So It Goes

NPR "Liberal Bias", Continued

LAST NIGHT I engaged in what NPR calls a "driveway moment," whereby I literally sat in my parked car in my driveway with my daughter, both of us unwilling to walk away from a riveting piece about an Iraq War veteran's scary struggle with the effects of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.

This was one in a series of in-depth investigative reports by NPR and Pro-Publica, a non-profit investigative journalism organization, about how the U.S. military has not grappled sufficiently with the aftereffects of TBI (traumatic brain injury) and PTSD among those who have suffered them in action, mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan. The result of these reports has been some very public responses by our miltary and veterans affairs officials that treatment of service members with these maladies needs reform and improvement. This is a case of where journalism is truly making a difference.

Moreover, the stories you hear -- from the service members themselves and the families who through hell to care for them -- are chilling and heartbreaking. In addition to spurring better handling of these wounded warriors, the stories on this NPR series remind us, as Marine Lt. Gen. John Kelly did in this recent Washington Post article, of the continued sacrifice a relative few Americans are making on behalf of the country. "We are in a life-and-death struggle, but not our whole country," said Kelly, whose own son, a Marine, was killed in Afghanistan last November. "One percent of Americans are touched by this war. Then there is a much smaller club of families who have given all." At the very least (and this is not much), the rest of us owe it to them to pay attention, to keep their plight from being out of sight and out of mind.

I could -- maybe should -- go on about that, but I'm still thinking about my post the other day on NPR and the reaction to it. As I expected, not everyone agrees with me that notions that NPR is guilty of "liberal bias" are misplaced. Fair enough, I suppose. As I said, I think it's all about what appears in the eye of the beholder.

Still, when I encounter work like the NPR series on brain injury and PTSD among the military, I can't understand what these other eyes are beholding. Tell me, please, where is the "liberal bias" in this journalism? Is it "liberal" to raise a mirror up to our government about something it might want to improve? And since when is it "liberal" to be standing up for the needs of people in the military service? If anything, hasn't the right claimed that for itself?

And please detail for me how this particular bit of journalism differs from all the rest that NPR generates daily -- indeed, around the clock. Is this an anomoly?

I guess I still don't get it. .

Jeff

Meanwhile, at the Gaza-Israel Border...

THERE'S A LOT OF BIG NEWS around the world right now, more than global media outlets and even their audiences might have a chance to digest. Amidst it all, two tweets today, posted within a half hour of one another on the Israel Defense Forces Spokesman's Twitter feed:

Today, 312 truckloads of food, goods + gas entered the Gaza Strip via the Kerem Shalom Crossing

130+ mortars, Qassams & Grad missiles fired from Gaza & landed in Israel since beginning of yr-56 of which fired this wk

So, even as missile attacks from Gaza continue to rain down on it, Israel allows essential aid to go through -- according to this report. That explodes -- sorry -- challenges what many might know or assume about Israel's stance on Gaza: that Israel's trying to choke off Gaza residents and that Gaza is no longer a threat to Israel.

Let's put a bookmark on these and keep them in mind when the focus shifts back, as it inevitably will, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Jeff

 

Some Welcome Civility About a Tough Problem

STEPHEN GOLDSMITH, the former mayor of Indianapolis, current Deputy Mayor of New York City and widely recognized big thinker about how to make cities run better, offers a thoughtful reflection about the state of city government in a recent Wall Street Journal Op-Ed.

Aside from his views, which I'll summarize in a moment, what I like most about this piece is that he offers a much more civil, authorative and informed analysis about the problems of governent (city government mostly) than what we've gotten recently from the many shrill voices emerging around the standoff in Madison, Wisconsin. The implication is that all the heat generated there around the Governor's efforts to ban collective bargaining rights of public employee unions misses a big point and keeps us from dealing with the real issue.

According to Goldsmith, "It is not government unions per se but progressive government itself—long celebrated in Wisconsin, New York and elsewhere—that no longer produces progressive results."

