dvorkin?
Outrageous enough that I wrote a snail mail, six-page missive to the head of NPR, Kevin Klose, concerning the shameful "she's just as guilty" approach Dvorkin took to Bill O'Reilly's ambush of "Lib'rul NPR" Terry Gross. This ain't his first offense.
Why, you may ask yorself, are these people so eager to help The Dark Side? Far from being the lib'rul pinata that the VRWC has made them, NPR has chosen a calculated course to suck-up to power. See the link below for more.
look on the bright side. they took Mara off the WH beat, and put in Don Gonye(sp?), the labor dude who is WAY more left. Mara blew here objective cover while doing the WH under Clinton.
Composing letter to Dworkin now. What are the email addresses again?
NPR is seeming more and more like a casualty of the glacial right-wing drift (Thanks DLC...), where everything in the middle is left and everything on the left is extreme. The right bitches and moans about how 'lefty' NPR is, when in fact anyone with their head stored outside of their lower intestine can see that it's anything but.
Thinking strategically here--NPR, though on the decline, is the best national media source there is.
Yesterday's radio debate being Exhibit A.
Is it smarter to take a deep breath and offer sober analysis rather than shouts about "Faux News"?
I found the letter MWO posted to be quite shrill, and it doesn't surprise me that Dvorkin would take it as he did.
I think a full interpretation of what Dvorkin said in his response to Atrios was basically a great big "FUCK OFF!"
Fuck NPR.
I like some of their 'personalities' but I can't listen to it for more than a couple of minutes. I understand the prinicple for those who still really, really want to have NPR be clearheaded and provocative, but that train has long left the station. They are utterly compromised and almost completely irrelevant to the debate.
Even if they were to turn it around and bend to liberal pressure, what then? It'll simply justify the right's complaint and the left can nod on the way to work?
The solution: If you don't like the source, create a new one. Viva Atrios.
Some Google background on Jeffrey Dvorkin
B.A. Alberta 1969
M.A. Toronto 1970
M.Phil. London School of Economics 1974
1972-1974 Sub-Editor, CBS News, London
1974-1976 Freelance journalist, Montreal
1976-1979 Reporter, CBC TV News, Montreal
1979-1980 Producer, CBC TV News, Montreal
1980-1981 Producer, CBC TV News, Ottawa
1981-1984 Editor/Producer, CBC TV News, Toronto
1984-1985 Senior Assignment Editor, CBC Radio News, Toronto
1985-1989 Newsroom Manager, CBC Radio News, Toronto
1989-1990 Leave of Absence, Freelance journalism, Amsterdam, Prague and Budapest
1990-1991 Deputy Managing Editor, National Radio News, CBC Toronto
1991-1997 Managing Editor & Chief Journalist, CBC Radio, Toronto
1997-present, Vice President, News & Information, National Public Radio, Washington, DC
I'm a long-time NPR listener and have also consistently donated during their fund drives. If this is how they respond to legitimate concerns from the very people who comprise their base of support, I'm even angrier at them than I was before. Off to write a letter to my local and to NPR headquarters. Sheesh. Lots of letters these days.
Hey! I once heard Bill O'Reilly won a Pulitzer...
It wasn't a Pulitzer Blue, it was an Oscar, and it wasn't one, it was two, besides O'Liar never said he won two Golden Globes, and never meant to imply that he personally won them. So I suggest you shut up before I cut your mike.
The issue is whether people listen to NPR and are moved to complain or
whether they don't listen and are moved to complain. As NPR's ombudsman, I tend to pay more attention to the former than the latter.
See, Jeff, I used to be one of the former, but the constant right-wing bullshit your program spews pushed me into the latter camp.
BTW, that's the camp that doesn't give you money anymore...
While I am not a Mara Liasson fan, I am a fan of Juan Williams. Occasionally I will hold my nose and watch the Fox Sunday show (Know Thine Enemy) and Juan Williams is its only saving grace. He is the only one who stands up to the simmering righteousness of that bastard Brit Hume and the cheshire cat-like Bill Kristol. Unfortunately, I haven't heard his recent comments on Dean (who I support), so I can't really comment on that.
The omsbudsmand comments did seem more than a bit unprofessional. I can't believe he can get away with that and keep his job.
I like the Puzzle on Sunday's Weekend Ed. That's about the only thing I can stomach on NPBSR.
so, praktike, how would strategic thinking prevent NPR from sinking ever further into irrelevance as a credible news source and alternative to the SCLM?
We're trying to get our local NPR affiliate to pick up Democracy Now! to balance out the vapid crap coming from DC, but they're refusing to even consider the option, claiming it's "advocacy radio" and that their existing news feed is perfectly balanced.
What about people who did listen, but think this guy is a putz and that NPR is slowly but surely selling out to corporations and, not surprisingly, representing their concerns more and more, and thus are considering not listening any more.
Either way - I guess valid comments and complaints are only valid if you tune in. For that matter - how does he know who is a listener and who isn't? What is going on here!
wendyo - instead of suffering through the Fox Feed, why don't you let go of your nose, shut off the TV, and read a good book instead?
Mr. Dvorkin's comments reflect the typical attitude expressed by people trying to save face in light of their obvious opinions being caught and exposed for what they are.
Nobody likes being told to take a hike. Least of all conservatives who think they're 'right'.
But most public handlers are trained to handle complaints and are made to understand that they're not always nice. To be insulting towards those who write to complain shows that either Dvorkin has never been trained in such a manner reflecting the 'customer is always right' mentality, or he is just a partisan. There's also the possibility he's been deluged with a tonne of bullshit complaints and finally let loose on Prof Little's.
In which case he should be reprimanded and/or fired for losing control.
MYOB'
.
