FAIR has a new Action Alert (1/29/10) about All Things Considered‘s obituary of historian Howard Zinn, which “balances” the praise of Noam Chomsky and Julian Bond with a substance-free attack by far-right activist David Horowitz. If you communicate with the NPR ombud (which requires using a Web form), feel free to copy your message and post in the comments here.
David Horowitz is a complete and utter failure.
All he can do is trash dead people whom he happened to disagree with, or hate, as David is very good at that particular emotion.
David couldn’t hold a candle to Mr. Zinn.
Even after Howard’s passing David can’t begin to equal him.
If there was ever an antithesis to Howard Zinn and what he stood for, it is in Mr. Horowitz.
(Letter to NPR ombud)
Hi,
I would like to ask ombud Alicia Shepard why All Things Considered brought on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests?
Kind regards
Martin Villner
My letter to the Ombudsman:
Subject: Inviting D. Horowitz to crap on Howard Zinn’s Memory
In an unprecedented move, ATC decided to air the substance-free ravings of a right-wing race-baiting, muslim-bashing waste of time like David Horowitz to piss on Howard Zinn’s memory.
I don’t remember right-wing figures such as W.F. Buckley, the execrable Milton Friedman or Ronny Reagan receiving this kind of treatment. Why should a deserving hero of the left be thus dishonored?
Please explain why NPR found it necessary to quote David Horowitz in reporting Dr. Zinn’s death. Why would you use a far right commentator on this story? Was it really necessary to attack Dr. Zinn in this obit? Do you require character assassination in all your obits of famous people? If you wanted to do a story debating Dr. Zinn’s career as a historian, I suggest you can do that in another segment.
Message sent to All Things Considered Ombud:
How could you have the disgusting right
wing ideologue David Horowitz, who has zero credibility, on your show to predictably trash the work of Howard Zinn? It’s mind-boggling that you would think of him as a reliable source on this or any subject. It seems you are going out of your way to discredit those who tell the truth, while giving bigots, like William Buckley, undue respect by offering no similar rebuttal to his memory at the time of his death.
You have already lost much credibility by having Fox News’ Mara Liasson as one of your so-called reporters. This brings you down to Fox News’ level and is really shameful.
Office of the Ombudsman
National Public Radio
Message Information:
Message #: 5607-10102360
Date Created: 1/29/2010 5:47 PM EDT
Subject: Coverage of the late Howard Zinn’s death
Body: Why did All Things Considered allow David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of the late William F. Buckley included no critical guests? I remember when Bill was running around Mexico City with a machete. Zinn wasn’t a drunk or a fool.
Howard Zinn was greatly respected. Didn’t anyone ever teach ATC not to speak ill of the dead? Or would respect have cost you some corporate sponsorships?
–Mark
I found the decision by NPR to bring on the Islamophobic and far right activist David Horowitz to comment of the death of Howard Zinn in very poor taste.
Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley death included no critical guests?
I’ve been a loyal listener to my local NPR station for years but this will make me rethink listening in the future.
My comment to NPR: How totally inappropriate to trash someone in an obituary. Why was someone on the far right found to trash his name? Howard Zinn is a great historian. When you eulogize someone such as William Buckley, why do you not find someone to spit on his name in the same way? Perhaps the reason is that NPR gets so much corporate funding, you must be under pressure to eulogize only those on the right in a positive way.
Comment to NPR Ombudsman:
Re David Horowitz’s attack on Howard Zinn: What a deeply disrespectful and “unbalanced” thing to solicit and allow. The same “balanced” treatment was not accorded William F. Buckley upon his death in 2008. Shame on you, NPR. You are more and more approaching the journalistic “standards” of FOX News and I am seriously disheartened by that. I am relying on you less and less for any kind of programming. I’m also much less inclined to support you financially. Sad, but true.
What the h*ll has happened to NPR? Why on earth did “All Things Considered” feature an utter clod like David Horowitz badmouthing Howard Zinn after the man died? First they treat a pus bucket like William F. Buckley like gold and then this is what you do to Zinn? Shame on WNYC!
I also noticed that the obit used quotes by Zinn and commentators to put the emphasis more on the feelings of “hope” that Zinn’s history inspired rather than the actual counter-cultural substance of his work
Here’s my comment to NPR:
“My criticism is the inclusion of David Horowitz’s bashing of Howard Zinn’s work on the segment covering his death- particularly in contrast with the way NPR usually handles obituaries. Why would the passing of William F Buckley be a purely glowing retrospective, and yet you felt justified airing a right-wing condemnation of Howard Zinn upon his passing?”
1/29/2010 5:53 PM EDT
Subject: Are you going FOX on us?
Body: Please tell me how you can justify allowing Alison Keys to use David Horowitz to symbolically spit on Zinn’s grave. “There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect,” said Horowitz – who obviously hasn’t read or listened to anything by Zinn! I can understand showing both sides of an issue, but this was to mark the passing of a great mind. The least you could have done was to have followed Horowitz’s comments with input from someone who was more familiar with Zinns life time of work!
My Question to NPR: Why did All Things Considered choose to bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests?
My message to NPR:
What terrible judgment to allow a right-wing partisan to malign the dead during your much-too-short obituary of Professor Howard Zinn. Even if there were any truth to the criticism — and, in my opinion, there was none — it was remarkably inappropriate to air it at this time.
I never met Professor Zinn; I am only an admirer. But I was terribly offended and hurt by the broadcast. I can only imagine how his children must have felt at hearing it.
Message Information:
Message #: 5607-10102407
Date Created: 1/29/2010 5:56 PM EDT
Subject: Horowitz and Zinn
Body: Not sure why David Horowitz got to trash Howard Zinn last night after he passed away. What about respect for the dead? There are lots of people who would have some bad things to say about Horowitz even on the day of his death, but I doubt NPR would air those comments, nor should they. Stop trying so hard to be Not Liberal.
How could you bring that disturbed whinny little wannabe intellectual David Horowitz who has never worked a day in his life forth to comment on Howard Zinn?
My 40+ years of appreciating PBS is fading fast.
Message #: 5607-10102398
Date Created: 1/29/2010 5:54 PM EDT
Subject: David Horowitz on Howard Zinn
Body: I’m offended by the disdainful comments of Mr. Horowitz on ATC. “There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect,” Horowitz declared. “Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse.”
It is precisely Professor Zinn’s attention to and highlighting of the “fringe” of history that makes his life and work a source of inspiration for me and his many students. Whatever Mr. Horowitz’s opinions might be, they were completely out of place as we remember Howard a day following his death. Why, please, would his comments even be solicited for the piece by Allison Keyes?
My message to NPR:
Can you explain why you brought on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn? When NPR coveraged William F. Buckley’s death, there were NO critical guests who disparaged this individual. WHY was this done to Howard Zinn?
Howard Zinn obituary rebuttal with David Horowitz
There is no reason to have a rebuttal in the segment on Mr. Zinn. My mother taught me simple courtesy and respect for the departed. You don’t speak ill of the dead (especially so soon after their passing). If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it Mr. Horowitz. At least have some compassion for his family and friends. I hope someone affords Mr. Horowitz the same level of disrespect when he is called to his maker. This could be sooner than he expects as studies have shown that those persons with a cold heartless temperament and an angry bitter demeanor shorten their life span. May god have mercy on Mr. Horowitz.
As requested in an email from fair.org I have copied and pasted my remarks to NPR as follows:
Why did NPR’s Alicia Shepard on “All Things Considered” bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn? When NPR did a review of William F. Buckley’s writings and interviews, it didn’t include any critical guests. Why did you do this now for the late Howard Zinn? He should have been shown the same respect as Mr. Buckley. It is very strange that a station such as yours would stoop so low with only having one person bashing Mr.Zinn. Both he and Mr. Buckley were great orators, writers, and thinkers of our time, both deserve the respect in death. Please have the courtesy of showing his abilities as well on another show. You wouldn’t want to be put in the same category as FOX (Faux news) now would you?
I am an educator. I am working with students to help them to understand history. In especial that of our Americas. It deeply troubles me that such travesty would be made of Mr. Zinn by such as David H. Mr. Zinn and his work gave my students a way to understand what was behind/ beneath all the tripe in their textbooks. As an educator I do not always get to choose the texts I have to teach out of. But, as I work to expand the students’ world view I always looked to the work of Howard Zinn for encouraging critical thinking, one of the many, many things I must do as a dedicated teacher. What NPR did is unacceptable.
A shame on David H. and a shame on NPR.
I copied too soon in my last post. I see now that they give a message # as ID for their records.
Message Information:
Message #: 5607-10102468
Date Created: 1/29/2010 6:10 PM EDT
Subject: historian Howard Zinn
Body: Why did NPR’s Alicia Shepard on “All Things Considered” bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn? When NPR did a review of William F. Buckley’s writings and interviews, it didn’t include any critical guests. Why did you do this now for the late Howard Zinn? He should have been shown the same respect as Mr. Buckley. It is very strange that a station such as yours would stoop so low with only having one person bashing Mr.Zinn. Both he and Mr. Buckley were great orators, writers, and thinkers of our time, both deserve the respect in death. Please have the courtesy of showing his abilities as well on another show. You wouldn’t want to be put in the same category as FOX (Faux news) now would you?
Somehow we need to clean house at NPR. The place has been commandeered by neocon ideologues bent on world domination through CIA war.
It is a shame that the brief remembrance of Howard Zinn by Alison Keyes was allowed to be marred by the comments of David Horowitz. Giving a platform to Horowitz would be barely tolerable for me in the best of contexts, but allowing him–presumably for the sake of “balance”–to besmirch the memory of a hero of justice like Howard Zinn was unforgivable. This is for me one further step too many in the rightward drift of NPR reporting that I and many others have noticed over the past few years. In me you have now lost a heretofore regular supporter!
Message to Ombudsman:
Can you help me understand why NPR felt it necessary to allow David Horowitz the airtime to trash the memory of Howard Zinn? Is the death of a well-respected and compassionate man really the time to find ‘balance’ on his ideas? This is doubly true when the cretin you found to disrespect Zinn is the intellectual dishonest and morally bankrupt David Horowitz. The man is undeserving of consideration at the best of times. That you chose the death of Howard Zinn to provide him with a platform to dismiss Zinn with a comment of no substance or significance reflects poorly on the judgement of your staff.
I expect an apology for what can only be considered a serious lapse in judgement.
Just wondering why NPR felt it necessary and appropriate to disparage leftist scholar Howard Zinn during comments about his death on ATC. I find it noteworthy and telling that nothing but praise was heaped upon right winger, William F. Buckley upon his passing. Do I notice a little bias here? NPR should be ashamed.
Dear Ms. Shepard,
How you could consider including an ad hominem attack by right-wing liar David Horowitz for Howard Zinn’s obit is beyond explanation.
And how Horowitz could be considered a credible source regarding the academic merits of an historian’s career is laughable considering his ideological bias against Zinn. Couldn’t find another academic farther to the right?
Obviously, it was an attempt to whittle down the credibility of a vocal critic of US domestic and foreign policy. Of course I’ve come almost to expect these subtle propaganda techniques from a swiftly tilting NPR.
I demand an on air apology by the authors of the All Things Considered piece.
Additionally, ATC should produce a whole show that looks critically at the academic career of a David Horowitz. Suggested guests for that show would include Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein.
My letter to NPR:
I would like to say that NPR’s attempt to provide a “balanced” obituary for the late historian Howard Zinn was nothing short of completely disrespectful.
NPR quoted Mr. David Horowitz: “There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect. Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse.”
One would expect this kind of disrespect for the dead from Fox News, but not the supposedly “liberal” station of NPR. As you are no doubt aware, it is not NPR’s policy to provide “balanced” obituaries. At least it certainly wasn’t the case in the coverage of the death of William F. Buckley in 2008. No criticism of his often offensive and extreme philosophies are given. I would like to think that this was out of respect for Mr. Buckley.
Why then does NPR have this double standard? Eventually, respect for the dead is correct unless they were on the left.
I about crashed my car when I heard the choice of interviews by which NPR wished its listeners to consider the life and works of Howard Zinn. David Horowitz’s comments regarding the late paragon of critical historical philosphy were ironically an apt commentary of his own life’s work: bitter, deceitful, and utterly devoid of facts.
Was that segment edited? Were any journalistic criteria employed in doing so? It sounded like you simply allowed a twisted merchant of hate and reaction to spew his paranoid personal feelings about Zinn, a thinker I suspect Horowitz must have feared to approach while he was alive.
(http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/29/horowitz-on-zinn-on-npr/)
Horowitz’s own website today presents this claim:
“UPDATE: David Horowitz’s comments to NPR were edited into soundbites. They cut out his main point which was this:
David Horowitz: The important part of my commentary that they cut was that this man was a Stalinist and a lifelong supporter of America’s enemies up to and including the Islamic terrorists.”
Lifelong supporter of America’s enemies? Even as flew bomber missions over Germany? Quite a scoop, Horowitz.
So someone at NPR had the presense of mind to edit out this strand of vacuous, imaginary hyperbole, yet still permitted the flame-thrower’s less overtly offensive, but equally unfounded and unsupported, statements to be aired? Is there an agenda here?
Don’t think that by being uncritical and vapidly “balanced” in your show’s content that you do the public any service – all you’ve done is allow a well-respected historian and WWII verteran to be blasted by a broadside from a man who has made a career out of such ad hominem attacks. NPR will get no donation from me this year, out of respect for Mr. Zinn.
