Today's WESun was just an unending litany of awfulness. Maybe because the puzzle segment is one of the few I usually enjoy, it was the most galling:
Challenge
Take the name "Proust," as in Marcel Proust. Using these six letters, repeating them as often as necessary, spell a familiar bumper sticker with three words, 16 letters altogether. What bumper sticker is it?
It often happens that a puzzle decontextualizes its subject matter. In this instance, the recombinatory "Proust" seems most apt, since atomizing and recombining news nuggets for optimal Pentagon promotion is part and parcel of what seems to be the propagandizing agenda at NPR. Of course, Proust's most famous work is A Remembrance of Things Past, an activity which Americans are most emphatically urged to avoid. As Gore Vidal has observed, we are The United States of Amnesia.
So deliberately do we seek to "not look back," and to proclaim "Yesterday's Gone" - which is as much Obama's theme song as it was the Clintons' - that NPR's Jon Hamilton reported a while back (if my memory serves me well) that, In Future, Science Could Erase Traumatic Memories. The general thrust of the story is that scientific research into the role played by the protective molecular sheath around the brain cells of the amygdala and the role this sheath plays in the creation of traumatic memory may lead to a cure for PTSD . A drug that can dissolve this sheath and erase painful memories has been developed. Hamilton sees this as a pharmaceutical cure for people who suffer PTSD. But as the commentator at WebNewser who first called my attention to that story wrote,
What Hamilton doesn’t say is that without traumatic memories human culture would be a wasteland and humanity, itself, a thing of the past.
Such a drug is certainly in the CIA mind control medicine chest, and perhaps many of the bathrooms of NPR staff.
Meanwhile, Americans are continually subjected to a sort of MSM version of Groundhog Day. In US Media Replays Iraq Fiasco on Iran, Robert Parry (his amygdaloid nucleus sheath intact) observes how many of the same voices of incestuous amplification that propelled us to invade Iraq are pounding the drums for violent action against Iran. Parry concludes,
But one might at least have hoped that the death and destruction in Iraq would have taught these media figures a painful lesson: that sometimes loose talk about foreign “enemies” can contribute to horrendous human suffering.
When "human suffering" is run through the NPR anagram machine, it comes out, "Um, snuff hearing." That's what I had to do when subjected to the music of 4 Troops who sing - their amygdalic sheaths stripped bare - lyrics like,
Soon as we could see clearly through our big black eye Man, we lit up the world like the fourth of July.
As Dana Franchitto (Heaviest Cat) wrote in the NPR comments at this story
Unfortunately,this kind of pro-war puffery has displaced critical thinking on "public" radio
Running a series called "Going Radical," NPR claims the mantle of "investigative journalism" as it works to shore up the military and foreign policy interests of the United States. Instead of investigating how - under the rubric of a "war on terrorism" -
an unsuccessful businessman/crook of low to middling intelligence became so radicalized that he lead the US into two wars of aggression against two predominately Muslim states based on propaganda and manufactured intelligence, or
the state of Israel was brazenly supported by the US government through two massive military assaults (Lebanon & Gaza) targeting civilians and in enacting policies against Palestinians that are tantamount to genocide, or
NPR throws its resources into supposedly explaining the radicalization of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas bomber of Flight 253. What this "investigation" dutifully refuses to explore is any detailed assessment of the grim human toll of US foreign policy in Central Asia and the Middle East and why this policy continues to win recruits to extremism and terror. Daring journalism also would seek answers as to why Abdulmutallab was allowed onto a US bound flight even thought the "intelligence community" had it's eye on him, and would want to find out exactly who helped Abdulmutallab get on Flight 253 in the first place. But if you are a believer in the exceptional goodness of US foreign policy and the nobility of the US war on terror, then NPR won't disappoint.