Concerned Guy,
I tried talking to NPR, tried it since I noticed the difference in the coverage of Carter (non-stop slamming) and Reagan (boot licking sucking up). NPR isn't interested in what its listeners think unless it is:
1. Praise
2. A cute disagreement over grammar or some other detail
3. A heart felt account of how a sappy feature story made someone cry in their car while listening. The Car Talk boys should do a story about the danger of drivers crying in response to NPR stories. If the past twenty five years of the letters they read on the air are and indication it's as dangerous as cell phones.
NPR is a Republican brothel, Dvorkin is a management stooge posing as an ombudsman. Isn't an ombudsman supposed to represent the listners?
Dump NPR. It's useless.
That's me again, any idea why my computer keeps losing my pseudonom?
Forgot to mention this, but has anyone forwarded this issue off to the DNC or other groups taking part in the Democratic convention?
I'm sure that when they find out that a smear job is about to be undertaken, they might demand that NPR assign more liberal or moderate correspondents. At least they can make sure that security at the doors ban them from entry, forcing them to stand out on the sidewalk with the neocon sheep protesters where hopefully they can be associated with them and lose more face with moderate viewers/listeners.
MYOB'
.
More Google background on Jeffrey Dvorkin that suggests an intellectual, professional and probably kindred liberal spirit. I guess it can play out differently in real time.
Too long an article to do justice with extracts here.
Presented March 13, 2002 as part of the Atkinson Lecture Series
Indeed, while the broadcasters were able to respond with reasonable rapidity to the events, they were unwilling and unable to sustain the coverage for more than a few days. While reporting remained intensive in New York and Washington, and while there was some reporting from around the US, there was little or no reporting from the rest of the world. US broadcasting leaped to grasp at the encouragement from President Bush to get "back to normal" as soon as possible.
It was, in my opinion, a flagrant abandonment of a once proud journalistic tradition. How could this happen? How could it happen on our watch? The reasons are complicated and I believe, speak about the failure of US broadcast journalism to play a role in the civic life of the country.
US journalism was, I believe living in an unreal but hugely profitable world prior to September 11. Hindsight is, as we know, more acute than prescient, but in retrospect, it seems increasingly clear to many of us that the deregulatory environment in the United States under the Clinton administration was a boon for media moguls and a disaster for journalism. With the arrival of the Bush administration, it has only become worse.
...In the United States, there are about 10,000 radio stations. Under the deregulatory environment, by 1997 eighty per cent of them had been sold, merged or amalgamated into larger corporate entities.
...It seems like such a long time ago. The bureau chief was complaining about how idiotic the Lewinsky story was, but he was stuck. "Why?" I asked. He moaned and said that the year before he had 12 editors and reporters to serve eight newspapers. That day, he had only two reporters and one editor. The rest had been fired in order to pay to maintain and insure an annual rate of return of 20% to 25% for Knight-Ridder. There were many more important Congressional stories he wanted to cover; stories of real importance to his Midwest readers. Stories about the economy, about the price of cattle and grain, about a reduction in pollution controls in Chicago and St. Louis. But it wasn't about sex in the Oval Office.
...In the mid 80s, newspaper publishers and broadcaster moguls were considered financial geniuses if they returned an annual profit of 4%.
But by the 1990s, it was normal and even expected for media organizations to return 15 to 25% annually.
...So Congressional bureaus were reduced, and the money went to pay for the mergers, or to investor dividends. Regional bureaus were reduced and foreign bureaus were closed. Greater reliance was made of foreign news services such as Reuters, and the BBC. Huge stories were missed,
NPR has become a media outlet that caters to upper class white SUV drivers who enjoy listening to nasal editorials from writers you've never heard of drone on about the joys of antiquing in the neighborhood they're spending their summers in.
It was odd, I heard on NPR this morning an advertisement (?) for "organically grown beef."
Organic beef meets a number of standards for the label, including not being fed any animal products. In the era of mad cow, there are reasons why even a person who generally isn't all that big on "organic" foods generally might be interested, I'd think.
Contantine, did you hear the asshole they had on this morning with his jokey account of their great debate? Apparently they didn't take it too seriously themselves. Even the fluffy junk they put on to avoid is stupid. If you want to hear what a real news show sounds like check out The World at Six on CBC. Half an hour and they cover more than ATC does in 180 minutes. And they do a bit of fluff too, but just a bit of it.
Cont'd
Regional bureaus were reduced and foreign bureaus were closed. Greater reliance was made of foreign news services such as Reuters, and the BBC. Huge stories were missed, ignored or reported in the most cursory manner. The massacres in Rwanda and the spread of AIDS were heard of infrequently on US television. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and yes, NPR remained notable exceptions to this.
...But overall and for many years, CBS was the standard against which others were measured. Until the 1980s.
But CBS now has become a full service entertainment provider with news as a deeply secondary department. I single CBS out not because it hasn't happened to NBC and ABC, but because the fall from grace at CBS seems to me to so great. And what has happened to CBS has happened to NBC, ABC and in a way to CNN.
...While the initial polls showed that the public gave the media high marks for its handling of the immediate crisis (one poll gave the media an 89% approval rating), the public thinks that the media just don't get it. The public repeatedly doesn't understand why the media acts the way it does or what it is trying to accomplish.
Most recently that 89% rating has fallen to 46% in a Pew survey. Pew found that while the public "hold more favorable opinions of the press's professionalism, morality, patriotism and compassion," the public wants tighter government control over news and fewer details about national security. Most respondents told Pew that they trust Pentagon officials to tell the truth. A plurality of people surveyed (47%) criticized the media as politically biased and 51% said the media actually get in the way of society attempting to solve its problems.
A later poll by Time/CNN found that 68% of those surveyed thought the media was giving out too much information about potential US military activities.
By November Pew found that 54% disapproved of the way the media was handling the war coverage.
