Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
NPR: The Saga Continues
There’s no more scrupulous or versatile broadcast journalist than NPR’s Daniel Zwerdling. He is one of those reporters who keeps his eye on the sparrow – that is, on small details from individual lives that add up to significant issues of public policy. As he described in a special report this week how the United States Army is clarifying guidelines "that should make it easier for soldiers with traumatic brain injuries from explosions to receive the Purple Heart," it was mind-boggling to think that right wingers in Congress were at that very moment voting to eliminate the modest federal funds that make such essential and authoritative reporting available to anyone in America who cares to tune in.
Zwerdling’s collaborator on this report was ProPublica (the non-profit and equally independent newsroom that won the Pulitzer Prize last year for a harrowing account of deadly choices made by a New Orleans hospital during Hurricane Katrina). As a result of their reporting, the Army now intends to give special priority to reexamining the cases of soldiers who suffered battlefield concussions but who mistakenly may have been turned down for the Purple Heart, which historically has been awarded to soldiers injured by enemy action.
You may not think this such a big deal, but the symbolism of the announcement is potent. And it’s part of a larger, ongoing investigation conducted by Zwerdling and ProPublica’s T. Christian Miller into the military’s widespread failure to diagnose and treat traumatic brain injuries, the "signature injury" among troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as they fall to roadside bombs and other explosives.
It’s also typical of the comprehensive and essential journalism that has been a hallmark of NPR since its creation in 1970. Once upon a time, in the early glory days of radio, corporate media took on the challenge of providing Americans with the kind of information critical to citizenship. No longer. Conglomerates long ago bought up the country’s commercial radio stations, closed down the news departments, and auctioned off the airtime to partisan polemicists or pre-packaged content devoid of journalism. Serious news on radio -- "the news we need to keep our freedoms," as the historian and journalist Richard Reeves once put it – has become the province of NPR (Full disclosure: We two have spent most of the last forty years toiling in the vineyards of public broadcasting, although never for NPR.)
Take Zwerdling’s investigations as just one example: Over the years, he has sorted out the complexities and secrets of the 1986 Challenger space shuttle disaster and the warnings that preceded it, dangers posed to humans by the plant pesticide Chlordane (it eventually was banned by the Environmental Protection Agency) and the failures of the Corps of Engineers to maintain safely the dikes and dams around New Orleans -- among many other stories. Multiply his efforts by those of all the modestly-paid but dedicated journalists at NPR and you have a forty year history that has given listeners a deeper and richer portrait of America and the world than any other broadcast news organization in the country -- with or without offense, as Byron said, to friend or foe.
In just the last few weeks, NPR has provided unique coverage of the job crisis in the United States, upheavals in the Middle East, and anxiety over the safety of nuclear power in the wake of the Japanese earthquake – as a matter of fact, many of the issues the House of Representatives should have been debating instead of posturing and pandering to its rightward political base.
Hear Steve Benen of Washington Monthly on the House Judiciary Committee’s vote the other day reaffirming “In God We Trust” as our national motto: "For months the new House Republican majority has wasted time on health care bills they know they can't pass, abortion bills they know they can't pass, climate bills they know they can't pass, and budget bills they know they can't pass. They've invested considerable time and energy on defending the Defense of Marriage Act, recklessly accusing Muslim Americans of disloyalty, going after NPR, and pushing culture-war bills related to vouchers, English as the 'official' language, and now 'In God We Trust.'"
And yes, on Thursday, following a number of missteps by NPR executives, including what has now been indisputably exposed as a disingenuous and dishonestly-edited video by a disreputable right-wing smear artist of the network’s chief fundraiser expressing some personal opinions, the House passed a bill cutting off government funding for NPR – all of this part of the "vanity project," as Benen calls it, that House Republicans have been running in order to feed red meat to Fox News and the partisan talk radio hosts who have turned the public airwaves -- remember, the airwaves above our fair and bountiful land belong to you, Mr. and Mrs. and Ms. America – into a right-wing romper room.
Opposing the bill to strip public radio of funding, Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett of Texas said, "My constituents turn to [public radio] because they want fact-based, not Fox-based coverage." The attacks, he continued, are "an ideological crusade against balanced news and educational programs."
