The correct term is not "diatribe", but "enhanced discussion techniques". Geez, doesn't she have any ethics? ;-)

excellent presentation and one that cannot be rebutted intelligently.

Glenn--This selective stenography is the outcome of the concerted and well-funded right-wing attack on the media that you document so well in your first book "How Would a Patriot Act."

The positions and actions of the extreme right cannot withstand scrutiny, and thus it needs a media establishment kowtowed into avoiding carrying out its primary responsibilities when reporting.

The stenography that has developed, as you have documented on this blog since that book, has played a key role in enabling the outrageous government abuses that inevitably further the interests of the Establishment.

It's been "mission accomplished" for a number of years now in regards to the Iraq War, the torture regime, and other topics that--like the name of Voldemort--cannot be mentioned here.

You are one of the handful who are pushing back, and that's why it was great to hear about the success of your fundraiser.

WNYC, the New York NPR outlet, doesn't carry it.

It can be listened to live online. I know that WHYY.org carries it at 2:00 PM eastern time. Go there, or copy whyy.org/91FM/schedule.html into your browser, then click on Listen Live, to hear it.

Call the number Glenn listed, 800-989-8255 to participate with questions, or type in npr.org/contact/totn.html to email a question for consideration.

Man, that just ain't what it used to be. I always thought the purpose of higher learning was to seek truth. I stand corrected. Add Georgetown to the list of growing institutions (Stamford law school, Harvard business school, etc.) that have produced and/or employ dazzling mediocraties.

"next semester at Georgetown: Karl Rove teaches Civility in a Post-Partisan Age, Bill Kristol lectures on Accountability in Punditry, while David Gregory examines The Role of Intellect in Adversarial Questioning"

Christ, what's left for the Onion to make up? Or is GG having fun at our expense?

This Ombudsninny has Gov. Sanford disease; she needs someone in her life to tell her its time to go home and shut up. Next, she'll be getting outwitted by Larry King.

Sorry, couldn't resist:

from The Politico:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

and link at sig

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24441.html#ixzz0K6hrDIHp&D

Since she seems to think 'waterboarding' is some kind of enhanced spa technique, ask her about shutting someone up in a coffin-sized box with bugs (especially someone who is claustrophobic & afraid of bugs). To me, you have harder time dismissing that as not being torture. It sounds more medevil than 'waterboarding'.

Also the sleep deprivation tactic should be mentioned & then noted that the North Koreans used this to brainwash our troops. Did North Korea use torture or not? If she says keeping someone forcibly awake for 3 or 4 days straight is not torture, then what the North Koreans did was not torture.

You can also ask hypothetical questions to determine what she would call 'torture'. Surely she would think that ripping off someone's fingernails or putting a cage with a starved rat on their face was torture. Then you could try & walk them back as to why they didn't think waterboarding was torture.

You could also note that if we don't think waterboarding is torture, then we can't object to another country waterboarding our troops they have captured in some conflict. Ask her if that will help our troop's morale.

I know you'll get them in the end, Glenn.

And they'll still call it a "Liberal Arts Education." Great work, Glenn. Nothing defeats bullshit better than well-reasoned facts, whether the Shepards (actually sheep) of the media realize it or not. Keep aiming your brillance at the bastards.

Thanks - I added a note about that.

How many times did you mention Shepard, and not once did you include her omnipresent talking point about her 30 [or whatever the hell number it is] "years as a journalist".

Sucky blogger!

I'll admit, I did a WTF!?, myself.

Just remind yourselves that Glenn is a humorless scold.

The interview is a striking, if sadly fairly typical, example of bs.

For instance, the ombudsman argues that it is more powerful to explain the technique than use of the word "torture" ... this after the show played the typical cases when the euphemisms are used. They generally are discussed in the context of policy, not a description as such. [A problem in itself] So, that doesn't work.

[Example: The Bush Administration argued 'enhanced interrogation' was necessary.]

Likewise, it's b.s. because not only is the word used when not applied to the U.S., but because certain words have specific powerful meanings. It is a type of verbal snapshot.

Of course, she supports a they said/they said approach ... "what Bush Administration thinks" and "what Obama Administration thinks" [except to the degree it's the same thing]

She also doesn't know what "torture" means. For instance, even in respect to waterboarding, "she" thinks it is. Apparently, unlike "it's raining outside," torture is a confusing thing, a hazy matter. This is the core thing here. She isn't being "objective" on everything, since NPR doesn't choose to not say (dare not say "ban") certain words.

But, Glen, she is expert on "objectivity," so knows better than you. You are only an expert on b.s. Not that she will talk with you, though she is a supporter of "dialogue" (as she understands it).

She says it is not her job to defend the NPR policy, but speaks of "we." She also gets the last word -- the whole "taking sides" thing. So, the interview ends on b.s.