Gallup observed that "one reason for the low rating of the news media may be that their role in a democratic system of government makes them the bearers of bad news and often puts them at odds with government officials - who at this time. are perceived by the public in very positive terms."
I would agree with that. Historically, in times of crisis, the news media suffers along with civil liberties as citizens rush to support in a legitimately patriotic manner their country which is seen as being under attack from outside forces. In the longer term, studies show that support for civil liberties and for the media swing back when that danger is seen to have passed.
But for now, the media in general in the US has fallen far from its perceived role as acting as an agent of the democracy it serves.
...Last year the Roper Organization - a very straight-laced polling organization - did a study on which institutions are the most trusted in the United States.
Public radio ca
Cont'd
Public radio came in second. Public television came in third. We can recognize that. But some values in Canada are different from those in the United States. So you also may not be surprised when I tell you that the military came in first. It would be nice if the institutions we value came in one and two, but life is often more complicated and more surprising than we would like.
Now I understand that here in Canada you have been undergoing some interesting media shifts, especially as it concerns CanWest and the Asper family. All I can tell you is that what happens in Canadian media circles is closely watched in the United States, as I know the opposite to be the case as well.
The fight over editorial control of the Southam (sic) papers, the demands for editorial consistency and the looting of local news has made a fair bit of ink and radio time in the US.
The spookiest thing Dworkin said was his dismissal of academia ("I could be wrong but I guess that the academy's reputation for independent thinking may be less than it once was.") WTF? This I expect from Rush Limbaugh, not the ombudsman of NPR.
Sidenote: Dworkin said he was a "lapsed historian" but the bio listed above has no mention of either a degree or a job in that field. Is he full of it?
Found the address. Here's my letter to Mr. Dworkin, FWIW:
The issue is whether people listen to NPR and are moved to complain or whether they don't listen and are moved to complain. As NPR's ombudsman, I tend to pay more attention to the former than the latter.
Speaking as the owner of a business, and with a wife that consults other businesses, I have to tell you that that is a very poor business model. Suppose I was to say, "The issue is whether customers are moved to complain or whether they're not customers and are moved to complain. As public relations manager, I tend to pay more attention to the former than the latter." Of course I would act first to assuage my customers, but I would never pay less attention to the non-customers. The point is to increase your customer base, is it not? When non-customers are telling me why they're non-customers it is absolutely just as valid as a customer complaint (because I can assume the person wants to be a customer, otherwise they wouldn't be complaining to me), possibly more valid because they are more than likely speaking for a much larger number of people who would otherwise want to become customers also.
For my own part I've tried several times to be an NPR "customer" and find it difficult as your "product" has become so drearily similar to the news "products" I can get anywhere else. Does this mean my critique is less worthy of your attention?
I used to support my local NPR station, WNYC. I don't any more. Here's why:
1. Laura Walker, the "President and CEO" of WNYC was paid $340,000 in 2001. That's 190% more than the $181,667 she was paid 3 years earlier in 1998. (6,800 people giving pledges of $50 apiece needed just to cover her salary.)
2. Her "compensation" is vastly higher than the heads of Thirteen/WNET and National Public Radio, despite a budget for WNYC that is a small fraction of theirs (and these folks are overpaid, too).
3. She spent millions on The Satellite Sisters. Nuff said.
Great comment over at Ailes:
Atrios is kinda like Landru from that Star Trek klassic episode, Return of the Archons. Yes. It's all so clear now. It is the Will of Atrios. Peace and Joy to you, Brother.
Beagle 2 | Email | 01.07.04 - 10:40 am | #
I sent the following to Dvorkin:
I have a 3 hour daily commute to my ten hour shift at work, four days a week. I tune into Morning Edition when I leave the house in the morning and listen continually to NPR's news and views programming for the next 13 hours. On the weekends I faithfully listen to folk and blues music on my local station and never miss an episode of "This American Life" (Yes, I know it's a PRI product, but it's aired on an NPR affiliate).
In other words, I'm an NPR junkie. I also read Atrios' web log every day. I don't think the latter fact should invalidate any concerns I may have about NPR's news coverage, and I'm a bit taken aback by about your response to the Colorado State professor's concerns about NPR's presidential campaign assignments. Certainly, the tone of her notes was a bit strident, but her concerns were valid and should be addressed.
I've written you, myself, a few times. As I recall, I thought you were unfair in your treatment of Terry Gross's interview of Bill O'Reilly. I thought you missed the point that O'Reilly is untruthful in his "serious" writing while Al Franken's satire is well researched. Gross was justified in interviewing them differently because of this.
I've also written you about what I see as Cokie Roberts' obvious bias and a rather strange change in a transcript from a report on the subject of something I can no longer recall. I've never received a response, nor have I seen any of these issues addressed on your web site, although I may have missed the latter.
I've read many of your columns on the NPR web site, and it seems to me that you view your job as solely defending NPR against claims of "liberal bias." I don't recall that you've ever written anything about the conservative bias that is making its way into NPR programming with increasing frequency--you could do a whole series on Neal Conan's programs dealing with the war in Iraq.
I'm a big fan of NPR, but I've been losing my enthusiasm for it over the last few years because of what I see as an increased conservative bias in its reporting. It seems to me that you reflect that bias. I'll continue to listen for now, because the current state of radio is so woefully bad that even when NPR is bad, it's much better than its competition. Still, I hope that it will stop what seems like pandering to the Right and get back to being the most objective news source in all of the media.
I'd also hope that you'll stop discounting the messages you're receiving because you're suspicious about the messenger. It is possible to think independently while enjoying both NPR and Atrios.
Is Ann Little in the house this morning? Perhaps we can hear from her ...
