steve
Dear Mr. Dvorkin, NPR's "report" on the anti-war protests was clearly designed to portray the protestors as irrational and simple minded. When the reporter claimed that protestors 'admitted' their demands were not what they actually wanted, I listened for the evidence. The reporter relied on one interview with a man who stated that he didn't think it was realistic to expect that Bush would now take out the troops. The reporter twisted these words to indicate that the protestor didn't think the demand was what he himself wanted. She then interviewed a protestor who stated that he supported reconstruction aid to Iraq, but that it should be given to a UN run reconstruction mission. Again, no indication from the protestor that he didn't wish for immediate withdrawl of US troops or an immediate end to the illegal occupation led by the US. From these interviews, she then ended the report with a segment of 'End the Occupation chants" and her commentary that the protestors didn't really believe in the chants that failed to capture the 'complexity' of the situation.
NPR then followed up with an interview with the pro-war Michael O'Hanlon to evaluate the current state of affairs in Iraq. Can NPR at least, every once in a blue moon, allow on a critic of the war to evaluate the situation? Say, balance O'Hanlon with a Michael Klare from The Nation?
I have no idea how to forward my comments to the reporter who did this story, I would appreciate your forwarding them to her.
Stephen Philion MPLS, MN