And even Georgia Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss told an interviewer, "You know, an awful lot of conservatives listen to NPR. It provides a very valuable service. Should we maybe think about a reduction in that? Again, I think the sacrifice is going to have to be shared by NPR as well as others. But I think total elimination of funding is probably not the wisest thing to do."
Good for you, Senator. Because without public radio, the reactionaries among us will hold a monopoly on the airwaves.
And while we’re on the subject of wise things, let’s not forget public radio’s other programming: the arts and entertainment coverage that plays its own distinctive role trying to keep our democracy spirited, diverse and imaginative. Think Garrison Keillor. Krista Tippett. Ira Glass. Think “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!” “Car Talk” (yes, many of us are would-be grease monkeys). “On the Media” (the single best analysis and critique of media anywhere). And -- well, consult your local listings.
We’re talking here about something essential to American life. President Kennedy touched on it in a speech at Amherst College less than a month before his assassination in 1963. Speaking in honor of the poet Robert Frost, who had recently died, the President’s words were directed to the role of artists but can also embrace the importance of a public media whose obligation is not to a political or corporate paymaster but to the integrity of the work and the trust of the listener:
"The artist, however faithful to his personal vision of reality, becomes the last champion of the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive society and an officious state," Kennedy said. "... In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation. And the nation which disdains the mission of art invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having 'nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope.'"
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




80 Comments so far
Show AllWhat should be done to save NPR is send all the people who do PBS Membership Pledge Drives on TV to Washington to talk like that to congresspersons in person, using the same kinds of appeals, explaining why NPR needs their support and all they have to do is go to the place where they vote and do their fair share to keep NPR alive. Each pledge drive implorer would get his or her own member of congress.
That would be an exercise in futility. Republicans in Washington are tone deaf....they have been lusting after busting NPR for 30 years...and now's their chance.
"....the arts and entertainment coverage that plays its own distinctive role trying to keep our democracy spirited, diverse and imaginative."
Seriously? Do you REALLY think that the conservatives in Congress give a damn about those things? They are slash and burn Ideologues who are determined to destroy ANYTHING that liberals (and/or Obama) enjoy or find pleasure in, as well as eliminating any shred of personal freedom to conduct one's own life (a woman's right to choose, contraception, freedom of choosing whom to love), as well as eliminating all taxes for corporations and the wealthy, and dictating their own narrow and rigid ideas as those of the entire country.
Wake up, America! Republicans/Tea Partiers are intent on one thing: Domination and control of the American people. It's their way or the highway.
I believe conservatives DO care about these things but in the wrong direction. They want them to cease and desist, to go away. Of course my suggestion wouldn't work. I was being facetious. Sometimes I do that.
I gotcha. well, I think it would be a great idea if the conservatives would cease and desist...to go away. Then we could continue to have art, public radio, and control over our own bodies.
A quote from days past, as in Kennedy's, and other soothsaying won't take back the racist words that flew from the mouth (oops!) of the nitwit at NPR last week. As a (progressive) honky, I was disgusted, disappointed and continue to be. Its quite funny how Moyers will defend this crap while positioning himself as a man of the regular folks. Seriously, who here can disparage the hard working, salt of the earth people in the TP who simply wanted their voices heard? I thought Bill was all for that kind of ...democracy.
To be fair, we all know NPR has done great things (as has 60 Minutes for that matter), but providing real opposition to the Empire is not one of them. Fox & NPR: no difference when it come to the money (and warmongering). They have their little pissing contests and afterwards, the criminality and warmongering continues unabated.
NPR, along with PBS, ABC, NBC CBS and FOX, all continue to deny the American people fair and open presidential debates by leaving out independents (right, Ralph?). Always selling us short on truth while bolstering the power of democrats along with republicans. The same tit for tat and tat for tits game. In the end, the People end up with a bunch of, well...boobs.
What happens when we don't have open and healthy debates? Take a look around.
