Such a shock. It is appallingly obvious to listeners that the NPR news operation is now riddled through with Loyal Bushies. She can't defend herself and so she won't try. Doesn't sound like it would have been much of a debate anyway. The dimwit is in over her head.

Ok I was pwnd - forgot about your earlier article about this. Althought that was written just after inauguration - what are the details behind Herbert's penultimate para:

"Not only have administration lawyers opposed defense efforts to secure Jawad’s freedom, but they are using, as the primary basis for their opposition, the fruits of the confession that was obtained through torture and has already been deemed inadmissible — without merit, of no value."

Re my point about the topic, feel free to ignore my commentary if you don't agree.

"Oh for Pete's sake!

There must be something more important to write about than this petty dispute between pundits (the title "ombudsman" notwithstanding). Glenn, you have right on your side, clearly - you made your point in your previous column - what function does this one serve? Your readers all know the so-called liberal media is not liberal. What about some more information on the kid Bob Herbert writes about today in the NYT - surely more important and pressing?"

Read the first comment to Glenn's post and the snark should tell you everything you need to know.

I found the following in an article about a lecture that Shepard gave at NYU:

Unlike Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting on Watergate, today, Shepard said, media mishaps, such as radio host Don Imus’s recent racist and sexist remarks about the Rutgers women’s basketball team are highly publicized at first, but then usually fizzle out. These stories “bubble up and go away,” she said, because the Internet’s breaking news keeps reporters scrambling to chase down the next big story rather than spending time fleshing out older stories the way Woodward and Bernstein did with their Watergate reporting.

(Linked at signature)

Alicia Shepard blew it in her article. She created her own "media mishap". So now she is hoping that she can talk it down, ignore it, make up lies about who is questioning it, such as readers and potential interviewers, by calling them 'shouters'. What Alicia Shepard is hoping for is that her blunder of a poorly thought out, embarrassingly obvious weasel-worded article for NPR, and herself, will "fizzle out" after having 'bubbled up and gone away'. Let's try not to allow that to happen, shall we? Let's continue to 'flesh it out'.

That "On the Media" interview drove me to write some harsh stuff about Shepard, though I recognize that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as long as it continues to take public money, is answerable to more than just the left, particularly a left which (this lefty acknowledges) is determined to demonstrate its weakness in Congress. Congress, of course, provides public broadcasting with that public money. CPR should get off the tit.

Accordingly, Shepard lives on bread and water in a 7'x7' metal cell in spite of the fancy "ombudsman" sign on the door.

That said, no one tortured Shepard with the fact that waterboarding has been ruled against the law in the US. Vide the Texas sheriff who was imprisoned, etc. etc. It's NPR's obligation to state at least that fact when the subject comes up.

"Ombudsman" seems to have taken on a new meaning in the US. Look at the NYTimes ombudsman. Disgrace to an honorable calling. We won't get those compromisers out of their media jobs, but at least we should take the word back.

"feel free to ignore my commentary if you don't agree."

You mean you want Glenn to be more like Alicia Shepard? Heh.

Speaking for myself, I think one of the most enjoyable features of Glenn's blog is the way he often responds to and debates issues with commenters. So whilst I am sure he is quite willing to ignore your commentary, you really aren't much entering the spirit of things if you insist he does.

I was just responding to Glenn's response to me - have a look-see.

I was just responding to Glenn's response to me - have a look-see.

I didn't suggest you ignore things you disagree with. I suggested you ignore things you think are unimportant.

Maybe not quite, but some of the propaganda apparatus is in place. Empires have their spokespeople, and some are willing to take on that role even without being explicitly asked.

Does anyone with half a brain really believe that an abortion doctor is a terrorist? Someone who says that we must avoid using the word torture for the same reason we should not call an abortionist doctor a terrorist is no longer a journalist. AS speaks with what I call the NPR "sound". I have always felt bad about disliking it. But no longer.

I'm glad you had the opportunity to link to On The Media, which by and large does a very good job. They play it here in NYC at about 3:45 in the morning on alternate Saturdays, because they want to make sure no one hears it. Considering that he was interviewing another employee of NPR -- one who has the power and opportunity to stab him in the back -- I thought Garfield discredited her arguments sufficiently that little would be added by her further humiliation at the hands of GG. Would have been damned fine entertainment though. Gee, all those decades of journalistic experience by our crackerjack ombudsman. I didn't think US Magazine had been in operation that long.

A little disappointed though; I was hoping she'd have a high funny voice like Brad Schlossman.

Uh, yeah, I did look see, that's why I highlighted what I thought was a very bizarre comment on your part.

Anyways, enough off-topic, suffice to say I am disappointed but not that surprised Alicia Shepard has ducked this interview request.

wrote:

Fights over language really only obscure the true fight about the underlying acts or omissions - labels don't help anyone.

I am sure you would not attempt to argue rationally that language does not matter. Indeed, that you improperly characterize this issue in order to make your point shows the importance you attach to how something is expressed.