My note to NPR:
Please tell me why All Things Considered chose David Horowitz to air such incredibly disrespectful, dismissive views on the late Howard Zinn. I might understand the inclusion of an intelligent reflection on Zinn’s intellectual and activist life were it from an individual who shed light and depth in their critique. Mr. Horowitz was NOT that voice. He is not capable of crafting reasonable remarks.
In contrast, when NPR gave extensive coverage to William F. Buckley you included NOT ONE critical guest and let the legacy of Buckley’s work and his world view stand completely unchallenged.
I am left perplexed, dismayed and angered by your coverage of Howard Zinn’s passing.
Sincerely,
Lynn R.
Dear friends:
Here a copy of my question to Allison Shepard and NPR:
Dear Alicia Shepard:
It is with much surprise, I heard the segment ‘Historian Howard Zinn Remembered on “All Things Considered” on NPR (via internet), 28th of January 2010. In that regard I have a couple of questions, which I hope you will take seriously, and respond to:
1. Is it serious, and normal objective/unbiased journalism, in this case by NPR, to qualify something (or someone) as “unabashedly leftist”, as Mr. Robert Siegel did in the introduction to the report by Allison Keyes? Are there examples where staff of NPR has described someone (or something) as unabashedly rightist?
2. For reasons impossible to understand, the segment included two statements by David Horrowitz. One thing is the fact that you put on a critic of Zinn in this context, another is that you broadcast him saying “There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect.” Such a horrible and malicious attack on a dead person (who does not have the chance to defend himself anymore!), does that enhance your journalism? Is this a normal way of remembering deceased people by NPR?
From what I can understand, and also according to normal decency, NPR really crossed the line when using the statement from Horrowitz. The problem is not the fact that Horrowitz thinks and says what he does. The problem is NPR’s use of his comments in this remembrance setting.
I think an apology to Howard Zinn’s family and friends are strongly called for. Are you willing to voice such an apology on behalf of NPR?
Looking forward to hear from you.
Respectfully yours,
Hans Egil Offerdal
My phone message to the ombudswoman said that Horowitz’ comment about nothing in HZ’s intellectual output having any credibility would more appropriately be applied to himself, and also asked why NPR apparently feels unable to show any respect to a person of the left as if Karl Rove were still running the white house.
Subject:Howard Zinn, Obituary on 1/27/10
Body:I am writing to express both my sense of offense and puzzlement that comments by David Horowitz would be included in this report. His comment contained no substance other than to reveal another right winger intolerant of differing points of view. I felt it was merely disrespectful and I was surprised that NPR would resort to using such a soundbite.
Why has All Things Considered brought on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage after William F. Buckley’s death included no critical guests whatsoever.
I am a long-time listener-supporter, and do not understand the biased coverage of a man who I consider to be a great historian?
Subject: Howard Zinn
Body: NPR’s inclusion of rightwing zealot David Horowitz, whose vapid criticism of historian and author Howard Zinn, who died this week, is precisely illustrative of the reason I do NOT support NPR. Shame on NPR.
My comment to NPR:
Why is it that generally when you report on a well known person’s passing you don’t include a rebuttal interviewee? In the case of Dr. Zinn, one of my heros, you opted to do so through the bile of David Horowitz. Such an insult to an icon’s passing to offer a stage to a right wing zealot. “Fringe mentality” is the commenter’s wishful thinking and corporate media manipulation by those who wish to change this country to one that is not ‘of, by and for the People’. There are enough airwaves dedicated to this sort of misinformation without NPR joining the fray. Can’t we grieve for the passing of one of our leaders without a right wing a-hole blowing off in our face?
My letter to NPR ombudsman:
It has come to my attention that All Things Considered provided a forum for David Horowitz to disparage Howard Zinn following his death. Is this supposed to constitute some kind of balanced journalism? I am hugely disappointed that NPR would permit this because Howard Zinn was a great American, a man of extraordinary personal integrity and courage, and an outstanding example of commitment and citizenship. Shame on David Horowitz, shame on All Things Considered and shame on NPR
Message #: 5607-10102541
Date Created: 1/29/2010 6:22 PM EDT
Subject: Spitting on Howard Zinn’s grave
Body: A very low blow indeed, NPR, and one very good reason millions of your supporters will likely become former supporters as NPR continues to slide to the right. Howard Zinn was a progressive individual, but he also educated millions of us about hegemony, social justice, human rights, among many other valuable subjects not taught in our educational system. NPR should have given credit where credit is due. How about interviewing Amy Goodman or Juan Gonzalez? How about Jimmy Carter? Really, really cheap shot.
I’m a faithful, generally pleased listener of NPR…but, I was deeply disappointed in your decision to air the inflammatory comments of David Horowitz in your reporting of Howard Zinn’s death. The reporting of someone’s death should NEVER include a debate on that person’s contributions to society! Howard Zinn’s contributions to our collective thinking about history is worthy of reporting but not open to right-wing criticism during an obituary. What is your justification for such reporting? David Horowitz’s comments were inappropriate and shameful. Shame on NPR!
I understand that NPR wants to appear unbiased, but why in the world would you have a far right winger lambast Howard Zinn? If it were standard practice to air kind AND nasty comments in obituary pieces, then why was their no left wing critique of Buckley on your show after he died?
NPR needs to rethink it’s ideas on being unbiased. If NPR is going to air nasty critiques, then it needs to allow them to be aimed at both sides, not just the left.
Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to disparage the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests? Are you becoming another Faux “News”? I am increasingly becoming more disgusted at the right wing leaning editorial imbalance shown by NPR.
TO NPR: I literally gasped when I heard David Horowitz trash Howard Zinn on All Things Considered. I am one of the millions whose consciousness has been AWAKENED by Zinn through his inspirational work. I’ve never heard a “counter-point” offered on an NPR obituary before, so it seems highly out-of-place here – not to mention mean-spirited, and unfair. I’m only glad that I’ve had teachers like Zinn to help me recognize the propaganda that colors our mainstream media, and it’s through lessons learned from Zinn that I find the courage and strength to add my voice in speaking out against it.
My letter to Ombudsman/All Things Considered
Please look into the decision to have a “rebuttal”, of all things (ill considered), to the obituary of Howard Zinn this week. It makes me ashamed to be an NPR member, let alone listener. The “rebutter” was not identified in the context of his extreme right wing positions nor were his comments of any substance. All they did was degrade Howard Zinb to listeners who don’t know who he is. How unfair. NPR did no such thing when Wm Buckley died in spite of the extreme and controversial nature of some of his core beliefs and positions. Why treat Zinn this way? What’s going on there?
My letter to NPR
Since when does NPR feel it is necessary to bring on a bigot to bash the dead? David Horowitz trashing the late historian Howard Zinn this week on All Things Considered — was that NPR’s lame attempt at “fairness”? I don’t recall any critics on the left getting air time when William F. Buckley died last year. In fact, Scott Simon called Buckley (who was a right wing ideologue) a “breath of fresh air.” So why the double standards, NPR?
Jennifer Bing, Oak Park IL
My letter to Ombudsman/All Things Considered:
I have to ask why NPR/All Things Considered felt the need to have David Horowitz on their show to speak badly about the late Howard Zinn.
Is this how you commemorate the passing of a person who only wanted to do good for the people in this country.
While some may have disagreed with his philosophy, I don’t think anyone could question his motivation. Actually, that isn’t even the point. He had just died and All Things Considered made a decision to bring someone on the show to speak poorly of him right after his death.
I haven’t done the research on what All Things Considered does when they report on other peoples deaths. But my sense is that they don’t bring on people to spit on the memory of those recently deceased.
One example might be the passing of William Buckley last year. I might disagree with some of his philosophy, but I don’t question his motives and assume that what he did and stood for was to improve this country from his perspective.
NPR did NOT have any “rebuttal” on the worth of William Buckley after he died… nor should they have.
Did NPR have “rebuttal” guests on their show when Ted Kennedy died? I don’t think so. And the list could go on.
In my opinion Howard Zinn was a great man who fought for the people of this country who are ignored, marginalized, and don’t have much of a voice in the politics of this country.
He did this his whole life up until his death at age 87.
How could NPR have brought someone on their show right after his death to say the things that David Horowitz said.
My wife and I have been contributors to NPR and PBS for many years and this event has caused us to rethink any future contributions.
I look forward to your reply.
Mark Lash
to NPR
Why did All Things Considered have David Horowitz on to so negatively comment on the late Howard Zinn. Did they treat the late William F. Buckley with similar disrespect? It was totally unacceptable – Howowitz comments were completely unjustified and baseless.
My message to All Things Considered:
I was a monthly contributer to my local NPR station, KPCC, for a year, and I don’t regret my decision to discontinue my contributions. Frankly, I am appalled at the treatment of the late historian, Howard Zinn. By allowing David Horowitz to comment, your program has done a great disservice to a beloved intellectual. Horowitz provided nothing to the listeners that would have helped them understand the life or work of Howard Zinn. If balance was the reason, then why was NPR’s coverage of William F. Buckley’s death presented without a critical guest? I am greatly disappointed and confused as to why All Things Considered decided to include David Horowitz to comment on the passing of Howard Zinn. You have intensified the grief of many.
(Letter to NPR Ombud)
I am appalled that ATC found it appropriate to include David Horowitz’s baseless, mean-spirited attack on Howard Zinn in the reporting of Zinn’s passing. It certainly doesn’t seem to be common practice, as the reporting on conservative icon William F. Buckley’s death included no such critique from a liberal activist.
It would be one thing to communicate that Zinn has been a controversial figure for some on the right, but Horowitz’s commentary went way too far. It not only lacked substance, it denigrated the man’s entire body of work, suggesting that he doesn’t deserve any of the respect that so many give him, and in fact that he’s done harm to his admirers.
As F.A.I.R. states, Horowitz “seems to have been included merely to demonstrate that NPR will not allow praise for a leftist to go unaccompanied by conservative contempt.”
I find this truly shameful and perplexing, and I’m extremely disappointed in what is usually my favorite radio station.
(letter to NPR)
I’m exceptionally disappointed by NPR’s approach to Howard Zinn’s passing, particularly considering this is not how it treats all controversial figures who have passed on.
As a student of history, Professor Zinn’s vitally important book was a springboard as I began my studies. I am not a blind follower of Zinn’s point of view. I often bristled at certain avenues and methodologies he pursued, but his contribution to the field of American history is one of the most significant during my life-time.
His book, whether you accepted it or not, challenged you as a critical thinker. He had the guts to explore the nooks and crannies of our history that before had gone largely ignored and even repressed. He had the temerity to challenge the prevailing and glorified view of American History as something more than it really is. Simple exposure to such a ground-breaking work and point of view enriches the dialogue and only increases our framework to discuss topics more openly, and more completely.
He deserves better, and as a listener, I’m very disappointed.
(letter to ombudsman)
Alicia Shepard, Why did you bring someone on to trash Howard Zinn? He shone a light on history in which ordinary people could shine. He was a hero and a great historian.
Message #: 5607-10102664
Date Created: 1/29/2010 6:53 PM EDT
Subject: Respecting the Dead
Body: Why would ATC include hostile words from right-wing zealot, David Horowitz, in the commemoration of the life of Howard Zinn? It is the peak of offense to disrespect the dead. Howard Zinn’s family deserves an apology from NPR staff.
Sincerely,
Dahlia Wasfi, M.D.
Asking for a response from David Horowitz on anything is reprehensible, but to ask him to comment on the Death of Howard Zinn was simply a disgusting move. If NPR wants to do its “balanced” thing, first of all they could do it with someone that has an ounce of academic credibility, but secondly, they should consider doing it for something other than a person’s obiturary the day after he dies. I’ve listened to NPR and All Things Considered for years, but this is inexcusable. Does anyone think Zinn would have commented similarly on Horowitz’s death?
I always wondered what qualified one to be a pundit and to be quoted on the radio or TV. I especially wondered that when I heard David Horowitz during the obit for Howard Zinn. I know Horowitz mainly as a consumer advocate whose column appears in the Costco Connection. So, how does he qualify to comment on the work and life of a great historian? NPR, I think you really had to dig deep for this one.
My letter to NPR Ombud:
Subject: Howard Zinn
Message:
Just out of curiosity, why the sudden bashing of Howard Zinn?
Race-baiter David Horowitz’s substance-less bashing of a leftist legend was unwarranted and expresses a peculiar level of malice held toward Zinn by those who would ask Horowitz to appear on the show (and of course Horowitz himself), not to mention the cowardice displayed by waiting until a day after Zinn’s death to try to discredit him, when it is too late for the man to defend himself.
To be fair, Howard Zinn likely wouldn’t have bothered to defend himself, since David Horowitz said nothing of value nor of substance, which is exactly what Howard Zinn (unlike David Horowitz) is – a man of value and substance. One would expect this kind of anti-professionalism from a mainstream news source, but seeing it from NPR is reminiscent of Fox News. I assume that Horowitz is looking to get his name back in the news, and I hate to feed his craving for attention, but it’s hard to ignore such disgraceful punditry.
Body: Dear Ms Shepard,
I would like to understand the reason that David Horowitz has been selected to criticize the work of Howard Zinn. Mr. Horowitz is an ideologue of the worst kind he spouts his opinions without substance or background and his “historical” work is full of overt defamation. He is a person who makes up inflammatory claims about those he disagrees with, while at the same time, not providing any evidence of his opinions. Witness how, for example he equated “a progressive and inspiring young leader like Senator Obama with a murderous terrorist would be considered radical.”
Please explain this behavior by NPR and the plans to make it right.
