A second open letter to NPR

[solarbird]

Were I willing to give more time to it, I'd write a shorter letter. But I'm not, because I've already told them what I think about all this bullshit. Still, I keep throwing myself against this wall, and here's my new one:

Dear Ms. Shepard, et al -

I see that in response to the reportedly overwhelming torrent of criticism of NPR adopting White House talking points to describe the American torture programme - and then pretending that there is an "argument" over what is torture, rather than the reality that there's an argument over whether the US should be torturing, in violation of tradition, law, and treaty - you have restated NPR's position against the use of plain language to describe plain and legal reality, primarily on the basis that powerful ("responsible") people don't like it, and say that the word doesn't apply.

You also claim that using this word is somehow "loaded" and taking a position in a debate, when in reality, adopting White House talking points and language in opposition to commonly and historically used language is directly taking sides in the very reframing of the debate the White House wanted to achieve! You are taking a side, and arguing that you must, in order to "avoid taking sides." How sad. NPR is, apparently, an enthusiastic adopter of such tactics - as long as those behind it are powerful, "responsible" people.

It is good to know that NPR will allow the powerful to change reality and the definitions of words when such actions suit their political goals. I look forward to NPR pressing the current administration on its need to apologise to all the war criminals (both foreign - Nazi, Imperial Japanese, and so on - and American) that it has tried and convicted for engaging in exactly these same practices that you now refuse to describe as torture.

However, even should that happen, NPR will no longer be seeing my sponsorship dollars. That will await a return to reality-based reporting.


Sincerely,


solarbird

For all the good that'll do.

Comments

[brombear.livejournal.com]

Is it me, or does it seem that the further away we get from the inaguration, that we're seeing a sort of "Bait and Switch" with political topics, with the intention of drawing the "sheeple's" attentions to other "items of interest"?

I'm not really sure if this question calls for an answer...

[solarbird]

As displeased as I've been with Mr. Obama, this sort of complete and comprehensive bullshit well preceded his administration.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

i AM NOT defending *any* media attempts to "pretty up" American atrocities.

but i have to wonder - exactly how much wiggle room do they have?
first - am i wrong in thinking that NPR actually gets a lot of generic government money in the form of grants and such? while mealy-mouthing reality is abhorrent, is it possible that they are being blackmailed in the form of "get with the Newsspeak or we'll stop giving you money". or hell, i suppose it's vaguely possible that there is blackmail in the form of "get with the Newsspeak or we'll sic the FCC on you and take away all your channels"...
second...
this hasn't happened yet, at least not officially - but i am waiting for pronouncements along the lines of "saying that US [agency/military/contractors/whatever] use "torture" is illegal, is sedition, and anyone saying so will be subject to [insert investigation type or punishment]", something anogolous to the whole "saying you want to kill the President is illegal, treason, and will grant the Secret Service the right to detain and arrest you, anyone with whom you have may discussed your desire to kill the President, and search and confiscate any of your property that might have any connection to your statement". because it is ILLEGAL to say something like "i wish i could kill the President" - that is treason, conspiracy to commit treason, conspiracy to commit murder. even if one says it as a joke, or says it along the lines of "Johnny is a hour late, i'm gonna kill him when he gets home". (i think i am ok because i am not saying/typing it as a way to SAY it, i am typing it to say it is illegal to say it... erm)
anyway,the point is, i am waiting for people to start actually being arrested for saying that the US is advocating, teaching and practice techniques of torture, and specifically breaking US laws, international laws, and lots of treaties. i am waiting for the charge to be "speaking sedition, treason, conspiracy to commit sedition and treason", etc. and so maybe NPR is getting *legal* pressure (as opposed to the financial) to not use the word "torture" to describe acts of torture, under threats of punishment (or, i guess, lawsuits...)

have you gotten a response? i didn't get a response when i sent them a letter (which was very shorty after, and inspired by, your first post about NPR using euphimisms for torture), and i admit to being kinda morbidly curious as to what they are saying to excuse blatant lying that everyone knows is a lie. i mean, are they going to go the "patriotic" route and say that it's bad for/dangerous to the country to say that official policy is something that is illegal? are they going to go the "safety" route and say that broadcasting that the US has a torture policy will cause terrorists to target and kill more USians? or are they going to play with true Orwellian Newsspeak and pull the "the US does not torture, has never tortured, all the reports of torture were false and lies made/spread by the Enemy" (whomever that Enemy may be...).
is there any real, actual, logical reason for NPR to start torture-denying, which (to me, anyway) feels essentially like a lesser form of Holocaust denial?
i daily become more ashamed of being an American...

[rfunk.livejournal.com]

I don't think they actually get much federal money anymore. Newt Gingrich took care of that a while back.

[solarbird]

Federal money - which they do get, last I heard (some time ago) it was around 10% of operating budget - is not an excuse as far as I'm concerned.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

If you want further infuriation, go find Bob Garfield's interview with Ms. Shepherd on NPR's On The Media (transcript and audio (http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/06/26/02)). Garfield absolutely grills her to the wall with his anger, and yet she's completely unapologetic. She gives some mealy-mouthed answer about how she deals with people asking her why NPR calls terrorists "terrorists" but never refers to abortion providers as "murderers," and then says that NPR would be making a similar mistake if it described waterboarding and other techniques as "torture."

It's complete bullshit, and I'm with you on this one.

[ummdruff.livejournal.com]

NPR isn't being "blackmailed" any more than CNN is being blackmailed. They're simply being funded. Look at NPR's major sponsors.

And, blogmaster, you were really planning on donating to NPR before this? I wouldn't exactly call this a drastic departure from the norm.

[solarbird]

I'm really fond of "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" and a couple of other shows and have supported my local NPR-affiliated stations in the past with money.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

you'd think i would actually have good info on stuff like that, considering one of my majors that i am almost done with is Journalism - but NPR has never been discussed in any of my classes. ever. hrm... i should fix that. and do research on NPR, because i realized how little i know about how they actually work...

[denelian.livejournal.com]

its that little? wow.

not that anything short of 100% funding and total running of NPR as a government Beureo would excuse NPR just repeating what they are told. i wasn't excusing, i was speculating...