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.

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'.

"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.

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.

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.

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

I submit to you that when a society as a whole accepts "ehnanced interrogation techniques" or "pouring water down someone's nose" as acceptable ways to describe torture practices -- and when as a result there can be civilized debates on Sunday chat shows about whether this torture practice or that torture practice is acceptable -- that no, labels do help someone.

And not the good guys.

This should be talked about more, not less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/business/media/16radio.html

Is that what we are dealing with here?

I used to listen to NPR for the same reasons I watched PBS. Not so much anymore. NPR's news, financial reporting and a lot of its political commentary seem to have a strong conservative spin these days.

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?

Feel free not read topics you don't consider worthwhile -- I usually indicate with the title what it's about. I obviously think the topic is important.

What about some more information on the kid Bob Herbert writes about today in the NYT - surely more important and pressing?

I wrote about that case in very extensive detail months ago:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/21/guantanamo/

Wow. If you had asked me which of those voices on the audio was the ombudsman and which was the defensive administration lackey, I would have gotten it wrong. In the real world there is no controversy about whether the US tortured, she admits, but in her own mind the controversy rages on. She doesn't know what an ombudsman is, she doesn't know what a journalist is, and in the end she can't even remember what a decent human being is. All so that she doesn't have to admit to us that she was wrong. Or worse, doesn't have to admit to herself that she lives in a country that tortures. That's just pathetic.

Thank you, Glenn, for following up on this. I'm also pleased that someone else at NPR showed a bit more character.

They've been Stockholm Syndromed into submission and even admiration, and just can't bring themselves to admit that we have tortured, extensively, knowingly and repeatedly, even eagerly. They can't bring themselves to admit that we created a torture regime literally no different from that in the worst countries on earth. It's just too much for them to bear, so they resort to comforting euphemisms. Such a useless generation of hack journalists, we've not seen for generations.