Breaking News, Top Breaking News, Liberal News
DISCUSSION FORUMS | BLOG | EDITORIALS Liberal news Liberal News

MAIN PAGE

Features

Liberal News
Midday | Evening
Editorials | Archives
Editors' Blog

Community

Liberal news
Blue Lemur Blogs
-Your free blog!
Discussion Forums

Favorite Links
Logo & Raw Shop

Contact

Contact | Link to us
Advertise
| Join

About

About Us
Privacy | Site Map

WATCHING THE WATCHERS
Public radio international: Conservative talk?

By James Reid Harrison | RAW STORY CONTRIBUTOR

NPR (National Public Radio) has long been a favorite target of conservatives complaining about “liberal bias” in the news. The media watch group FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) has done a thorough job demonstrating that – as with so many conservative claims – the opposite is true, with NPR frequently favoring right wing views.

Advertisement

Though it hasn’t received quite as much scrutiny, PRI (Public Radio International) also leans consistently to the right with its news program, The World, broadcast, as its name implies, all over the globe.

A “reality check” — minus the reality

For instance, during a recent World broadcast, PRI reporter Matthew Bell offered a so-called “reality check” in response to a statement from John Kerry.

Responding to attacks against him made during the GOP convention, Kerry said, “I will not have my commitment to defend this country be questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have …”

Kerry was referring to the fact that though George W. Bush and Dick Cheney supported the war in Vietnam, both managed to avoid actually going there.

Here’s how the PRI reporter fact checked Kerry’s quote.

“As for a reality check on that score, Dick Cheney was deferred from military service five times and never served, but George W. Bush did fly fighter planes on the home front during the Vietnam war in the Air National Guard, and he received an honorable discharge.”

To anyone remotely familiar with Bush’s National Guard follies, the leap from “did fly fighter planes” to “received an honorable discharge” is simply breathtaking in its audacity and the sheer amount of damning information it completely ignores.

A record of disservice

As others have reported in far greater detail than I will here (beginning with a groundbreaking May 2000 article in The Boston Globe), there is no record, no evidence whatsoever, that Bush even bothered to show up for an entire year of his Guard service. (Tasked with rating Bush’s performance during this time, two of his commanders found it impossible to do so, concluding in a written report that: ''Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report.'')

In addition to that unexplained absence, Bush – for reasons he’s never felt the need to discuss publicly – failed to show up for a required physical examination, which meant he was automatically grounded, which meant all the taxpayer money spent on training him had been wasted. (It also meant that there was absolutely no chance he’d be required to fly in Vietnam.)

How our current president got into the Guard in the first place is a curious story in its own right. Former Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes recently acknowledged that he had helped Bush jump over a national waiting list of 100,000 applicants, many of which were no doubt more qualified than Bush, seeing as how he scored the lowest possible passing grade on his pilot aptitude test. (As the son of a powerful Texas politician, Bush presumably possessed other qualifications that the 100,000 people he bypassed didn’t.)

Use PRI for that ‘squeaky clean’ feeling

Incredibly, these inconvenient facts have simply been scrubbed from PRI’s account. No, according to The World, Kerry was wrong to imply Bush refused to serve. Bush did serve. He flew fighter planes. On the home front. (That last phrase has a rather stirring patriotic feel to it, only slightly diminished by the image of Bush guarding the skies above Houston, Texas — approximately 8,661 miles from Vietnam.)

Don’t get me wrong: “Reality checking” is a great idea and one that should be required in journalism. (I don’t know if we need a special term for it though; there was a time when the practice of comparing what public figures say to the known facts was simply called “reporting.”)

But in this case, instead of “reality,” The World substituted Republican talking points, nearly identical to those offered by White House spokesperson Scott McClellan.

Bad enough that, in an election year, much of the media willingly echo blatant falsehoods about John Kerry’s war record while Bush suffers no such scrutiny of his stateside escapades. But to offer a scrubbed and highly selective account of Bush’s National Guard service is an equally grievous insult to the concept of an informed citizenry. I can understand why Bush’s spokespeople would want to offer up such a version – but why in The World would PRI?

If you’d like PRI to be more “thorough” in its coverage of Bush’s time in the National Guard, write to theworld@pri.org.

 

Advertisement
Copyright © 2004 Raw Story Media. All rights reserved. | Site map | Privacy policy