Its time to cut NPR loose. They've coasted far too long. Make 'em work for a change. Who knows, maybe they'll one day become what they thought they were all these years: a voice for the people –all the people.
(ProPublica rocks.)
moonpie wrote: "It's time to cut NPR loose. They've coasted far too long. Make 'em work for a change. Who knows, maybe they'll one day become what they thought they were all these years: a voice for the people –all the people."
Sadly, yes, I agree.
Thank God for Pacifica radio - KPFK in Los Angeles, KPFA in the Bay area, etc.
You can even listen live on the internet!
They don't have Pacifica News in Nebraska. Amy Goodman is not on the radio in most of West Virginia. 'Alternative Radio' won't be found anywhere on the dial while driving through southern Indiana or parking at the shopping malls outside of Socorro, New Mexico.
So. Just let them all gorge themselves on Rush Limbaugh, eh?
No one is advocating "letting" people gorge on Limbaugh et al.
If you've been reading the comments, the bulk of posters seem to feel that NPR is not helping. Therefore, let it go.
There are other avenues that would empower the folks in rural communities.
One is already there. Amy Goodman and KPFA are online.
Others include micro radio. Google "The Prometheus Project" for an eyeful.
Again: no one is saying "let them eat Limbaugh." The point is insisting they get to eat NPR is a waste of time. They supported the illegal war, the bailouts, the torture, the "health" care bill, immunity for telecom spying, and so on.
Here, maybe this'll clarify:
If ONLY NPR existed as it has, there would be no meaningful difference in the information conveyed or in the actions of the political and corporate class.
Just. Stop. Acting. Like. There. Is. A. Difference.
Show me one, if you can. But stop blithely asserting without supporting.
Yes, I'm sure that with the disappearance of NPR, the soccer moms of West Virginia will start rushing home after work to log in on-line and watch the latest episode of Democracy Now before they cook dinner.
Seriously, too many people on this site are delusional.
No, but with NPR news gone, it seem likely that a wholly-listener supported WV Public Radio will replace it with a variety of other news sources all of them to the left of the awful Morning Edition or All things Considered - where else would they go? Maybe they will even join the Pacifica network - if the Pacifica network can get their act together.
Without the network the local stations would survive, but would largely be limiited to local programming.
The complaints I read about on this site remind me of the hard right-wingers who feel that if you don't agree with them 100% you are the enemy.
I get annoyed at hearing more conservatives interviewed on NPR programs the liberals, but I appreciate a network which has more foreign correspondents than any newspaper and more than most other networks.
Interestig and Hopeful POV
Yet another naked assertion.
Again: I'm saying that given NPR's reporting, whether a "W Va. soccer mom" (of which phrase both halves are insulting) listens to Rush or NPR, it won't make any difference.
Except, I suppose, to you. You'll feel like people are more informed.
Delusions do not give way in the face of explicit and contrary evidence. It is I, not you, sir, who have presented evidence for my assertions whilst disproving yours.
The implications of this with regard to who in this discussion might suffer from delusional thinking tends, I think, in your direction.
Have a debate. Unless you just want to call people delusional.
I'll start: How does NPR inform people in a way that serves the republic, and not the same corporate masters of Fox?
Sorry to try to pin you down, but you are the one tossing out mental health diagnoses en masse.
You may recall that PIPA poll which showed that NPR listeners did better on simple fact-based questions than Fox News viewers did. Here's a link to a .pdf file:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
I would say that people having actual true facts is a good starting place, wouldn't you? Informed opinion has never resulted from those who don't even start with simple, empirical facts.
NPR propagated lies about war, torture, bailout healthcare.
With all due respect, those facts matter than your PIPA poll.
Read my other comments, all over the 2 NPR articles posted here Friday and Saturday.
Again: NPR is not "better than nothing."
It is a propaganda outlet that serves the same folks Fox et al does. It manages to work on most progressives.
It keeps us out of the streets.
Shit, it has you DEFENDING them!
If you can justify the war and torture lies spread by NPR, then I'll concede that it's a good thing NPR listeners display a modicum of intelligence over Fox.
You are reading in far too much here.
Also, you state things as fact without evidence of fact, which isn't compelling.
