The Reagan administration in 1982 coerced National Public Radio (NPR) to cover more favorably the US terrorist war then being waged against Nicaragua.
As Greg Grandin writes, Otto Reich, head of the administration’s Orwellian propaganda outfit known as the Office of Public Diplomacy, informed the public network that his office had contracted “a special consultant service [to listen] to all NPR programs” on Central America. Dependent on state funding, NPR promptly buckled under pressure, reassigning reporters viewed as “too easy on the Sandinistas,” and hiring conservative pundit Linda Chavez to provide “balance.”
NPR (5/30/19) says Juan Guaidó is “recognized by dozens of countries as Venezuela’s rightful head of state”—without mentioning that he was unknown to most Venezuelans when he proclaimed himself president.
Today, NPR needs no state coercion to toe Washington’s regime change line on Venezuela.
NPR published an exclusive interview on May 30 with Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó, in which the self-proclaimed “interim president” was described as “a fugitive in his own country” confronting “authoritarian President Nicolás Maduro.”
The article went on to state that Venezuela “is suffering from hyperinflation, power outages, and chronic shortages of food, medicine and fuel.” Strangely absent is any reference to illegal US sanctions, which have played an indisputable role in severely exacerbating the country’s crisis to the detriment of ordinary Venezuelans.
Additionally, the exclusion of Chavista voices is likewise endemic to NPR’s coverage of Venezuela, in gross violation of the outlet’s own ethics handbook.
An abused adjective
When it comes to covering Venezuela’s elected Maduro government, it appears that NPR’s favorite adjective is “authoritarian.”
The public news network has referred to President Nicolás Maduro and his administration as “authoritarian” and/or a “regime” no less than 26 times since December, with no explanation why the Venezuelan government merits an editorialized moniker that ideologically justifies US intervention.
Moreover, when the fact that Maduro was reelected last year is mentioned, it is generally accompanied by a vague reference to “fraud.”
Usually no effort is made to elaborate on the fraud allegations—which the opposition never presented substantive public evidence to support—and when additional context is provided, it generally amounts to a reference to NPR’s mendacious 2018 election reporting.
At the time, NPR’s Phillip Reeves (5/20/18) denied the legitimacy of the vote by claiming, “Nicolás Maduro controls most of the media, the electoral authorities.” He ignored the fact that most Venezuelan media is private and pro-opposition, while the National Electoral Council is headed by the same officials who oversaw the opposition’s 2015 landslide parliamentary victory.
NPR‘s headlined claim of “fraud” (5/21/18) rests heavily on the unsubstantiated assertions of “many independent observers.” The 6 million votes received by President Nicolás Maduro are in line with the support found for the government in independent polling.
Similarly, NPR’s Scott Neuman (5/21/18) wrote, “The opposition’s most popular leaders…were barred from running,” in reference to Leopoldo López and Henrique Capriles. The claim that these were the most popular potential opposition candidates is false: Datanalisis, the international corporate media’s most widely cited pollster, at the time had opposition presidential candidate Henri Falcon polling significantly above Capriles and López, at around 38%, in May 2018. By comparison, a Pew Research study conducted later in the year amid accelerating hyperinflation found that 33% of Venezuelans “trust their government,” roughly equivalent to the 31% of the electorate that voted for Maduro on May 20, 2018.
NPR suggests that López and Capriles were barred for extralegal political reasons, neglecting to mention that López was convicted of inciting violence during the 2014 protests aimed at ousting the government, while Capriles was previously indicted for allowing opposition supporters to lay siege to the Cuban Embassy in 2002, and was later barred from office by the comptroller general over alleged corruption, for which he is also being investigated by the opposition.
Moreover, NPR and other mainstream outlets do not regularly refer to Brazil’s 2018 presidential election as “fraud-marred,” despite the country’s most popular politician, Lula da Silva, having been jailed and banned from running in a baseless, politically motivated court case, as Glenn Greenwald has exposed. Lula did not participate in violent foreign-backed coup attempts, unlike López and Capriles, both of whom were active in the 2002 coup against Chavez.
