Yesterday morning I was listening to On the Media, the NPR program about how the media works, when host Bob Garfield railed at a listener of the program for accusing the program of bias in favor of Israel.
Garfield’s speech takes place at minute 27 of the link. He reads from a letter in which a listener states that On the Media co-host “Brooke Gladstone’s report on the Palestinian issue is so biased that my radio bleeds,” and accuses Gladstone of reading “from the AIPAC playbook.”
Garfield mocked the listener by pointing out that Gladstone didn’t appear on the broadcast that triggered his letter. And if your radio is bleeding, Garfield continued, it’s “a safety hazard,” and you should turn it off and use the “receiver planted in your dental fillings by the FBI.” More:
I will not allow you to accuse Brooke of corruption. So you have lost your comment privilege. You are banned forever. Scram.
I found the lecture inappropriate and so did commenter Mario500 from Mobile, Alabama:
Bob Garfield’s response to one of the messages was unnecessarily harsh. He should have responded to the person with a private message rather than a public response that may have cost him and the program many listeners.
The lecture was not just highhanded but irresponsible. In yesterday’s show, Garfield did a piece on the Democratic convention noting that the only real news was the party bosses adding Jerusalem to the party platform, despite opposition from the rank and file, but commented that the plank was “toothless political posturing,” because Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is “a negotiating point in the peace process and will never be pushed by any elected president.” I have no idea what this means. But AIPAC helped script the Jerusalem language. Shouldn’t Garfield have mentioned that?
Is the lobby’s push for war with Iran toothless? Gladstone knows a lot about Zionism in Jewish life, and about the Israel lobby too. I never hear her treating these issues on her show. Goldstone’s husband, who works for Slate, supported the disastrous Iraq war (to his credit, he cops to his error); but I don’t believe that On the Media has ever examined the assertion (supported by Joe Klein, Lawrence Wilkerson, Philip Zelikow, and Walt and Mearsheimer among others) that the Israel lobby played a crucial part in the decision to invade Iraq. You’d think these would be elements of a serious reflective process in the media. But then, you probably have a radio receiver in your fillings.
No surprise here. NPR like most liberal media in the US has always been a hard line supporter of Israel. “Progressives” do not support human rights for politically incorrect people like the Palestinians. They still adhere to the old left wing orthodoxy of the late 1940s that the Palestinian Arabs are reactionaries and deserve whatever they get.
Call it the TNR syndrome.
Sort of reminds me of the late Anthony Weiner. He was a great progressive on domestic issues but on Israel, he declared himself to be in the ‘ZOA wing of the Democratic party’.
That is, even AIPAC was too mellow for him. ZOA is really a close to a fascist organization, but that’s okay, because it’s Zionism and it’s hands off.
I think all of this is part of the Jewish left-wing legacy, and especially our propensity to be in the media. We like to babble, talk and opine. And the seculars tend to be left-leaning.
And unlike our gentile colleagues, even those who are conservative, we are nationalists. We are clubby and we stick together. If someone attacks Israel, we’ll group up and destroy them. Doesn’t matter if you’re left or right at that point, Jewish communal duty comes first.
I mean you don’t have to scratch the surface very long, take the former Jerusalem bureau chief for the NYT whose son was (still is?) in the IDF, who took on paid lobbying jobs for pro-Israel groups while being employed in Jerusalem for the NYT.
Or take Terry Gross at NPR, who can never say a bad word about Israel.
The list goes on. The problem is that the only constituency capable to stand up to these people are gentile liberals, but they’re so scared of their own shadows that they’ll always back down. They can’t play the minority card, which is the golden goose in contemporary liberal culture.
The others, say Arabs, are too easily demonized as Hamas-supporters.
Blacks, hispanics are very rare. How many black reporters do NPR have again? I remember when they fired Juan Williams he was their only one.
How many black journalists are on the staff of TNR? NY Mag? New Yorker?
So that leaves only liberal Jews. True liberal Jews. But those people tend to be pushed aside and smeared. Hence this site.
Beinart nearly didn’t survive his drubbing.