I've written to Dvorkin myself before, and like Patriotboy, I've never gotten a response. That really bothers me because I've been a subscriber for maybe 20 years. Considering the thousands of dollars that I've contributed over the years, I find it inexcusable that the ombudsman would simply ignore my concerns. Yet, he gets revved up enough in this situation to make an issue out of it.
NPR either needs a new ombudsman, or it just needs to stop trying to promote itself as "public" broadcasting. I used to listen all the time, but I find these days that I don't turn it on anymore. I'm the "public" in public broadcasting, as NPR is so fond of telling me when it's trying to raise money, but only then. The rest of the time, I have no voice at all. That wasn't what NPR was supposed to be about, according to NPR itself.
I'm with you MYOB, but I'm afraid your irony is wasted here.
Thumb --
Terrific letter of complaint! Very measured and credible. I wonder if it will get read by anyone at all?
Great comment over at Ailes: -- dave
That comment was posted here at 10:49 am by it's purported author, Lt. Sulu. Comment section spamming, I guess.
Hey concerned guy,
It looks to me that Juan Williams never won a Pulitzer.
Which, of course, makes a helluva lot more sense than him winning one.
Can't you guys get anything right?
i did listen to npr when i lived in the states. i even contributed from time to time. and i listen to npr now on the web.
but people like juan williams and mara liason lead me to not donate. fox spins npr as liberal and therefore has liason and williams on as liberal guests. they never say so, but they say they're from npr so the implication is that they are liberal. they aren't.
they thoughtfully express their opinions on fox shows, and that's fine, but they don't express liberal opinions when the implication is that they're there to do just that.
Someone struck a nerve, akin to "Livin on the Fault Line" ...
Yikes...
Pushing send soon, not nearly as nice and polite as what I have read here, I do list all those that I contributed to last year, and I must say, I am quite the humble Philanthropist I never thought I would be...
fox spins npr as liberal and therefore has liason and williams on as liberal guests. they never say so, but they say they're from npr so the implication is that they are liberal. they aren't.
I met Fox "liberal" Mort Kondrake at a holiday party in 1992. Clinton had just been elected and there was a lot of discussion about whether he would allow gays to serve in the military. I was discussing this with Kondrake, Elanor Clift and her husband Tom Brazaitis when Kondrake said that they should allow gays to join so they can send them straight to the front. The implication was that they'd be great cannon fodder. I was too shocked to reply but Clift jumped him pretty good. I guess that's why she's not a Fox liberal.
I thought I'd heard Williams won a Pulitzer for "Eyes On the Prize" (can't verify it, though); what's scarier is that in 1987, Charles Krauthammer won one, "For his witty and insightful columns on national issues":
http://www.pulitzer.org/cyear/1987w.html
They just give that shit out to anyone, don't they...
These ombudsmen are just janitors, cleaning up the afterparty messes but they have no power to restrain the partiers from making the mess.
Send the ombudsman an email, he gets out the mop and bucket of dirty water and moves the mess around.
"Cleanup in aisle 4!"
If you want to fix NPR, March is funddrive usually. Call your local station and say "I would be contributing but....." or even better, "I've contributed before...."
That will be real fun.
Well, he's a snippy little thing, isn't he? My suggestion: he should maybe buy a larger size of underwear. All that pinching can make a person CRANKY.
"NPR is seeming more and more like a casualty of the glacial right-wing drift (Thanks DLC...), where everything in the middle is left and everything on the left is extreme. The right bitches and moans about how 'lefty' NPR is, when in fact anyone with their head stored outside of their lower intestine can see that it's anything but."
Cute. Lemme guess, the New York Times is virulently right-wing too now right?
Only in Atrios land...
Darth Phil, your use of virulently is closer than you would think.
The RMC memes are like virii, infecting all in the news business. Apparently it is transmitted through contact with payroll.
National Public Radio has outlived its usefulness. They will be the first to fall before the left blogosphere. As a source of information, NPR is always 2 or 3 days late and spends 90% of the time stating the previaling corporate adminsitration opinion.
The other 10% they use to say brown people aren't as bad as the white listeners think they are.
"Cute. Lemme guess, the New York Times is virulently right-wing too now right?"
Hmmm. I'm guessing this troll is trying for sarcasm, because all right wing trolls know that the NYT is "liberal," right?
Which is why NYT devoted gallons and gallons of ink to the bullshit Clinton "scandals," particularly "Whitewater," in its news pages while ripping the shit out of Clinton in its editorial pages...
This is not a matter of opinion, troll. There are these things called "archives" in which you can read past editions. Or you could read a book like Fools for Scandal: How the New York Times Got Whitewater Wrong (what, you say your beloved Rush has never mentioned this book? Oh then I guess you better pass on it then.)
Now that Bush is in office, the NYT has suddenly lost its taste for presidential blood pushing any number of potential Bush scandals to the back pages or refusing to cover them at all...
Who would have guessed it?
Cute. Lemme guess, the New York Times is virulently right-wing too now right?
If you ever bothered to see what a real left of center publication looked like (Mother Jones, The Progressive) you would see that yes, the NYT is quite far to the right. But of course when you dine on garbage you think anything that isn't deep fried and/or covered with cheese sauce is health food.
Concerned Guy back again, to answer some points raised in regard to my original posting, in the spirit of informed debate.
First, I was wrong about Juan Williams winning a Pulitzer. He did write two acclaimed books about the civil rights era, but not, apparently, _that_ acclaimed. Sorry.
I read Tim Noah, William Saletan, Gregg Easterbrook AND Bob Somerby quite regularly (like the rest of you, I clearly don't have enough to do.) And all of those guys are intelligent informed writers who occasionally say things I disagree with, or things that, say, George Will might like. Doesn't make them evil or bad or stupid or RNC zombies.