The star of NPR's Going Radical series is Dina Temple-Raston (NPR's resident FBI spokesperson). She hosts three of the features in the series:
Her Thursday morning piece is a thing of twisted beauty. In a matter of minutes she is able to conflate anti-Guantanamo, anti-torture activism with terrorist extremism. She notes that ex-GITMO detainee Moazzam Begg spoke at a University College London 2007 "Terror Week" event. First she ties Begg to Abdulmutallab by stating, "People who attended the conference say Begg and Abdulmutallab were sitting next to each other" and concludes that "when Abdulmutallab started meeting people like Moazzam Begg, he was exposed to vitriolic and very anti-American views." What is it with these people who've been kidnapped and tortured by the US being so vitriolic and anti-American? - sheesh!
"We tend to hear only about Israel's because of the news coverage and hippy activism it attracts. No other security fence has attracted quite as much attention and theirs - that despite Israel suffering a torrent of terrorist attacks from 2000-2003....where is the ‘fairness' and ‘consistency' that Islamists and their leftist cheerleaders continually complain about?"
It is telling that there actually is another former recruiter with a similar story to Mr. Maher's. His name is Maajid Nawaz, but instead of excusing the "western" security state or Israeli aggression - he brings a far more compassionate, nuanced approach to the lessons he's learned.
Finally on Friday afternoon Temple-Raston - like our President - plays the role of judge, jury and executioner. Remember Anwar al-Awlaki, the US citizen targeted for assassination by the US government (see post below)? Speaking of al-Awlaki as if she were discussing him receiving a traffic ticket, Temple-Raston explains that
"The U.S. has been trying to bring him in for questioning for years. After the Fort Hood attack, it even launched a missile strike on one of his houses in Yemen, but he survived the attack."
Hey, but he deserves extrajudicial execution because Robert Siegel opens the piece with the damning evidence that
"He's admitted to knowing Abdulmutallab. But their relationship, according to intelligence officials, goes far deeper than that. In fact, NPR has learned that al-Awlaki may have been in charge of a small terrorist cell and that Abdulmutallab may have been his first al-Qaida recruit."
Still not convinced? Temple-Raston lays it on:
"He is the same radical imam who was implicated in the Fort Hood shootings last year. He was in email contact with the suspected shooter, Major Nidal Hasan. And, apparently, he blessed that attack and then called Hasan a hero"
and
"Al-Awlaki has always been a propagandist. If he actually mentored Abdulmutallab while he allegedly trained to bomb a U.S. airliner, that would mean al-Awlaki had moved into an operational role in the organization."
Still not ready to lynch? Nothing like a huge dose of fear to nail the case: "What's more, officials tell NPR that they believe al-Awlaki was put in charge of more people than just Abdulmutallab. They believe he trained an entire cell of English-speaking recruits. Apparently, Abdulmutallab named names and provided locations to authorities. Law enforcement officials are looking for those young men now. Officials say they don't believe the young men are in the U.S."
A final note about Temple-Raston's choices of "experts" in these pieces. As mentioned she leans heavily on Shiraz Maher, and she also features a man of similar politics in the reports - Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion which focuses only on Islamic radicalization - not Euro-American radical militarism. Interestingly, the other former-recruiter I mentioned above Maajid Nawaz - also runs a center against radicalism that is well worth exploring and highlighting - unless your main interest is in promoting the US "war on terror."
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.
So it was NPR Managing Editor David Sweeney who green-lighted sicking the attack dog Horowitz on Howard Zinn. Searching NPR for David Sweeney doesn't produce the usual bio. Perhaps he's too new on the job? Or too much of a spook for words?
Googling "Sweeney NPR" finally led to this facebook pic of Sweeney.
According to a story in Webnewser, Sweeney was promoted last May:
NPR Looks to Hire a Digital News M.E. As More Leadership Changes Are Announced (5/13/09)
David Sweeney is assuming the position of Managing Editor. David will direct the daily editorial process -- determining which stories will be covered, how and by whom. The desks; Foreign, Washington, Science, National and the Newscast unit will all report to him. David's reputation as a clear decision-maker and the manager who anticipates everyone's needs will be invaluable as we work to streamline communication and coordination and help shows and online get what they need. He will initially work a Tuesday-Saturday schedule to cover the start-up of the Newsdesk and will report to Dick.
By the way, the comment at the Webnewser site is quite interesting.