"In the early 20th century," Goldsmith continues, "the progressives championed a rule-based approach to public-sector management that was a big step forward from the cronyism and corruption of Tammany Hall. Today, however, the very rules that once enhanced accountability, transparency and efficiency now stifle the creativity of public-sector workers and reduce the ability of public investments to create opportunities for citizens—outcomes precisely the opposite of those intended by Progressive Era reformers.

"...No one wants a return to the bad old days when public employees feared arbitrary dismissals. Today, however, the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. Rather than too few rules governing public employees, there are far too many, and they hurt the very people progressive reformers cared most about: the least fortunate members of society who depend the most on effective support services."

Though I have a graduate degree in urban planning, I don't claim to have the kind of understanding, let alone insight, Goldsmith does on this subject. But, like so many people who have come in contact with public-sector bureaucracies (I'm sure we all have stories), I can only agree with Goldsmith that something has gotten out of hand. Something needs to change, I'm not sure what. It's not abandoning government altogether, as some of the more extreme voices in America suggest today, but making it work better. Many devoted public servants have tried to cut through and rationalize the complex problem of government bureaucracy, including Goldsmith. It's a difficult riddle to solve.

But, again, my point in highlighting this Op-Ed is more about the state of our public discourse. What I conclude after reading Goldsmith's analysis (I suspect he would agree, but this isn't his point) is that grand gestures like banning collective bargaining of public employee unions are misleading and clearly meant more to rally angry voters than to actually solve a very real challenge.

We need to discuss tough problems like this with the sort of civility and authority Goldsmith offers. Unfortunately, that kind of cool and courteous talk doesn't make as compelling TV as people screaming at each other at the Wisconson State Capitol.

Jeff

Women Can Be Warriors After All

I DON'T REMEMBER precisely who said it, but I know I heard on a number of occasions commentators say that if women led many nations they'd be less likely to promote wars than men -- or something like that. 

So it's kind of interesting to read in today's New York Times that Barack Obama, a man who was, until a few days ago, strongly opposed to U.S. military action against the Libyan regime, was persuaded otherwise by three of his top officials -- who happen to be women: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council; and Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

So what does this mean? That the stereotype of women being softer, less confrontation is just that, a stereotype? That this is a more righteous use of force than, say, the invasion of Iraq, and only a woman could have championed that? Or that one's sex is irrelevant when there faced with harsh reality?

Will the people who made those statements, about women being the anti-warriors, please acknowledge that was a silly thing to say at the time?

Jeff

NPR Debate Exposes the Gulf Dividing America

THE RECENT CONTROVERSIES over NPR, have really upset me. Though to understand exactly why, I have to get past my reflexive response .

As I have noted here before, public radio has been a constant companion and major source of knowledge for me since I was in high school. This sounds so precious to say, I know, but I have almost "grown up" on public radio and am constantly amazed by the vast and innovative work it produces. (Coincidentally, though important to disclose here, I consulted professionally to NPR for several years in the mid-2000s, but, believe me, my attachment to it had formed long before.)

So, reflexively, I'm easily annoyed by attacks on public radio. What really gets my goat are the charges of NPR's (and public radio's) alleged "liberal bias." I hear this even from self-described liberals from time to time, but most definitely from self-described conservatives.

All I can say to them is, what!? Seriously? Because if you actually listen to it (and now I'm speaking primarily of NPR, but I think the same can be said for most local public radio stations), you will hear facts and information -- with the occasional commentary, some of which consciously gives air time to people from all points on the ideological spectrum, including, believe it or not, conservatives. It makes me wonder if these critics are truly listening to public radio or just responding to a cartoonish stereotype.

At a time when thoughtful, thorough and reliable news gathering operations are actually shrinking, NPR has expanded its reach, dispensing information that would otherwise be difficult to find about many different issues from many different spots around the world. Around major news events, Americans will be hard pressed to find the kind of reporting on the radio dial (or in many other places) they get from NPR. So why wouldn't don't Americans view it as the national treasure that it is, a great investment of public dollars?

