NPR Baghdad Diarist Funnies

Time for a little political rant. Sorry folks, no photos today.

Last night, whilst driving back to my hootch from work, I was listening to WDET-FM on the car radio, enjoying "All Things Considered," with David Folkenflik and Michelle Norris. As a nominal conservative, you would not think I'd listen to such things, but the fact is, I enjoy a lot of NPR's programming, and if I really had to defend myself to a pack of rabid neocons (as if there were any other kind), I'd say I was gathering intelligence on the liberals. Or something.

On a side note: I've been noticing for a little while now that NPR is slowly becoming the "Global Warming Is Real And We Told You So" station. They do at least three or four 'Global Warming' related stories every week, and they're all told with a grim pleasure that makes it clear they're enjoying what they think of as 'rubbing our noses in it'. Yesterday it was some snail from the mid-Pacific that appears to have gone extinct, due to a decade of longer and longer and hotter and hotter summers. About the only thing they don't come right out and say - but you can draw the line - is "...and it's all George W. Bush's fault!" It's like when a snotty store clerk calls you 'sir' or 'maam' and you know in your heart they're really saying "Up yours, jerk." Same thing, same smarmy tone, same half-concealed pleasure at reporting the impending death of the planet at the hands of the Evil Republicans (tm).

Anyway, getting back to "All Things Considered."

Some of you may have heard of US Army Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp and his blog, 'Baghdad Diarist' that he produces (produced) for "New Republic" magazine. He is married to one of their reporters. In several entries, he apparently stated that some rather horrible things were done by himself and his fellow soldiers, and what he thought of them. This aroused some controversy, and many conservative bloggers cried 'foul'. "New Republic" has had a reputation of excellence, but has also had a reputation for writers such as Ruth Shalit and Stephen Glass, who were variously accused of plagiarism and making up stories out of whole cloth - both given the sack by New Republic. It is considered to be a left-wing magazine.

So anyway, there has been a lot of uproar concerning this latest donnybrook, and I won't get into whether or not Beauchamp is telling the truth. The New Republic continues to say yes, while some other magazines and sources now say no. Beauchamp himself apparently has had his laptop and cell phone confiscated by the Army and cannot speak for himself at this time.

"All Things Considered" decided yesterday to do a quick piece on the story. The format of the story is that Michelle Norris inverviews David Folkenflik as he reports 'both sides' of the Beauchamp controversy.

It all went fine - Michelle asked the questions and David answered them, presenting a reasonable approximation of both sides of the situation.

Until, near the end, Michelle asked David which side he thought was telling the truth. David pointed out that although both sides had points in their favor, even "New Republic" had conceded that one of the reported stories Beauchamp had written as having happened in Iraq, actually happened in Kuwait. He asked the rhetorical question "It makes one wonder how a person can be confused as to which country he was in when the alleged event took place." David then went on try to say that he thought Beauchamp was probably not telling the truth.

However, as the words were leaving his mouth, Michelle Norris interrupted him, stated "WE'RE OUT OF TIME. I'M SORRY, WE'RE OUT OF TIME!" and dumped the mic.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (repeat for like 15 minutes for full effect)

Oh, Michelle. Your ass is showing. Please, don't EVER pretend you're 'fair and balanced' or that you don't have a strong bias. You didn't want to broadcast David Folkenflik saying that he thought Beauchamp was lying, and you freaked out to stop him from saying it on the air.

I have to say - one of the funniest damned things I've heard in a long time on NPR. Thanks, Michelle, you gave me a hell of a laugh.

Smooches,

Wiggy

PS - ADDENDUM! Someone pointed me at a 'recording' of the interview that NPR has put on their web page. It is not true - this is not the interview that was broadcast. They've cleaned it up - removing at least one syllabobble that was made by Folkenflik early on, when he mispronounced 'soldiers' as 'skoldiers' while talking about the bits of a child's skull that they paraded about on their heads. Furthermore, the entire ending has been doctored quite heavily. The conclusion that David Folkenflik reached and was trying to state (Beauchamp is not telling the truth, presumably) which Michelle Norris was trying so desperately to keep him from saying was cut out and a 'thank you very much' ending was substituted. DISGUSTING!

Eeep. Shades of 1984.

Eeep. Shades of 1984.

I was so mad about this that

I was so mad about this that I sent a web-based feedback to NPR:

"I listened to your story on Private Beauchamp on the way home from work last night, and I was shocked when Michelle Norris attempted to dump the mic to prevent David Folkenflik from stating his opinion on the Beauchamp story - presumably that Beauchamp was not telling the truth. "Were out of time, Im sorry but were out of time," she shouted, as she fumbled about with equipment and then we got about 20 seconds of dead air. I laughed all the way home at how you showed your liberal bias so clearly.

Imagine my further surprise when I listened to your online recording of the show, and found it doctored to remove some of Folkenfliks syllabobbles as well and to splice on an entirely new ending. DISGUSTING, UNPROFESSIONAL, and BIASED.

I did not think you would stoop so low. Im shocked that you liberals would go that far and make it so transparent. Have you no shame?"

Well, this morning, I got a reply from NPR. I have to say, I did not expect to receive one:

Hi Bill,

We have set segment lengths--set by our stations, not by us--and we unfortunately ran out of time. We redid the interview for the second and third feeds of the program, precisely because we felt that the version in the first feed wasn't as good as it should be.

I realize that we live in suspicious times, but I can assure you this was a case of us goofing, not of any kind of censorship.

Thanks for listening.

Best wishes,
Chris Turpin
Executive producer

Frankly, that doesn't wash. If a news agency is going to make changes to a recorded broadcast session, they should at the very least make note of it - not represent it as if it were the original broadcast. In addition, this changes the tenor and the conclusion of the segment - that's not 'fixing technical errors,' that's called revisionism.

However, I post this here in the interest of accuracy, so you can see what NPR had to say about it, and draw your own conclusions.