MJ Rosenberg was forced to resign to save Media Matters from another smearing campaign designed to hurt the liberal infrastructure(a.k.a ‘policing’) like the one inflicted over the Center for American Progress.
Walt/Mearsheimer were really the exception, but they were academics too, tenured, so it’s harder to destroy their careers. You are forced to smear them only, and that’s harder to pull off when you’re facing someone so intelligent and thorough as they are.
Still, the wet blanket is overwhelming. I think we simply have to contend with the old saying… “progress will come one funeral at a time”. (Retirement would probably be enough).
“…“Progressives” do not support human rights for politically incorrect people like the Palestinians. They still adhere to the old left wing orthodoxy of the late 1940s that the Palestinian Arabs are reactionaries and deserve whatever they get…”
That is a pretty old dog…but I guess it still hunts.
I’d date it back to the end of the nineteenth century — and earlier. Jews were progressives and enlightened. whilst Poles, Cossacks, Ukranians etc were ignorant bigots and should get their comeuppance.
This got transferred to Palestine — and boy did the Palestinians get it. And quite right, too…
In this connection, notice the strong and persistent emphasis on Palestinian ignorance, depravity, misogyny, bigotry, poverty, etc. It all serves to strip away any need to consider their rights. I mean, you can agree a person is entitled to all kinds of things — but depraved and bigoted misogynists?
That would be a different matter. Obviously, enlightened Jewish Zionists would have an infinitely greater claim to anything. See ‘In any struggle between the civilized man and the savage…’ ‘Savage’ was a very telling word in that connection. Why not ‘terrorist’? The authors of that ad were drawing on some very old material…
Good I am glad to hear the message getting out further and further into the hinterland.
Why wasn’t the listener accused of anti shemitism.
The hoi polloi will learn of a jewish lobby, they will think in those terms, they will not be able to differentiate between all jews and Aipac/zionists.
they will not be able to differentiate between all jews and Aipac/zionists.
That’s the problem and it is already happening. NYC and DC are out to lunch if they think what Robert Merry calls NYC and DC’s “ethnic-group politics” drives the rest of the country right now.
Garfield’s sneering at a listener like that creates resentment inside radio heads. Pointing out press/media bias is not a tin-foil issue. It’s a perception issue. If that perception is out there, and it definitely is, then there’s a reality that Garfield and his producers need to deal with.
Think of the mathematics of who this guy is offending.
And liberals don’t tend to whine about media bias(in part because we know deep down that most of the media is sympathetic to the Democrats, even if the conservatives overblow the issue).
So whenever someone starts bringing these issues up to the liberal grassroots, and the sneering that Garfield produced is replicated by others, it will catch fire.
The complacent elites should watch out. There’s a new generation brewing, and it made it’s voice heard at the DNC convention this past week.
“Think of the mathematics of who this guy is offending.”..MRW
Exactly.
The I firsters, the politicians publicly pledging allegiance to Israel, the ‘outraged’ statements by Israel media defenders against any criticism of Israel….they have no earthly idea evidently how this is
being heard or received for better or worse by the 300 million.
It is so in the public media, press, airwaves and politics now that even people who never cranked up the net or barely know where Israel is except somewhere foreign over yonder, can’t miss it.
But that’s actually good…Americans need to notice it.
There is one thing that really puzzles me.
There is hardly an article written by the Israelis, agents, loyalist that doesn’t emphasize, claim and mention that 90% of Americans support Israel.
My question is do they really believe that this is true?
Or do they keep repeating it as a way to make Americans ‘think’ almost every American supports Israel and so therefore any that don’t are odd balls.
My other question is, given that Israel works overtime on influencing/propagandizing the US public for Israel do they not read and analyze public comments on Israel in the major media? If they do analyze the public’s comments and see what I believe I see in them—that they are not scripted comments by a anti Israel organized hasbara group but just individual opinions springing from the general public.
Then, do they do not see this as trend, or even if they see it as a trend, do they not worry about it because it isn’t organized and therefore consider it no real threat to them?
