NPR - THE LAST OR A LOST HOPE?

NPR - THE LAST HOPE

National Public Radio has been known for many years as the beacon of hope in a sea of sensationalism and onesidedness.  To this end NPR has carefully and painstakingly painted itself as an independent, unbiased, balanced, comprehensive, non - xenophobic, investigative, society - oriented entity, free of commercial influence and the very epitome of what the First Amendment is all about - freedom of speech. Implicit in all of this is the perception of non authoritianism and of a free and of open exchange of ideas.

NPR, (together with less powerful Public Television), are the only media entities that could argue they are not about ratings, and therefore they are not dependent on whether they are able to sell soap or anything else but rather they are about "news and the public interest". Thus to  it's increasing number of faithful listeners NPR purports to provide a sanctuary from the biased and commercially saturated 24 hour news media. .

So what is the problem ?

JUAN WILLIAMS

Juan Williams had two jobs - one with NPR and the other with the unashamedly pro Republican Fox News.  The high profile and highly independent Williams is a seasoned veteran, who as an African American, has written much on the Civil Rights struggle. It was on the Fox network that the interchange took place that created the current crises. The context was in the wake of the bohaai Fox commentator, Bill O'Reilly, had created by saying that it was the Muslims that were responsible for 9/11, Williams  berated O'Reilly for this all encompassing assertion and stereotyping. In the heated debate Williams admitted that he felt scared when he travelled on an airplane when there were passengers that were in Muslim garb. He felt this need to be said if we were ever going to resolve the biases that this emotional subject evoked .

NPR AND THE AFTERMATH

In a lightening response to Williams "politically incorrect" statement on Fox, NPR summarily dismissed him from NPR. This action being effected on the phone by an Administrative Assistant. The mess was further compounded when the arrogant NPR CEO Vivian Schiller on being called to explain the arbitrary action maintained that this type of statement was contrary to NPR policy and should be between Williams and his psychiatrist. The CEO opined that no employee of NPR should make a statment like that. The more this controversy continued the more the NPR hierarchy portrayed itself as autocratic, judgemental and the arbiters of what should or not be part of the public debate.

As the outcry increased the CEO then belatedly offered a half apology - not for the dismissal itself - but rather the way it was executed. Needless to say this fueled the fires further. Critisicm included the fact that this was insane political correctness and  led to accusations that NPR were openly leftist.Then, if, as a gesture to the right, what immediately followed was a NPR ban on any of it's employees to attend the Stewart and Colbert Washington rally! This bringing NPR more and more into the loony limelight.

While NPR's supporters winced it's detractors rubbed their hands with glee. This was always what they had maintained about NPR - that they geared their investigations, programs and even news reportage to their ideological left slant. They were no more democratic than a Public Company arbitrarily firing an employee without even a hint of due process.

WILLIAM'S RESPONSE

Williams in an extensive interview with his old friend and colleague Diane Reeme on her popular NPR talk show maintained that his statement came in the context of him "going after O'Reilly". He was deeply pained at the way he had been treated. He maintained that if you don't toe the party, (NPR), line you are not only tossed, humiliated but had your mental stablity publically questioned. He said he was asked whether he would have made the same statement on NPR and he responded in the affirmative. This was a matter of integrety and he exhibited the same professionalism regardless of where he was.

The interview between the two colleagues, after the initial pleasantries, was always a bit strained. When Reeme congratulated him on his new $2,000,000 contract with Fox, who were loving every minute of this, he responded almost pathetically that he hadn't begun to get over what has happened to him to think about that.

To add insult to injury he alleged that NPR were biased as to whom they invited as guests. Reeme was palpably taken aback by this statement and challenged him but Williams stuck to his guns. One thing for sure if this interview was designed to "smooth matters over", it did anything but. When Reeme queried whether he would respond to the belated offer from CEO Schiller to meet, he countered, "What for?".

More significantly this ugly incident has created a wide credibility gap between what NPR claims it stands for and it's manifest behavior. How it will all end is uncertain at this stage. NPR can only hope that it will go away and the whole incident will be regarded as an aberration. Had it not come at the time of the election it would have certainly become the issue "de jour" of all the networks. The fact that it did may well provide NPR with damage control it could not effect itself.

JOHN STEWART AND SANITY

John Stewart represents many persona to many people. At the most simplistic he is light entertainment at the end of the day. To others, the dissafected youth, he represents the only source of news there is. To the right he is the epitome of all things wrong in this country and it's social and financial degradation and a "bigot" to boot. To the left he is a double - edged sword. On the one hand he can potentially mobilize the youth that catapulted Obama into power. However, he is totally disolutioned with the whole process of Washington and it's inherent corruption, which by definition includes the Democrats.

Notwithstanding all of the above as a result of his consistent approach to the news and the media he has  found himself central to the debate of the future of the country in general and the cliffhanger November election in particular.

From all appearances  this is a role he does not relish. His appearance on Larry King Live showed a tired, somewhat irritated and haggard Stewart. His appearance in of itself represented acknowledgment of his central role in the US social and political scene. In this interview he outlined his assessment of the US political scene. He came short of maintaining that the elections were irrelevant but echoed the Tea Party cry that the citizenry were angry and felt left out. He maintained the obvious - that the central government and their backers were only interested in their own agenda rather than the " 85% of the electorate." The latter, he maintained, were too busy meeting the needs of their families than to involve themselves in the manipulations of Washington.

In all the interviews he has conducted Stewart has maintained that it is not responsibility to provide an unbiased assessment of the options but rather that this is the responsibility of the main media. His is the "false news", he is a satirist, and the 24 hour media has a responsibility not to pander to the sensational but rather the facts and the options society has.

If anyone doubts the significance that this "one man show" has on the American scene they just have to reflect on the fact that President Obama is appearing as his guest on The Daily Show on  October 27th - 5 days before a crucial election. He appears to be genuinely flattered but not side tracked from his main objective - the truth and the American people. To this end he is organizing a rally to take the American people,"Back to Sanity". Sanity, it would appear to be defined, as distinct from hype, special interest, inherent corruption, manipulation, distraction from reality, hyperbole and all the other distortions. He maintains that he has  not any political objective but rather a reorientation of the current reality society faces. The latter, for example, need not have to worry about what a candidate said 20 years ago but rather focus on the options and sacrifices we face to survive and the candidate's solutions to these.

Ironically, the extent of the impact he might have or not have in the future, depends on the turnout and the outcome of his rally that he has designated as a "Rally for Sanity" on October 30th, 2010 in Washington D. C.

At the end of the day it is a sad commentary that a satirist is central to a debate on the political future of the USA. It is unfair to put this responsibility on him when there are several media channels whose ostensible mission to objectively inform society of their options. As he is pointed out again and again they are putting other commercial agendas ahead of this.