Reposted from October 1, 2009
National Public Radio—financed partially with public funds and partially through individual and corporate donations—in theory has a rule that its reporters may not engage in politics. Having listened to NPR and a variety of other news outlets for years (in order to attain some semblance of perspective and balance) and having admittedly donated money to my local NPR station in the past, I have noticed a disturbing trend in their national reportage.
It is apparent that NPR’s alleged prohibition against engaging in politics is more honored in the breach than the observance. In diverse and subtle ways, NPR skews the news, and has become a partisan ProBama cheerleader. While far more low key than MSNBC (Most Sycophants Nuzzling Barack Constantly), ABC (All Barack Channel), NBC (National Barack Channel) and CBS (Covering Barack Seriously)—NPR has, nonetheless, proved the truth of the old saw, “It is not what you say, but how you say it.” Put simply, by inflection, nuance, and selective emphasis, NPR can and does, affect and mold public opinion. It can, in fact, be political without appearing so, and support liberal causes while pretending to be non-partisan.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, I awoke at 6:00 a.m. to listen to the early morning NPR report—as was my routine. The candidates had been debating the War in Iraq—McCain arguing that the United States should stay the course and inject more troops into the battle; Obama campaigning on the promise to get the United States out of the war as quickly as possible, within months after he was elected. A chorus of Democrat senators had shamelessly pronounced that the war in Iraq was “lost “ (Harry “Only Kidding When I Said I Hope You Go Out of Business” Reid among them) which , of course, must have done wonders for the morale of those brave young troops who were fighting and winning in Iraq. Such was the debate raging in the United States at the time. As I rolled over to catch a couple more minutes of half sleep, I listened with one ear to the NPR broadcast. What I heard was curious and disconcerting.
During the next twenty minutes or so, NPR broadcast at least four stories in a row, which—if one harbored suicidal ideation—might have sent him or her over the edge. It seems there was no good news in the world this date and all was indeed lost in Iraq. The first story dealt with the declining number of volunteers at recruitment centers around the country. It seems that the military, according to NPR, could not meet its enlistment quotas. Okay, that was not good, but certainly, there was something positive happening somewhere right? But alas, that was not to be.
The second story covered the fact that the caliber of enlistees in the service was declining and, in effect, the military was resorting to a waiver of certain educational or other qualifications in order to maintain the military. This, of course, brought to mind that famous insult by Senator John Kerry to the effect that, “if you can’t make it in college you can go to Iraq,” which was an affront to thousands of patriotic troops who were there not because they lacked intelligence, but because they loved the country and met the call to defend it against those who declared war on us. But the bad news did not end there.
The next story I recall, was the increase in the number of Americans killed in Iraq that month. News of course--and tragic news--but this third story in a row got me thinking:
who is producing this stuff—the Democratic National Committee? Obama for President? Of course, this too was news, but there was no doubt that these stories were designed to convey to the public the sense that all is lost in Iraq and it was time to go.
Who would benefit from that? Was this news coverage political in nature? Certainly, it helped one candidate who happened to be arguing in favor of an early withdrawal and in favor of a party that declared, “all is lost in Iraq.”
However, the bad news did not end there.
Just as I hoped against hope to hear something positive, NPR finished with one last story: Civilian casualties were on the rise in Iraq. In sum, according to Nuanced Partisan Radio: “We were running out of troops, they are being killed quicker than we can recruit them, they are getting dumber and dumber every day, and we are killing a lot of civilians over there.
Obama himself could not have scripted better new coverage for his campaign. Yet, if you paid no particular attention to the order of these stories or the theme than ran throughout, you might well not have noticed this subliminal message that
all is lost and it is time to leave Iraq—just as Obama said.
However, the nuanced and subtly political coverage has not abated. During the recent health care debate and the town hall meetings held this past summer, during the congressional recess, NPR’s ProBama bent was never more apparent. I listened intently to their news coverage on the town hall meetings.
In each and every instance when the NPR anchors described the citizens who spoke at the town hall meetings—sometimes in loud and vehement tones (which some might dare call,
spirited debate)—they were referred to as
“right wing” protestors. [sic] It seems the NPR reporters could not find any other adjectives to describe those who dared to argue against the proposed Obama Universal Coverage for Health (O.U.C.H.). They were not
citizens, or
concerned Americans, or members of the public, or taxpayers or middle class Americans. Nope, in each and every instance, the adjective of choice employed by Nuanced Partisan Radio was “right wing” protestors. Through the liberal use of the adjective “right wing’ by NPR and the other ProBama media since the health care debate began, any and all protest against the takeover of health care, the banks, the auto industry, and all other facets of American life by the Obama administration has become synonymous with “right wing.” The longer the press hums this mantra, the more it becomes ingrained in the American psyche, and soon everyone is humming it. And, in time, protest itself or criticism of The Great One becomes something evil.
I hoped I was wrong. Maybe the use of the adjective “right wing” every time NPR described the health care debaters was just an aberration. Then I happened to hear a broadcast by NPR, again at 6:00 a.m., concerning the September 12, 2009 gathering in Washington, D.C. A friend of mine, Dr. Tom Cook, an articulate, intelligent, patriotic American who served with valor in Vietnam, sent me a wonderful note about the gathering in D.C., which was touching and insightful:
“What struck me was the number of families present at the rally. There were many fathers and mothers with their children. There were people of all races present. The crowd was upbeat, happy, and not the least bit menacing. They were a huge gathering of great Americans of every stripe and physical attribute. There were many in wheelchairs, babies in mothers’ arms, and many gray heads. There were conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans and libertarians. However, had you polled them, they would undoubtedly have said they were first, and foremost, Americans. They were the heart and soul of America and incontrovertible proof of how out of touch the media and the government are. These folks just wanted their representatives to listen to them—they wanted the government to stop the trampling of their constitutional rights. They left their jobs to travel from all over the country to gather in protest against what they perceived as the ruination of our country by a government that is no longer listening to them.”
These folks—between one and two million strong—represented a cross section of America, and included, among others, a black woman who had also served as an Obama delegate to the Democrat Convention in 2008. The gathering was not organized by any particular group or political persuasion, but was, rather, brought together by a common concern over the direction their county was taking.
Knowing this information from a trusted source who was actually there and mingled with the crowd, I listened with interest as the NPR reporter once again described the crowd as a group of “
conservatives,” (yes, you guessed it) “
organized by right wing groups.” [sic] Apparently, NPR—unbeknownst to the rest of us—had conducted a poll of all of those million plus persons who showed up to demonstrate against the threat of government oppression, which affects all of us equally and threatens our individual liberties, and concluded that all—each and every one—was a
“conservative” or “right winger.” Clearly, no bias or generalizing here.
It is fair to ask: “Who benefits from this constant nuanced partisan reportage?" Who benefits whenever concerned citizens who oppose Obama for whatever reason are trivialized by NPR and dismissed as “right wingers” or “conservatives?” NPR is too free with such adjectives and seemingly can find no others.
You can be political without being political—so long as you are subtle and nuanced. We can only hope that this important news source might some day call things down the middle, rather than emphasizing that which only benefits the current regime in Washington. But I am not holding my breath. And, (though I daresay they will not feel the pinch), until they find other adjectives to describe decent Americans who sincerely oppose Obama’s policies, they have seen my last nickel.
[Dedicated to COL Bob, the Bear, Bryan, and Dr. Tom, patriots all, who are, somewhere, this day, solving all the country’s problems.]