"Dick" is Dick Meyer, who was also shuffled in during the NPR management shakeup last May. He was plucked from CBS to become the Executive Editor of NPR news. I guess that's what Alicia means about NPR being a Main Stream Media organization.
So Sweeney answers to Dick Meyer who answers to Kinsey Wilson, a brilliant investigative journalist (heh) who cut his teeth at that muckraking outfit, USA Today.
From 2000-2005, Wilson was Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of USATODAY.com. He expanded the mission and staffing of the site, developed third-party partnerships and led the staff through coverage of major news events including the disputed 2000 presidential election, the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina.
Yeah, remember all the ground-breaking exposes about those issues in USA Today?
Who does Kinsey answer to? Hard to tell. I invite the reader to go to Muckety and see if you can figure this behemoth out.
What is not reported is often more indicative of bias than what is reported. Ignoring a story completely while playing up another demonstrates a subterfuge not readily detectable to the listener. It is no coincidence that the story that gets omitted would send NPR’s puppetmasters into a tailspin if aired.
On Saturday, February 13, 2010, according to Reuters (and several other outlets) ST. PETERSBURG, Florida (Reuters) - Thousands of Floridians demonstrated against moves to allow offshore oil drilling on Saturday along the east and west coasts of the state in a protest dubbed "Hands Across the Sand." I thought maybe I missed a mention of it on NPR, so I did a search on their website—‘offshore oil drilling protests in Florida’ --- and came up with zero results. Then, I decided to do a search on their website for Tea Party protests and came up with 47 results. Do we need rocket science to conclude why NPR would spend precious air time covering every move the tea party makes like the for-profit conference in Nashville with only 600 attendees and ignore statewide protests of offshore oil drilling with 1000’s in attendance?
There are countless examples of NPR’s convenient omissions that protect their right wing brethren. The day the Minnesota election results were finalized was the last time I heard Al Franken mentioned on NPR. However, I did a search on their website for Al Franken and got 298 hits. This is after he’s been in office for more than six months. Scanning most of the Franken hits, I found they were mentions associated with his role on the Judiciary Committee during Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation.
Al Franken’s win in Minnesota was not exactly a mean feat unless you’re a right wing media outlet. With Franken, the accolades are omitted. NPR announced
Democrat Al Franken won Minnesota's Senate race Tuesday…
In contrast, NPR raved about Scott Brown, the recent winner in the Massachusetts Senate race, ad nauseum. Recently, I searched the NPR website for his name and there were an impressive 706 results! This is after he’s been in office less than a month.
Consider the language from NPR’s website for Scott Brown.
Senate’s New Maverick, Takes His Seat - The GOP’s new ‘IT’ boy
As I see it, self-censorship reigns with NPR’s carefully crafted ‘embellish and/or omit’ policy that serves their puppetmasters while ‘protecting’ their listeners from the truth.
Wow...the power to post on the front page! That's awesome! With it comes some responsibility, I suppose. I must train myself to refrain from referring to Scott Simon as a "moist flushable wipe." That's gonna be hard, but I can do it!
My antithapy to the well-liked Simon demands some explanation. I liked Simon well enough until the unilateral invasion of Afghanistan when he spoke and wrote in support of the so-called "war on terror." Simon wrote an op-ed for the October 11, 2001 WSJ titled, "Even Pacifists Must Support This War" whose tone was condescending towards people who didn't see the wisdom of unilateral pre-emptive invasion and occupation of a sovereign country. In the first paragraph he likens the anti-war protesters who were clogging streets of major cities around the world as "a Halloween parade."
After more confused and "holier-than-thou-because-thou-art-too-holy" polemics, SS determines that
The war against terrorism does not shove American power into places where it has no place. It calls on America's military strength in a global crisis in which peaceful solutions are not apparent.
Here he implicitly endorses a pivotal flaw in his argument: that a "war on terror" fought with military might makes any sense in the first place. (See Lakoff on this.)