This trend isn’t my wishful thinking either. When I started off commenting on the Israel issue way back it was on the major press sites and boards in response to their (mostly misleading) articles on Israel & ME issues.
I was in the minority in what I was saying back then and what I knew, now I am way in the majority of the rest of the opinions.
I just wonder what the zios are thinking of this trend and how they intend to combat it if they think it can grow to a threat…their censorship hasn’t worked, maybe it slowed it in the beginning, but it didn’t stop it. The attempted censorship probably even contributed to pushing the trend .
“they will not be able to differentiate between all jews and Aipac/zionists.”
Gosh, that would be awful! They might say something, and then you would have to try and explain it to them, which may not be possible in any practical way. It’ll be a mess.
It’s interesting that all the talking heads on cable TV news entertainment shows have been downplaying the oral vote plank change in the Demos platform–caught in all its hi-handedness and pants-down ardor live on video available to anyone. The dismissals run from saying that’s just standard political party activity to a platform plank means nothing at all in the first place. Nobody on this mainstream media has addressed just how much of a public farce what happened makes of US representational and pure democracy in real action in the actual world we live in.
Although not directly related, I can’t help but think of what Pelosi said about Obamacare; that is, we have to pass the bill before we can know what’s in it. Didn’t we do that with Bush Jr’s attack on Iraq too? And now, Iran’s “red line?”
The “it doesn’t mean anything anyway” argument is as particularly disingenuous as it is oft repeated. If it doesn’t mean anything then why force its passage?
Craven and bizarre in the extreme.
Brooke Gladstone always reads from the Aipac playbook. The program is absurd in many ways. They never turn that wagging finger back on themselves in regard to what they will and will not cover.
Listening to Sunday’s Up with Chris Hayes. He had a panel on to discuss Obama’s foreign policy. Jeremy Scahill, Michelle Goldberg, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (so impressive..clearly a sober rising star in the Dem party) and Peter Beinart. Scahill ripped it up calling the rhetoric at the Dem convention “jingoism and revisionism” about U.S. foreign policy. Talked about how absurd it was for Biden to be bringing up specific numbers about how many Americans have died and been injured in that war based on a “pack of lies”. How Kerry and Biden voted for the Iraq war resolution. Scahill talked about Obama’s drone strikes, Afghanistan, Iraq. Not much talk about Iran (actually do not think any) no discussion on the I/P issue. Scahill swiped the few challenges to what he was saying down with quick well thought out responses and facts facts. One thing that Scahill said that I have not ever heard before is that Cofer Black is on Romney’s foreign policy team.
Just finished watching. I was looking forward to today’s show when I found out that Chris was having both Beinart and Scahill on, ’cause I knew they would clash, and I was sure the whole point was to discuss the DNC platform fiasco. Nope — not a peep about it. Highly disappointing, but not a total surprise, unfortunately.
Once again, Jon Stewart, comedian, does a far better job with this story than any of our newzertainers. [sigh]
I thought Scahill was good, but of course he also kind of fell into the role/trap of being the ‘crazy, angry leftist,’ since he had the audacity to attack the Obama administration for out-Bush-ing Bush in the imperial presidency department.
“I was looking forward to today’s show when I found out that Chris was having both Beinart and Scahill on, ’cause I knew they would clash, and I was sure the whole point was to discuss the DNC platform fiasco. Nope — not a peep about it. Highly disappointing, but not a total surprise, unfortunately.”
I had the same reaction. In fairness to Chris, he did bring it up on MSNBC earlier, as Phil pointed out in the earlier post on that subject. But he should have brought it up again.
Jeremy got in a good and accurate potshot at MSNBC–they generally don’t question foreign policy under the Democrats. Again, Chris Hayes is the exception and he has people like Jeremy on, but when I’ve watched the evening weekday shows they are generally worthless partisan hackishness.
Hayes really went out on a limb during that MSNBC discussion of the Jerusalem issue. The others just did what they normally do either go silent or roll over and kiss the I lobbies ass.
Wonder if he was smacked down by Comcast between that comment and his show.