This myth of electoral fraud embraced by NPR was “made in USA,” when the Trump administration threw its weight behind an opposition boycott, preemptively refusing to recognize the vote and threatening to sanction the independent opposition candidate. But no amount of US interference invalidates an election in the view of Western journalists, as the classic example of Nicaragua’s 1990 election of Violeta Chamorro illustrates. In 2018—as in Venezuela’s 2013 presidential election, which was recognized by every government in the world except the Obama administration—it would seem that a vote is only “free and fair” when Washington’s candidate is elected.
This systematic bias ridicules NPR’s professed commitment to “stick to facts and to language that is clear, compelling and neutral,” while the omissions and blatant factual distortions compromise its accuracy and completeness.
Lying by omission: US sanctions
NPR’s ethics handbook states:
Errors of omission and partial truths can inflict great damage on our credibility, and stories delivered without the context to fully understand them are incomplete.
While NPR has made scattered but repeated reference to US economic sanctions—predominately in the wake of the Trump administration’s January 28 oil embargo—nowhere does NPR bring up the fact that the unilateral measures are illegal under both US and international law, while only in a few cases does the public encounter a passing acknowledgement of the negative humanitarian toll. In the vast majority of stories, NPR rarely dedicates more than one line to US economic sanctions, which are routinely presented as “aimed squarely at [the] Venezuelan government” (8/25/17), ignoring the repercussions for ordinary Venezuelans. In no case does NPR present the public with perspectives opposing US sanctions as a matter of principle.
An NPR report (3/8/19) concludes with Sen. Marco Rubio mocking the idea that the US could be behind electrical grid failures in Venezuela—though the US openly boasts of conducting cyber warfare against electrical systems in official enemy nations (New York Times, 6/15/19).
In a report on the nationwide March blackouts, NPR’s Sasha Ingber (3/8/19) manages to avoid naming sanctions as one of the key factors behind the outages, relegating them to an insignificant tertiary element “likely to increase the country’s economic plight,” but in no way responsible for Venezuela’s dramatically worsening crisis since Trump imposed direct economic sanctions in August 2017. In fact, according to economist Francisco Rodríguez of Torino Capital, sanctions not only prevented Venezuela from paying foreign companies for vital maintenance work on its electrical grid, but also barred it from importing sufficient diesel fuel needed to power thermoelectric generators.
The pattern is repeated in NPR’s coverage of Venezuela’s economic crisis through the lens of out-migration (6/21/19, 6/7/19), school truancy (6/29/19) or alleged “intimidation” of private charities (6/11/19). Here sanctions—which are set to cause Venezuela’s economy to contract by 37% this year—are either completely ignored, or their devastating social impact is presented as a dubious “claim” by Caracas officials.
Like virtually every other mainstream international outlet (FAIR.org, 6/26/19), NPR has yet to cite—let alone actually report on—a recent study by acclaimed economists Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs, which found US sanctions on Venezuela to constitute a form of “collective punishment” responsible for as many as 40,000 deaths through 2018. This omission is not surprising, given that NPR had previously joined major corporate outlets in systematically censoring the impact of Trump’s August 2017 financial sanctions, which cost the country at least $6 billion in lost oil revenue over the subsequent twelve months.
Exhibit A of this erasure is an article headlined “Venezuela’s Health System Ready to Collapse Amid Economic Crisis” (NPR, 2/1/19), in which Samantha Raphelson treats sanctions as a conspiracy theory on which “Maduro blames the country’s growing crisis,” despite the fact that US financial blacklisting, as well as plummeting revenue due to sanctions, hampered Caracas’ ability to import vital medicine and medical equipment. At this point, NPR can easily cite the US government itself as a source for the claim that Washington is exacerbating the Venezuelan crisis, with the State Department publishing (and subsequently hiding) a fact sheet that boasted that “key outcomes” of US efforts included the freezing of “roughly $3.2 billion of Venezuela’s overseas” assets, and a 36% reduction in Venezuelan oil production in February/March 2019 (Venezuelanalysis, 5/6/19).
Silencing Chavista and critical voices
In answer to the question, “How can reporting of current news also take account of decades of historical context surrounding US intervention in Latin America? NPR‘s Juliette Rocheleau (4/9/19) concludes: “It depends.”
In an assessment of NPR’s Venezuela coverage (4/9/19), the editorial researcher for the network’s public editor, Juliette Rocheleau, recognizes an “imbalance” in which “opposition voices have outnumbered those of Maduro supporters in NPR‘s reporting.” The slant is fairly overwhelming, since Rocheleau can only name four occasions that NPR interviewed government supporters.