As for the relative merits of NPR, Jeff Dvorkin, etc... I believe that it's not enough to be against the Reeps, we have to be substantively different. Meaning, in this context, we must reject their habit of Orwellian groupthink... if anyone departs from the Official Line (which, as with being at war with Eastasia, always changes) then they are outcast, unclean, a thought criminal.
Oh, and as someone who gets letters sometimes from people concerned with my work: it always pays to be polite.
The last time I checked it was an ombudsman's job to be the ethical voice of a given media outlet, not merely a complaint department. But, of course, I could be wrong.
Concerned Guy is quite correct, in my experience. Flies, honey, vinegar, and all that.
Very well said, patriotboy.
Here's a copy of my letter to Dvorkin:
___________________
Dear Mr. Dvorkin,
As a long-time NPR listener, I was dismayed to read your dismissal of Dr. Little's complaint and those of other readers of Atrios.
I listen to NPR nearly every day. Why is it that, simply because I learn of an important and relevant development via the web, my opinion becomes somehow less valid?
I'm sure there are trolls among the emails you've gotten -- no cause is so just that it doesn't attract fugheads. But the people who read Atrios's blog are, by and large, among NPR's core constituency: educated, progressive-leaning people who are passionate about the political landscape of our country. It would behoove you to listen to what we're saying, and not dismiss us out of hand.
I want to see reporters not afraid to ask the hard questions of the powers that be. In the context of the passivity of the press with regard to Bush&Co, the harping certain reporters engage in on the perceived flaws of the democratic candidates comes across as unbalanced and partisan.
In short, I find the reports of Juan Williams and Mara Liasson's pandering to the right deeply troubling, and I don't find them to be credible reporters of the upcoming election process. The right wing of this country has dominated political dialog over the past several years, and there are many, many, MANY of us out here who are fed up with the passivity of the media.
Thanks for listening.
-l.
__________
Dvorkin has a point.
If you can be specific about what you don't like about Williams and Liasson then let's hear it. But I think a lot of Liberals (like Conservatives) have a knee jerk reaction without laying out exactly what is wrong with someone they don't like. I've listened to both Williams and Liasson enough on both FOX and NPR to know they are milquetoast liberals at best and moderate conservatives at worst. Yeah, they don't toe a Left-Liberal line. But should NPR only be for left-liberals like FOX is for rightwing Conservatives? Aren't we trying to prove that the media is not just for liberals?
I kind of like a true attempt at a fair and balanced approach, which NPR does better than FOX.
"Oh, and as someone who gets letters sometimes from people concerned with my work: it always pays to be polite."
On this I agree with you 100 percent. There are far too many stupid people on the left who react in a knee-jerk fashion:
"Man, that Dvorkin is such an asshole! I'm going to write him and tell him what an asshole he is!"
Calling people names or foaming at the mouth only makes you look stupid, which makes it that much easier for those you are trying to criticize to dismiss out of hand anything you are trying to say. Some people just want to make themselves feel good by blowing off some steam, and they'll sacrifice any underlying point in the process.
Dvorkin has a point.
If you can be specific about what you don't like about Williams and Liasson then let's hear it. But I think a lot of Liberals (like Conservatives) have a knee jerk reaction without laying out exactly what is wrong with someone they don't like. I've listened to both "Williams and Liasson enough on both FOX and NPR to know they are milquetoast liberals at best and moderate conservatives at worst. Yeah, they don't toe a Left-Liberal line. But should NPR only be for left-liberals like FOX is for rightwing Conservatives? Aren't we trying to prove that the media is not just for liberals?
I kind of like a true attempt at a fair and balanced approach, which NPR does better than FOX."
You aren't paying attention. Seriously. Go to the NPR webpage and see if you can find an archived edition of William's "interview" of Syndey Blumenthal. It is the most obvious example of a hatchet job I've ever heard. You want a specific example? This is perfect. Go listen to it, then tell me how "moderate" Williams is.
But should NPR only be for left-liberals like FOX is for rightwing Conservatives? Aren't we trying to prove that the media is not just for liberals?
I kind of like a true attempt at a fair and balanced approach, which NPR does better than FOX.
No. It would be nice to have a liberal equivalency to Fox because A) it would show all those who point to the NYT and CNN as "liberal" what real liberal news would look like and B) if said lefty-station began to attract a substantial audience then some of the other news that's feeling the pressure to follow the right for audience share might start to follow the left.
As long as the goal of the left is only to appear in the middle the right will be able to paint that middle as extreme left, as they have shown so far.
It's about the goalposts.
"Hmmm. I'm guessing this troll is trying for sarcasm, because all right wing trolls know that the NYT is "liberal," right?
Which is why NYT devoted gallons and gallons of ink to the bullshit Clinton "scandals," particularly "Whitewater," in its news pages while ripping the shit out of Clinton in its editorial pages...
This is not a matter of opinion, troll. There are these things called "archives" in which you can read past editions. Or you could read a book like Fools for Scandal: How the New York Times Got Whitewater Wrong (what, you say your beloved Rush has never mentioned this book? Oh then I guess you better pass on it then.)
Now that Bush is in office, the NYT has suddenly lost its taste for presidential blood pushing any number of potential Bush scandals to the back pages or refusing to cover them at all...
Who would have guessed it?"
So lemme get this straight, the NY Times actually did what journalists are supposed to do (research a story and cover it) and they did this nearly 10 YEARS ago and this makes the newspaper right wing because they happened to investigate a Democrat?
I suggest actually reading the NY Times NOW. I have been reading the letters to the editor for the past 3 weeks. I did not see a single letter to the editor from a reader that one could construe as being favorable to Bush.
"If you ever bothered to see what a real left of center publication looked like (Mother Jones, The Progressive) you would see that yes, the NYT is quite far to the right. But of course when you dine on garbage you think anything that isn't deep fried and/or covered with cheese sauce is health food."