I don't know if SS is a deliberate shill for the war machine, or if he actually believes his own drivel. He seems to actually believe it - but how convenient to believe such nonsense when it allows you to collect a giant salary for very little effort (I'd guess he shows up in the studio maybe 40 days of the year.) If he is a true believer, then he is a useful idiot for military/industrial/bankster complex who have profited hugely from the invasion/occupation.
Howard Zinn responded to SS's nonsense in December of 2001, saying of Simon
He tried to use the pacifist acceptance of self-defense, which approves a focused resistance to an immediate attacker, to justify this war, which he claims is "self-defense." But the term "self-defense" does not apply when you drop bombs all over a country and kill lots of people other than your attacker. And it doesn't apply when there is no likelihood that it will achieve its desired end.
No duh, huh? No wonder the folks at NPR were sore enough with Zinn to invite Horowitz to opine at his NPR obit.
What makes it all the worse is that these "just war" zealots never really bother to examine their cause in any detail. Where is SS's response to bogus phone calls that Ted Olson has claimed to have received? Simon lumps questions about 911 together with believing in Martians questioning the moon landing. It's this sort of intellectual dishonesty that makes me loathe Scott (MFW) Simon (oh, damn, I'm trying to resist it, I really am!) - whether he is a true believer (useful idiot) or not.
==========================================
Afterthought 1: Helena Cobban wrote more considerately about Scott Simon in in The Friends Journal a few years ago. She labels him aptly as a Liberal Hawk, but says,
Of course, we should not engage with these former liberal hawks in any kind of a gloating way that says, "Ha! We were right and you were wrong." Instead, we could simply invite them to join with us in reflecting more deeply on what went wrong with the project to improve Iraqis’ lives through the application of military force, and to entertain the idea that now and in the future, when we are concerned about harms suffered by vulnerable others in distant places around the world, there are ways for our country to respond that would be a lot more effective than the use of military action—even if this action is dressed up in the fine (though very misleading) words "humanitarian intervention." We need to strengthen our country’s commitment to the UN and the essentially egalitarian principles it embodies. We need to work hard to develop the capacities of all nations—including our own—in nonviolent conflict resolution and the nonviolent prevention of future wars. And we all need to work much harder than we have thus far to build the kind of equitable world order that is needed to enable all of God’s children to flourish, in whichever part of the globe they’re born.
Fair enough. Though the UN doesn't seem to have redeemed itself well in places like Haiti and Liberia. And God ain't my daddy.
===============================
Afterthought #2:
larry, dfh said...
I realized that the purpose of these npr shows, and the sleepy, reassuring voices of the hosts, is in fact to make us feel secure, and not ripped off.
Yeah Scott Simon as much as says this in the third of the video clips posted here.
The distribution system is going to change [..] and people are not going to put up with the relation they used to have with the media [..] what we're hoping to do is to use whatever [trust] we have to [..] amuse, provide company for people in the lonely hours of the night, be with people during times of national tragedy, pass along a joke.
Notably absent from his list are the hopes to
investigate
report the truth
==========================
Afterthought #3 (yes, I am a ponderous fellow)
I may be faulted for describing the invasion of Afghanistan as unilateral and preemptive. See The Myth of Preemptive Self Defense for a more accurate accounting of this:
Both the United States and the United Kingdom notified the United Nations Security Council that Enduring Freedom was an exercise of individual and collective self-defense in compliance with the terms of United Nations Charter Article 51, which permits the use of force in self-defense against an armed attack.
The article continues to observe how this was a slippery slope that led to the unilateral and preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq. Certainly, if it proves true (and there is significant unexplored evidence to support the contention) that 911 was a false flag operation of some sort, that would tend to undermine the legality of the invasion...to put it mildly.
For the effect of acting unilaterally was to undermine the foundation on which the post-1945 consensus had been constructed: the prohibition of force (save in self-defence, or perhaps, to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe) unless formally authorised by the nations of the world empowered to make collective decisions in the security council ...
But then the niceties of the rule of law have been rendered quaint by the war-criminal Bush regime.
Every effort will be made not to interfere with comments - BUT violent, gratuitously vulgar, or obscene posts will usually be deleted. Sometimes it's a judgment call, so please, even when you're really angry, try to play nice.