Too, NPR was one of the first to talk about the difference of outcome regarding FBI vs. CIA interrogation tacticts, which has recently been in the news again, right here on this site, in fact.
So, you may say things over and over, yes. That is fine. It is not, however, an argument.
I maintain that facts are important, and that if NPR listeners have more facts than from other news outlets, that's a good start.
Which is just me re-stating what I said before, because you didn't seem to read it.
Ah, right in the foot.
That is EXACTLY the point. You said: CIA and FBI interrogation..." The CIA's "Interrogation" was unequivocally torture.
The CIA's methods were torture, Bush and Obama are guilty of war crimes, both under US (Clinton signed U.S. War Crimes Act) and internat'l (Geneva Conventions.)
People listening to NPR don't know about this, or don't care.
My point is, I don't care what other facts NPR manages to excrete.
Your position is, then, that despite their prior and current silence on war crimes, they get some good facts, and that's enough for you? Elsewhere in these posts I have detailed NPR's "coverage" of "health care" and pointed out how they serve only corporate interests.
We disagree.
And nothing was ever solved in the comments section.
Good luck.
If the "soccer moms of West Virginia" are listening to NPR, that would help explain why West Virginia's idea of a "Democrat" is Jay Rockefeller.
I live in Southcentral Indiana (Bloomington) and we have a wonderful alternative FM station here, WFHB at 98.1 and other frequencies from repeaters. They carry "Democracy Now!" TWICE during the day and have lots of locally produced programs. Sadly, Rush Limbaugh and his insufferable right-wing apologism is found just about everywhere on the AM dial.
I also have to agree with the criticisms here about NPR. I respect Bill Moyers greatly but he is tone deaf when he fails to see the ways in which NPR has increasingly aligned itself with establishment broadcasting. I don't find the general drift of their newscasting all that impressive. If you look at the work of FAIR and their analysis of both NPR and PBS there is a decided rightward emphasis. PBS is particularly bad at this. One example of this is the fact that Noam Chomsky has appeared on The NewsHour ONCE for less then 10 minutes. However, there is no shortage of pundits from the Council on Foreign Relations, the CATO Institute and the Heritage Foundation. I don't ever recall hearing him interviewed on NPR.
You nailed it.
"...won't take back the racist words that flew from the mouth (oops!) of the nitwit at NPR last week. As a (progressive) honky, I was disgusted, disappointed and continue to be."
Fine. I agree. But you fail to mention the imbalance in the private (and, admittedly stupid) conversation which was recorded specifically for a sting, and the PUBLIC CONSTANT DIVISIVE AND RACIST SPEECH SPEWED DAILY FROM THE SPOKESMODELS AND PUNDITS ON FOX NEWS with nary a peep from authorities regarding the appropriateness of their spoutings.
Conservatives who want to dump NPR over this little dust-up are a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It's just censorship, pure and simple. Cons don't want any liberal ideas (and there aren't many on NPR, quite frankly) escaping from the airwaves into the America public's ears.
People in the USA will have depend on Al Jazeera,
sinces home news is a pile of right wing excreta,
of excuses for external war tropes,
and assaults on poorer domestic folks.
As the Pentagon and CIA treat foreign natives,
so they also treat voting citizen plaintives.
So if your rights are bombed by right wing drones,
its time to take up arms in defence of your homes.
Your government is an agency of destruction,
and needs to be ejected by people eruption.
Very Fine B3nign
"Good for you, Senator."
What kind of left winger is going to say "good for you" to right wing extremist oppressors? I'd say not a real left-winger. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't support the people's interests while at the same time accept evil as your equal. Triangulation has been dead for a decade. And yet these guys are still trying to displace the real left with fakeness. Our eyes are open over here. We're not going to accept the rightwing predator/parasite and his trap/bait petro-opiates.
I thought the same thing. Remember that Saxby Chambliss won the Georgia Senate race over Max Cleland by airing an ad that showed Cleland's face morphing into Saddam Hussein's. It was a despicable thing to do as Cleland was an amputee Vietnam war vet and Chambliss never even served in the military. Since he took Cleland's seat he has been a sock puppet in the Senate for the Right. "Good for you, Senator" is NOT an appropriate thing to say. More like "Shame On You".