This is new for Jon Stewart. He and his team just started touching the I/P issue the last few years. Just the last few years. Before that dead silence. But as the saying goes better late than never.
Scahill speaks about facts with passion. Not the dead pan oh people have died at the hands of Americans or American drones…collateral damage you know. Not massacres like in Syria. Different when the U.S. kills people. Scahill is one of the best in my book.
Hayes talks too much while waving his hands around. He has too many guests on his show. With all his blabbering, only the most assertive get a word in. He does not moderate or discuss, but pontificates to viewers and guests. This is how he makes sure no one says too much and gets him fired.
Yes, he successfully painted Scahill as the angry leftist and the information about Cofer Black was new, but mostly played to the partisan tone of his show.
Beinhart made interesting comments about China. Not sure what to make of that, but the hint that the ME (in his mind Israel) will become less important to U.S. foreign resources and policy was important.
He has interesting guests and it could be so much better.
In the past, when it was time to donate to NPR, I have complained about the one-sided pro-Zionist slant to their stories. In the future, I will tell them that I’ve become accustomed to the free broadcasts from my fillings.
I had read some years ago about former employees filing suit against NPR for what they said was “pervasive cronyism” at NPR when it came to moving up the ladder there. Allegedly there was an outside group called into to examine the situation and then a report that was done. That report has never been released.
When Juan Williams spoke at Ohio University I asked him what he knew about all of this. He responded that all I had read was true. I talked with him later about this in more detail.
You don’t have to look very far at NPR and notice who gets to host shows or shows that are promoted. “pervasive cronyism” indeed.
I quit listening to “On the Media” several years ago. After hearing this slant on their show. Someone could do a masters thesis on the slant on that show. Besides Brooke Gladstone has one of the most annoying voices I have ever heard.
Where is Bob Garfield coming from on Mideast politics? Ethnicity? Religion? Cultural biases? Past remarks?
These questions are going to move increasingly into the foreground regarding mainstream media coverage of Israeli issues. Americans want to know.
I’m confused: why would anyone want to listen to NPR?
i have no idea, i have a couple friends who listen as a daily habit. it makes them feel informed or something. mind boggling isn’t it.
I used to listen to it (I love radio that talks to me) but by 2003 or so it was so mind-numbingly stupid, so colossally insulting to my intelligence, and so completely inferior to good radio that I’ve enjoyed over the years, that I turned it off permanently.
To be fair, it was mutual.
I just said downthread that I don’t listen to NPR that much, but I can put in a plug for “Car Talk” (which is about to end its run, I think) and “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me” is funny in a somewhat self-congratulatory smug upper middle class way. The news–well, when I did listen to it I characterized it as soothing–it’s the sort of thing you’d want to have on if a 10 km asteroid were on a collision course with earth and you wanted news that made you feel like everything was under control and you could feel like you were informed without actually having to worry about it that much. But that’s not quite right. It’s more like there’s a 10 km asteroid heading towards earth, but you’re one of the lucky few who really do have a wormhole or a Tardis you can jump into and reappear in some parallel Earth and live happily ever after. NPR is news for people who are immune to the troubles of others, or for people who want to feel informed without actually being informed.
Okay, I’m being a little nasty, but I think there’s some truth in all that.
For astrophysical plausibility: can’t you watch an asteroid and its Earthly coverage from the Moon?
Guest 1: the same people who invented global warming are now predicting a catastrophic collision with an asteroid. Just another ploy to increase NASA funding.
Guest 2: megaditto! and if you believe in the asteroid, you perhaps also believe in evolution! haha!
Annie I actually have no idea if you’re being genuine or sarcastic now and I love it.
I read it as sarcastic and responded in kind, but just in case it was not: there are sources of radio news that do not clash quite so dramatically with what I find out by reading from people who are on the ground, reporting what they see.
