Steyn noted the lack of media outrage compared with other scandals in the past.
“Now real Mexicans are dead,” he continued. “Does the president of the United States, does his attorney general, does CNN, does The New York Times, does NPR — do they not care about dead Mexicans?
“I mean, forget the United States Border Patrol guys that were killed about these ‘Fast & Furious’ guns. Real-live, or previously live, citizens of third world countries — the kind of people that NPR, The New York Times claim to love — are dead because of this.”
“Why isn’t that a national scandal?” he pleaded. “This is absolutely a — Iran-Contra didn’t rack of that kind of body count. Watergate didn’t rack up that kind of body count. Sarah Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend’s mother, or whatever stupid story they were chasing around Wasilla for months, that didn’t rack up a body count. There were hundreds of dead Mexicans from a gun running program run by the United States.”
Update, 10/11/11: If you read through the first several comments, you see that one commenter doesn't appreciate any digs at NPR. OK, let's drop NPR for a moment and check out what CBS has to say about F&F:
In Fast and Furious, the ATF allegedly allowed thousands of assault rifles and other weapons into the hands of suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels. The idea was to see where the weapons ended up, and take down a cartel. But the guns have been found at many crime scenes in Mexico and the U.S., including the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry last December.Ah, I see. At what kind of crime scenes do you imagine these firearms were found? Murders, perhaps? Again, the only dead person mentioned is a US Border Patrol agent. All the dead Mexicans? They must not even exist.
Mark Steyn's criticism above continues to be steel on target.
13 comments:
Another triumph for the war on drugs, and immigration policy.
I hate to rain on Steyn's Hate Parade with--you know--facts and stuff, but since he's got a bee in his bonnet over NPR...
1. NPR's recent coverage of Fast and Furious. NPR really doesn't do a lot of "outrage." Outrage tends to be the product of media outlets such as FoxNews and right-wing radio. (Poor BillO could almost taste the Pulizter when he broke the "Muffingate" non-story.)
2. NPR didn't chase stories about "Sarah Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend’s mother, or whatever" in Wasilla.
Show me how NPR ignored F&F and chased stupid Wasilla stories or accept that Steyn is a bloviating ignoramus.
Sorry, Dean, that's the most marshmallowy coverage of Fast And Furious there is, designed to shield the current administration from the true impact of what happened. Here's the most damning part I could come up with from that article:
"The goals behind Fast and Furious may be the only thing not in dispute. Law enforcement officials wanted to target big Mexican drug cartels that use U.S. weapons to fuel violence along the Southwest border. Agents at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives conducted surveillance at gun dealerships in Arizona, watching as suspicious people purchased large numbers of firearms. They intended to follow those weapons south, but agents in some cases lost track of the firearms. Some of the weapons later turned up near the body of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, killed in a gunfight last December in Arizona."
That would be akin to saying, "Southern states disapproved of Lincoln's election, and took steps to demonstrate their disapproval." Both statements contain facts, but enough reality is left out that one could argue that the respective speakers would be committing "lies by omission", or at least, were leaving out pertinent facts in order to slant their stories in order to provide a narrative that more closely fits their biases.
As for the Wasilla stories, I don't know if NPR did those or not--but I think you're reading Steyn's comments a bit too "linearly", and you know it. More reporters were dispatched to Alaska for a vice presidential candidate than were ever dispatched to Illinois for a presidential candidate, and that's too bad, because the president we got is incompetent. That's Steyn's point. If you think his hyperbole dismisses his entire argument, then you probably believe the NPR story you linked to is "fair and balanced".
You don't like Steyn, I get it. Let's look at what he said about NPR, and then look at what NPR said:
“Now real Mexicans are dead,” he continued. “Does the president of the United States, does his attorney general, does CNN, does The New York Times, does NPR — do they not care about dead Mexicans?
“I mean, forget the United States Border Patrol guys that were killed about these ‘Fast & Furious’ guns. Real-live, or previously live, citizens of third world countries — the kind of people that NPR, The New York Times claim to love — are dead because of this.”
NPR didn't even mention over 200 dead Mexicans, unless I missed it in the linked article. That's Steyn's point, and I don't see how you've refuted it at all, except by trying to create a straw man (which you successfully attack).
Steyn wins this one.
Like most right-wing demagogues, Steyn is liberal with claims not supported by evidence:
1. NPR's Wasilla story-chasing. You're an excellent apologist: When he said NPR chased stupid stories about Palin, what he meant was that NPR failed to fabricate stupid stories about Obama. There's a future in PR (no "N") for you. And you're right, NPR failed to fan the Birther/Muslim/Kenyan flames the way the right-wing media machine did. To my linear, leftie mind, that colors NPR as responsible. Clearly I've been drinking the Koolaid.
2. "citizens of third world countries — the kind of people that NPR, The New York Times claim to love." Link to the claim please? Or, "What he meant was..."
A guy paid to write might say what he means to say from time to time. If he is setting NPR and NYT "types" in opposition to his people (which would include you), why should I not conclude that your crowd hates citizens of third world countries? Feel free to spin him him for me, linear as I am.