I listen to NPR to get the daily declaration of our glorious rulers. What great victories are faithfully reported, how well the economy is doing, also my PC lesson for the day.
My view of Moyers is the same as my view of Obama--their words sound nice but then ever so often you get to see where they really stand.
The spectrum of opinion one hears on NPR is pretty thin. Is this what Moyers is defending?
Despite my other postings w/r/t NPR, I do hold great respect for Mr. Moyers.
Losing NPR in an official sense is irrelevant. We lost them as servants of the republic over a decade ago, and their continued existence served to mollify and assuage "progressives" who wanted any excuse--especially one endorsed by their very own genuine liberal media--to not hit the streets.
With great regret, Mr. Moyers, you are well-intentioned and sorely misdirected.
Sadly, I agree. Bill Moyers is one of the last true journalists alive and I can understand his loyalty to NPR. However, you are correct....for the last decade, they would more correctly have been called Archer Daniels Midland Radio. I quit listening to them long ago. The Republicans are extremely stupid wasting their time on dumping NPR. To call it a liberal bastion of ideas is laughable. I do, however, think that its value to small towns and rural areas is great in that those people usually are stuck with either religious stations or Rush Limbaugh. We should keep NPR going just to give those Americans some culture and diversity!
Laura Flanders and Amy Goodman can MORE THAN FILL THE GAP that emanates from NPR pap!!!!!
After reading the above comments here on Common Dreams, I can't help but believe federal money going to NPR is going to stop.
Of course it will.
They already shut down Acorn based on lies.
But nobody came to their rescue, a group that actually did good work in the streets--
Progressives let ACORN die, and abandoned many folks thereby--
Killing NPR, though... "we" progressives won't stand for that...because ACORN helped poor people, and NPR's audience are relatively well-off people.
It affects their comfortable life, where ACORN only functioned in the abstract, to them.
O'Keefe lies about ACORN, and they shoot it like a lame horse, directly harming the poor. (And they didn't prosecute O'Keefe, even after the burglary and attempted wiretapping of a Senator's office, eh?
O'Keefe exposes a truth about NPR, and employed, housed "progressives" shit a brick.
Ah, the smell of hypocrisy in the morning...smells...like fascist Victory.
And mine as well. Your satire bone is in fine fettle.
Good point, puffin.
And it's too bad Helen Thomas wasn't an NPR reporter. Although many progressives deplored and condemned the shabby manner in which she was ousted as the result of a "gotcha" video ambush, she would've garnered more fervent support if she'd had that NPR cachet.
Telling people the truth is never popular. Relying on government money is never without strings. Using a privately funded institution like CPB to provide insulation from politics has failed. In my view NPR almost always pulls its punches as a consequence and has ceased to be an important news source for me.
What could redeem public radio and TV? Make it more independent by relying solely on voluntary listener support. How about a check off option on our taxes. Those who don't want to listen don't have to support. NPR could then concentrate on providing the coverage needed for those who do want it. NPR could get its grove back--and its spine..
A checkoff option sounds like a great idea!
Now we should institute the same for Wars funding, Corporate bailouts,etc
If you think that's a good idea, would you favor a check-off so that people who want to can direct some of their tax dollars to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.?
The only thing wrong with Bill and friends is that they are too long winded.
The problem with NPR and PBS is they are too center-rightist, and they have long since abandoned the Charter that brought them into being, which called for much more diversity of programming. I heard the other day that 98% of NPR's funding is corporate, only 2% public. That might apply to PBS too. PBS routinely lies. Last night I watched some of the Jim Lehrer show and they reported that Aristide had been "ousted by rebels" (or something like that) in 2004--nothing about the direct US coup d'tat that actually happened.