I got incredible cognitive dissonance from trying to reconcile what I knew with NPR’s version.
i wasn’t being sarcastic. i even got in a fight with my friend about it, you’d think i had insulted her mother. she’s been listening to it for years, is a self defined progressive, not an israel supporter, but doesn’t realize she’s not even getting a tenth of the perspective. what. ever.
i recall almost doing a post about their i/p coverage. once a year they come out with a report chronicling their own coverage of i/p. they start out..we’ve done this many stories of i/p and then list then under settlements, house demolitions, the peace process etc and they include…..iran. and 2/3 of their coverage about i/p is actually news about the alleged iranian threat yet they never make any kind of connection between iran and palestine.
is that weird or what? so why is iran covered under i/p? because it appears they are doing lots of i/p stories when you open the page.
People listen to NPR or watch the Daily Show for their entire ‘news’ are the type of people who lazily investigate the ‘news’ on their own. Young 20-something hipsters.
If you are ranting and raving about America’s wars in the ME but aren’t factoring Israel into the equation then you are mentally ill, a total coward, or a poseur.
Cliff: cowards is for those who know but never talk(include most white gentile liberals here).
But most people simply don’t know. Because they’re never told. Jon Stewart blamed Fox(!) as the source why the Democrats rushed to change their party platform.
We begged our Ohio university station (WOUB) to have Amy Goodman’s show on. Hell the head of the School of Journalism was with us. It was a Professor of history who lead the way with hundreds of Athens Ohio citizens who were involved. Including more Prof’s, teachers, Doc’s, etc all banding together to get Amy’s program aired. They used NPR and the BBC as the examples of fair and balanced. One of the head hacks with a strong Israel bias at the radio station blocked and blocked. Still blocking.
Amy as we know has dealt with the I/P issue fairly as well as many other issues.
@Shunra. Well said! NPR is nearly absolute garbage and not worth the listen.
I credit NPR for teaching me about media bias against the Palestinians. A deep alto voice from someone who I presumed was Jewish from her name, did a swooning unctuous story about the plight of a Jewish woman who had to return to Israel from Gaza after Israel changed its mind about establishing settlements there. Nary a word about apparently non-existent Palestinians at the beginning of the story which is all I could stomach but I thought upon hearing the broadcast that this is how Germans learned over their radios about the plight of the Sudetenland Germans.
“…I will not allow you to accuse Brooke of corruption. So you have lost your comment privilege. You are banned forever. Scram…”
This is vaguely like that Democratic platform fiasco. There are promising signs that the Zionist hold is becoming so weak that they cannot enforce it without openly displaying the mailed fist.
That floor display of the yay and no votes was so telling. Someone needs to find out when and who put that 2/3rds percentage up on that board. So great that the Stewart team found that and put it on their show
Sometimes i get the impression that our National Press is not such a free press as they profess themselves to being.
Who has captured our press?
I found this over at Jeromeslater.com
By HAIM SABAN
Published: September 4, 2012
AS an Israeli-American who cares deeply about the survival of Israel and the future of the Jewish people, I will be voting for President Obama in November. Here’s why.
link to nytimes.com
Does anybody know what Brook Gladstone’s record is on the I/P conflict? Or the show she’s on? I tried googling her name with “Israel” and “Palestine”, but got nothing relevant.
I don’t listen to NPR that much, but from what others have said here I gather their record is really bad, but it might be that the unfortunate caller left himself open to Garfield’s cheap shots by picking the wrong person to criticize. Of course a show that is about press criticism should have some shows on the I/P conflict and media bias, so if they haven’t done that (I haven’t checked) then they are not doing their job.