Rocheleau justifies NPR’s pro-opposition “imbalance’” on the grounds of journalists’ safety, quoting senior international editor Will Dobson:
“We want to plunge the depths of the pro-Maduro supporters.” But Dobson said NPR‘s responsibility to keep its journalists and sources safe is the top priority, and reporting safely from Venezuela is extremely difficult: Venezuela ranks 143 out of 180 countries in press freedom, with journalists risking violence at the hands of the state and some of its supporters.
This is a self-serving canard. Various independent outlets such as Venezuelanalysis (where I’m an editor), the Real News and Grayzone—all with far fewer resources than NPR—have frequently interviewed Chavistas from various political walks of life. The notion that Chavista “violence” keeps Western reporters at bay is rather fantastical, given that it’s opposition demonstrations, not pro-government ones, that have been the site of mob lynchings and attacks on journalists, including those from pro-opposition private outlets. Even if we take at face value NPR’s safety concerns, this should not stop the network from interviewing experts opposed to US regime change in Venezuela, such as Noam Chomsky, Mark Weisbrot, Jeffrey Sachs, Alfred De Zayas and Miguel Tinker Salas, whose voices are conspicuously absent, despite making regular appearances in independent progressive media.
Perhaps a more realistic explanation for NPR’s admitted “imbalance” is professional class bias. It seems that Western journalists bear an instinctual aversion to poor black and brown people organizing to defy the US Empire. Their natural sympathies appear to lie with lighter-skinned (preferably English-speaking) professionals or members of the elite who make them feel more comfortable. Despite their “progressive” reputation, NPR journalists are little different than their mainstream corporate counterparts when it comes to repeating Washington and the opposition’s anti-Chavista propaganda, in flagrant breach of their own ethics.
You can send a message to NPR‘s public editor here (or via Twitter: @NPRpubliceditor). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread of this post.
Featured image: Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on NPR.org (8/25/17).
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this piece misidentified Juliette Rocheleau as NPR‘s public editor.
I don’t even no where to begin here. If FAIR wants to be relevant they need to be even handed, else they will have exactly one comment. It is well know that the opposition did not participate in the latest election because there was compelling evidence it was rigged. Regardless of who really was most popular the Maduro administration put in prisoned who they saw were the greatest threats. FAIR also fails to comment on Maduro illegally changing the constitution such that the legislative assembly has no power. Lastly, 3 million people had already left the country well before the sanctions began. The sanctions were implemented as an attempt to thwart the military from looting the assets of what is left of the country. Sanctions relief will not assist a single child as the vast majority of remaining revenue is used to pay off the generals. The destructive nature of unfettered socialism is amazing in that the wealthiest country in South America is well on its way to becoming an unstate much like Somalia or Sudan. We will see how fair FAIR is if my comment actually remains.
@Steve:
“FAIR also fails to comment on Maduro illegally changing the constitution such that the legislative assembly has no power.”
Then you need to say how the change was illegal.
“Regardless of who really was most popular the Maduro administration put in prisoned who they saw were the greatest threats. ”
Examples? Juan Guaidó ain’t in jail. Oh, you mean those involved in violent coup attempts.
“The sanctions were implemented as an attempt to thwart the military from looting the assets of what is left of the country.”
Provide evidence for this fantasy then.
“The destructive nature of unfettered socialism is amazing in that the wealthiest country in South America is well on its way to becoming an unstate much like Somalia or Sudan.”
And yet you’re the one saying Venezuela shouldn’t sell its oil on the international market, nor trade against gold holdings. Irony.
How is free market Honduras doing? Worse?
LOL !! Juan Guido is “recognized as the legitimate leader of Venezuela by dozens of countries” ..and almost that many Venezuelan people. Guaido is “a fugitive” of Trump/Bolton regime change policy. He accepted the job of “opposition leader” when the CIA offered it to him..No point in crying crocodile tears now..He’s lucky ( i suppose) that he isn’t dead yet
Somalia or Sudan ?
These are libertarian paradises !