Instead of defunding PBS and NPR I favor a radical restructuring and increase in funding, based on the idea of Jerry Starr and the Committed on Independent Public Broadcasting, a group probably defunct by now. The idea is to create via a bond a funding source that is non-partisan, and then to decentralize the broadcasting too, so that not all shows are made in DC, as currently happens. This country desperately needs REAL public broadcasting to compete with the dumbed down private broadcasting. And also, we need radical decentralization of programming, so we have to accept that the tea baggers are going to put out some programs offensive to us, and vice versa. As it stands now, PBS-NPR stands accused of being "liberal"--which it is, according to the optic of Fox News. I would gladly put up with right wing shows that were publicly funded if we on the left could get films like The Corporation and Outfoxed aired regularly, and other similar stuff, and hard hitting news shows.
I always find it interesting that NPR, PBS etc get blasted by the RIGHT but its ok to have FOX NEWS!!!!!
Also every time the GOP gets its foot in the door or they get behind the wheel the bus crashes,
Actually Public Television and Radio are far more by light years more informative then standard new shows who deliver lots of crime news and not much else of substance.
The local news in my city is just a bad reality show.
I think the difference here is that NPR receives taxpayer money....and Faux Noise does not. We liberals have to get some Left Wing Billionaire to finance a propaganda channel for US, and then they can't say anything because it won't be taxpayer dollars.
Actually all media receive tax dollars directly or indirectly.
All those annoying misleading or outright deceptive commercials which have
doubled since Reagan's deregulation of broadcast rules are paid for out
of Corporate checkbooks and written straight off their bottomline as a
"business expense" reducing their taxes.
Of course tax breaks like this are never considered federal expenditures even
though of course they are for Corporate propaganda over the public airwaves.
I totally agree that we need decentralized public media and I have been increasingly disgusted with NPR's center-right coverage.
It is time to tax commercial media for their use of the public airwaves with
that money going to decentralized citizens public media.
Such media would not necessarily be to most people here's liking as it should rightfully include ALL voices including rightwing populists.
But it would open up new democratic space for alternatives.
If we do not challenge the existing tax-break subsidy to commercial media
over existing PUBLIC airwaves then we have already lost the argument.
As usual it is all in framing the terms of the debate...
As for impacting NPR and CPB's centrism we should organize a progressive
alliance to pool our funds to hear some voices from progressives.
I used to give to NPR but I just got sick of their coverage and stopped...
@glogrrl -- You are absolutely correct that the big issue is that NPR receives taxpayer money. None of us (i.e., the top 50% or so of earners who pay taxes) should be forced to support broadcasters of any ilk, whether Right- or Left-leaning.
As I said elsewhere, the government should step out and allow the free market to determine the content of the media. For the Left, that is a problem, because the message of the Left doesn't sell. For the Leftist-Progressive message to get out, it must be supported by the beast of a government that the Left has built; the free market cannot support those ideas (e.g., Air America and others). Even Left-leaning billionaires know that, so we most likely won't see any of them stepping up to fund media that is unsupported by the market.
@glogrrl -- You are absolutely correct that the big issue is that NPR receives taxpayer money. None of us (i.e., the top 50% or so of earners who pay taxes) should be forced to support broadcasters of any ilk, whether Right- or Left-leaning.
As I said elsewhere, the government should step out and allow the free market to determine the content of the media. For the Left, that is a problem, because the message of the Left doesn't sell. For the Leftist-Progressive message to get out, it must be supported by the beast of a government that the Left has built; the free market cannot support those ideas (e.g., Air America and others). Even Left-leaning billionaires know that, so we most likely won't see any of them stepping up to fund media that is unsupported by the market.
Do you think Fox News is funded by the U.S. Government? The lefties would go bananas if it were.
This article by Moyers and Winship is both sad and thoroughly dishonest. It is sad to see two critical thinkers and writers make exaggerated claims for NPR that are not true, and are mainly based on the worthy efforts of Daniel Zwerdling, one NPR journalist who is the EXCEPTION to the pro-corporate, pro-right, Pentagon-loyal propaganda dumped on over the radio airwaves every day by Morning Edition, All Things Considered and the Weekend Editions.
Moyers and Winship claim that Zwerdling's work is "typical of the comprehensive and essential journalism that has been a hallmark of NPR since its creation in 1970." That is a claim worthy of a White House Press secretary, not a media critic.