You would have to take the time to go through some of the shows on this issue. I do recall her repeating unsubstantiated claims about Iran. Hey they could do a show on themselves and their coverage on the I/P issue and Iran/ Self reflection. They get paid for what they do. Will not be holding my breath
RE: “Yesterday morning I was listening to On the Media, the NPR program about how the media works, when host Bob Garfield railed at a listener of the program for accusing the program of bias in favor of Israel.” ~ Weiss
HOW THE MEDIA WORKS: “CNN and the Business of State-Sponsored TV News”, by Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian, 9/05/12
SOURCE – link to commondreams.org
Looking back at Phil’s link to what Gladstone know about zionism reminds me of the REAL PROBLEM with the Israel media discussion and Phil’s headline on that post:
“”I wish the American Jews who feel misrepresented by the lobby would stand up”"
The PROBLEM is 90% of the media 90% of the time only invites, allows on, Jews to talk about Israel and Jews. That appears to be how it is with NPR. How many Jews are ever going to go before the public and really expose the zionist the way they should be exposed. Very, very few, maybe none. So is there a ‘conspiracy ‘ to not let Zion-dom really be taken down like it should be….who knows….maybe. Would they ever invite a Jeff Blankfort on? Has he ever been on NPR? Has Allison Weir? Code Pink?
IF non Jews could ever have their say on the air waves we would be happy to stand up and separate the zionist from the Jews and set the public on straight on Israel and the whos and whats involved. Would NPT ever have Grant Smith on or some non Jewish opponant of Israel?
Basically non Jews just get to pick up the check for the Israel Jewish banquet, but we’re not invited to the dinner.
Maybe Garfield’ caller was one of the public who’s sick of that deal and it was shown so clearly in the Dem Jerusalem vote example he was just letting it out on NPR.
I am forgetting the name of the NPR staff who resigned from the agnecy this year and in essence later told that NPR ‘s journalistic integrity was long gone .
Andrea Seabrook
Thanks
RE: “NPR’s Bob Garfield says a listener who senses pro-Israel bias has ‘a receiver in his dental fillings’”
MY COMMENT: Perhaps Garfield had ingested some bad “shrooms”!
SEE: “Calif. man pleads guilty to cutting friend’s heart out”, CBS News, 9/09/12
ALL THE GORY DETAILS – link to cbsnews.com
P.S. Perhaps George W. Bush and Bibi Netanyahu are into the “shrooms” as well!
SEE: “Bush Had Gog and Magog, Bibi Has Amalek”, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 5/25/09
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to richardsilverstein.com
“A Northern California mixed-martial artist accused of ripping out his friend’s heart and removing his tongue while the two were on hallucinogenic drugs”
I take back what I said about Ellis and Kovell. I should have given more thought to the likely consequences.
On the Media started out fairly cutting edge. They had to attenuate that to survive. This is just one of many issues on which they have become less cutting, more, uh, NPR-ish.
NPR hasn’t been that far off from the legacy MSM since August 1990, when Saddam was enticed by our State Department into entering Kuwait, because he had been told it was an Arab-Arab issue. In regard to the wars’ legacy, they HAVE covered care of American vets better than any other high listenership outlet.
When is the last time NPR seriously covered the failed war on drugs in a multi-segment series? Or the burgeoning initiatives in so many states on medical marijuana or pot decriminalization? Or on the billions being raked in annually by privatized correctional facilities, and how that works in the lobbying world?
Listening to Garfield tell the guy to “scram” was creepy.
Go back to the birth of NPR and they have never really covered the I/P issue fairly an only in the last 15 have they really even focused on it. The midwives at NPR birthed another filter for Israel decades ago. Even Scott Simon who I personally adore repeats unsubstantiated claims about Iran.
When I first stopped listening to On the Media a couple of years ago. I thought would be so great if they or someone else would take the media’s group think in the run up to the invasion of Iraq and how the MSM has basically done the same thing on the Iran issue. Allowing unsubstantiated claims about Iran to be repeated or repeating the false claims themselves (Terri Gross one of the worst).Diane Rehm has allowed the false claims to be repeated on her program over and over and never ever challenges those in the media who constantly do this. But no On the Media not going to compare something like that because they have done the same thing.
“When is the last time NPR seriously covered the failed war on drugs in a multi-segment series?”
Odd, isn’t it? I mean, considering what the best way to listen to NPR is, I mean, if you know what I mean.