A viscerally valid reason to despise “the liberal media”
Wow the complete control of the countries oil resources and the plundering of them. How can Nicolas Maduro be a Billionaire and Diosdado Cabello a 38 Billionaire whilst 100,000 motorcyclist are encouraged to intimidate and oppose any opposition to the government with complete immunity. Obviously Lucas you have something to gain by ignoring the systematic oppression of the Venezuelan people by Cuban influence. This country is being poorly managed to say the least. If you are preaching Communism ok let’s look at that. Everyone shares equally? Maduro 6 Billion Cabello 38 Billion that’s not sharing. Socialism and Communism are words used by clever Dictators to pacify so called intellectuals into complacency whilst they access a countries resources at the expense and suffering of its population.
Every time FAIR publishes one of these pieces on Venezuela, random anonymous “experts” show up to complain about points that aren’t even relevant to the article (for example negative claims about Maduro, probably lies, when the article is merely pointing out flaws or bias in the American media coverage) and as soon as anyone, including the author pushes them for proof or debunks one of their complaints, they disappear.
Such is the shallow vapidity of the pro-regime change ex-pats who are all well off financially and living comfortable lives in Miami or Los Angeles or Europe. There has never been an exchange longer than 1 reply by an author. Ever. They simply fold up, go away and return for the next article with a (usually) different Name.
My point? Just think if the US media had even the slightest Venezuela skeptic or anti-sanctions analyst on the many nightly and daily television shows which always present the allegedly negative effects of “socialism” – they’d instantly be exposed as fools with no backing information and passing on what their higher ups told them to say. That’s why you don’t see any informed debate on war or sanctions in the U.S. – because once the initial talking points are overcome, the arguments in favor of regime change fall apart and disintegrate like cheap toilet paper.
KC – Excellent summation of the responses by the oligarchic class…
You are living a fantasy. Food shortages, oil production problems and energy issues began with Chavez. Granted he initially offered some positive programs and very much benefited the poor. But corruption and incompetence eventually ruled. Simon Bolivar warned of long term rule and corruption. Chavez/Maduro proved the rule.
Paul D:
‘You are living a fantasy. Food shortages, oil production problems and energy issues began with Chavez. Granted he initially offered some positive programs and very much benefited the poor.”
Let’s see the price of oil went down, and the USA had already tried to get Chavez in 2002. So as usual there’s good bit of history you “forgot”.
You are living in an Imperial US fantasy. The food shortages began with the first US sanctions against Chavez.
Hey Mike, what’s ‘Cuban influence’ and how does it ‘oppress the Venezuelan people’, are you quoting the salt of the earth, Iraq WMD Bolton who claims that half the Cuban military is in Venezuela or Rubio who tearing his hair out because Cuba has doctors in Venezuela?
Rubio thinks its an abomination that Cuba trades health care for oil but we are proud of the fact that we are the #1 arms exporter on the planet. He’s a sick puppy.
Wow! Complete control of Venezuela’s oil resources by Maduro regime led to the plundering and enrichment of a few leaders. Maduro net worth (before US sanctions) was 6 Billion. Diosdado Cabello net worth 38 Billion(before sanctions.This government(Venezuelan) or Cuba I should say. Allows the collectivos a group of 100,000 motorcycle gang members to harass intimidate and even murder anyone oppposed to Maduro. This is by definition a dictatorship. Dictorships start out like in Germany saying they are Socialists. Then once they establish control they do share resources fairly. Example Cuba a Communists country. No a dictatorship, Castro’s live in luxury while general population squalor. And Russia Stalin times same thing. These a words used to confuse the masses and take resources for the elite few. Who knows maybe you are on Maduros payroll to write such a biased piece.
@Mike:
“Wow! Complete control of Venezuela’s oil resources by Maduro regime led to the plundering and enrichment of a few leaders. Maduro net worth (before US sanctions) was 6 Billion. Diosdado Cabello net worth 38 Billion(before sanctions.”
You’ve confirmed these claims where and how?
“Obviously Lucas you have something to gain by ignoring the systematic oppression of the Venezuelan people by Cuban influence.”
How does Cuban influence oppress people in Venezuela, be specific?
“Allows the collectivos a group of 100,000 motorcycle gang members to harass intimidate and even murder anyone oppposed to Maduro,”
Citation please.
You’re not going to get citations for the lies. You are unfailingly polite, but at this point, I wonder if that’s a failing in and of itself. When you don’t get citations, please say something like:
It is telling how little regard for truth and reason you Deep State supporters of Juan Guaido. Really, the suffering you have brought on Venezuela is a moral monstrosity. At long last, Sirs, have you no sense of decency?”