Dear Thumb,
I refuse to read "magazines" that think equating Bush with Hitler is intelligent journalism.
Any non-hack would happily admit the NY Times lean left at the very least. The NY Times is only right-wing to Communists or in Atrios land.
"So lemme get this straight, the NY Times actually did what journalists are supposed to do (research a story and cover it) and they did this nearly 10 YEARS ago and this makes the newspaper right wing because they happened to investigate a Democrat?"
Are you willfully stupid? Or just a hypocrite? You don't have it "straight," you have it totally crooked. Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, etc - they were all bullshit "scandals," pumped into life by the howls of Clinton's right wing enemies. The NYT did NOT do what it was "supposed to do," if it had, it would have exposed the origins of these "scandals" rather than letting the right completely define them.
"I suggest actually reading the NY Times NOW. I have been reading the letters to the editor for the past 3 weeks. I did not see a single letter to the editor from a reader that one could construe as being favorable to Bush."
Okay, that proves it. You really are an idiot. Seriously, you are a total moron. This is supposed to be your proof that the NYT is "liberal?" Because they print letters from people who criticize Bush? And you personally haven't seen them print a letter that favors Bush? THAT'S you're proof? Who cares about their ARTICLES, right? Who cares about their cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq, right? Who cares about their editorial pages, right?
I'm through wasting my time with you, troll. A simpleton you are, a simpleton you ever will be.
I refuse to read "magazines" that think equating Bush with Hitler is intelligent journalism.
My God the duplicity of "you people" is truly astounding. For years Limbaugh has described feminists as "feminazis," Charlton Heston ran around the country giving speeches comparing gun registration to Hitler's round-up of Jews, Grover Nordquist compares the inheritance tax to the Nazis, the NRA campaigned openly about federal "Jack-booted Stormtroopers" and this is just off the top of my head. So now the left is drawing parallels between the tactics used by Hitler to turn a once thriving democracy into a one-party totalitarian state with the GOP's efforts to turn our once thriving democracy into a one-party totalitarian state ("dissent is treason") and suddenly you're playing the aggrieved bystander? What a tool you are.
Didn't NPR recently receive a bequest from the estate of Mrs. Kroc (Not "Crock"), of McDonald's fortune fame?
Wasn't it in the area of $100 million?
Doesn't that explain NPR's "fuck off" attitude?
Do the math.
don't assume that just because they work for Fox they're right wing apparatchiks
I actually do infer certain things about people from the places they choose to work. If somebody calls me taking a survey from "Big Pete's Chicken Hut" I tend to hang up. Pew Forum, maybe I'll give them a few minutes.
I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning why they work for Fox. Is their NPR pay no longer sufficient to feed their families?
I've always been puzzled by why, if a journalist has one good paying job, he or she needs another one spewing bullshit on radio or television, especially since most people I've encountered in print are there because they want to WRITE.
A.
Athenae, how right you are.
There is a really big problem with both Liasson and Williams, they pretend to be reporters on NPR and yet do commentary for a far right cable outlet. Used to be you had to choose to be one or the other, not now. Of course that might have been before anyone was offering this kind of a deal. The News industry is no more immune to bending standards to greed than contracting or sewage treatment. NPR pretends to have the highest standards of journalism but don't even follow this basic rule. If the people who wear two hats aren't happy when listeners point out that their commentary bleeds into their "reporting" they only have themselves to blame. And in the case of these two NPR staffers their reporting always, always has an obvious, Republican bias.
For what it is worth, I don't find Juan Williams conservative bias particularly objectionalble. What I find objectionable is his lazy incompetence. He has a fine voice and would be great announcing classical misic, but the guy has seriously not asked a hard question in his life. He just pitches up softballs and lets whatever Bush administration hack he happens to be interviewing whack them out of the park. I am sure that Williams is the only reason the Bush lackies agree to appear.
On a related subject, if you would like to express support and appreciation to Professsor Little, her email is ann.little@colostate.edu.
praktike wrote, Thinking strategically here--NPR, though on the decline, is the best national media source there is.
Utterly wrong the way you qualified it. You're free to argue it's the best among broadcast media, but nothing in broadcast media can compare to print media.
Anyone who really wants to keep up on the news reads a daily paper, or whatever the equivalent is online.
Just today the Washington Post had an amazingly detailed article on Saddam's weapons programs. There's no way the quality and quantity can be matched by the broadcast media.
Concerned Guy wrote, I read Tim Noah, William Saletan, Gregg Easterbrook AND Bob Somerby quite regularly (like the rest of you, I clearly don't have enough to do.) And all of those guys are intelligent informed writers who occasionally say things I disagree with, or things that, say, George Will might like. Doesn't make them evil or bad or stupid or RNC zombies.
Speaking only of Easterbrook, he had a pretty good article in The New Republic on why chemical weapons, and probably most biological weapons, really aren't weapons of mass destruction. I
summarized it at my website.
Question: why would you throw Bob Somerby into that list?
EPT,
Yar. When I was in school, and most of my friends were journos, it was still completely taboo to appear on broadcast outlets and give your opinion on anything you were reporting on.
You could talk about your reporting, i.e. "This is what I've heard from people I've spoken to" or "According to X, this is true" but never "I think this." Reporters who went on TV and did this were usually derided with "Who the fuck cares what you think, asshole?" The point was what you saw and heard.
I'm sure in many markets, especially smaller ones, this is still true, that you have to pick. One Wisconsin TV station used to have a guy who JUST did editorials. He was known as the editorial guy and when he was on screen there was no way to confuse it with reporting (unless you were completely fucking stupid). Just as fashion trends take a couple of extra years to make it to Milwaukee, so too do other new shiny things, like whoring and bloviating.
A.