Technically, Garfield had a point. He believed (or at least pretended to believe) that the writer was accusing Gladstone of “corruption”–of misrepresenting Zionism not out of personal bias, but for monetary gain. And if taken literally, that’s what the complaint implied. (“Brooke Gladstone will very likely receive the usual thank-you gift from AIPAC, etc.”) I personally would have interpreted that as more of a rhetorical flourish, but unfortunately it gave Garfield an excuse for dismissing the whole topic.
It’s a lesson worth remembering. Zionists are not being bribed to support Israel, they’re doing it for free.
PS Thanks to Donald for “NPR is news for people who are immune to the troubles of others.” :)
Is there a link to the piece that the feedbacker was responding to?
I googled Gladstone and Palestine and came up with a couple of transcripts where she pretty diligently exposed Israeli lies about the Al-Wattan transmitter raid and so-called Palestinian spectrum violations.
Israel treats RF spectrum like it treats all other Palestinian resources – as its own. By not convening the Oslo-designed “mutual” committee to oversee spectrum allocations. Israel simply refuses to participate and therefore vetoes any (and all) legitimate Palestinian claim to its own spectrum. Same as water, same as building permits, same as everything. SOP.
And because it is SOP, Gladstone’s report actually rings true and creditable, even to cynical old me.
link to google.com
It’s bad that Garfield went to these lengths because it too is all too common a refrain and therefore also SOP, but I’d like to see the referenced piece for context.
Another bit of context for Garfield’s over the top castigation of this particular feedbacker was a piece he did with Ira Glass of “This American Life” about how Glass deals with flames, particularly flames of the subjects of his pieces.
link to onthemedia.org
Interesting perspective. Worth a listen.
danke, ritzl. glass is one of the few reasons i listen to NPR at all, along with ira flatow, although i have a disagreement with glass about his stated rationale in the piece for disabling his bulletin board. (i rarely listen to the ‘news’ for more than a few minutes. siegel and garfield, and that repulsive what’s-her-name on ME affairs are just spewing brutal, ignorant stuff.)
Yeah, I don’t agree either, but the introspection (Glass’s) involved was enlightening, and I think one of the markers of someone worth listening to.
Thanks. I stopped listening to On the Media when I heard them repeating unsubstantiated claims about Iran. Was very subtle but in line with Aipac. Will search later
Hey folks at 11 est the Diane Rehm show will do an hour on two opposing Israeli views on Iran. The Rehm team has recently done a show on Hezbollah, Syria, now the Israeli perspective on Iran. When will the Rehm team have the Leveretts on their program or Professor Juan Cole, people who will really provide well educated and opposing views on Iran? When? And when will Diane and team do a show on Israeli’s ever expanding illegal settlements.
Hope folks call 1-800-433-885o, email drshow@wamu.org , facebook, twitter their questions and comments in
Done
Thks, Kathleen.
FYI:
“Thank you for writing to the Diane Rehm Show. We appreciate your thoughts and comments. We created this automatically generated response to answer the most frequently asked questions. If you have a question not addressed here, and we are able to provide an answer, we will get back to you.
1. HOW CAN I GET A QUESTION OR COMMENT ON THE AIR?
Call 1-800-433-8850. We have only one call-taker who juggles six telephone lines, so keep trying.
Send an email to drshow@wamu.org , send us a tweet, or post a comment on our Facebook page.
2. HOW CAN I LISTEN TO THE DIANE REHM SHOW ON THE WEBSITE?
To listen as it airs live (10 a.m.–12 noon ET):
Go to http://www.drshow.org, and click on ‘Listen to WAMU’ (on the top right of the page)
To listen to a show that has already aired:
Go to http://www.drshow.org. Locate the segment by using the ‘search’ or calendar function (scroll to month/day/year and click on the specific segment) and then click on ‘Listen.’
Audio files are available for all segments that aired after Dec 31, 1999
3. HOW DO I GET INFORMATION ABOUT A SPECIFIC SHOW OR CONTACT A GUEST WHO WAS ON THE PROGRAM?
When possible, we include information about our guests and related links on the specific show pages. Locate that page on http://www.drshow.org with the ‘search’ or calendar function. To reach an author, try contacting the publisher of his or her book.