Thank you,
S
Message #: 5607-10102668
Date Created: 1/29/2010 6:54 PM EDT
Subject: Zinn obit
Body: Why choose David Horowitz in remembering Howard Zinn? Empty vitriol with no rebuttal. It’s as if NPR feels the need to keep a safe distance from the mere mention of left thoughts/thinkers. It’s funny, ’cause at fund drive time, there’s lots of liberal sounds spilling from my radio.
Hello,
I am writing because I found your coverage to be ideologically biased…shameful actually, but the point being that when Bill Buckley died, for example, there was no attempt to “balance” your coverage with a pundit critical of the many things Buckley should be criticized for, among them his early association with white supremacism and McCarthyism, to cite but two examples. ATC proves once again why they have garnered the pejorative “Small Things Considered”
This isn’t spitting on his grave.
Secretions other than saliva are employed here.
Think about this the next pledge drive.
I was dismayed in listening to Alllison Keyes’ article on ATC about the death of Howard Zinn to hear David Horowitz attempt to trash Howard Zinn’s memory with these words:
“There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect. Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse.”
What was the point of giving Horowitz a national audience to metaphorically spit on Zinn’s grave? NPR does not do the same when someone on the right, eg William F Buckley, dies. It’s a shame NPR thought they had to ‘balance’ this obituary by giving a racist right wing kook a platform to trash Zinn’s memory, (without, by the way, offering anything of substance). Count me among the many (his ‘People’s History of the United States’ has sold over a million copies) whose consciousness was raised *for the better* by Howard Zinn.
Why did ATC’s obituary of Howard Zinn on 1/28 included gratuitous nasty remarks by David Horowitz that added no insight into the substance of Zinn’s work for the listener? Does NPR have some standard of “balance” for obits that requires that dead leftists be trashed by right-wing operatives? Why not give Zinn a respectful obituary like that given to William F Buckley, which included only comments from his friends and sympathizers? It’s my sense that all too often NPR’s coverage is unfair to those left of center, while you seem careful to bow and scrape not to offend the right. When Noam Chomsky dies, will you feel compelled to bring back Horowitz to spit on his grave, too?
[Disappeared News] Why I don’t listen to NPR
by Larry Geller
I do enjoy Wait Wait Don’t Tell me and Splendid Table. It’s down hill after that. I stopped even my occasional listening to Talk of the Nation when they put Juan Williams on it. He was pretty consistent in cutting off guests who looked like they were calling in from the left side of our country and gave air time to right-wing points of view. And then there’s Cokie Robertsâ┚¬Ã‚¦
Perhaps they’ve hit a new low. Howard Zinn passed away the other day. Many local newspapers did not cover this news (they didn’t miss J.D. Salinger’s passing, though). That’s to be expected. But NPR went out of their way to use Zinn’s death to make more points with the right-wing, it seems. The Twittersphere noticed.
I hadn’t heard the program, of course. In such cases, I go off to the FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) website to see if they’ve become agitated about the issue. Sure enough, they have an action alert on the subject of NPR’s unequal treatment of Zinn vs. right-wing deceaseds. It’s longer than a tweet, but very much richer. And I can say that a little birdie sent me.
Sure, people are entitled to differing opinions. NPR can try to be â┚¬Ã…“fair and balanced,â┚¬Ã‚ just like Fox News, but unfortunately, they may be doing no better at times. FAIR points out that they didn’t attempt to be balanced when William F. Buckley passed away, for example. In the past, FAIR has also pointed out their dependence on war analysts with ties to the Pentagon or military contractors, among other controversies.
The Internet is a rich enough source of information that I can get my news elsewhere, of course. NPR is competing for my attention in a world where comparable news is but a click away.
Having now read the NPR program transcript, I see FAIR’s point, and also have increased respect for the ability of tweets to spread the word.
FAIR urges those who feel strongly about this to write to the NPR ombudsman. I wasn’t planning to do that, since I am not a regular listener. But heck, I’ll send them this, so they can understand why.
Technorati Tags: Zinn, Howard Zinn, NPR, FAIR, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Fair and Balanced, All Things Considered
del.icio.us Tags: Zinn, Howard Zinn, NPR, FAIR, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Fair and Balanced, All Things Considered
—
Posted By Larry to Disappeared News at 1/29/2010 02:03:00 PM
I am immensely disappointed in NPR for their lack of perspective or even ‘realpolitik’, depending on who made the decision, in allowing Horowitz on the air without taking into consideration previous coverage’s “balance”. I hope this fumble wakes more people up to why NPR is failing as a public mouthpiece and why they must democratically take action to regain the disappearing social sector before all of the public life is dominated by corporate and rightwing hegemony.
To NPR:
NPR owes its listeners a thorough explanation of who brought the extreme right-wing polemicist, David Horowitz, on to trash Howard Zinn during the “remembrance” of him aired on Thursday, Jan 28, and why he was deemed an acceptable contributor. Horowitz is not a respected historian, or even a respected pundit. He is a rabid advocate for Zionist expansionism and neoconservative authoritarianism.
NPR also owes its listeners a detailed explanation of why NPR includes such vitriolic criticism of a progressive who dies, but does not air even the mildest critiques of right-wing figures when they die (e.g. William Buckley, Jeanne Kirpatrick, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, etc.).
To Whom it may concern,
I take great displeasure in your recent treatment of the passing of historian and activist Howard Zinn. Typically, one’s passing is a time of celebration and remembrance, not a time to tear down or disgrace. Your program recently brought on one David Horowitz who managed to do just that. With a few statements Mr. Horowitz turned the program from a forum of remembrance to a political arena. Simply put: You were not about to allow even an obituary go unchecked from perceived leftist favoritism. I am unsure why you would bring mr. Horowitz on the program for such an occasion if you did not expect him to come out vehemently against the late Howard Zinn. An obituary is not an appropriate place for a personal attack, nor do I feel that you would allow such an attack to take place under other circumstances. Your coverage of William F. Buckley’s passing did not enjoy the same criticism, despite his status as a sort of right wing paragon. Did you think to invite someone from the left to debate Buckley’s worldview during your coverage? I do not believe what you did was right or fair under any circumstances. Howard Zinn deserves to be remembered for who he was, and in a respectful and non-disparaging way. There are many other venues to attack the historian’s views and scholarship, and obituary is not one of those places – as you have proven with coverage of other passing icons. I suggest that you reconsider your presentation and offer remittance for bringing Horowitz on the program and allowing him to make the remarks he did. Regardless of political ideology, Zinn was a remarkable person who strived to give voice to the voiceless and justice to those who had been treated as if they were not citizens of our own country. These actions everywhere else are celebrated. It is shameful that you would attack such qualities in the venue that you did.
The inclusion of that fascist scumbag David Horowitz in National Pentagon Radio’s “homage” to Howard Zinn is but one of the problems I have with the supposed integrity of NPR
for years i have talked with friends & coworkers about how RIGHT wing and reactionary NPR has become. now, perhaps they won’t argue with me.
Unbelievable that NPR would allow a commentary by ultra conservative, some say nationalist, right wing commentator on the death of Howard Zinn.
Since when does NPR allow a rebuttal on obituaries? This is BAD journalism.
Has NPR EVER allowed a diatribe against the dead, other than this one? Certainly not in the case of ultra conservative William F. Buckley.
My radio will no longer automatically be tuned to “All Things” any longer.
My message left on NPR’s website (and thank you, FAIR, for the link) [see a typo just now; so be it.]
Normal, centrist people like myself look to NPR to provide dependably reasonable programming. I remember a time, now sadly past, when NPR did so. Clearly your priorities have shifted appallingly as evidenced by Allison Keyes’ invitation on Jan. 28th to David Horowitz to denigrate Howard Zinn. Clearly doing so destroyed NPR’s credibility as providers of a balanced perspective. Just want the U.S. needs: encouragement of right-wingers to lead us into ever more shame. I am sad for the original creators of NPR and sad for the American public.
I am really astonished and disappointed that you included comments by David Horowitz, a man of no standing, in your obituary of Howard Zinn. Howard Zinn was not only a brilliant historian, but a brave man dedicated to peace and justice. Not only his writings, but the deeds of his life bore that out. His Peoples History of the United States is an invaluable work, taught in many schools. I just gave my grandchildren his Young Peoples History of the United States, because I want them to learn there is always another story beyond the one they are taught in school and the common mythologies of society. To allow someone of discredited stature of David Horowitz, a man of no accomplishments beyond bitter and inaccurate attacks on others, to comment on Howard Zinn, was shocking and contained no substance beyond is dislike of this good man. I am deeply disappointed in NPR. Are you becoming the “fair and balanced” of public radio? You, who for years aired the commentary of Michael Harrington? If you wanted to air an “other side” of the widespread acclaim for Howard Zinn, you might at least have picked a reputable historian.
What contribution could a hack like David Horowitz make to an obituary of Professor Howard Zinn? As an ABD in history, I can very much say that Howard Zinn influences historians, social historians, more than David Horowitz. When other people like William F. Buckley passed away, NPR did not see fit to find a critic to comment.
….Howard Zinn’s death ended a long life of significant contribution to America’s realistic assessment of our actual history.
“All Things considered’s” inclusion of David Horowitz’s asinine, non-substantive ‘rebuttal’ of Zinn’s Life and work was inappropriate–to say the least.
I take note that NPR’s coverage of William F Buckley’s death didn’t strive for such ‘balance’..and very appropriately so.
NPR showed decency, decorum, and good taste while covering the death of Buckley….MUCH less so while covering the death of professor Zinn.
In the South, we don’t take kindly to ‘speaking ill of the dead’.
Or, to providing that type of forum to a political hack during a time of grief, mourning, and eulogy.
SHAME on NPR and SHAME on “All Things Considered”, a program I’m reconsidering whether or not is worthy of my time.
To: Alicia Shepard
Why did “All Things Considered” bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests? Since when do obituaries need to be balanced? Wm F. Buckley did some really evil things in his life, but no one pointed them out – nor should they have – upon his passing, unless those things were ALL he was known for. Why did NPR find it necessary to have David Horowitz speak ill of Howard Zinn? I think you need to apologize to the family, friends, and admirers of Howard Zinn. He was admired and revered by many.
Sincerely,
Arlene Pirolo
My response to NPR:
Date Created: 1/29/2010 7:13 PM EDT
Subject: Slandering Howard Zinn
Body: What a shameful thing for NPR to allow done to the memory of Howard Zinn. If one of your sponsors wanted his reputation sullied, couldn’t you have waited until his body was cold? Using the vitriol of David Horowitz, a racist reactionary, who is neither an historian nor sociologist nor psychologist, yet is allowed to damn Howard Zinn on NPR in those very areas, when Professor Zinn can no longer answer such charges, is one of the lowest points yet reached by NPR. Is there no one on staff with any taste, manners or human sympathy?
I wish all those responsible for this disgrace will have the news of their death delivered by someone who trashes them without recourse to truth or human kindness.
Why did NPR All Things Considered ask David Horowitz to comment on Howard Zinn’s death and make degrading opinionated remarks?
Please see the information below about Horowitz which is a true factual character assessment. Someone like Horowitz should not be asked to comment on a man who is a lifelong scholar and who bravely worked in the military as well as later put himself on the line to work and teach for democracy for all citizens of this country. I demand that NPR make a statement on Horowitz showing just what kind of person he is and then state and list all the facts and tributes to Howard Zinn.
Sincerely,
Sue Skidmore
Springfield, Missouri
Horowitz has openly admitted he committed treason against the United States. He confessed in an article written by him and published in his own online zine, FrontPage, on October 3, 2000. In the article, titled “The Wen Ho Lee Cover-Up”, Horowitz claimed that Wen Ho Lee was guilty of espionage, but the government decined to press charges because of the damage it would do to the inteligence services and William Clinton’s presidential legacy. As anecdotal evidence to back-up this claim, he describes his own premeditated actions that violated the U.S. Espionage code in 1972, for which was never prosecuted.
Ramparts, a magazine he was editor of, had acquired classified intelligence information from a former NSA operative and had published it, eventhough one of their own staffers, who had formerly served in Army Intelligence, had judged the information to be truthful, and refused to work on the story, and Horowitz knew this prior to the publication of the Ramparts story. Horowitz also sought the advice of a prominent Constitutional scholar before publishing it, who had explained to him the best methods of avoiding prosecution for this act of treason.
I have been greatly influenced by Howard Zinn’s writing. But I do not share the outrage of some, over your inclusion of harsh criticism in your obit. For well-known thinkers and politicians, the end of their life is a very sensible time to evaluate their life’s work! And I generally want to hear an obit to learn about a person, not to feel warmly about them. My criticism is that I don’t remember you similarly offering criticism of Reagan or Bill Buckley when they died. I appreciated your coverage of Buckley’s passing, and thought he was a swell guy who deserved a great deal of respect, until I watched some YouTube videos of his Firing Line show and remembered what he was really like. So, again: critically assess someone’s life, even before the body’s cold? Yes, I think that’s what news organizations should do. But please be consistent. Thanks.
David Horowitz ruthlessly and verbally attacked Dr Zinn on public radio a day following his death, when people were mourning. That is disgusting behaviour for a guest on ATC and your Ms Keyes should have called him on it. As a commenter wrote on this ATC story, “The question is: Does NPR deserve underwriting support from thinking and feeling people?” A very good question, especially since Vermont Public Radio and North Country Public Radio tell us continually that their listeners are sensitive and caring people – they donate generously to underwrite NPR programming! I am writing the management at those stations, demanding them to consider dropping your expensive programming.
