I have in the past started two threads expressing my disgust with NPR and its role as a “liberal” media outlet that does nothing but undermine the meaning of journalism, and often presents a rightwardly biased presentation of the news.
In the past, I have been taken to task, generally by folks such as Harborwolf and others who are supportive of NPR and disagree with my assertion, who seem to think I have over-reacted to a couple of possible examples of the problems I’m concerned with.
I was moved to post this now for two reasons. The first is to share the specific outrageous example I referred to in the title. The NPR Ombudsman has recently posted a completely absurd defense of NPR’s avoidance of the term “torture.”
Glenn Greenwald has a very nice point by point takedown of her stupidity here. He introduces his evisceration thusly:
The second reason I’ve been moved to post this is to make note of the blog NPR Check, which Glenn Greenwald cited, to help make up for the previous occasions in which I was limited to my limited recall of examples to support my premise that NPR sucks.
I continue to regard NPR as, in many ways, worse than Fox, because Fox’s misrepresentation of itself as fair and balanced is so transparent that a child can see through it, and it isn’t really held to any sort of standard as a representative of the fourth estate. NPR’s misrepresentation is not so transparent, and it is supposed to have some role in serving the public good by challenging, investigating and reporting. As one of the commenters to NPR’s ombudsman called it, instead they engage in “enhanced stenography techniques,” and end up doing far more damage.
Ah, High Broderism is alive and well. Surely the logical flaw in your description above is obvious. Or would you also contend that if I say one thing and Shodan says the opposite, then the truth must necessarily be somewhere in between?
Having any organization endeavor to practice journalism with an aim of balancing out Fox is not a good idea.
How about just practicing good journalism, period? How about ressurecting from the pissed-on ashes some semblance of a fourth estate? How about dropping the low-level reasoning practice of reciprocity or balance from decision making or evaluation efforts?
Only when Jonathan Schwartz is on, and waterboarding is too good for that pedantic, Sinatra-fellating lipsmacker.
This is a really interesting debate, though. And it’s not unique to NPR, since every other news outlet I’ve heard has favored phrases like “enhanced interrogation techniques” to avoid taking a side. Problem is, that’s not the neutral term, it’s the Bush administration’s term, and by doing so, they’re giving away the debate. NPR’s decision to describe the techniques when possible is a good one, since that avoids the problem and doesn’t let anybody hide behind language. In NPR’s case, though, the Orwell/Horton position that the ombudsman lays out is more convincing than her own.
But in the long run, this is unfortunately one of those debates journalism falls prey too: when somebody insists loudly enough that a controversy exists, “objectivity at all costs!” kicks in, a controversy is assumed to exist, and the complainers win every time.
These techniques are torture. There’s no rational argument that taking someone captive and making him believe you’ll beat him or kill him by drowning - nevermind the “bad apple” stuff that went on - is not torture. There’s only “history is written by the victors.”
Yes to all this. If they are talking specifically about waterboarding, for example, and they simply say “waterboarding,” i have no problem with that. But when they move beyond that and use the Bush administration’s own term as a descriptor, and specifically reject the term used by the administration’s critics, they end the debate before it even begins.
Another problem is that the very notion of objectivity, as used in American journalism and popular culture, is too often construed to mean nothing more than a credulous and uncritical channeling of both sides’ rhetoric and talking points. They think that allowing two opponents to come on and hack at each other is the definition of objectivity, and that as long as two people from opposing ends of the political spectrum disagree about something, then broadcasting their disagreement constitutes objective journalism. DanBlather seems to have taken the same profoundly stupid position in this thread.
The historian Thomas Haskell, writing about the idea of objectivity in the practice of history, wrote a great essay called “Objectivity is not Neutrality,” and i think it offers an excellent idea and ideal of objectivity that works not only for historians, but also for journalism. Haskell argues that being objective constitutes a particular type of intellectual stance toward the materials and the evidence. It requires rigorous analysis, honesty, and a willingness to try as best you can to consider the things from other people’s point of view.
It does not require that you never offer a personal opinion, nor does it require neutrality toward the topic at hand. Haskell’s point is that a committed leftist and a committed conservative can both still be objective historians, as long as they apply the appropriate honesty, rigor, and fairness in evaluating the evidence.
Haskell’s article can be viewed on Google books, and reading the ten pages or so from page 150 gives a good idea of his argument.
No, it isn’t so let the market sort it out. Fox is only viable because there was a market for their take on things. Just like there is a market for Olbermann, Colbert etc. Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy competition.
NPR does get a bad rap as it produces some high quality programs though “All things considered” is anything but.
I don’t think that’s right. Everyone one agrees that these are enhanced interrogation techniques—all torture would be included in that. But for them to use the word “torture” means that they have concluded that the practice(s) in question have reached that higher bar. That, actually, is unhelpful to the discussion. Mostly everyone agrees that “torture” is off limits, so when an enhanced technique is so classified, we have agreement. Two important questions on a given day might be, 1) is technique X (waterboarding) torture? In which case, it’s difficult to discuss “is torture torture”. 2) regardless if technique X should be classified of torture or not, should we do it? Concluding that a technique, e.g., sleep deprivation, is torture, is just that—a conclusion, not a framework for a discussion.
The use of “torture” is useful if it is kept in the abstract, as in, is it ever right to torture someone? Or if referring to a technique in which there is unanimity as to whether or not it is torture. Like the chopping off of body parts, pulling our of finger nails, drilling into teeth a la Marathon Man.
Wait - are you saying there’s disagreement over whether waterboarding is torture? Really? I thought that had been cleared up to everybody’s satisfaction, but maybe I was wrong.
Correct, just as if they use the term “torture” the debate is also over, except in the opposite direction.
Whether the SDMB likes it or not, it is, in fact, possible to draw a distinction between waterboarding and what everyone would agree is torture.
It’s the whole pro-life/pro-abortion/anti-choice/undocumented worker/illegal alien thing over again. Everyone wants the media to use the term that takes their platform for granted.
Is this supposed to be one of those Kirk-V’ger or Karn Evil 9 things?
If so, sorry to tell you that it’s not really working. Those are supposed to be more of a paradox. What you’ve presented is more like a skidmark in an old stretched out pair of tighty-whities.