(There are also the charges, from some of my good friends and others within the pro-Israel community -- of which consider myself a part -- that NPR specifically has anti-Israel bias. I remain mystified by these charges, but this is something for another time.)

To some ears, public radio's on-air personalities can be a bit ponderous and earnest at times -- some call it "snooty". Maybe that tone grates on the critics' nerves from time to time. Even so, I'll take it any day over the sensationlistic presentation of the news on our cable and broadcast news outlets anyday or the steady flow of crap about celebrities.

I defy anyone to explain to me where the bias is in NPR's straight news (not opinion) programs.Give me real, substantial examples of bias that anyone can agree on -- and not just one or two anomolies (like, say, the remarks of NPR's development director, which, by the way, some are now saying were distorted in the final edit). Give me real proof that the entire operation is shot through with bias (like, say, a certain cable news outlet whose begins with F and ends with x). If you can't or won't, please, don't waste your time trying to convince me otherwise.

All of what I've just discussed, though, remains within the province of perception or, perhaps, under the Latin maxim, de gustibus non est disputandum -- “there is no disputing about tastes.” Yes, that adage is reserved mostly for discussion of aesthetics and art, but I'd argue that political outlook is really another variant of taste -- formed both by experience, context and, I suppose to some extent, physiology (e.g. most of us recoil physically from foul smells and violent images).

My point is that debates like the one we saw the other day on the floor of the House of Representatives, which passed a measure to cut public funding for NPR  -- ridiculous as they may be, are yet another in a growing number of examples of how disparate groups of Americans are perceiving the world in starkly different ways.

No, that's not an original insight. Plenty of other commentators and much of our public opinion research has made this point for a long time. I talked about it last year around issues such as acceptance of the science on climate change and the theory of evolution.

So, what's really troubling to me about the NPR debate and the rest of public radio is not that other Americans don't share my taste. Again, de gustibus non est disputandum, baby. Rather, it seems to have gone well beyond that. We're not even using the same vocabulary to talk about it or the same yardsticks to measure what we're arguing about.

My bias -- yes, maybe I'm living in my own unreality -- is that this growing gulf of perception is being driven by people with another agenda: to win elections or higher viewer ratings. Most of that -- again, my perspective -- appears to be coming from the political right, which has been masterful over the last generation in its ability to frame issues in ways that distort what the public debates should really be about.

For example, they argued during the '80s and '90s especially that if you're not for tough anti-crime measures, such as the death penalty or mandatory minimum sentences, you're a lover of criminals; they now have framed a false choice  between efforts to limit sources of "so-called" green-house gases into the atmosphere and economic progress -- as if we can't have both; and they have so effectively branded "taxes" and "big government" as evil twins, that any politician who even thinks of raising a tax -- indeed, of not lowering one -- should be considered suicidal and public employees are likely feeling like enemies of the people. Then there's the argument that easy access to guns is good for us and that immigrants -- not just the illegal ones, but also the ones in our midst who have made it necessary for proud Americans to have to dial 1 for English and put up with bilingual operating instructions -- are somehow bad for America. And don't get me started on the lie that Obama is a Muslim, which one of our our highest-ranking public officials, the Speaker of the House, wouldn't even dispute recently saying, "It's not my job to tell the American people what to think."  How ironic is this?

The smears about NPR bias are yet another part of this series of framed talking points. And they exaggerate the unpopularity of the radio network. Indeed, as the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism noted in its just-released "State of the News Media: 2011",  NPR has a huge and growing audience: "National Public Radio continues to be a growing source of news for many Americans, its audience expanding each year as news disappears from commercial radio outside of the country’s largest markets.  Overall NPR’s audience grew 3% in 2010, to 27.2 million weekly listeners."

What usually happens after I post a commentary like this is that those on the "liberal" side of things say, "Yo, right on," and those on the other side tell me how misguided I am. We all play our roles, as if the script is set and inviolable. Not that, if we are true to our own selves, we should do any differently. But I'm puzzled as to how we're ever going to be able to bridge that gap.

Jeff