Dentini:
I wasn’t expecting citations.
However I sort of hoped that NY Times fable about Cuban doctors (who all seemed to be in Brazil) who’d worked in Venezuela would get a link.
This is the first I’ve read of a “billionaire” Maduro. If he is such, it should be easy to prove.
Thank you Fair, have you bookmarked and will search your articles often. Excellent breath of fresh air here. I notice the previous replies echo much of the NPR bull these days—lopsided speculative boulderdash from right wing hate mongers.
To like-minded haters I ask simply, what % of Venezuelans back Chavista, and what about them, their feelings, their interests, their health, their well-being. Oh, that’s right (far far right) THEY DON’T COUNT.
As someone who grew up in Latin America and a retired professor of Latin American History and Politics, I know from personal experience that US journalists base their coverage on contacts of the elite’s social milieu. I have always found the BBC’s coverage to be more in depth and reliable than that found in the American press.
You really need to be more factual and less ideologically biased. If you want to address fraud and illegitimate regimes cover Brazil and Honduras which are clear examples unlike Venezuela.
Tom Kappner akappner@aol.com
The government there ruined Venezuela long before the sanctions.
The Oligarchy there was busy ruining Venezuela for the vast majority of the people until they said the heck with this and elected Hugo Chavez.
Alas, he didn’t have enough time to do much more than begin the process of democratizing the country and redistributing all of that wealth from the pockets of the Oligarchy to the People when first the U.S. sponsored coup of 2002, then the destructive sanctions began putting pressure on the country — with the relentless anti-Chavista propaganda machine (and NPR) working overtime to pervert the discussion.
So, alas, the Venezuelan people suffer under about the same level of vulture capitalist oligarchy as we suffer under here in USAmerica.
Chavez also died of cancer… which is how they silenced Ruby as well.
In 2000 when the US presidential election was rigged by the republicans, NPR said NOTHING. Since then I have regarded NPR as basically propaganda BS radio. I don’t listen to them, refer to them, or support them. Noah Adams and Linda Wertheimer both completely caved in to the regime and compromised whatever integrity they might have had…and that’s NPR.
Yes, they are definitely promoting the corporate control of our government. The last time I listened, they were talking about the Koch family members like they were the Ozzie and Harriet Nelson family. They made no mention of all the think tanks funded by the Koch brother’s dark money and what they do.
When Tom Ashbrook interviewed someone from Occupy he ran the interview with the attitude that Occupy was some sort of a music festival. The whole show could be a comedy if it wasn’t so disgusting.
@Dave:
“The government there ruined Venezuela long before the sanctions.”
Right, just and the US 2002 coup didn’t happen. /s
There was no push from the US to get rid Chavez for 8+ years. /s
@Baruch:
Nice.
Polite.
Republicans
Jay:
I was thinking that NPR could also stand for : No Purposeful Reality
National Plutocrat Radio:
https://fair.org/home/national-plutocrat-radio/
This guy writes for venezuelanalysis.com:
Enough said.
That website was Chavez’s baby since day one, and guess what? They don’t allow any reader comments on their stories. And this shmuck is trying to argue that Maduro isn’t legitimate?
He’s a putz.
So exactly how much is Maduro paying you to publish this complete falsification of reality. You are in fact damaging the livelihood and safety of every Venezuelan by writing this. Their blood is on your greedy little hands. Shame.
Shelley:
Okay, why don’t you start with documenting any falsification in this essay.
at Shelley G:
Okay, why don’t you start with documenting any falsification in this essay.
Crickets don’t count Shelley. We don’t speak Cricket in America.
@Ira:
“They don’t allow any reader comments on their stories. And this shmuck is trying to argue that Maduro isn’t legitimate?”
Um, no, that’s not what Lucas is arguing.
Do you just cut and paste from somewhere? Looks like it.
