I saw your comment there. Well written.

anwaya - thanks for posting that link.

Someone should take Ms. Shepard's shovel away, she is beginning to choke on the dirt.

I've read Shepard's column a couple of times. The first time I was astounded that she could have posted such lame defenses of the defenseless position of NPR. But on the second reading I began to wonder if her goal was to expose the rotten thinking at the upper levels of NPR management... because that's exactly what she did. I imagine a scenario where she's told she has to toe the line, so instead of making a legitimate argument in support of the NPR position (if one is even possible), she simply quoted management... along with several quotes from others that demonstrated the emptiness of management's view. If this is the case, it would perhaps make sense that she wouldn't want to be interviewed by her, because she'd either have to agree with you or lie.

Okay, so maybe I'm giving Alicia Shepard too much credit, but really, she'd have to be pretty stupid to expect her column to be seen as anything but an expose on the gross mindset of her bosses at NPR.

Okay, so maybe I'm giving Alicia Shepard too much credit, but really, she'd have to be pretty stupid to expect her column to be seen as anything but an expose on the gross mindset of her bosses at NPR.

-- Vermonter17032

Sorry to point this out but, for the love of gawd, this ain't eleventy dimensional chess that Shepard is playing. Shepard is the tool that she comes off as. Pure and simple.

to Listeners.

It has to be read to be believed.

http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/06/torture_round_two.html

Also at sig.

Although I happen to agree entirely with Glenn's characterization of Ms. Shepard's position on using the word "torture" in news reporting (I see that position as simply ridiculous), I'm not so sure I whole heartedly agree with his position on interviews. Nor that such refusals necessarily constitute cowardice or even that such refusals "singularly [enable] reckless opining".

On the latter, it's a more subtle point perhaps and I can see Glenn's argument, but what's the alternative. I mean, people are going to recklessly opine - so what are you going to do? Force them to accept invitations to hostile interviews? Where would that lead? Or what if some people don't think as well on their feet as others? Does this invalidate their opinions as expressed when they're not under such realtime scrutiny? Or must they risk getting torn to shreds by a much more clever sophist, although the sophist may actually have a very poor opinion himself?

I especially hesitate at the use of the word 'coward'. There can be many reasons why someone does not want to expose themselves to a hostile interview that may have nothing to do with cowardice. Glenn is an experienced courtroom battler. He could probably suffer the indignities of one of those irrational assaults by the likes of Sean Hannity without losing his presence of mind or on tap retention of all the points he might have in his head to further a point of view. And, no offense, Glenn, I have no doubt that an experienced lawyer would be perfectly capable of being a brilliant sophist in arguing positions that he might otherwise see as the weaker position.

I'd hate to be in a debate with Christopher Hitchens, for instance, no matter how strongly and well supported my own position might be otherwise. And though I grant that Glenn has been unfailingly polite in the interviews I've heard, I could imagine a scenario in which he could become a bit more impatient. And I'm equally sure that Glenn would be quite effective in argument by question, which can be a devastatingly effective (and illogical) method to dismember an opponent.

I'm currently involved in a lengthy email debate about the supreme court case that Glenn discussed about a week and a half ago, regarding William Osborne's lawyers seeking DNA evidence from the state. My opponent keeps wanting to talk about how guilty Osborne is which I believe misses the point entirely in such a supreme court decision and along those lines, he has several times referred to Osborne's "refusal" to state under oath that he is innocent. I find this mind bogglingly irrelevant, but I recognize the scent of the right wing attempts to chip away at the right to silence and the presumption of innocence (which they have quite successfully accomplished in Ireland, btw, which no longer has that legal protection of the right to silence). I appreciate that this is a very, very different sort of situation than the one we are discussing, but I admit I do see some general application of the analogy when it comes to the assumption that a reluctance to interview implies cowardice. (Not for the same reasons, of course, I might add in anticipation of the inevitable arguments about why a defendant might not take the stand - an analogy does not have to be a direct comparison.)

If writers become obligated to take interviews with all challengers to their opinions, then ultimately we will be left with only those opiners who are skilled interviewers. And I suspect on that day, we'd find that most of them would turn out to be skilled sophists. There won't always be enough Glenn Greenwalds around to expose some people as frauds. And I think we'd risk losing a lot of valuable opinions as well.

Full stop. Right here. I couldn't read any farther than this:

But no matter how many distinguished groups -- the International Red Cross, the U.N. High Commissioners -- say waterboarding is torture, there are responsible people who say it is not. Former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, their staff and their supporters obviously believed that waterboarding terrorism suspects was necessary to protect the nation's security. - Alicia Shepard [emphasis mine]

You really do have to see it in print to believe it.

And, as it turns out, it doesn't get better from there...