Karl made this observation,

"...The question is, what will affect their bottom lines? And the fear of baying hordes of dittoheads to boycott advertisers of the "liberal" NYT and the threat to pull funding from NPR by neo-right politicians carry far more weight than mere logical inconsistencies. In that light you should consider the NPR ombudsman's dilemma: if calling a thing by its right name leads to the loss of funding for NPR, she has betrayed her NPR colleagues. Hypocrisy, by contrast, is a tribute to her journalistic ethics."

You characterized the NPR position as "subjectivist." To support that claim, you quoted Lehrer telling his interviewer that his job didn't involve determining "truth." He let others come up with that. The doctrine involes at least the idea that there are no "objective facts or truths," but also the idea that each of us is the "measure of all things." Everthing is a matter of personal preference. "Subjectivism," I guess, is supposed to be wrong-headed, and makes us find more reason to see NPR as doing their job badly.

I thought you would actually be sympathetic with Karl on the predicament that NPR finds itself in. After all, you have also pointed out that the poor in this country suffer more from a vicious criminal justice system which doesn't give the priviledged the same kind of grief. I say this discrepancy reflects the influence of power. Justice in this country is more about what the powerful allow, or in its interest, than in any kind of "objective" assessment of facts in particular cases.

It would seem embarracing for NPR to admit it, but isn't NPR just responding, as Karl observes, to this same principle as it relates to them. NPR now believes that "Objectivity" is just a myth and "subjectivity" is, therefore, a reasonable position to take. They have seen the doctrine of "objectivity" used to make the incarceration and treatment of poor people seem "just," and stories told by journalists giving out propaganda seem "fair and balanced."

So, isn't NPR being more truthful in not relying on this myth that "objective truths" play some role in our lives?

I watched Jon Stewart argue that the Bush people were a little crazy, and because of that, they understandably did things which crossed the line.

He said he didn't think the lawyers who wrote the memos or the other higher ups should be prosecuted.

He brought up Truman, saying it was a criminal thing for him to drop the bombs on Japanese cities, but it would not have been right for Eisenhower to prosecute him for that.

Let's see, here's that address...

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20090429_jon_stewart_inflicts_discomfort_on_cliff_may/

I was under the impression that Truman already knew the Japanese higher ups were trying to surrender and he decided to drop the bombs to teach the Russians a lesson...

I find this concern to be my own,

"...Now that we have seen proof that the prior administration was not above using its NSA-acquired knowledge to pressure a member of Congress, it becomes absolutely essential that Congress and the Justice Department investigate to see whether other members of Congress were also victims of agency spying, and whether others besides Rep. Harman were similarly extorted or otherwise compromised.

The American public can, at this point, have zero confidence in the integrity of the Congress or of their own representatives, knowing that politicians and government officials may be acting not in the public interest but rather under duress in the interest of those who control the National Security Agency. We can have zero confidence either in the integrity of the president, who likewise may well have been compromised by NSA surveillance conducted on him before he became president.

The only possible position for the public to adopt as of today is to be suspicious of any politician who opposes a full and public investigation into the NSA’s seven-year-long campaign of sweeping, warrantless electronic eavesdropping, since opposition to such an investigation, in the wake of the Harman episode, could well be an indication that the political figure in question is afraid she or he has been monitored, or worse, that she or he has been threatened by those who have the records..."

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff04232009.html

So, the blackmail concerns me, and the potential manipulation of our leaders because of blackmail.

I am doubtful that a concern for the 'rule of law' alone can correct the main problem here, e.g., the way people think things should work in running the country. The powerful, that is, those who might be in a position to lobby and get done work for any foreign government in Washington against the interest of the United States, and those who might be listening into telephone conversations, even those of Congress people, and those who manipulate the federal regulators to be able to make large personal fortunes, all think, I believe, that they are above the law.

But, they are also, likely, among those who write and enforce the laws. So, I have to be suspicious, of the lawmakers, and whether they are personally corrupt and actually above the law despite Glenn's efforts to make it otherwise, in the same way that Lindorff is now suspicious of our politicians because any one of them might be blackmailed.

I am impressed by the argument that Greenwald has been making. It seems strong and persuasive. It's concerned about defending the idea that we are a nation of laws. There isn't supposed to be anyone special just because they have money or influence. But, I think something more needs to be argued than just about the law. These powerful people seem to be out for themselves. Their allegiance is not to the country, or the people, or truth. I'm wanting to say their allegiances are in the wrong place and Greenwald's argument has to also be about that.

So, is 'greed' such a good value to guide our lives or the country?