Here is what I submitted to the NPR ombudsperson on the website:
Shame on NPR and on All Things Considered for being so disrespectful on the passing of Howard Zinn, bringing David Horowitz on to slander him. Even if you disagree with his politics, when a man of stature (or actually, anyone!) dies, it is customary and decent to honor their life and contributions. I have contributed to KQED and KALW in the past, but right now I don’t feel so inclined, as I am so disappointed and angry about this…
Subject: Howard Zinn Obituary and Rebuttal by Horowitz
Body: I never believed NPR would show such incredibly vicious bias. FAIR’s comparison with your fawning treatment of William F. Buckley, whose views were far more extreme than Zinn’s, is right on the mark. I think NPR should apologize profusely, both on “All Things Considered” and in advertisements taken out in every newspaper of record in the country.
When David Horowitz dies, can I give that rat-bastard’s eulogy on NPR? Call me.
I was disappointed that you chose David Horowitz to comment on the late Howard Zinn. His statement that “there is nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect” is a comment that lacks any sort of substance to back it up and contributed nothing to the understanding of Zinn’s life work. In comparison, when you reported on the late William F. Buckley you included no critical guests, which leads me to question why you needed to include Horowitz’s comments at all. In your process of “considering all things” perhaps you should strive for some less biased reporting.
(letter to All Things Considered)
Hi, I listened to Horowitz’s comments on Howard Zinn and I was dismayed. Howard Zinn has provided a much-needed, more accurate, view of U.S. history. I much admire him. And, I am 61. And, I think that my mind is much improved by Howard Zinn’s scholarship and good writing.
Please provide more competent historical commentary as opposed to political opinion.
Personal attacks have no place in an obituary. David Horowitz’s comments were out of line for the occasion, and the decision to include them reflects poorly on All Things Considered and NPR.
Regardless of what you may think of his politics, Howard Zinn deserves a respectful tribute. He was an educator who truly cared about his students and a WWII veteran.
I expect that All Things Considered will issue an apology to his family, and desist from using obituaries as soapboxes for extremist views.
I left a phone message for the NPR ombudsperson suggesting that Horowitz’ comment that nothing in HZ’s intellectual output is deserving of any sort of respect could better be applied to DH himself, that it was disgraceful that they put him on, and questioned why NPR apparently still feels afraid to be seen as treating someone of the left with respect, as if Karl Rove were still running the White house
I left a phone message for NPR’s ombudsperson suggesting that Horowitz’s comment that nothing in HZ’s intellectual output was deserving of any respect was one which could better be applied to DH himself, complained that NPR using him for this was disgraceful and questioned why NPR is apparently still afraid to be seen as treating someone from the left with respect, as if Karl Rove were still running the White House.
Here’s what I wrote to the NPR Ombudsman on the webform:
I have been an NPR listener, and almost always a local station member, since 1974, but I was deeply disappointed yesterday afternoon to hear the coverage on All Things Considered of the legacy of the historian Howard Zinn, who passed away this week.
I have heard Professor Zinn speak many times, and was particularly moved a few years ago by a broadcast of “Voices of a People’s History of the United States” – a presentation of readings by well-respected actors of writings or teachings of historical figures, from the Zinn’s companion book to “A People’s History”.
That is what makes a great historian — the willingness to search for the less told stories, so that we get a deeper insight to history. Otherwise, the easy “history” that is passed forward is the one that is written by those in power — the “winners”.
There was a time that public broadcasting could be trusted to bring the same quality to journalism that we need in our historians – the willingness to look deeper and give us greater insight.
But the story on Howard Zinn, “Historian Howard Zinn Remembered” would have been more accurately titled, “Historian Howard Zinn Denegrated” because NPR brought in an extremist conservative pundit, David Horowitz, to make unusually rude remarks about Zinn, particularly in a segment that should have been honoring the professor. Mind you, Horowitz didn’t even present a logical reason for his position of complete disdain for the Professor, who was not merely an intellectual, but was a long time civil rights and peace activist, courageous and caring. Horowitz did not provide a logical retort to the information Zinn has highlighted and/or taught. It was a cowardly slur, not logical criticism — just mean-spirited grumbling from a petty hack.
Your “Comments” section provides the opportunity to “Report Abuse”. Well, I’m reporting it. NPR, once a noble public radio broadcaster, has shown that it has become a dark, fearful character, willing to sell out to the bullies, to throw one of the Best under the wheels, undoubtedly in the name of “balanced” reporting.
Shame on you. There is no need to balance the truth.
Is NPR still intimidated by Kenneth Tomlinson, or whoever else has taken that role?
Your audience, and Howard Zinn, deserve an apology. And NPR deserves some quiet time with “The Voices of A People’s History of the United States”. You can find it at Democracy Now. Maybe then it will remember what kind journalism it was created to provide.
A letter to the Ombudsman at NPR: dated January 29, 2010
My grief at Howard Zinn’s death was deeply intensified by NPR’s choice of David Horowitz as a commentator at the time of Howard’s death. I knew, studied with and marched side-by-side with Howard Zinn for over a decade and knew I was in the presence of a man deeply committed to the raising up of the underprivileged, to civil rights, to the end of an unjust and illegal war in Viet Nam and countless other lessons history has taught us. His book “A People’s History of the United States” was so well-written and easily grasped that many previously alienated by texts filled with untruths about the US in pompous language suddenly took an interest in matters that were of utmost concern to them. Howard Zinn empowered hundreds of thousands of Americans of student-age and older to take responsibility and to learn what would help them come to a more honest understanding of some of the errors of their country’s leaders and robber barons alike and to demand and become more involved in the beauty and majesty of the democratic process.
NPR, when William Buckley passed away, I sat and listened respectfully to what your commentators had to say; although I did not in any way agree with Mr. Buckley or his politics, I heard decent and honest commentary. I do not imagine any of Buckley’s family was hurt or wounded by any of your commentators’ remarks.
In glaring contrast, in David Horowitz’s comments about Mr. Zinn, I heard nothing but deeply mistaken notions, and felt rising anger that such comments were allowed in an obituary, which could have no effect but to hurt and upset his family, as well as the millions and millions of people the world over who respect this man whose flame will never die out.
I sincerely request that NPR consider its own actions by creating another piece on All Things Considered taking into account the upset and strong disagreement demonstrated by many, many folks that I know is occurring even at this moment. An apology at the very least is my demand. I have been an NPR listener since its inception and have gone through ups and downs with many things I’ve heard. If nothing is done to righ this horrible wrong, I believe something will simply go click in my head: the sound of NPR being shut off for the last time in my home or in my car. Shame on you.
A letter to the Ombudsman at NPR: dated January 29, 2010
My grief at Howard Zinn’s death was deeply intensified by NPR’s choice of David Horowitz as a commentator at the time of Howard’s death. I knew, studied with and marched side-by-side with Howard Zinn for over a decade and knew I was in the presence of a man deeply committed to the raising up of the underprivileged, to civil rights, to the end of an unjust and illegal war in Viet Nam and countless other lessons history has taught us. His book “A People’s History of the United States” was so well-written and easily grasped that many previously alienated by texts filled with untruths about the US in pompous language suddenly took an interest in matters that were of utmost concern to them. Howard Zinn empowered hundreds of thousands of Americans of student-age and older to take responsibility and to learn what would help them come to a more honest understanding of some of the errors of their country’s leaders and robber barons alike and to demand and become more involved in the beauty and majesty of the democratic process.
NPR, when William Buckley passed away, I sat and listened respectfully to what your commentators had to say; although I did not in any way agree with Mr. Buckley or his politics, I heard decent and honest commentary. I do not imagine any of Buckley’s family was hurt or wounded by any of your commentators’ remarks.
In glaring contrast, in David Horowitz’s comments about Mr. Zinn, I heard nothing but deeply mistaken notions, and felt rising anger that such comments were allowed in an obituary, which could have no effect but to hurt and upset his family, as well as the millions and millions of people the world over who respect this man whose flame will never die out.
I sincerely request that NPR consider its own actions by creating another piece on All Things Considered taking into account the upset and strong disagreement demonstrated by many, many folks that I know is occurring even at this moment. An apology at the very least is my demand. I have been an NPR listener since its inception and have gone through ups and downs with many things I’ve heard. If nothing is done to right this horrible wrong, I believe something will simply go click in my head: the sound of NPR being shut off for the last time in my home or in my car. Shame on you.
I wrote the following to NPR:
I am writing to complain about NPR’s decision on ‘All Things Considered’ of 27 January to feature an attack on Howard Zinn, who had died that day, by David Horowitz. Horowitz stated that “Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time.”
Is it the usual policy of NPR to feature attacks on the recently deceased? When conservative writer William F Buckley died, no NPR program featured a comparable attack on Buckley from the left. Is it only left-wing thinkers who are deemed suitable to be attacked on the day of their death?
As an educator, I also feel that featuring Horowitz in any capacity is a dubious decision. He is a leading opponent of academic freedom, who targets academics as ‘dangerous’ if they hold left-wing views, tours campuses giving misleading and Islamophobic views of Islam, and smears Muslim students’ organizations as beign potential terrorists. This is not somebody who should be treated seriously in the discussion of the legacy of a noted academic like Zinn, and should certainly not be invited to make attacks on somebody on the day of their death.
The obituary on ATC following the death of Howard Zinn was appalling. David Horowitz’s statement was offensive and did not belong in this program: “There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect,” Horowitz declared. “Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse.”
As one of the “fringe” who has been influenced by Mr. Zinn since the early 1970’s I found these comments very offensive. I’m grateful that I was able to learn about the labor movements, Native American history, and everything else I never learned during my formal education. I was not seduced, but chose this way of life, and resent these comments. Howard Zinn has inspired me to spend my life working for social justice and it’s unfortunate that NPR helped to undermine this man’s gift to our world.
I apologize for the intolerent language, but ATC’s treatment of Howard Zinn really pissed me off. Here’s what I wrote to the NPR Ombudslady:
I have just about had it with NPR’s disgusting and totally inconsistent handling of the news.
When William F. Buckley passed away, everything broadcast that day by NPR praised the man and his thinking.
Howard Zinn dies, and you morons have the effrontery to have David Horowitz on? To what end? To use the airwaves to piss on the grave of a man whose shoes Horowitz is not fit to shine, let alone to walk in for a mile?
We have commercial radio for bastards like Horowitz to excoriate the world with their bile. Donations to NPR member stations are to insure that there exists an island of reason in broadcast media.
Just because there are multiple sides to a story doesn’t mean that each side has equal intellectual and moral currency. Unless you idiots figure this out, the last contribution that I made to an NPR member station will be the last contribution I ever make.
Get your heads out of your collective ass!
Shame on ATC for stooping so low you would give far-right activist David Horowitz time to blast Howard Zinn and everything he stood for. I’m sure whoever approved this will try to somehow rationalize this disrespect in the name of “balance.” After all, you gave time to Noam Chomsky who you and the mainstream media usually keep off the air. Therefore you had to balance with Horowitz. Such reasoning for guest selection is biased, unfair and totally inappropriate especially under these circumstances. This is not purely a political event where you supposedly “balance” left and right. The bottom line is you’ve gone way over the decency line by failing to respond with sufficient respect to the death of a great American historian, activist and human being.
My message to Ombudsman:
———————————————-
On Jan 28th ATC coverage of Howard Zinn’s death was capped by insults from right-winger Horowitz, in stark contrast to the lovey-dovey eulogies inundating the coverage of Bill Buckley’s death on all of the NPR programs. Buckley’s history of support for McCarthyism, white supremacy, tatooing AIDs patients, etc. etc. certainly warranted critical comments. However NPR always has a different “standard” of “balance” covering the darlings on the right and known liberal thinkers.
This constant masquerading as a supposed left leaning outlet (baselessly proclaimed by the right over and over until uninformed moderates cite the fiction as fact), makes NPR a better tool for the lunatic fringe than Fox news could ever hope to be.
It’s stories like this that constantly validate my decision to never again send monetary support to NPR stations. Keep up the bad work, I can use the extra cash.
Sincerely (disgusted),
It sounds like NPR got the message. Hopefully we will see a bit better taste in remembering intellectual icons in the future.
Horowitz can die in a fire. The blatant idiocy of his groundless attacks on academics, irrational race politics and the rest of his paranoid demagogy are only highlighted by his inability to write or research anything will stand up to critical review.
It is ironically fitting that his criticism of Zinn applies much better to himself than to Howard.
Subject: Howard Zinn Deserves More Respect!
Body: Dear Alicia Shepard,
Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley after his death included no critical guests?
Date Created: 1/29/2010
Subject: Vicious Unfair Attack of American Iconic Historian Howard Zinn
Body: How dare you allow right-wing attacks against an icon of progressive truth in American history. There was no criticism of W.F. Buckley, when there was plenty to have done so. After all, it was the neo-con movement that brought the world economy to near disaster and has ruined America’s middle class! NPR needs to stop trying to emulate the fascist tirades of FOX with right-wing mouthpieces like David Horowitz. An official apology and retraction must be given immediately!
I find it disgusting that David Horowitz was allowed to use your, rather our airwaves to bash Howard Zinn when the man has only passed away two days ago. Is a man’s death the time to debate his beliefs? I think not. Also, there was nothing constructive about it, so I shouldn’t even call it debate. Has NPR taken a page from Fox News?
(letter I sent to NPR Ombud)
Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests?
This is profoundly disturbing that a “rebuttal” of sorts was considered necessary, let alone considered at all, when reporting on the death of a renowned and valued scholar and activist. Is that it? The label of â┚¬Ã…“activistâ┚¬Ã‚ anywhere with in the boundaries of a title demotes one to punching bag? Or was it something else?
Dismayed,
Karyn
As an avid listener and supporter of NPR (Minnesota Public Radio) and a historian, I am absolutely dismayed that you would bring David Horowitz on to denigrate the life and work of Howard Zinn. The fact that Horowitz is an anti-intellectual polemicist who shouldn’t be relied on for any reasoned discussion aside, Zinn deserved better. I am quite disappointed that NPR can’t remember the life of a great American (leftist) thinker without bringing in a right wing hack to, excuse the metaphor, piss on his grave. It is only compounded by the fact that William F. Buckley received no such denigration.
What the heck is going on that you don’t hardly give any story on Howards life, but you give David “Horrorwitz” time to say Howard “never did anything worthwhile”….After he died….it’s beyond bizarre.
If David Horowitz was right and Howard Zinn never did anything..then why even report on Zinn’s death? Obviously Howard DID do something and that’s what you should be reporting on. Not giving airtime to random pundits and calling it journalism. Perhaps it’s cheaper to go out and get a soundbite from andom pundits, rather than research on his life, but for goodness sakes, your supposed to be journalists, not just a conduit for opinions. Would it really kill you to to a little research once in awhile?
Look, I’ve been an NPR supporter, but don’t fall for this conservative baloney. Your jobs are to research and tell the truth. Not provide pundits with airtime.
I’m writing to object, as in so many other reports that I’ve stopped counting, to NPR’s proclivity to tell two sides to everything, even when the “other side” is mendacious, misleading, or morally unequivalent. I’m referring to the needlessly “balanced” obituary for Howard Zinn, which included the snide David Horowitz’s dismissal of Zinn’s lifework. This relentless deference of NPR to corrosive right-wing ideology does nothing to elevate public intelligence or discourse, but in fact lowers it to the level of facile calumny that comes so easily to right-wing ideologues who thrive by spreading fear, suspicion, and greed. Why anyone would expect me to donate to NPR to spread this degenerative claptrap is a mystery. I now listen to NPR news just to hear what the official cover stories and propaganda points are; NPR has gradually become part of the symptomatology of self-corrupting mainstream media, rather than an alternative to it. Zinns’s mutilated obituary is a depressing example.
Shame on you, NPR. It’s voices like Howard Zinn’s that keep support for NPR alive. In allowing his memory to be trashed when he’s not around to defend it you do dishonor to yourself. Would you trash David Horowitz upon HIS death? Maybe. Would Howard Zinn? Absolutely not.
Mr. Horowitz has a difficult pedigree. I feel for him. But for him to trash Howard Zinn is comic and embarrassing. Like farting. Just gas…. no substance. Get over it, ole David. At least you could put some underpinnings under your straw critique.
Was it simply a polical motive to allow David Horowitz, a noted ‘Right wing-nut,’ to trash Zinn during NPR’s obit on him? It certainly could not have been to provide more ‘in depth’ coverage. Horowitz provided merely a snarky comment, one that says rather more about himself than Zinn. In fact, see the change with the brackets, and it fits like a T: “There is absolutely nothing in [David Horowitz’s] intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect.” If you see even a hint of truth here, why would you grant time to, essentially, a political operative? That says a lot about the so-called liberally minded NPR.
My Letter to NPR,
Dear Alicia Shepard,
Why All Things Considered brought on David Horowitz, a scum of this earth, a low, worthless evil person to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley, for example, included no critical guests?
One hundred years from now a great historian will praise the works of Howard Zinn and his contribution to the body of historical writing. David Horowitz will be long forgotten by then.
Why was Horowitz allowed to besmirch the obituary for the late historian Howard Zinn? Horowitz is not a scholar and thus cannot judge the quality of Zinn’s scholarship. Zinn had a definite point of view, but he never intentionally distorted facts–can we say the same of Horowitz?
I have an idea. Alicia Shepard, when you have your next staff meeting, why don’t you arrange to show “You Can’t be Neutral on a Moving Train”? I am certain that given what I am reading here from NPR listeners, you simply must take the opportunity to educate yourself and your staff as to who Howard Zinn was, what his contributions were, and just why NPR’s colossal error of having David Horowitz give those remarks was such an egregious act.
I mean absolutely no unkindness. Howard himself would never respond with anything other than lovingkindness, even to these hateful remarks. Why don’t you just truly do the nonviolent thing, and educate yourselves? You know you are being called to take some action, so why not familiarize yourself with the man, his ideas and his life? Thank you for your consideration.
Personally I feel it was good that the very tasteless David Horowitz was given air time. It remains important to hear all sides and I am sad to report that I know 2 very intelligent and well educated people in New Mexico who also hold Mr. Horowitz’ views.
it is indeed sad that there will always be those who can find nothing constructive to say even of the dead.
To you posters on this blog:
From a brother Canuck, Thank you for your outrage. I was saddened to hear of Prof. Zinn’s death…such a great humanitarian; and such a great historian of, if I may be so bold, the “American tragedy”. How do things get changed if people don’t have the courage to examine the darker side. I’m always reluctant to say things re US history and internal and foreign policy, lest I be considered a self-righteous Canuck. (Actually, we are enduring a deciple of the American right — I hate these terms, but I guess they have some use — in our country now — a coudition I fully recognize and deplore.)
I confess to have not seen Horowitz, but I know enough of him and his ilk to know I would just be superbly angered to see this — so I’ll avoid it. Thankfully, I listened to our own CBC Radio pay tribute to Zinn; and I listened to Amy Goodman discuss Zinn with Alice Walker, Naomi Klein and the great Chomsky yesterday on Democracy now.
It is so unfortunate that the Right — and here I make no apology for use of the term — have so poisoned the intellectual climate that Horowitz is considered ‘balance’. So unfortunate. In Canada, as I alluded above, the right is attacking our CBC. I only hope that it can survive this sorry cultural climate we are in.
I’ve enjoyed NPR from time to time. I am sorry for this invasion of, I’ll call it ‘pornography’ and its perverse attendant ‘balance’. But it does my heart good to know that there are Americans there who are outraged. Lets all be outraged, and remember what Howard Zinn stood for. Thank you. There is hope.
Robert
I hope NPR fires the person responsible for including David Horowitz’s nasty commentary about Howard Zinn. I am so disgusted by this, I’m not donating to my local NPR station KCRW this year (which just started their fund drive) and I’m going to let KCRW know exactly why. I’m sure I’m not the only one turned off by this.
This is the email I sent to NPR’s “All Things Considered” today.
Hello!
I am delighted to see that “All Things Considered” has evidently changed it’s format regarding obituaries! I am, of course, referring to the decision to include the invective of rightwing radio ranter David Horowitz about the beloved progressive intellectual historian Howard Zinn in your obituary that aired Jan. 27th.
To aid you in the future when a beloved conservative “intellectual” kicks the bucket (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc.), I have compiled a long list of prominent lefties who might be willing to say something as rude and hateful as David Horowitz. (I can’t promise they will be able to provide commentary as content-free as Mr. Horowitz however!)
Please let me know the name of the person at “All Things Considered” (presumably the rocket scientist responsible for the decision to include David Horowitz’s comments in the Howard Zinn obit) to whom I should direct this list.
Sincerely,
Karen Hallberg
You had a man dump on a dead man? Jeezuz, what is wrong with you?
I’m glad I didn’t hear your broadcast, but FAIR quoted Horowitz.
What’s worse, is that you are countenancing bad behavior, un-civil comments. Certainly you may criticize Zinn, but with those kinds of words? When the man has just died.
Are you going to let people spew when Greenspan dies? Kissinger? Bush?
I hope not. And you sure shouldn’t have permitted that dump on Zinn.
my note to NPR :
i have always found N.P.R. to be embrassingly fatuous, sterile & overwhelmingly shallow, especially when
compared with much more ambitious newsshows with actually enviable reporting …
but now this pathetic, trite & simply irresponsible ‘obituary’ effectively slamming the memory of Howard Zinn is just absolutely inexcusable …
your giving, nay FEATURING, the reactionary, hostile, & unapologetic zionist, David Horowitz, the last two
comments ( & thus the last word ) was flagrant, calluous & despicably subservient to your NOW very obvious ‘higher interests’ …
GO FUCK YOURSELVES !
i will NEVER turn your crap on AGAIN !
The NY Times did it too, quoting JFK administration official and “respectable” historian Arthur Schlesinger, who called Zinn a “polemicist.”
This sort of thing is really to be expected, though. Zinn would have seen it coming, chuckled at it, and commented on the way that servants of the rich and powerful inevitably heap scorn and derision upon those who dissent. Anyone with the “willingness to be on the front line all the time,” as Chomsky said of Zinn yesterday, will always be subject to this sort of attacks. It’s often a sign that you’re doing something right.
Wow, it’s great to see that NPR will be bombarded with comments about Horowitz tirade about Zinn. Here’s my email to NPR’s omsbud:
I really don’t understand why you would choose to follow Howard Zinn’s obituary yesterday with a substance-free “rebuttal” from David Horowitz, who said “There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect. Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse.” It was nothing but an uncalled-for kneecap and I find it glaring when contrasted with your treatment of William Buckley after his death. Glowing remembrances, sure, and to be expected after someone’s death, but I didn’t hear Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky asked on to say “He’s a crank!” (Not that they would have done so, and any differences in opinion would be backed up with a multitude of examples.) I always laugh when people say NPR is liberal, because mostly you are straightforward facts, but when you do err–and in this case of following an obituary with a factless slam from a partisan conservative–you come down on the side of appeasing the right-wing. Color me disappointed.
As a long time NPR listener, I have to ask- Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of the death of William F. Buckley included no critical guests? After quoting Noam Chomsky and Julian Bond, NPR’s Allison Keyes turned to far-right activist David Horowitz to symbolically spit on Zinn’s grave.
Needless to say, it is not the case that NPR has a consistent principle that all its obituaries be thus “balanced.” In its coverage of the death of William F. Buckley, a figure as admired by the right as Zinn was by the left- Upon Buckley’s death in February 2008, NPR aired SIX segments commemorating him, none of which included a non-admiring guest.
I am appalled that Allison Keyes and her producers would allow someone as right-wing, fact-deficient and thoughtless as David Horowitz to comment on Howard Zinn–a man he so obviously hated–immediately after Mr. Zinn’s death.
Neither Ms. Keyes, by her interview with Horowitz, nor Horowitz exhibited any respect. Free speech is one thing, but a decent interval would have shown a modicum of respect for a good man. Unfortunately, as we heard, Horowitz has no respect which reflects on Ms. Keyes and NPR.
Right-wing pundits are becoming all too frequent on NPR. And though I welcome opposing views on political subjects, an interview with Hororwitz on this occasion was uncalled for and insensitive.
It is disturbing to me that Allyson Keyes would turn to far right wing activist David Horowitz to comment on the death of noted historian Howard Zinn. Why would NPR bring in radical right-winger Horowitz to trash the significant and noteworthy contributions of Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley’s death included no critical guests? This is telling as to where NPR’s true loyalties lie.
I want to add my voice to the chorus of disgust at your use of a clip from David Horowitz trashing of the distinguished historian and progressive Howard Zinn in the coverage of his death yesterday.
As others have noted, this is not your usual practice when reporting on the death of prominent figures on the right. But what is even more troubling is that Horowitz is not in any way qualified to comment on Zinn’s achievements. If you wanted to present a “balanced” picture instead of a eulogy, there are plenty of qualified historians of Zinn’s stature to call on, instead of turning to a mendacious and unprincipled ideologue like David Horowitz.
It’s very disappointing for this long-time listener and supporter of NPR to see you stoop to such practices.
Shame!
Deborah Lyons
I was shocked and saddened to hear Howard Zinn defamed by David Horowitz
during the obituary segment aired on your program. It was something
unworthy of your program and is evidence of a serious erosion of your
program’s professionalism and impartiality. It is one thing to air
negative comments about someone when they’re alive and able to respond to
the commentary, but quite another thing to do so in an obituary.
I don’t care if you liked Howard Zinn or not, it is ungracious and
impolite to defame the man in his obituary. You need to apologize to your
listeners, to the nation, and to Mr Zinn’s family.
It is one thing for some fear-for-profit gang, like FOX News, to grovel in
this kind of gutter journalism. It is quite another for NPR to jaundice
its coverage in this manner. I am extremely disappointed in NPR.
In a shameful outburst of hate. NPR let its political subservience to elite power ring loud and clear by employing Neo-McCarthyite and enemy of academic freedom David Horowitz to denounce the Historian and Public Intellectual Howard Zinn. NPR, which is in the business of championing US wars of aggression and terror and a state-corporate economic system that impoverishes millions to heap obscene wealth and power on the few, cannot tolerate a historian who has the audacity to denounce the crimes of the elites as well as take the meaning of democracy seriously. NPR understands its place well as a disgusting handmaiden to power. Zinn is a prophet, NPR a prostitute. NPR is a disgraceful institution and for everyone who works there daily toiling to advance the sadistic, cruel ideological agenda of the powerful, SHAME.
NPR’s transformation into an outlet for the right-wing corporate agenda is complete. It was unavoidably obvious during the marketing of Barack Obama in the 2008 election.
Should anyone doubt the transformation, they should compare NPR’s remembrance of William F. Buckley versus that of Howard Zinn. It is reprehensible that you gave the hateful last word to David Horowitz.
If NPR ever decides to return to balanced reporting, it will take years to recover the reputation you have lost.
To NPR:
I’m have been a big supporter of NPR for years. On Thursday I missed your scant coverage on the death of historian Howard Zinn. The story you did run however was worse than nothing. You felt compelled to “balance” your obit with David Horowitz who said Zinn’s work was worthless and that he represented a “fringe mentality.”
Not so. It’s Horowitz who is on the fringe, not Zinn whose People’s History has sold over a million copies and who influenced tens of thousands if not more. He was a decent man, and your reporter tried to sulley his reputation with a name-caller like Horowitz.
You haven’t “balanced” obits in the past. Is this a new trend that when someone dies you find his or her most extreme opponent to comment, or do you only give that treatment to people on the left?
Are you that scared of the right wing?
Why have David Horowitz on speaking ill of the dead? A discredited right wing crank who can’t hate himself enough for his own left wing flirtations, David has to come on and bash Howard Zinn on the event of his passing? Horowitz said nothing of substance to add to anyone’s understanding of Howard Zinn. Howard Zinn was a brave intellectual who spoke truth to power during the Vietnam War when it was not in his own professional and academic interest to do so. His Peoples’ History, though not entirely without its faults as a historical work, has contributed to the consciousness raising of generations of students, regardless of political affiliation or lack thereof. A Peoples’ History offers unflinching accounts of history that expose the reader to not just a right or left wing point of view. He shows us that history is complex, and urges us to question what we have been presented by our teachers, politicians, and media as unassailable fact. Horowitz is a simplistic, intellectual lightweight obsessed with taxes and other right wing agitprop. He has no credibility to comment on Howard Zinn or any other intellectual of substance. This is another example of the faux-balance it appears NPR strives to give lip service to. I don’t want “both sides”. I want “all sides” or as many as possible. Extremists like Horowitz add nothing to the conversation.
Comment on Jan 29, 2010 to NPR Ombudsman Regarding All Things Considered & David Horowitz on Howard Zinn. Why choose Mr Horowitz to observe the death of Mr Zinn, without more serious weight and air time given to the historical balance and social context to which Mr Zinn unsparingly gave his intellectual energy? Could it be you feared to anger academic traditionalists and political sponsors who must have been cheered when you gave unstintingly of your air time to speakers praising Mr Buckley’s opinions on his demise? Mr Zinn gave voice to the uncomfortable lives of ordinary people caught in the rip tides created by policies written for the convenience of power.
Here was my comment:
I am extremely disappointed in the way in which NPR disrespected a man who spent his life trying to bring the real history of our nation to light and who meant so much to so many.
When you allowed David Horowitz to spew his vile words during your segment on the death of Howard Zinn, you sunk to the level of Fox News. Shame on NPR, I expect better from you. When running a segment on the death of any man so well respected by so many, it’s tasteless and disgusting to allow someone who clearly hated the man to sully him baselesslly.
And interesting that you didn’t present the same type of “fair and balanced” coverage of William F. Buckley’s death. Where was someone from the left to dish out hateful words deriding Buckley for his racist past?
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised the quality, maturity and decency of NPR continues to deteriorate now that you are taking huge coroprate contributions.
Sad…truly sad.
I’m remain stunned that the poisonous, indefensible, and unsubstantiated comments by David Horowitz were included in the ATC obituary for Howard Zinn. Knowing the record of David Horowitz it’s not surprising that he feels that way. But I worry deeply about the judgment of the NPR staff members who sought the opinion of such a right-wing crank.
Has any explanation or apology been offered to NPR listeners? Absent any explanation must we accommodate ourselves to the prospect of more venomous, tasteless garbage coming from public radio?
I support the principles of public media. But if NPR can’t immediately extricate itself from the grip of anti-intellectual reactionaries then it’s time to end my decades of financial contributions.
Please explain how David Horowitz was chosen to pass judgment on a brilliant, kind teacher.
In the words of Joe Welch to Senator McCarthy in 1954, and now to NPR: “Have you no sense of decency, sir [or madam], at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
James Martin
I won’t be listening to NPR anymore, you may be certain. Most people hold what are when examined fairly, views closer to Zinn than Horowitz. Some of us may have been conservatives, but all of us have been mugged by the Reagan “revolution” and its contempt for anything but the most extreme and childish forms of selfishness that Horowitz advances. As a result, we listen to NPR while driving to jobs that are ever more structured by the selfishness and lack of solidarity it takes to spit on a grave. One might as well listen to hate radio. There’s really no difference.
Letter to the Ombuds:
The NPR segment devoted to Howard Zinn’s life and legacy was–to my recollection–an unprecedented travesty. What on earth possessed your program directors to invite David Horowitz, who can be considered little more than a partisan hack, and who demonstrated his utter uselessness on the occasion by issuing unjustifiable ad hominem attacks on the recently deceased, widely honored scholar?
As FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, which you might do well to consult from time to time) has noted very eloquently, this treatment was vastly different from the treatment accorded to William F. Buckley, Jr. on the occasion of his passing, which was honored with unmitigated (and unbalanced) gushing on NPR on no fewer than 5 separate features.
My question is a simple one: why was there no critical voice for Buckley? And for godsakes, if you wanted a critical perspective on Zinn, why would you pick someone who is inflammatory, insensitive, unthoughtful, and widely dismissed as a serious commentator? Both situations could have been remedied quite easily.
Let me just add one more thing, of perhaps the greatest importance, to my mind: this is NOT a simple-minded matter of being “balanced” in some arbitrary, thoughtless way (i.e., “let’s have one from the left and one from the right”). While I am certainly aware of the misperception that NPR skews to the left of the political spectrum, you and I both know better.
And the real point is this: you have a greater responsibility to fairly represent the (sane) voices of those on the margins than those who fit comfortably in the mainstream media. Those people have ample airtime everywhere, every day. What NPR needs to do, what its mission should be to provide, is access to the perspectives of the best and brightest, including those who will never be heard on the MSM. This is why your treatment of Zinn truly was a travesty, without overstating the case whatsoever. His life was an exercise in precisely such a commitment–an ethical commitment to the truth–and you did far more than misrepresent it. You trampled it, desecrated it, and did the worst possible disservice to your listeners.
For that day, I deeply regretted my recent decision to increase my annual gift to NPR. It won’t happen again.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.
Respectfully,
Christopher Nagle, Ph.D.
Kalamazoo, MI
Letter to NPR Ombudsman
Dear Ms. Shepard,
After listening to Horowitz defame and dishonestly discredit Zinn, I demand that you explain and defend the position of ATC program producers as well as that of NPR.
Horowitz’ comments were dishonest and unsupported = in short you aired a person’s personal contempt of Zinn. His opinions were basically spewing dogma without support and without even the possibility of Zinn or a supporter of Zinn’s historical perspective to rebut. Classy!
Now if you are going to stand on the fair-balanced position, then you must also address to me NPR’s coverage of William F. Buckley’s life and legacy which, throughout a total six hours of coverage, did not have any (certainly anything close to the proportional equivalent of Horowitz’ air-time on Zinn) negative comments or fact-based position. Buckley was, just to name a few among many examples, a white supremacist, an advocate for nuclear war, and an active supporter of Joe McCarthy. Yet after 6 hours of coverage, NPR had no (or so minimal as to be negligible) statements highlighting Buckley’s egregious positions and providing fact-based perspective and historical critique of same.
So, when will I hear from you regarding the handling by NPR and ATC of Zinn’s legacy?
Dear Ms Shepard:
I was completely taken aback and disappointed as I listened to the All Things Considered piece on the late Dr. Howard Zinn on January 28.
The decision to include personal insults by David Horowitz, completely lacking of any newsworthy substance, is inexcusible. These insults are not only disrespectful of the late Dr. Zinn, but also disrespectful to your listeners.
Can you please explain to me why NPR would engage in this type of trashy journnalism?
Hmm. Leave it to Bill Moyers to get it right. We must treasure every minute he remains in public broadcasting. Watch “Bill Moyers Journal” for Friday 1/29 (available as a podcast, or on the website).
While I agree that being truly “fair and balanced” is in the best interests of NPR’s audience, I don’t believe that including a comment from the Right on Howard Zinn’s death (which included no real substantive information or factual analysis) was appropriate. When icons of the Right (including Ronald Reagan and William Buckley) were being remembered, no such “balance” was included, and their passing was covered in more depth and with the inclusion of more of their specific statements and positions.
I urge you to resist pressures from the Right (which constantly threaten your funding) and to remain independent, critical, substantive and well-balanced in your reporting, and your commentaries; all statements, however, should be intelligent and informational, not rhetorical and argumentative.
To: the NPR ombudsperson:
Subject: Howard Zinn’s Obituary
Too bad. His is an unusual but not a fringe version of our history. Millions know more about the under-reported people of United States history because of Howard Zinn.
Ms Shepard,
I was shocked to hear David Horowitz slander the memory of Howard Zinn the day after his death.
Horowitz declared that there was nothing in Zinn’s body of work worth of intellectual respect. This particularly hurtful coming when the millions of people around the world who Zinn affected so deeply during his lifetime of selfless work.
The show is welcome to express contrary opinions, but such callous action immediately after Zinn’s death is beyond the pale.
It is ironic that in committing this perverse act, “All things considered” has demonstrated the relevance this quote from the end of Zinn’s autobiography:
“To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness.”
Following is the letter I submitted to the NPR Ombudsman:
I am disgusted with NPR for recruiting David Horowitz to comment upon the passing of Howard Zinn. Horowitz is notorious as one of this country’s most flaming right wing zealots and his trashing of Mr. Zinn was not just in poor taste, but revealed a thinly disguised tilt to the right at NPR that has been steadily increasing for two decades. This outrage takes the cake, however, and whoever in the NPR hierarchy ordered the sabotage should be seriously reprimanded if not fired! Mr. Zinn had more understanding of American history and more decency and class in his little finger than David Horowitz has access to in his wildest imagination. NPR should be deeply ashamed. A sincere on air apology is in order!
I didn’t write, but I left a phone message. It seems NPR is no longer ALL things Considered but SOME things considered – this isn’t the first time I’ve felt this way. Thanks FAIR for alerting me on this one! (I missed this particular airing but still called in.)
Shame on NPR for allowing a right wing nut like David Horowitz to denigrate Howard Zinn in your remembrance of Zinn the day after his death. Zinn was a lovely human being who had the novel idea of looking at history from the viewpoint of those considered history’s losers–the poor, the oppressed, the disenfranchised. Horowitz’s attack on Zinn was both unfounded and void of substance. You did not interview a hard left radical to denigrate William Buckley when he died. Your cowardice in buckling to right wing criticism and trying to show balance by airing Horowitz’s ad hominem attack is disheartening.
Subject: Since when is a remembrance of a historian the right forum for polemics?
I admit that Howard Zinn’s histories were controversial when he started writing them, before it became common to remind the hoi polloi that history is written by the winners, and by the educated classes. He dared to admit that history is also generally written for the edification of, approval by, and purchase by, the upper and middle classes. He intentionally wrote his with a different focus–one that reflected “history as experienced by the non-elite.” He never claimed that this was the only correct view of history, though he certainly make a good case that it reflected the truth as experienced by the majority of people.
Bringing in a right-winger to castigate him and his popularity upon the occasion of his death is in questionable taste. Actually, I’d call it bad taste, especially given NPR’s usual tactful handling of the recently deceased. I’m not saying it’s wrong to mention that some people deprecated his work, just as you might have mentioned that some people didn’t appreciate, say, Picasso or Pollock paintings. Today, for example, oblique mention was made of a fictional character who had to read “the catcher in the rye” every year of school, and was displeased. But you did not bring in a literary critic who hated Salinger to trash his place in literary history. Nor, in general, do your “in memoriam” pieces for other writers, historians, artists, or even pundits include a trashing to ensure “balance.” Rather, when someone dies, you normally provide a space of time where we can contemplate the passing, and mourn.
I have no idea who decided that Howard Zinn’s ideas or memory were so explosively dangerous that they had to be challenged at the very moment of his death, lest we simply appreciate the man. Perhaps it was intended as a back-handed tribute to Zinn’s work that it could get Mr. Horowitz so riled up? But frankly, that’s not such a hard thing to do. Perhaps you will give us a more in-depth examination of Mr. Zinn’s work in the weeks to come, to make up for the bad taste of this mocking dismissal. I certainly hope so.
To the NPR Ombudsman: I am outraged to hear of your posthumous treatment of Howard Zinn in having David Horowitz on to trash the value of Zinn’s legacy. This kind of thing benefits no one and is, I have to say, extremely rude. I understand that there were no critical comments on NPR when William Buckley died. Whose interests can you possibly be serving by having someone attack Zinn when he’s just died? Certainly not those of your listening public.
This is what public radio looks like after eight years of Republican rule. They went after NPR with a vengeance. All Things Considered ought to do a story about how they were pushed constantly from the right. Think that will happen? The administration left over from Bush is hunkered down. It’s one of those stinky little time bombs the Bushies left behind. How do i know all this? Certainly not from listening to All Things Considered.
On my way home tonight, I listened to a KCRW fundraiser and, for a brief moment, considered making a donation. Tonight, I remembered all too well why I stopped supporting, and listening to, NPR. You remind me of the ACLU defending the right of neo-Nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods in the 1960s, as if there were no other persons whose free speech needed defending. Did you give air time to the hate-mongering David Horowitz to garner publicity or attract right-wing subscribers? I hope that the millions now mourning the death of Howard Zinn will demand that your non-profit status be revoked. You do not deserve the mantle of “public” radio.
Message to NPR ombudsman:
From time to time I feel, well, not bad exactly — but something more like I’m
being “too hard” on NPR — for making a life-long pledge to never send you
another dime.
You miss the obvious — that there were no WMD’s in Iraq (the CIA knew, Hussein
Kamal knew, heck — I knew), that folks were being tortured in foreign prisons
at the behest of US officials. These seemed enough. But still, on occasion, a
decent story on Canadian health care by Sarah Varney might have me rethinking
that decision.
Thanks for relieving me of that reflex. By putting neo-conservative racist
David Horowitz on the radio to fail to comment on the life and work of
Howard Zinn in favor of ideological screed you’ve made my life easier.
You’ll never get another penny. Forget about a dime.
Incidentally, Zinn’s work was “leftist.” Tell Robert Siegel that he should
try to say the word “leftist” without putting a denigrating modifier in
front of it. We live in an open society, for his information, which
welcomes — better: requires — leftists. Even if they’re “unabashed.”
Finally, the quality of your average reportage is abysmal. You should fix
it. Your journalism is biased. Why did “All Things Considered” feature David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley had no critical perspectives whatsoever?
Howard Zinn reshaped the way we understand history by looking at it from the perspective of the people, not the powerful or upper class. He was a leader in several struggles for the human dignity of the oppressed–American blacks, Vietnamese, Palestinians. He merited recognition at his death.
David Horowitz is an ultra-lightweight who has made a dubious career of attacking academic freedom in the interest of silencing those he disagrees with. Academe sees him as a bad joke.
The first lens that would distort his view of Zinn is that of the Zionist for whom Israel can do no wrong, making Zinn a self-hating Jew. He may hve had sense enough not to show his hand by saying that, but it is that kind of irresponsible obsession that drives him and make him a joke.
I will reduce my annual contribution to Maine Public Broadcasting Company by a third unless and until NPR apologizes for a deliberate smear of a decent man by a dirty little man.
My father was a conservative Republican manager of a major market NBC station in the South; he is no doubt tossing in his grave, though he would not even know who Zinn was, only that NPR’s tactic was disgusting.
What is the problem with the right wing … and why doesn’t America seem to ever get sick to the point of getting rid of these SOBs for good. Conservatism and the Republicans party is one thing, but this and the utterly predictable ugliness and never-ending bile and evil from these people is endlessly over the time.
It may be good to show what the right wing is, but I am “conflicted” to see this kind of behavior displayed as some kind of normal acceptable public discourse.
If you accepted my post, why have you told me, every time I tried to post, that my address was wrong or e-mail address missing when you do not even have a slot for e-mail addresses and when I entered it under both Mail and Website, you were still unsatisfied?
I visited the NPR site and left these comments: http://www.npr.org/templates/community/persona.php?uid=2646692
There were about 61 comments criticizing the Horowitz interview, and zero in favor.
Thanks for the heads up.
My letter to the Ombudsman
Show: All Things Considered
Subject: Coverage of the late Howard Zinn’s death
I found the decision by NPR to bring on the Islamophobic and far right activist David Horowitz to comment on the death of Professor Howard Zinn to be disturbing and unacceptable.
It would be one thing to communicate that Zinn has been a controversial figure for some on the Right, but Horowitz’s commentary went much too far. Unfortunately, extremists like Horowitz add nothing to the conversation. They actually undermine the quality of public discourse.
Sincerely,
Tomasz Herzog
Sent to NPR ombudsman:
Since when did it become NPR policy to treat an obituary like a debate? To say that there were those who disagreed with Zinn’s views or even to describe him as controversial would be fine, but to allow David Horowitz to dishonor Zinn and his legacy on such an occasion is deplorable.
Horowitz and NPR–SHAME ON YOU!
I wrote the ombudsman as well. That’s been a rather fruitless pursuit in the past.
Here’s my note this evening.
Office of the Ombudsman
National Public Radio
Message Information:
Message #: 5607-10103296
Date Created: 1/30/2010 1:28 AM EDT
Subject: Howard Zinn’s obit
Body: When I heard the odious David Horowitz being allowed to trash the memory of Howard Zinn, only hours after that remarkable man had died, I could hardly believe my ears.
It’s taken me a day to get the time to go to your site and leave comments, but when I arrived there I found almost six dozen other listeners left feedback. All had unanimously condemned this outrage.
At long last, NPR, have you no shame?
Dear Ms. Shepard,
I would appreciate an explanation of your treatment of the late Howard Zinn on All Things Considered. I find it unconscionable that you would allow a small-minded, racist fraud like David Horowitz to weigh in on Mr. Zinn at a time when Mr. Zinn is unable to defend himself. If this is an attempt to be “fair and balanced” there is most certainly another organization that does it better – and I’m saddened that this is the level to which NPR has sunk. And please do also explain why NPR took no pains to provide a counterpoint to the admiring coverage of William Buckley upon his death.
This is what I sent to the NPR comments page:
“I cannot for the life of me understand why you would even consider airing Horowitz’s ingratious and tacky remarks on Howard Zinn’s passing.
“There was simply no reason to air a detractor to an obit review on an elder statesmen of either the “right” or the “left”. It would have been inappropriate on Wm Buckley’s passing to have someone judgmental or condescending quoted, so why would you do that to the elegant and erudite Zinn? Especially a man who’s always been such a gentleman, in the finest sense of that word?
I find it extremely offensive that–of all stations–NPR would pull such a stunt! I might expect that from FOX or a tabloid check-out rag, but from NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO? Supposedly a bastion of good breeding, intellectual class, and equanimity? For SHAME!
I believe an apology AND a change in policy is in order!
I published a comment on NPR’s “All Things Considered” blog, but forgot to copy it, so unfortunately, I can’t paste it here. I just wanted to share my support for the story and comments above, as it is indeed an outrage that Horowitz was invited to “share” about Howard Zinn in a program commemorating him at his death. The left often makes this error, feeling like we’re smarter than they are, so we have to show them our openness and intelligence, our willingness to give space to their specious arguments (which are for the most part out and out lies), so they will give us room or validation. They will never validate us, they will never go along with us. I think Obama is beginning to learn this. I hope it’s not too late.
I sent the following note to NPR:
While someone at NPR may not like Howard Zinn, it seems remarkable that the All Things Considered segment on his death included an ad hominem attack on him by David Horowitz. I have heard many commentaries on NPR when some one of note has died and I don’t remember ever hearing anything like what Horowitz said. If reporting on the passing of well known individuals is going to be place where ideas are debated, at least do a better job of it. And allow someone who knew and respected Howard Zinn to engage the “critic.” It was in bad taste to say the least.
thanks.
Margy Wilkinson
Message below sent to NPR’s ombud:
This is just to let you know that I will not be listening to All Things Considered ever again–and that I will be encouraging others I know not to listen to the program ever again–unless its producers make a public, on-air apology for allowing David Horowitz, a well-known Right-wing ideologue, take a totally inappropriate, just plain cheap and nasty crack at the life and work of historian Howard Zinn, who is widely recognized as being on the political Left, at the time of his passing. The late William F. Buckley, widely recognized as being on the political Right, got nothing but laudatory treatment on NPR programing when he died; no one at NPR thought to seek comment from any of his numerous detractors. Without an apology, any sober and objective listener can only conclude that NPR and the producers of All Things Considered are no longer concerned with practising journalism.
Comment to NPR ombud, 1/29/10:
Keyes has gone beyond offensive and has seriously compromised the integrity of National â┚¬Ã…“Publicâ┚¬Ã‚ Radio by including the gratuitous, non-substantive derogatory judgment of right-wing pundit David Horowitz in her obit of Howard Zinn (1/28/10). YOU WOULDN’T DARE run an obit of a conservative scholar and include a comparable denunciation by a progressive opponent of the deceased’s life’s work, not that I’d want you to. More and more NPR goes out of its way to give more than equal voice to the far right on nearly every issue, but when that bias turns into blatant disrespect for a wise, eloquent and humble spokesman for peace and justice I must turn you OFF.
Whereas Fox News simply ignored Howard Zinn’s death, NPR actually went out of its way to smear Zinn.
You’ve really got to wonder what you’ve done with your life when you’re getting outclassed by Fox News.
Great job, NPR. Stay classy.
It seems a lot of contributors to this blog had the same reaction I did and used the same litmus test for bias I employed. That having been said, I’ll simply add my letterof protest to the NPR ombud. Admittedly, it’s a reiteration of the views already expressed here, but some things need to be said then said again and again and again. I hope everyone who feels as so many here do will do so.
Dear Ms. Shepard:
A couple of evenings ago, I was listening to _All Things Considered_, taking in the news of the day in between the fundraising interludes that are part of KQED’s Winter Pledge Drive. While I was pondering the level of support I could afford for 2010, I heard Allison Keyes’s obituary of Dr. Howard Zinn. I was struck by the fact that the editorial staff at _All Things Considered_ felt that commentary by conservative policy advocate David Horowitz was an appropriate addition to what, at first, had seemed an appreciation.
Then I thought that perhaps I’d misinterpreted the piece’s intentâ┚¬”Âthat it was less an appreciation and more a straight news story, and that perhaps opposing perspectives were a part of the program’s editorial policy on obits. To find out if that was the case, I went into NPR’s archives and listened to the David Folkenflik piece on conservative icon William F. Buckley, Jr. at the time of his death in 2008.
This was very different indeed. No one expressed a critical view of this controversial figure (other than Buckley himself on his editorial stance against voting rights initiatives). This seemed odd given some of the more outlandish ideas the _National Review_ founder gave voice to. He once suggested, for example, that AIDS victims be given â┚¬Ã…“discreteâ┚¬Ã‚ identification tattoos to prevent them from transmitting the disease, all the while attempting to dismiss the obvious parallel with Final Solution identification marks with the glibness for which he was so famous, remarking that â┚¬Ã…“the author of the idea was treated as though he had been schooled in Buchenwald.â┚¬Ã‚ (â┚¬Ã…“Killers at Large,â┚¬Ã‚ _National Review Online_, February 19, 2005).
And while Noam Chomsky is heard in both pieces, in the Folkenflik story he appears only as a _Firing Line_ foil. Certainly no commentary from the opposite end of the political spectrum was heard. Nor were there even any voices from the centerâ┚¬”Âjust admirers of the late Mr. Buckley, all of whom remembered him as witty and erudite and influential.
Certainly William F. Buckley, Jr. was all of these things. And yet the fact that one iconic figure’s obituary receives on-airbrushing while the other’s is the occasion for scathing (if insubstantial) critique reveals a disturbing bias, one that fairly reeks of corporate newspeak.
That being the case, I have decided to reallocate those funds I normally donate in support of NPR to _Democracy Now!_, both as a tribute to the late Dr. Zinn and as a protest against the subjective viewpoint of a program ironically called _All Things Considered_.
Sincerely,
David Lawrence Reed
San Francisco, California
NPR Management,
I just learned that NPR’s Allison Keys had David Horowitz comment on the Death of Howard Zinn; Horowitz attacked Zinn, which is expected of him, but not of “All things Considered”, which does not solicit attacks from liberals on the death of conservatives. (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) You are now asking me for money. Are you serious? I and my wife have subscribed many times over the last 20 or so years, but not this year….Fire Keyes and apologize on the air. Im telling all my freinds to withhold subscribing this year…and next. How despicable!
Ron Lopez
Santa Rosa
Why create this anomosity? I love Howard Zinn; I was fortunate to meet him a couple of years ago at a film festival. It is sad that he has passed on.
But, I think stirring up this fight is ridiculous. Let it go.
I learned with incredible sadness yesterday of the passing of a man I consider to be one of the greatest patriots and bravest men this country has ever seen, Howard Zinn. Although I’ve never met him, I consider him a friend to me.
Whether working with the labor movement to help establish safe working conditions and decent wages for shipyard workers, motivating and supporting the civil rights movement in the south, which cost him his teaching position at Spelman College, or being an energetic supporter of the anti-war movement bringing the attention of millions to the countless innocent civilian lives taken by our horrific bombs, he has performed an incalculable service to all Americans at great personal sacrifice to himself. But I believe his crowning achievement was his “A People’s History of the United States.” I truly believe this to be the most important book I have ever read in my life. Without it, most of us would have been left in the darkness regarding true and extremely important aspects of our nation’s history which lead to a clear understanding of why we are where we are in history today.
You can imagine how incensed and sorely disappointed I was to learn that on the occasion of his death your station chose to give airtime to David Horowitz who “while the body was yet warm”, used his time to vilify Mr. Zinn. Of course Mr. Horowitz is entitled to his opinion and of course NPR has an obligation to its listeners to present opposing viewpoints. But to roundly condemn Mr. Zinn’s life’s work by saying “There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect” is a personal attack of the most heinous kind. And to make such an attack on the occasion of Mr. Zinn’s death speaks volumes about the character of Mr. Horowitz. No matter what I may think of Mr. Horowitz, when he dies, I would desire no such ill treatment of his character and reputation, while in absentia, and defenseless. Really, what could be more tasteless and absolutely lacking in simple human kindness?
But he didn’t stop there. He went on to castigate those who respect and honor Mr. Zinn for his life’s work by saying Mr. Zinn “altered the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse.” So now a slap in the face to all of us are trying to deal with the unspeakable sadness of his passing, so fresh is our wound.
For NPR to host such a guest on this occasion shows incredibly poor taste as well. You know what Mr. Horowitz is about and you certainly knew what the tenor of his comments would be. For this you are ultimately the most accountable. You surely extended the invitation. And to underscore your bias, when William F. Buckley passed away in 2008, a conservative as far right as Mr. Zinn was far left, I understand you aired several programs commemorating him, and as I understand it, none of these programs featured a critical guest.
One of the primary causes of our nation’s current severe economic problems is the rampant control and accumulation of wealth of a relatively few gigantic corporations. Mr. Zinn also spoke against this tremendous concentration of power and wealth being in so few hands and how it has been abused and resulted in so much suffering. One percent of our citizenry controls 95% of our wealth. Could it be that public radio, which accepts contributions from some of these corporations, is now providing evidence of their bias in favor of them manifested by their treatment of Mr. Zinn vis-a-vis Mr. Buckley?
