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

-- steven andresen

-------------------------

The NPR is being truthful in subtly admitting that they aren't dedicated to being truthful?

What courage!

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?

"A LINGUISTIC shift took place in this newspaper as it reported the details of how the Central Intelligence Agency was allowed to strip Al Qaeda prisoners naked, bash them against walls, keep them awake for up to 11 straight days, sometimes with their arms chained to the ceiling, confine them in dark boxes and make them feel as if they were drowning." Right, but he left out rape and murder.

Not if they understand that corporation run both and the corporation are afraid their government control will be toppled if the truth gets out.

So far, we have the USA admitting to these acts of torture, and the big Dick (Chaney) calling for continued use of these horrible acts to "protect" the citizens of this country. In Iran, we have a government who is accused of using the same methods but denies having done so.

Interesting to compare. Many here would not believe that the USA tortured anyone until the big Dick said we did; and many here are willing to believe any accusation about the Iranians.

American Exceptionalism at work.

...and it may be obvious, is that subtle propaganda is generally far more effective than blatant propaganda. When Iranians read the state run papers they know what they're getting and take it with a grain of salt. When Americans read the NYT, listen to NPR they believe they are getting the straight scoop.

Tell Troy Davis what the difference is. He is now setting on death row because wittnesses were coerced into testifying agains him only because Georgia needed a black to hang a murder rap on. Now that the wittnesses have come forward to testify about the coercion the courts refuse to hear it.

That's a nice list of organizations.

If you add up all the participants in all those organizations, you'd have possibly .00001% of the population.

The rest of the citizenry is composed of people like calamine and faragut. What are your chances of accomplishing anything positive? I'd say none in this world!

It must be terribly frustrating for you. i have empathy for you but it seems to me to be a fruitless endeavor.

"Its not my fault that I don't do anything to enact the changes I feel are important. Its the bloggers. Damn you, Glenn."

I disagree with your banal description of the "proper" way to celebrate the fourth of July. Someone from my home state, Adlai Sevenson, who had a deeper understanding of love of country said of patriotism, that it upholds "the right to hold ideas that are different--the freedom of man to think as he pleases."

And he was talking about folks like you when he said, "to strike freedom of the mind with the fist of patriotism" was "an old and ugly subtlety."

In 1983 the Department of Justice under Ronald Reagan prosecuted and obtained convictions for Texas sheriff James Parker and some of his deputies for the use of waterboarding which some "have called torture". However, when the Times printed a UPI story about some of the testimony in the ongoing trial on September 1, 1983, they didn't feel any need to qualify it. Their headline?

EX-DEPUTY TELLS JURY OF JAIL WATER TORTURE

Obviously, there's a significant difference when an act is committed by an official of the government of San Jacinto County in Texas as opposed to being at the behest of the president of the United States.

I'm sure the important distinction is not lost on the recipients.

And so far it looks like we got conned again thinking Obama would actually be any different.

vital element.

You could also say it wasn't Bush that tortured. He was only following the orders of the corporations hat really run the country.