NPR's coverage has been ongoing. Perhaps not as wall-to-wall as you'd like. If they fail to trumpet the body count, it might be because the body count is not a reliable figure and they maintain some standards of journalism. Again, issues that right-wing media machine doesn't wrestle with. I guess it's all hyperbole and "what he meant was" over there.
You're mixing and mashing. He didn't say that NPR was in Wasilla. He said that left-wing news, and he rightly includes NPR, is not being honest in reporting about F&F. His mentions of NPR are that they're not reporting about dead Mexicans (correct) and that dead Mexicans are usually the type of people that leftie organizations (like NPR) "claim to love" (also correct).
If not reporting about Mexicans killed with weapons sent to Mexico by the US government is some "standard of journalism" that you think should be maintained, we'll disagree on that subject.
He really got your goat by mentioning NPR, didn't he?
In other words, he's got nothing on NPR, beyond them not being hysterical over right-wing talking points. You agree that he was correct to sleight NPR by name because of something NPR didn't do because... well, you lost me there.
NPR has some undue love for third world citizens? No. Accuse them of it anyway? Of course, baseless accusations are our oxygen here in the right wing media machine! And we all know conservatives hate third-world citizens!
NPR has been reporting on F&F all along. What's the highly-vetted, well-researched and reliable source for the widely-claimed body count of 200? FoxNews? Some right-wing blog? A Mexican government official looking to exaggerate the damage and up the ante on a settlement figure? I'm here to learn.
I wouldn't say Steyn "got my goat" as much as he plays his assigned role in repeating lies in an attempt to lend credence to them. I'm just calling him on it.
Two amusing exercises:
1. Google "NPR fast and furious," you'll get plenty of www.npr.org hits. Blame Hollywood, not NPR, that some of those hits are movie-related.
2. Google "Fast and furious body count" and look for something reliable. Sorry, but "blogs4victory" (formerly "blogs4bush") doesn't count.
If you're implying that there's been no Mexican body count from this ridiculous program, I'm not buying it. And if you don't like NPR's being lumped in with other leftie news organizations like NYT and CNN, well, sorry about that. The shoe fits.
Too often it seems that the "leftie bias" flag is thrown at organizations due to their coziness with facts and reality. No reliable body count? NPR doesn't wave a number around. Right-wingers make up a dubious number, then accuse NPR of bias for not repeating it.
NPR is leftie for reporting the scientific reality of global climate change rather than cracking wise whenever it gets cold outside, I suppose.
And for providing the likes of Davids Brooks and Frum soapboxes on a regular basis? Can't believe my money goes to support those jokers.
The facts show that NPR attracts a politically diverse audience of 33.7 million weekly listeners to its member stations on-air. In surveys by GfK MRI, most listeners consistently identify themselves as "middle of the road" or "conservative." Millions of conservatives choose NPR, even with powerful conservative alternatives on the radio. Are we to presume these facts are wrong?
Just curious: is Politifact a leftie outlet, too? They seem to find fault with Republicans nearly every time Republicans speak. I get the sense that the right wing gets upset with reality for not conforming to their narrative.
That shoe fits, too.
Wow, Dean, I never knew you could get so worked up over NPR. I see now that there *is* something sacred to you. Most interesting.
We are--all of us--free to interpret writings and actions as we see fit.
I detect certain biases at play on NPR from time to time, but they are slight and rare. And not so much "leftie" as pro-Israel. NPR's otherwise thoughtful post-9/11 "Why were we attacked?" analysis neglected US support of Israel. Honestly? Listeners called them on it, and they read those listeners' comments on the air.
I'm not sure that FoxNews even aims to put a bias-free hour together. Talk radio bloviators certainly don't. Nor does Steyn. I know I rarely have a chance to answer such otherwise unchecked hyperbole/outright "pants-on-fire" lies. I am but one man and there only so many hours in a day.
Unless you're going to claim that there's nothing wrong with the US govt's arming of drug gangs in Mexico, and that no Mexican nationals died as a result of that US gunrunning, then NPR's report that *you* linked to is substandard--and Steyn is correct. You can call him a Big Ole Poopyhead all day long if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that, in this case, he's right.
Have a good night :)
> The facts show that NPR attracts a politically diverse audience of 33.7 million weekly listeners to its member stations on-air. In surveys by GfK MRI, most listeners consistently identify themselves as "middle of the road" or "conservative." Millions of conservatives choose NPR, even with powerful conservative alternatives on the radio. Are we to presume these facts are wrong?
"Mr. Inskeep is co-host of NPR's "Morning Edition."
Yeah, I'd say. An editorial by the host of an NPR program hardly lends weight to the argument that NPR is a paragon of journalistic high-mindedness. Mr. O'Keefe's sting points to quite the opposite conclusion.
But all that's irrelevant. NPR can deliver news to the white wine crowd all day long, but that doesn't mean its coverage in this current story is worth a merlot.
Post a Comment