February, 05 2010, 10:34am EDT
NPR Ombud: 'Critics are Right' on Zinn Obituary
Cites 'Flood of Emails'
WASHINGTON
NEW YORK - NPR ombud Alicia Shepard responded to the over 1,500 activists who wrote individual letters to NPR regarding the Howard Zinn obituary that aired on All Things Considered.
Her response is below. Thanks to all of those on the list who wrote to NPR.
https://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2010/02/howard_zinns_obit.html
Activist Historian Howard Zinn's Obit Causes a Firestorm
There's a taboo not to speak ill of the dead. Or if you are going to,
then at least be nuanced and even-handed about it.
And that's what hundreds said about a Jan. 28 remembrance of Howard
Zinn, the activist historian who died Jan. 27.
Zinn was decidedly left of the American political spectrum and the
first to say he was biased. His best-known book, "A People's History of
the United States: 1492 to Present," was a surprise best-seller. It
told history from the point of view of those who had been vanquished or
oppressed by the powerful.
Zinn, 87, died of a heart attack last Wednesday while on a speaking
tour in California. NPR scrambled to get something on the air for All
Things Considered (ATC) the next night.
The four-minute piece by Allison Keyes quoted three sources: two who
praised Zinn and one, David Horowitz, who was harshly critical. It was
the commentary by Horowitz that led Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
(FAIR), a left-leaning media watchdog group, to initiate a campaign
that resulted in over 1,600 emails, over 100 phone calls and 108
comments on npr.org. Others complained on air.
Horowitz, 71, is a former leftist radical who morphed into a right-wing
author and commentator in the early 1980s. He is also founder of
Students for Academic Freedom, a national watchdog group that promotes
tolerance of conservatives on college campuses.
Not surprisingly, he was no fan of Zinn's.
"There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn's intellectual output that
is worthy of any kind of respect," Horowitz declared in the NPR story.
"Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced
millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the
consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse."
Ouch.
"I thought it was not only disrespectful, but ridiculous--and so
typical of the 'liberal' media's desire to seek legitimacy by giving
credence to hateful right-wingers," wrote Laura Paskus, from Paonia,
CO. "I was one of those young people Zinn influenced; he didn't expect
people to blindly accept his version of history. Rather, he taught us
to question, probe, seek out alternative perspectives and to always be
fair."
Victor Tishop of Kent Cliffs, NY added this:
"You don't alter the minds of millions if you are a fringe mentality,"
he said. "That's a contradiction in terms. Horowitz's whole commentary
was specious and designed to destroy the works of Dr. Zinn. Many
right-wing spokespeople on NPR are allowed latitude that doesn't seem
to be accorded to quote unquote liberals on the left."
Many critics pointed to NPR's even-handed coverage of William F.
Buckley, "a figure as admired by the right as much as Zinn was on the
left," according to FAIR, which gave its members talking points and
urged them to contact the Ombudsman.
NPR was complimentary and respectful in memorializing Buckley, who died
in 2008. The network was equally nuanced in remembering pioneering
televangelist Oral Roberts (who died in December) and Robert Novak, a
conservative columnist who played a key role in the Valerie Plame
debacle and who died last August. NPR's obituaries of these men did not
contain mean-spirited, Horowitz-like comments.
It should be noted that Talk of the Nation did a segment on Zinn that
discussed all aspects of his life that FAIR overlooked.
Obituaries are news stories that place a person in time and history --
not tributes. For this reason, Zinn's obituary did need to mention that
he was controversial and that some historians were dismissive of his
work. But, several professional obituary writers said, Horowitz's harsh
comments about Zinn were not appropriate.
"Obviously the deceased has no ability to refute or discuss or explain
the accusation," said Carolyn Gilbert, founder of the International
Association of Obituarists. "To pick a fight in the obit is not in the
guidelines. It is a little too over the top and begins to open doors
that shouldn't be open in an obituary."
Adam Bernstein, the Washington Post's obituaries editor, also heard the Zinn obit.
"I think the Zinn story misses the mark for two reasons," said
Bernstein. "It quotes people with a vested interest in celebrating the
man and then quotes a man who vividly despises what Zinn represents."
Neither works well.
The Horowitz quote "seems a low blow that doesn't add much insight to
the reader or listener," said Bernstein. "It seems to me your story
would have been better to get a more-neutral authority who expresses
why Zinn was influential and helps the reader/listener understand why
many scholars -- not just conservative firebombers like Horowitz --
felt Zinn was not a force for good in academia."
NPR doesn't have a full-time obit reporter. Last year, the network ran
317 obits and the year before 327. So when someone dies, pieces are
often crafted at the time of death. [NPR does prepare advance
obituaries of many prominent people. For example, Neda Ulaby had
already done a piece on J.D. Salinger, who also died last week, in
anticipation of the 91-year-old author's death.]
The Zinn obit was assigned to Karen Grigsby-Bates late on the day he
died but she had difficulty getting callbacks that day. Keyes got the
assignment the next day to do the story for ATC that night.
"She reached out to as many voices on both sides about Mr. Zinn as she
could," said managing editor David Sweeney. "Some were not available or
refused to talk." Keyes reached Horowitz, who was willing to talk.
Keyes declined to be interviewed.
After the flood of emails, I asked Sweeney to take another listen.
He agreed the Horowitz quote is harsh in tone. "That doesn't undermine
the legitimacy of using his point of view," said Sweeney. "If there is
a problem with what Horowitz has to say, it's that he's allowed to
wield a sharp tongue without providing any justification or evidence to
support his words: more heat than light."
I also asked Alana Baranick, author of "Life on the Death Beat: A
Handbook for Obituary Writers," to listen to the story. She wrote obits
for the Cleveland Plain Dealer for 16 years. She thought it was fair to
use Horowitz to balance out leftist academic Noam Chomsky, who said
"Zinn had changed the conscience of a generation."
"If I had been doing that NPR obit, I would not have cited Horowitz or
Chomsky," said Baranick. "I would have looked to less controversial
figures for comments. [Quoting] historians, who are not considered
political activists, would have been more appropriate."
Writing an obituary can be a challenging assignment because it is often
the last thing that will be said about someone, and the subject can no
longer speak on his own behalf. It must be fair. It must provide
context and it must tell warts and all -- all in a limited space.
Critics are right that NPR was not respectful of Zinn. It would have
been better to wait a day and find a more nuanced critic -- as the
Washington Post did two days after Zinn died --than rushing a flawed
obituary on air.
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular