FAIR has a new Action Alert (1/29/10) about All Things Considered‘s obituary of historian Howard Zinn, which “balances” the praise of Noam Chomsky and Julian Bond with a substance-free attack by far-right activist David Horowitz. If you communicate with the NPR ombud (which requires using a Web form), feel free to copy your message and post in the comments here.
I was all set to download the NPR app to my iPhone….Not now. Not.Ever.
R.I.P. Howard.
Here is the reply to my email to NPR and a reproduction of my email below that:
From: “NPR – Listener Care”
Date: February 5, 2010 10:49:31 AM PST
To: “mloc@earthlink.net”
Subject: Howard Zinn obituary w/ Allison Keyes – Message #5607-10102699
Reply-To: NPR_Response@npr.org
Dear Maureen,
I want to thank you for your recent letter about an obituary for Howard Zinn that aired on All Things Considered on January 28. Following its broadcast, listeners contacted NPR to express their perspectives on it, and in particular the inclusion of comments made by David Horowitz. Some of those letters were included in All Things Considered’s “letters” segment on January 29, which you can hear here.
NPR News management has concluded that the quote from David Horowitz is harsh in tone, but that doesn’t undermine the legitimacy of using his point of view. Obituaries are news stories that place a person in time and history; for this reason, NPR needed to mention the controversy about his work. However, News management did determine that the statement was missing supporting evidence.
In addition to the All Things Considered piece, NPR discussed Howard Zinn’s legacy on Talk of the Nation in this piece; as well as on NPR’s Tell Me More; on our website with The Nation; and in blogs. I encourage you to review these additional materials.
Everything that airs on NPR needs to rise to the same high standards — from news reports to multimedia features to interviews to obituaries. It is always a disappointment to hear when a listener feels we have not met those standards. The goal of our reporting is not to take sides in an issue, but to bring diverse perspectives to our listeners.
The NPR Ombudsman has written a column about the obituary which aired on All Things Considered. Our Ombudsman believes that piece could have been better, while recognizing the constraints under which the reporter was working.
I regret that you feel disappointed, and I thank you for letting us know. It’s important for us to hear from listeners when they feel we’ve done something well, and when they feel we have not.
Thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Dana Davis Rehm
Senior Vice President for Marketing, Communications, and External Relations
Message Summary:
Date Created: 1/29/2010 7:04:17 PM
Subject Howard Zinn obituary w/ Allison Keyes:
Body: I have no idea why NPR felt it necessary to have David Horowitz comment on the death, life, work, influence or in fact any aspect or angle of the career of the amazing and brilliant writer and historian Howard Zinn. I am constantly astounded by your need to feature a “rebuttal” type of response from The Standard, The Washington Times, and similar organs of the Right whenever you have any story that might possibly be construed as concerning someone or something not to the right of dead center, politically. Did Rupert Murdock purchase NPR? Are you competing with Fox News for the “Fair & Balanced” Misnomer Award? Howard Zinn deserved an obituary free of this kind of pandering to the Right. I am ashamed of NPR. I won’t dignify Horowitz’s remarks by even quoting his nastiness. Suffice it to say, odd happenings at NPR stations, like firing Sandra Tsing Loh, more programming featuring religion and “spirituality”, and various other acts of moving toward the irrational and engaging in knee-jerk self-censorship seem much more in context now.
letter to NPR:
What you did to Howard Zinn was unfair and a low blow. You did a disservice to your program and yourself. I would please like you to listen to Howard Zinn’s speech “The Three Holy Wars.” This will help you to know this great humanitarian.
We have now received a response from NPR’s ombudsperson and about all that I can agree with is her contention that the obituary of Mr. Zinn was “flawed.” I thought the rest of her response was inadequate, evasive and unremarkable. Let’s not pat ourselves on the back so hard that we knock ourselves down on our face.
Thank you, Maura, for posting the email you received from NPR’s Dana Davis Rehm. I thought Rehms’s comments were evasive and kind of patronizing. Rehm said nothing about the shocking difference in the way Zinn was treated when compared to Buckley or other conservatives and is apparently so far gone that she actually believes that the piece rose to the same (allegedly) high standards as the obituaries of conservatives.
Furthermore, a proper apology never uses phrases along the lines of “I regret you feel that…” Using those terms is dismissive, offensive, indicative of a lack of personal responsibility and infers that while she feels badly that you feel badly, she really doesn’t think she did anything wrong and that if you feel bad, it’s your own fault. It is always better to dmit it when you make mistakes and take responsibility for those mistakes by acknowleding those mistakes. The people at NPR don’t seem to be morally big enough to take responsibility for their mistakes. They also don’t seem to be capable of learning from them.
NPR seems to have figured out that they offended a large number of their listeners, but they still don’t seem to think they did anything wrong, they haven’t taken any responsibility, and are unwilling set the record straight.
Advisory: The following is a satirically annotated response of NRR’s Dana D. Rehm to Maureen’s email. My annotations, in brackets, are in Mr./Ms. Rehm’s â┚¬Ã…“voice.â┚¬Ã‚Â
After all the complaints NPR received, it continues to ignore legitimate grievances in its double standard treatment of left-wing views and people versus right-wing ones. The only thing left to do is to mock NPR’s glaring omission to first acknowledge this fact and then move to correct it.
Dear [Little] Maureen,
I want to thank you for your recent letter [surprisingly not written in crayon] about an obituary for [Controversial] Howard Zinn [Isn’t that his first, middle, and last name?] that aired on All Things Considered on January 28. [BTW, directly addressing your silly claim that NPR has a need to balance only left-wing views and personalities serves no purpose because to do so would be controversial and some things are just not addressed in polite company. Besides this is standard modus operandi. Almost all media organs do this, other than the few controversial ones. Treating right-wing views and the people who hold them to the same balancing standards would upset our corporate masters. Everyone knows that conservatives are special. Didn’t you receive that memo? See if your mother has it.] Following its broadcast, listeners contacted NPR to express their perspectives on it, and in particular the inclusion of comments made by David Horowitz. Some of those letters were included in All Things Considered’s “letters” segment on January 29, which you can hear here.
NPR News management has concluded that the quote from David Horowitz is harsh in tone, but that doesn’t undermine the legitimacy of using his point of view [We must not offend Mr. Horowitz. His mission, insuring tolerance for conservatives on campuses, is especially special when he expresses extremely intolerant opinions of controversial progressives â┚¬“ always a legitimate goal of balance.] Obituaries are news stories that place a person in time and history; for this reason, NPR needed to mention the controversy about his work [because special conservatives are never ever controversial and their glutei maximi must be kissed. (Note to self: Send Little Maureen a copy of that old memo.)] However, News management did determine that the statement was missing supporting evidence. [Doesn’t that sound fair that we need supporting evidence for opinions?]
In addition to the All Things Considered piece, NPR discussed Howard Zinn’s legacy on Talk of the Nation in this piece; as well as on NPR’s Tell Me More; on our website with The Nation; and in blogs. I encourage you to review these additional materials. [Don’t look at that man behind the curtain!]
Everything that airs on NPR needs to rise to the same high standards [according to that memo about double standards] â┚¬” from news reports to multimedia features to interviews to obituaries. It is always a disappointment to hear when a listener feels we have not met those standards. The goal of our reporting is not to take sides in an issue, but to bring diverse perspectives to our listeners. [Please note that we have diverse people praising special conservative figures when they pass, and we have people with diverse and balancing, offensive opinions when controversial progressives pass. Isn’t NPR merciful and fair?]
The NPR Ombudsman has written a column about the obituary which aired on All Things Considered. Our Ombudsman believes that piece could have been better, while recognizing the constraints under which the reporter was working. [If that reporter had offered offensive balancing opinions of a special conservative who had passed, these constraints would not be considered because all our reporters have received the memo.]
I regret that you feel disappointed [there there, little girl], and I thank you for letting us know. [We adults have a duty to help children with disappointed feelings.] It’s important for us to hear from listeners when they feel we’ve done something well, and when they feel we have not. [Here are some cookies and milk. Now go to bed, dammit!]
Thank you for writing.
REMINDER: I annotated this memo with my own satirical musings in Ms./Mr. Rhem’s “voice.”
Howard Zinn was a great man that inspired me and countless others of my generation to stand up to injustice and speak out for what we know is right. That fact that you had David Horowitz present to criticize Zinn while William F. Buckley, an ignorant bigot, was met with nothing but the highest praise is shocking and disheartening. I’ve lost all respect for NPR after this.
Why did All Things Considered bring Horowitz to criticize Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley include no critical guest?
My email to NPR:
Alicia Shepard. I would like to know why NPR felt it appropriate to trash the lifes work of Howard Zinn by bringing on David Horowitz, a political hack.
Howard Zinn was always honest, fair, level-headed and hard-working. His work has emboldened millions of people around the world to take action and work to make our world a better place.
Bringing in David Horowitz, who predictably trashed Howard, is a direct assault on the hard work and effort of eveyone of those millions of people who have fought and sacrificed so much.
How dare you. You should be ashamed of yourselves and whoever the producer was should be fired immediately and NPR should issue and immediate and thorough apology.
You disgust me.
HOROWITZ MAKES ME SICK IT IS ILL TO DISRESPECT THE DEAD ESP. VERY RESPECTABLE ONES ,WHEN I HEARD OF ZINNS PASSING I WAS DEEPLY SADDENED, WHEN I HEARD HOROWITZS WORD I WAS JUST PISSED
My belated letter to NPR:
I just found out about your shameful bashing of Howard Zinn in your so-called remembrance a while back.
I used to listen to NPR all day long and was always a contributor to my local station. That is no longer the case, precisely because of this kind of shamefully biased reporting.
I’ve seen your excuses for how the quotes by Horowitz were included in your on-air remembrance, but that doesn’t excuse it.
And it doesn’t cover up the fact that equally controversial figures on the right do not receive the same treatment from NPR. That’s just a sad fact.
NPR used to be the last source of real journalism in broadcast media. It lost that status years ago. And it lost me as a member and a listener.
I, too, came late to this event but am very familiar with the issues. NPR, like nearly everyone else, gets weak knees when dealing with tough-guy/person blowhards from the right. NPR’s public funding makes it even more timid than most, but it needs to toughen up. It’s time we start calling most of these right-wing hammerers fascists. They are ideologues, heavily engaged in a serious and coordinated propaganda war.
Conservative viewpoints are incredibly rare on NPR. Get over yourselves you Zinn sycophants. As long as there is one penny of government funding for NPR there should be some sort of offsetting view of the progressive line. Wouldn’t that only be FAIR? That is what Howard would want right? Fairness?
Clean the wax outta your ears, so full-of-yourself-you-wouldn’t-know-who-needs-to-get-over-themselves, history-deficient-anal-crevice. You wouldn’t know fairness if came up and slapped both sides of your face. Conservative viewpoints are always viewed on NPR. You are so full of right-wing idiotology that Faux No-News is your idea of fairness. Look, David Horowitz sycophant, NPR never balances remembrances of right-wing nuts like William F. Buckley, Robert Novak, and Oral Roberts but is compelled to balance left-wing activist like Professor Zinn because the milk-toast-to-con managers of NPR are so afraid of being accused of being liberal by the blinded idiotlogue likes of you. Your unfairness and wacked-out imbalanced views precede your ability to see that, so you have already proved that you don’t know what fairness means. Cons aren’t the only people who pay taxes; liberals, and moderates do too. Therefore, NPR needs to balance your right-wing nutty heroes. Of course, in your crazed mind, only cons’ taxes matter. Go play with yourself on fake media criticism sites like AIM where you can relish in your repeated lies that the media are liberal. If you repeat a lie enough, it is believed by willfully ignorant people. That’s propaganda. GOP means Grouchy Old Propagandists.
So what’s the remedy for burned buns? RLE needs to sit in a bucket of ice water because he’s a liar, liar pants on fire vicitm.
Howard Zinn would wear RLE’s churlish remarks as a badge of honour. I’ll always remember him for his keen intellect, passionate activism, and steely resolve. His work and influence will remain for generations. From beyond Howard is chuckling at NPR’s cowardly compulsion to balance anything progressive.
I must admit that I’m a little late to the party, but apparently, you still do not understand why NPR’s Howard Zinn obituary was so horrible.
If it is true that:
1. Obituaries are news stories that place a person in time and history — not tributes.
and
2. Obituaries need to mention controversy and represent those who are “dismissive of [the work of the deceased].”
..then how do you explain your obituaries of Robert Novak, Oral Roberts and William F. Buckley? The “warts and all” standard was completely absent in the obits for these three men. I couldn’t imagine more controversial figures.
It is profoundly disturbing to me that you would allow this kind, gentle advocate for the disenfranchised to be trashed during his obituary on your airwaves.
Think about it this way: you allowed Pol Pot to pass with platitudes and when Mr. Rogers died, you punched his corpse and pissed on his grave.
When Mr. Horowitz dies, give me a call. I’d love to provide the counterpoint to his life of accomplishment.
Dear NPR,
I know this will come as “old news” to you. I was listening to NPR on the morning of Jan 27, actually my 30th anniversary, when I learned that a much admired mentor, Howard Zinn, had died. This was more than a shock. Zinn was a thoughtful, committed, “don’t couch your bias in bull” historian. His meticulous research, his compassion for the powerless and voiceless on the “undersdie” of the dominate paradigmn and powers of history never ceased to riase the flag for freedom and justice for ALL.
This extraordinary man and historian was no ivory tower intellectual. His incisive intellect was accompanied by the experiential, a life lived by what he believed.
Then, even more shocking and horrifying that morning, NPR chose to “balance” an obituary in the person of fringe, far right activist David Horowitz, with a statement essentially attesting to Zinn’s worthless, deceptive work and lack of contribution to history and the body politic. I could not beleive that NPR would be so crass and thoughtless as to include such slander and drivel in a piece honoring the life and testifying to the death of a patriot historian. Seldom, if ever, have I heard NPR do this for anyone else.
Howard held strong convictions and conclusions from his study and experience of history. There certainly is much to debate. Horowitz’s comments have NOTHING to do with debate however or balance. They are dismissive and inflamatory, lacking respect and honor toward a man who gave his life to our country and betterment in more ways than one. To include a slanderous, malicious comment like that of Horowitz was insulting to the Zinn family and all those who experienced profound grief over Zinn’s death. You could have at least waited until such time as you did a retrospective of Zinn’s life and work and its “controversial nature.”
I write now after listening to a tribute to Zinn and recalling the NPR report. I always expect more from NPR than the news that is bent as entertainment and bias.
Sincerely,
Rev. Bill Beardslee
The following is a response to a letter I posted 19 entries previous to this one:
Dear Benita,
Thank you for taking time to write the Office of the Ombudsman. Alicia Shepard is currently on medical leave. She had surgery on her shoulder and is unable to type.
She did, however, read your email and requested that I contact you to thank you for your thoughts and taking the time to write. You submitted a very thoughtful email and your concerns will be taken into consideration.
Best,
Lori Grisham
==================
The following is my response to Ms. Grisham:
Dear Lori,
Please send Alicia my wishes for a complete and speedy shoulder recovery.
My first wish, however, still stands: Please stop balancing progressive ideas and the people who hold them with conservative ideas or comments, or start balancing conservative ideas and the people who hold them too.
Having said that, please do not believe that balancing controversial conservative views with polite, measured progressive opinions while continuing to balance controversial progressive views with over-the-top, disrespectful opinions from someone like David Horowitz, someone who is viscerally obsessed with destroying liberalism (as if that were possible), is reasonable or would go unnoticed. If you want a list of “muscular” liberals who can deliver firm critiques, I can supply you with it.
My second wish would be for NPR to stop liberally using the adjective â┚¬Ã…“controversialâ┚¬Ã‚ when describing mostly progressive values, ideas, or people while regarding equally controversial conservative values, ideas, or people as if they are benign and normal.
Lastly, people from all political persuasions want to be treated fairly on all NPR programs, but fairness on NPR’s Morning Edition and All Things Considered carries more weight than the other broadcasts.
Fairness is subjective and a high ideal for which to strive, but NPR is surely qualified for this worthy task.
Thank you for your response.
Sincerely,
Benita J. Campbell
OBSCENE demonstration of the rabid rightWinfNut bias of NPR-‘All Things Considered,’ – especially given the over-the-top slobbering coverage over the RACIST William f. buckley some years ago – without any kind of commentary from Progressives.
I really enjoyed the nonsensical defenses of the left on this page, Time for a reality check, folks. Your hero was nothing more than a communist who wrote history from that perspective:
http://theothermccain.com/2010/07/31/fbi-files-reveal-historian-howard-zinn-lied-to-hide-cpusa-membership/#comments
Being on the left, you probably won’t read this. Why should edification be a part of being on the left. Horowitz was correct and you guys can’t stand it. Fine. See you in November. You’re done and it begins then.
The folks at NPR should be ashamed to have allowed the substanceless abuse of Howard Zinn to take place by a “man” who chooses to use the cheap rhetoric to run down the life work of this great American on the eve of his passing. Case in point is the troll-like threats of “princetrumpet” who like Horowitz, can only use cheap threats, smears and low brow innuendo to make his schoolyard bully case. God Bless Howard Zinn.
So Howard Zinn, as one commentator above put it, was “a gentle advocate for the disenfranchised?” My foot. Professor Zinn’s America was one in which a tiny, money-hungry plutocracy perpetually lords it over vast multitudes of virtuous, helpless victims of capitalism, colonialism and racism — as if we hadn’t heard that tune enough. Wake me up when it’s over. Yes, I have read a lot of Zinn’s work. It’s not all bad, but it is highly skewed and usually wrong-headed. Put simply, he just wasn’t that good.
I will allow that some of David Horowitz’s comments had an unpleasant tone. And NPR should have brought aboard a supporter of Zinn as a counterweight. But in substance Horowitz overall was right about Zinn’s legacy. Horowitz knows all about being a “good Leftist” — he spent the first 40 years of his life in that territory. He moved away not for the money, but for the integrity. He knew all too well what happens to a society when its Howard Zinns seize the apparatus of state power to create Social Justice.
As for “right-wingers” — I guess there are no “left-wingers” — they most certainly do have a right to be represented on NPR. Their tax dollars, as much as anyone else’s, help support the network. If our noble progressive revolutionaries don’t like it, tough luck. They should tune into Amy Goodman’s show and give generously. Problem solved.
roxy エナメルバッグ,ロキシー
I like your website.. excellent colorations & topic. Do anyone pattern this website you or perhaps did you actually hire an attorney to get it done for yourself? Plz interact since I!|m seeking to pattern my own site in addition to would wish to learn where u became this kind of by. appreciate it