"Okay, that proves it. You really are an idiot. Seriously, you are a total moron. This is supposed to be your proof that the NYT is "liberal?" Because they print letters from people who criticize Bush? And you personally haven't seen them print a letter that favors Bush? THAT'S you're proof? Who cares about their ARTICLES, right? Who cares about their cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq, right? Who cares about their editorial pages, right?
I'm through wasting my time with you, troll. A simpleton you are, a simpleton you ever will be."
That's fine. Anyone is unwilling to admit that the NY Times so much as even leans to the Left is not worth debating with. It's a waste of time.
If your version of Left-wing = Communism, then yes, the NY Times is certainly not Left-wing. But in the rubric of American politics, the NY Times leans well to the Left. I'd venture to say that even the vast majority of Democrats would agree.
How interesting, the thinking this man demonstates...
NPR puts some show on, with information for anyone around the world, and this man quibbles because the information comes to someone WHO DIDN'T EVEN LISTEN TO THE SHOW???? Most media people I know would love that kind of "water cooler" talk.
Words have power, Mr. Dvorkin. Get over yourself and don't take it so personally. You should be pleased that the information on NPR spreads to those who didn't even listen.
Also, get used to the power of the web and the power of the people.
With respect to the NPR ombudsman, perhaps he needs to be reminded of the political profile for NPR listeners.
Two Fisted Liberal
Go to the NPR webpage and see if you can find an archived edition of William's "interview" of Syndey Blumenthal. It is the most obvious example of a hatchet job I've ever heard. You want a specific example? This is perfect. Go listen to it, then tell me how "moderate" Williams is.
Okay I found it and just listened to it. Actually it is so short I listened to it twice and can verify that is in no way 'a hatchet job.' Sure Juan Williams doesn't suck up to Blumenthal and slobber all over his shoes but should he? Overall it is a pretty even handed interview. Williams does what any interviewer should do: he makes his subject explain what he means.
This is the hardest question. William's asks: "[in your book] there is nary a criticism of Clinton. don't you think that there is some point at which Clinton should be held accountable for his actions?"
That's a pretty legit question don't you think? [And hardly a hard one].
Later Williams asks how Sydney feels about all the different names that people have called him - like 'Sid Vicious' and other mean spirited monikers. Sydney notes that his wife once put all of those names on a birthday cake.
At one point they laugh together
That's a real hatchet job interview...
If your version of Left-wing = Communism, then yes, the NY Times is certainly not Left-wing. But in the rubric of American politics, the NY Times leans well to the Left. I'd venture to say that even the vast majority of Democrats would agree.
Philly G - That horse is dead. It's been dead for a very long time (at least since they took on the crusade to ruin Clinton). You can stop beating it now.
And I couldn't help but notice you running away from the fact that for the last ten years the right has been comparing Clinton/Dems/liberals to Hitler/Nazis from every form of meme transmission available and from levels high and low. So I repeat, you need to get over yourself and look at what a real liberal publication looks like. You really need to learn the difference.
As long as we're talking about Juan Williams, those of us with mildly long memories remember when he did a commentary on NPR shortly after 9-11 that endorsed the use of nuclear weapons against terrorists in Afghanistan....
Sure, a lot of people were saying somewhat unhinged things at the time, but that kind of unadulterated craziness tends to stick in one's memory.
"That's a real hatchet job interview..."
I'm glad you agree with me. Blumenthal's book was about the movement to destroy Clinton's presidency, a movement which tapped into many sources among the so-called-liberal media.
As a journalist, Williams should have framed his interview with Blumenthal around an examination of the charges Blumenthal makes. He did not.
Instead he framed his interview around the COUNTER-charges leveled at Blumenthal by conservatives. Period. In this way he completely avoided the main points Blumenthal was trying to make - as did almost everyone else in the mainstream media who bothered to review the book.
As for whether Clinton should have been held "accountable for his actions," I'm not sure what "actions" you are refering to. If you mean to suggest he should have been held accountable for getting a blow job/having an affair with an intern, then sure, I guess I agree with you - as long as you mean he should have been held accountable by his wife, by his family, i.e. anyone in a postion to be intimately affected by that affair.
As for myself - and I know I speak for millions of other Americans - I never thought it was any of my damn business and I still don't. So he had an affair - who gives a shit? It has no affect on me one way or the other. Unlike, say, oh I don't know, an illegal invasion, justified by blatant falsehoods, an invasion which might cost the lives of my friends and relatives, etc, not to mention the uncounted lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis...
When Williams asks someone - anyone - whether George W. Bush should maybe he held accountable for his own actions in the above debacle, then you can tell me how balanced Williams is.
Some Google background on Jeffrey Dvorkin
1976-1979 Reporter, CBC TV News, Montreal
Twenty years of working for Canadian public braodcasting, and now for NPR. That does sound like someone who is either 1) having to tow the corporate line now that corpo-GOP is in power (and is pissed about it, but also pissed about being attacked on the Left); 2) a sellout, happy to join the other sellouts in the Whore Press.
Dunno which it is. But NPR doesn't get my atttention any more, because they lied incessantly in the runup to the illegal invasion, and because of all that simpering CRAP they pump out during a coup. Hearing about a lame cat while Bxco is killing tens of thousands of innocent people is intolerable, and anyone who DOES tolerate it is operating with a completely different nervous system than my own.
We're in a strange world of 'run the bastard out on a rail, or maybe shake his hand, or maybe both.' We do need some of these people to even residually fight for the nation, but I come down on the side of admitting that the national discourse is toast, and demanding fairness with considerable ire.
We will not sit back and pretend it's OK, just because they found a gaggle of geese behind the 7-11 and one of them was cute.
Oops, toe the line.
Dear Mr. Dvorkin:
Attached is my cancelled check in the amount of $120 to support National Public Radio last year.