4. ARE PODCASTS AVAILABLE?
Yes! Podcasts are available for the most recent 5 days. Go to http://www.drshow.org, and click on ‘download podcasts’ at the bottom of the page.
If the segment you are interested in is no longer available via podcast, please go to our website, http://www.drshow.org, for audio files of all segments that aired after Dec 31, 1999.
5. IS THE DIANE REHM SHOW AVAILABLE ON SATELLITE RADIO?
Yes! The Diane Rehm Show is carried by SiriusXM satellite radio, on
channel “NPR Now” 122, live Monday-Friday from 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
(Eastern Time). For more information go to link to siriusxm.com
6. HOW I CAN GET A TRANSCRIPT OR CD?
Transcriptions of our shows are available online at http://www.drshow.org
CDs:
Online: Locate the segment on our website, http://www.drshow.org, using the ‘search’ or ‘calendar’ function, then click on order a “CD” or “Transcript”
By phone:
Call 202-885-1200 weekdays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET. Have your credit card info handy, as well as the date and topic of the show.
7. HOW CAN I SUGGEST AN INTERVIEW AND/OR SHOW TOPIC?
Please email us at drshow@wamu.org
If you are an author or an author’s publicist, please send us a non-returnable review copy of the book or galley with contact information, including a phone number, plus any supporting materials to:
The Diane Rehm Show
WAMU 88.5 FM
4000 Brandywine St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20016-8082
We will contact you if Diane is interested in an interview.”
Done as well.
Fox Business News channel has a special on now which is peddling great investment opportunities in Israel. “If you want oil, by-pass Israel in the ME, but if you want brains, stop right there.” Rupert Murdoch says it’s wonderful to invest in Israeli business. He even quotes the Old Testament to that affect! The Demos platform debacle in N Carolina was briefly hit, with a pitch from an Israeli spokesman that Obama is not good for Israel. I watched and listened, waiting for a signal from my dental fillings. Problem is, I have dental implants.
It’s not covered in US breaking news, but Minnesota is defendant in a lawsuit based on its illegal investment in Israel Bonds. Many state and local governments in USA invest in Israel Bonds, but I don’t know how many, like Minnesota have specific laws against this; anyway, it’s more than arguable such investments by a US government agency is against federal law too.
link to consortiumnews.com
citizen, i thought that lawsuit was dismissed
link to minnpost.com
@ Annie Robbins
I checked, and you are right. The judge said the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. Because they were not Minnesota taxpayers or government employees, I guess. And they said also because a certain state agency did have the power to buy the Israel bonds. Nothing is explained here in regard to the fact that the state had a law against investment in foreign countries other than Canada: link to minnpost.com
@ Annie
Looks like the case was appealed. Have not been able to find out what happened to the appeal. Did it get dismissed as beyond the reach of the state courts as they deemed it a “political question”? In other words, beyond the jurisdiction of any US court. That’s how the US courts usually deal with any issue regarding Israel that have merit. link to mn.breakthebonds.org
Fox Business News channel is now supplementing its segment on investing in Israel. Israel economy is growing at 3.9 %. “much better than ours.” Israel now peddling natural gas to all comers, and, thanks to discoveries (on Palestinian land and water), things are going great guns! So why are we still funding Israel with so big a chunk of our total foreign aid? Why are we still underwriting its debt?
Thanks to Bob Garfield, by insulting instead of debating he proved the listeners point.
In the item after Garfield’s rant, Gladstone mentions that they received many letters related to another segment. Surely, they receive many letters related to their coverage of pieces related to I/P (or which should be related to I/P if they would show the connection). I would be interested in seeing which of the letters they choose to highlight. Do most of the ones that they bother to read from critics of Israel come across as illogical or anti-semitic rants? By their choice of which letters to read, do they help shape the perception of critics of Israel and the media’s coverage of it as fringe conspiracy theorists? Do they have any idea how this will affect their credibility among an NPR public that is becoming more aware (even as the Dersh attempts to write off the half of the Democratic delegates who voted against the Jerusalem amendment as rogue elements)?