Thanks for this compilation. I sent the following message to NPR:
I used to listen religiously to NPR’s news programs. From its inception 5 decades ago. I used to donate to NPR regularly. I used to support our government’s funding of NPR. No longer. After NPR became a cheerleader of GW Bush’s war on Iraq, I concluded that NPR was a highbrow version of corporate media and the corporatist control of U.S. policy. As far as NPR is concerned the U.S. is the exceptional country, which really means that the U.S. assigns itself the right to overthrow other countries’ governments, assassinate their leaders, ignore others’ sovereignty and manipulate the news. Case in point is NPR’s coverage of Venezuela. It sounds like a script from the State Department, or the CIA, or President James Monroe. Same for Libya, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, Honduras, Nicaragua, Cuba and so many other instances of corrupt reporting. So for 16 years I have caught NPR occasionally hoping for some enlightenment. Hearing none, I move on and send my dollars to truly independent sources of news. I still believe in publicly-funded news gathering and dissemination. Someday I hope to find it.
Terrific comment. Unfortunately the scoundrels that “guide” Nazi Public Radio have very thick hides and are well protected by their counterparts in the Federal government.
I turn off the radio when I hear a falsehood passed as truth. I’ve not yet made it the three mile drive to work listening to NPR. They are as liberal as the CIA since project MOCKINGBIRD.
Thanks for another well researched article. Npr started moving to the right when the Gingrich hang got in office in 1994. And, they have moving rightward ever since. You barely hear any progressive voices on npr. Now, all you hear are the same corporatist voices you hear elsewhere. Good job, fair.
What i meant to say, that not had been moving towards the right since the mid 90’s. And, they have continued to go rightwards since then. Most folks I know do not even give money whenever npr has one of their annual pledge drives.
NPR gives public broadcasting a bad name. To be honest, it should acknowledge it’s a state broadcaster on a leash.
Aside: Truth hurts. This is apparent from the vitriolic, hate-filled but fact-deficient screeds posted here by right-wing trolls and bots. I suppose it’s a measure of FAIR’s importance that its honest analysis attracts these responses. Keep up the good work!
Juliette Rocheleau is not NPR’s public editor. She is “an Editorial Researcher for the Public Editor’s office.”
Nobody said she was. When you link to the NPR Public Editor’s page, one of the stories there is the Venezuela article in question. Hence, the Public Editor is in effect “saying” what they decide to put on the Public Editor page.
https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/
P.S. When are you going to answer Jay’s questions regarding the crazy claims you made in your first comment above?
Sent to WNYC
Friends,
As a long time listener and subscriber, I have become wary of the association between WNYC and NPR.
I noticed that NPR began to air more talking points from rightist, Koch-related statements about a decade ago (see below). At this time, NPR is positively dangerous in its unchallenged feed to a US public that expects better from our local station.
Its impact is not lessened by our local talk show hosts, try as they do.
It is time for WNYC to break its friendly ties to NPR.
Link: https://fair.org/home/npr-shreds-ethics-handbook-to-normalize-regime-change-in-venezuela/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=email_this&utm_source=email
The exclusion of Chavista voices is endemic to NPR’s coverage of Venezuela, in gross violation of the outlet’s own ethics handbook.
—
Shared via Shareaholic
Georgia Wever
212 989 8624
NPR has become a mouthpiece of the right wing ever since GWB was in power and Charles Koch joined the Board of Directors. NPR and PBS no longer have any credibility for unbiased and fair reporting. They have clearly gone to the dark side.
Geez, people, can we stop turning this into a debate about Chavistas v. Capitalism? FAIR’s article was about how NPR goes out of its way to toe the official line. The real question here has nothing to do with corruption, sanctions, Cuba, or liberal media even. For me, it’s who is putting the screws on NPR and MSM in general to toe that line.
The front lines of government PR efforts are mostly manned by Central Intelligence operatives under cover at news organizations. They don’t tell the media what to say because it would blow their cover. They are there to feed back counter-policy murmurings. Deep sources then take over to set the media organizations straight.
So let’s keep our eye on the ball. This story isn’t actually about Venezuela. It’s about censoring news.
Thanks for documenting NPR neglect of the implied professional obligation of objectivity, that is, the ethical requirement to cover all sides and present salient background facts about controversial matters such as current conditions in Venezuela as well as Brazil. Strategy please; a boycott perhaps?
Why should this be any different than the Iraq War, when NPR creamed its jeans over the fabulous
armaments of the U.S. military?
WHAT ELSE WOULD ONE EXPECT FROM, THE NOW, CAPITALIST CONTROLLED “PUBLIC TV OR RADIO!!!