In my blog NPR Check, I've noted the unusual efforts of Zwerdling, too - http://nprcheck.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-about-contracting-zwerdling.html - and could mention one or two other decent reports from others over the years, BUT these notable acts of journalism are lost in the flood of wretched corporatist/militarist reporting that NPR produces. I've spent five years listening and critiquing NPR's coverage - and it is hostile to leftists, hostile to social justice, hostile to pacifists, hostile to critics of US foreign policy, hostile to progressives, etc. If you doubt it, or want to refute my claims I invite you to visit my blog - http://nprcheck.blogspot.com - and email me with evidence to the contrary.
Anyone - including Bill Moyers and Michael Winship - who champions saving NPR without making demands that its news become far more challenging and hard-hitting is frankly engaging in the kind of liberal, self-destructive denialism that Chris Hedges so aptly critiques. Organizations like MoveOn and Free Press should organize their "Save Public Media" campaigns in such a way that participants would pledge to cut off ALL donations to their local NPR stations if NPR News is not improved or removed within a year - and they should mean it.
Power does not give ground without real and meaningful demands - and in spite of Moyers and Winship's wishful thinking - NPR news is a powerful and loyal agent of those who wield power in this country.
Good response. I also checked out the NPR Check website and it confirmed why I personally haven't been a big fan of NPR. Too often, either NPR repeats without challenge the government spin on matters or simply doesn't report on important matters.
One thing about your response though, I wouldn't expect MoveOn, a Democratic Party supporter, to really challenge the Establishment, including NPR's pro-government policy news. MoveOn's anti-war campaign was just a tool to build organization and as soon as the Democrats took power, MoveOn took its gloves off against those (Democrats) supporting the war.
Strong Stuff!
"Good for you, Senator. Because without public radio, the reactionaries among us will hold a monopoly on the airwaves."
Response: The solution is deconsolidation of the media giants and ensure free access (including open internet) to all, not throw pennies at one small media niche, that is not the progressive model of reporting. That said, Moyers had a good show while it lasted.
Another Trylon Review of Forgotten History
To Bill & Michael,
Journalist and author MacKinlay Kantor (Andersonville) completed his harrowing and dangerous wartime assignment in the European theatre, flying with B-29 bomber missions over Germany a la Howard Zinn. He packed his duffle and started home - hitching rides on a series of Military Air Transport planes. He got bumped, waited a lot, and began to doodle on a notebook strapped to a kneepad. He envisioned three homeward bound war veterans on MAT, who discover that they are from the same middle American small town. Kantor was numbed and shaken by his experience of war. As he flew west, he found himself writing in =free verse==. He refused requests by editors to change this, and it was published in free verse. The result was and remains one of the most incredible novels in American history. Kantor called his book =Glory For Me=. This book should be REPRINTED tomorrow, for all Americans to read. I collect inexpensive first editions of it.
Hollywood paid a shitload of money for the movie rights. Kantor insisted that he co-write the Screen Play with Robert Sherwood, and foolishly presumed the title would be left alone. But Samuel Goldwyn decided to name the film "The Best Years of Our Lives". Kantor screamed at him: "Are you out of your fucking MIND?!"
In =Glory For Me= Kantor had created a fictional war veteran returning home who was BRAIN DAMAGED and carried pieces of shrapnel in his skull. This was a non-visible war injury. Sam Goldwyn replaced that character with a bilateral arm amputee, played by Paratrooper Harold Russell. Using his prostheses, Harold had learned to tear a match from a matchbook, strike it, and light a cigarette. This constituted extreme visibility, with the potential to gain sympathy - and help the box office. It worked. TBYOOL won Best Picture for 1946, plus several other Oscars.
MacKinlay Kantor decided he had absolutely HAD IT. He told Goldwyn to fornicate himself, and walked off the Hollywood lot, never to return. The Opening Credits of "The Best Years Of Our Lives" indicate that the movie is based upon a book by MacKinlay Kantor - but does not mention the the title =Glory For Me=
CD Readers - try to find a copy, at least to read. Smarter, see if you can find a copy for sale and snap it up.
Trylon