After the way you treated Terri Gross in the wake of her abuse at the hands of Bill O'Reilly, and the manner in which you condescend to your concerned listeners, don't expect to see any more of these any time soon.
P.S. I'm keeping the coffee mug.
Jeez, time to send another order to the far east for more ducks to staff the pit.
They're going to be busy feathered and webbed friends, indeed.
I have to say, I just heard an NPR story about how the number of wounded U.S. soldiers coming out of Iraq is not getting much, if any attention. It was a very good story, and not the kind of thing I'd ever expect NBC, CBS, etc (not to mention Faux) to cover.
Since the person to whose e-mails he was responding explicitly told him that she was a regular NPR listener, his defense (which on its face is reasonable) that he takes the comments of listeners more seriously than those of non-listeners is completely beside the point.
If there were an astroturf campaign where people who never listened to NPR were bitching about a report they hadn't heard, I can see the ombusdsman saying, "Sorry, but my constituency is our listeners, and you're not one of them." But where a regular listener objects to the assignment of two reporters--whom she's presumably heard on-air quite often--to a particular story, there's not basis to ignore her complaint simply because she found out about the assignment from seeing something on the web, or from a friend's telling her, or from Juan Williams' mentioning it on Fox, or from any other source other than hearing it on NPR.
NPR.
hmmm, would be a journalistic joke if it were not for the fact that so many out there find it something better than what clear channel offers them.
and they are correct. the ether has virtually no other npr competitive news coverage other than pacifica. and pacifica has its coverage limitations.
but npr has been ratcheted right as it defers to the cpb. and as long as npr must rely for the bulk of its funding on the largesse of the cpb, then it cannot be anything other than agitprop radio[faux news manque].
the worst npr show, in my experience, has been talk of the nation. formerly orchestrated by juan williams. now by neil conan[sic].
when discussing foreign policy, national policy since the bushie coup, the experts allowed on air always came from establishment think tanks. in matters of foreign policy, one could only describe it as council on foreign relations radio.
when driving about houston between 3pm-4pm, i would try to listen to it, but was almost always compelled to wish that i could dive through my speakers into the ether so as to appear at the npr studios so as to strangle neil and his pontificating, dissembling cfr experts.
there must have been many in the listening zone of kuhf because they dropped the show.
however, my guess is that it was dropped because the wingers here complained that it was too left.
that tells you everything doesn't it? how has it happened that so many citizens of the united states of amerika have decided to become jorge videla?
besides the wounded-in-iraq story, NPR today also interviews the WaPost reporter whose story today says that Iraq's MWD's existed only on paper. and the study in Nature warning of mass extinctions caused by climate change. and as noted somewhere else here, Fresh Air's guest tonight refutes the claim that tax breaks for the rich are only fair, since they pay more taxes. he says (according to FA's promo, I haven't heard the show itself) the rich actually avoid paying taxes and pass the burden to those less affluent. yes, the Liasson and Williams campaign assignments are questionable, and Dvorkin's response to that professor is just appalling. but sometimes NPR still gets it right.
Jeez, time to send another order to the far east for more ducks to staff the pit.
we're outsourcing the ducks?
Two fisted Liberal
I hear you. I don't endorse Williams and he's not a particularly astute interviewer. And he may in fact be a flat out conservative but I felt the interview with Blumenthal was not in the O'Reilly / Hannity / Fox News vain if you know what I mean.
Re Clinton: I am in agreement about the personal stuff. However many would argue his actions were lying to a grand jury. Clinton had no scapegoats as most presidents do so I think he actually was held accountable. Williams simply asked why Blumethal gave Clinton a free ride. I don't believe any president should be given a free ride and I don't think you do either.
For instance should Bush be held accoutable for lying to Congress and taking us to war? Yes. And it would be nice to hear the media drill him on that subject. [You know the media is taking a back seat when Diane Sawyer is the only one asking tough questions].
Williams and Liasson probably wouldn't do that in a Bush interview. I'll give you that.
"And he may in fact be a flat out conservative but I felt the interview with Blumenthal was not in the O'Reilly / Hannity / Fox News vain if you know what I mean."
I do. And I would agree with you that Williams is not as bad as those you name.
"However many would argue his actions were lying to a grand jury."
Many would argue that, and many did argue that, endlessly, as I recall. And I always had a response. Yes - he did lie to a grand jury. About his SEX LIFE. Which had, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with Whitewater, which had nothing much to do with anything in the first place. But since the "Independent" Counsel couldn't get Clinton for Whitewater after years of investigations and millions of tax payer dollars, he went after his sex life.
If some right wing hack went after you, was determined to bring you down at any cost, and focused on your sex life as a way to do that, and as a result a grand jury started asking you extremely personal questions that were none of their business - and you lied to them? Rashomon, I would say, you did the RIGHT thing. Of course if the FBI had collected samples of your semen (doesn't it sound like I'm making this up? Doesn't that sentence sound completely insane?) and, with that semen, could prove you were lying, then lying in that circumstances would not be a smart thing to do. But it would still be a perfectly moral thing to do - if you were the target of a modern day multi-million dollar witchhunt, the way Clinton was. The grand jury was completely out of line.
I say this and I don't even LIKE Clinton. But compared to his enemies, he's practically a saint.
re: Dvorkin. Somerby has it exactly right, the one thing the media will not do is criticize itself.
re: philly g. the majority of bloggers agree, you're a willful troll.
Oh yeah, I'm sure all those O'Reilly complainers were regular NPR listeners...
An essay for those interested in NPR's usefulness, regardless of whether the station is Left or Right:
"The Middle Mind" by Curits White
The essay was reprinted in Harper's. White later expanded it, along with other essays and new writing, into a very good book.
Cheers,
Rhett
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