I for one am greatly disturbed by this behavior and no longer feel comfortable tuning to your stations. It is a feeling of betrayal. I had come to really trust NPR to be as fair as humanly possible, and always respectful. The corporations appear to be taking what little we have left to provide a town square where we can come and let all who wish hear the version of reality told by the people of this great land. By providing this forum, in this circumstance, you may have actually dissuaded some from ever sampling any of Mr. Zinn’s works, and to judge for themselves. Those souls will be far poorer not having known him. And the nation may finally bring itself into sonic harmony with the torturous metallic buzzing of the corporations as they complete their final acquisition – the human race.
Most sincerely,
Lenny Bianchi
Bluemont, VA
Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests? Your center-right, left-wash coverage of national events has driven me from considering your shows fair-minded, but this last act was despicable. You should be ashamed of allowing the bilious Horowitz from spouting his name calling of a kind and important man whose legacy will continue to educate people long after Horowitz is dead and forgotten.
No wonder I don’t contribute to NPR any longer!
NPR’s inclusion of David Horowitz’s comments during Howard Zinn’s obituary on All Things Considered was completely inappropriate. What were you thinking ? While it *may* have been appropriate to present an alternate view, Mr Horowitz’s comments were nothing short of character assassination. Zinn’s legacy will not be effected by this, however NPR’s position as an honest and unbiased news service has taken a major hit.
I am shocked by your choice of David Horowitz to give Howard Zinn’s eulogy.
The three stooges would have been a better choice.
His criticism of Howard Zinn was not only in bad taste — it was like Mickey Mouse questioning Einstein’s understanding of relativity.
Gus Rabson
It is with great shock and a much-needed public outcry that I am disgusted, along with millions of listeners, at the apparent lack of journalistic objectivity, impartiality and wisdom [not to say good taste and foresight] during the 1.28.10 broadcast of “All Things Considered” re: Howard Zinn’s passing. To read of it alas, is like opening up a festering wound.
https://fair.org/index.php?page=4009
It has affirmed my worst suspicion about your station: that you hide behind the veneer of good journalism but kowtow to the same corporate hype and greed that has eaten away at the core of American society. To blame Allison Keyes would be to indict her bosses, NPR and the powers that be for authorizing such unmitigated trash on the airwaves, truly unworthy of what NPR stands for [or I thought it did]. To lambast a great thinker like Howard Zinn, who shows us the best of what critical thinking can do for awakening the American spirit is unconscionable to say the least. This is the last straw in the dumbing down of America, where mediocrity reigns and has its day, when a station we once held up in esteem, such as NPR mucks about in the mud, showing its true colors.
Howard Zinn was a free thinker who was unafraid to criticize when it was justified. He spoke truth to power and was much respected for it.
Allison Keyes inclusion of the bile of the far-right activist David Horowitz was despicable.
fAIR recently pointed out that “(Horowitz has been best known in recent years for his race-baiting and Muslim-bashing–Extra!, 5-6/02; FAIR report, 10/1/08.) He seems to have been included merely to demonstrate that NPR will not allow praise for a leftist to go unaccompanied by conservative contempt.”
I was hoping someone could explain how it enhanced the story and reporiting of Dr. Howard Zinn’s death by quoting David Horowitz, an obvious political and personal adversary of Dr. Zinn’s. Why would you use a far right commentator on this story? Was it really necessary to attack Dr. Zinn in his memorial as no one can deny Dr. Zinn was a great contributor to American historical and political thought? Do you require “balanced” reporting in all of the obituaries you write?
It seems to me if you wanted to do a story debating Dr. Zinn’s career as a historian, I suggest that be in another segment (and maybe not the day of his death).
Howard Zinn was a very important voice in our US culture. Why would you ask for comments about Zinn from someone like Horowitz–someone vehemently antagonistic to not only Zinn but all remotely leftish ideas? This is far from your typical practice in obituaries and did little but give a platform to a reactionary on the occasion of a great American’s death. Though it is a deviation of your regular practice, if you really felt it necessary to kowtow to the right, you could at least have asked someone with a little more balance and grace than Horowitz. It was an insulting, pitiful betrayal of Zinn’s legacy and a problematic use of your platform. I am a longtime listener and supporter of NPR and this sincerely outrages me.
When a beloved, well respected historian dies, one who allowed the people to tell their views of history, which is so rare, why let someone like David Horowitz trash him? I was so saddened to learn that “All Things Considered” would have such a guest on. What on earth were you thinking? How tragic that in this overly right leaning corporate press YOU had to degrade yourselves by selling your soul to the right-wing who haven’t gotten history right EVER!!!!!
Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests. We progressives give lots of money to support NPR. It will take an explanation and an apology before I give any more money to support your programs
I wonder why ATC found it necessary to invite David Horowitz, a right-wing extremist, to attack late historian Howard Zinn during his obituary. I don’t recall a similar critical, disrespectful voice in NPR’s extensive coverage of the death of right-wing figure William F. Buckley. There was indeed much to criticize about Buckley, who was a supporter of, among other things, white supremacism in the U.S. South and South Africa, McCarthyism, nuclear war against China and the tattooing of AIDS patients’ buttocks. After six glowing segments on Buckley, I would have hoped for Zinn’s obituary to receive similar treatment. I wish I could trust NPR and ATC to apply more objective and rigorous journalistic standards.
Here is copy of the comment I submitted on NPR’s site:
Why did Alicia Shepard on All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests? I am seeing more and more evidence of NPR moving away from the news source I once thought it to be – it seems to be more of a mainstream media outlet masquerading as independent media which I find disturbing to say the least.
David Whorowitz, that reeking bag of frustrated, ignorable (HE HATES THAT), Conservotard bile and spite, is not worthy to lick the crusty shit from Howard Zinn’s rictic asshole.
PS: Why?
Because Zinn was not an unthinking automaton who always regarded Israel as being above reproach. I don’t think Shepard exercised any undue influence. I think the decision came from Robert Siegel, the program’s news director, who is a committed Zionist and who detests anyone who is not equally committed as he to the Zionist cause. Not only was Zinn not “committed” to Israel, he was often critical of israeli actions and policies in Gaza and elswwhere. So Siegel brought on Whorowitz to slander Zinn.
What is All Things Considered doing? To allow a hateful statement like Horowitz’s , devoid of anything but bile and not a shred of actual substance to be used on the air at ANY time, much less when speaking of a luminary like Zinn? I am not interested in supporting such dreck. You got the last dime you’ll ever get outta me. I am not sure an on air apology would change my mind either.
“It is disturbing to me that Allyson Keyes would turn to far right wing activist David Horowitz to comment on the death of noted historian Howard Zinn. Why would NPR bring in radical right-winger Horowitz to trash the significant and noteworthy contributions of Howard Zinn? Throughout his life, Mr. Zinn had the courage to speak truth to power. He was a champion of justice and the underdog. To bring in Horowitz to piss on his grave is an insult and shows poor judgment. During NPR’s coverage of arch conservative William F. Buckley’s death you included no critical guests but spoke of him with respect. This belies NPR’s bias and lack of fairness.
David knew Howard Zinn very well back in the day. Howard was a contributor/adviser to RAMPARTS Magazine where David was an editor. Like many NeoCons, David Horowitz has an axe to grind. His misdirected hatred of THE LEFT comes from a place of pain, disillusionment, and a sense of betrayal. A good friend of his was killed by either a COINTELPRO agent or a BPP member who was told that his friend was a plant. David feels guilty and responsible for this friend’s murder because he was an ardent supporter of the BPP and had brought his friend into the BPP. Sadly, like Anakin Skywalker a.k.a Darth Vader; he subsequently turned to the Dark Side. Howard was his Yoda.
David once had a show broadcast on PRI and/or NPR called SECOND THOUGHTS. He has a love/hate relationship with public radio. He once railed against Pacifica and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. For some reason, NPR feels obligated to give this man a platform. Maybe they do so to escape his wrath.
Again, in the case of their reporting on the death of Howard Zinn, ATC decides to pander to the middle to right-wing uninformed instead of informing and reporting in an unbiased manner. What happened to ATC’s thought-provoking journalism? In the past, ATC’s jounalism didn’t pander, to the point where listeners would actually want to learn MORE about the topic reported on. In my opinion ATC never got over the scare-tactics of the Bush administration. What a waste! Rest In Peace Howard.
To the NPR Ombudsman:
I would like to know why All Things Considered turned to notorious right-wing activist David Horowitz to comment on the late Howard Zinn. Horowitz’ commentary wasn’t rooted in any kind of fact, nor did he mention any specific issue in which he disagreed with Zinn. Since his inclusion didn’t add any actual information about Zinn’s life, I assume he was just on the show because Zinn was a liberal, while Horowitz is deeply conservative, and this was NPR’s attempt at fairness and balance in reporting.
I understand NPR’s effort to show both sides of the political spectrum. However, the death of William F. Buckley, a noted conservative (who supported white supremacism and the tattoing of AIDS patients), was marked with no ‘rebuttal’ from the left except a fragmented soundbite of Noam Chomsky debating Buckley, in which Chomsky’s views were not even heard.
Why is NPR taking a different approach when the subject is an intellectual on the left, rather than on the right?
Sincerely,
Tanya S.
Had David “Darth Vader” Horowitz studied under and not just been acquainted with Howard “Yoda” Zinn, he probably wouldn’t have turned to the Dark Side.
By the way, NPR has turned to the Dark Side as well. Please consider supporting Pacifica and programs like Democracy Now! and The Real News.
May the FORCE be with you!
as left on NPR help center:
It has come to my attention by the organization FAIR that the show All Things Considered on NPR, a show that I use to regularly listen to, recently broadcast the obituary of the late Howard Zinn. First I have to stay that I have read and seen Zinn’s books and lectures in person and he has influenced my understanding of the world and my country tremendously. The show, from which I have heard, is marred by a rebuttal to Howard’s work by David Horowitz. I was shocked, not that NPR would showcase Horowitz who brought nothing of substance to offer in the discussion but rhetoric of the caliber of an elementary school child, but when a comparison of the time and effort given to William F. Buckley compared to Mr. Zinn in his obituary, I was shocked. It became obvious to me the slant of NPR and was hoping that you could tell me the reason for the difference in coverage? As of now I have decided not to donate any more money to NPR and look to other news that I feel is more honest in their reporting.
My comment to NPR today: I’m disappointed in its coverage of Howard Zinn’s passing, that NPR once again feels obliged to “distance” itself from anything or anyone considered to be “left” in this country. Allowing David Horowitz, a right wing crank of negligible intellectual substance, to provide negative commentary on Zinn’s life an ideas, was particularly noteworthy. To my knowleged, NPR never provides contrary commentary in its coverage of middle of the road or right leaning intellectuals. NPR’s coverage of William Buckley’s death was in marked contrast, for example, with repeated paeons to Buckley’s ideas and impact and no mention that many of his ideas were controversial or reprehensible. To maintain any claim to journalistic integrity, NPR needs to have a single standard for obituaries. Either opposing viewpoints are allowed to commnent on the ideas and work of someone who dies, or they are not. Don’t pretend to be objective when you are not.
To the NPR Ombudsman:
Allowing David Horowitz to vilify Howard Zinn on All Things Considered before Mr. Zinn’s corpse had grown cold was shameful and is a good indication of how far to the right NPR has gone.
You’ve lost my support totally.
Dear Ms. Shepard,
Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests?
Did he (Zinn), or does his work, so threaten the Right that, of all people, NPR feels the need to have Horowitz villify and deride a man who is dead? Shame.
I thought you all were supposed to be better than that or above this type of pettiness. You proved me wrong. You should be embarrassed. All NPR has done by this is show the Left, the Centerists and the Independents just how callous, low and contemptuous the Right has become. Shame.
Letter to ombudswoman:
I am wholly disgusted by your bad manners and petty nastiness.
After allowing a few eulogistic remarks on Howard Zinn, a fine historian and truly great American whose death leaves us all a little poorer, you turned over the mike to a spiteful, anti-intellectual little man like David Horowitz! What unspeakable rudeness!
Since when is it customary to vilify the dead in acknowledging their passing? And even if it were, as I devoutly hope it never will be, why would you choose someone so notorious for not letting facts get in his way?
Mr. Horowitz’s unsupported and malicious falsehoods will not detract from Zinn’s reputation but from yours; his own can scarcely sink any lower.
posted response to NPR’s bringing Horowitz on to trash Zinn:
“The future of NPR;
Is NPR emanating the career of David Horowitz, i.e., once a good leftie now a scum hack for big money?
To the NPR Ombudsman: Although I was pleased to hear some attention given to the passing of Howard Zinn, an influential & important dissenting voice in American history, I was extremely disappointed to hear the unenlightening & disrespectful comments of David Horowitz included in Allison Keyes’ story, as if for the sake of political “balance.” Surely, if such balance were needed in an obituary, a more knowledgeable and appropriate critic could have been found. And I cannot help but notice the contrast with the many admiring & respectful stories that followed the passing of William F. Buckley, conveniently leaving out many of his most extreme and objectionable positions.
When NPR shows the same conventional bias as the for-profit media outlets, its unique strengths are lost, its value eroded. As a long time listener and supporter, I hope this will not be NPR’s future.
Why is it that when right-wing intellectuals such as William F. Buckley die your coverage consists of nothing but praise but when a left-wing intellectual like Howard Zinn dies you feel it necessary to include vicious comments by the far-right David Horowitz as part of your coverage? I find it very disturbing that you are pandering to the right by using the “fair and balanced” approach used by Fox News.
Alicia C. Shepard,
Please correct the denigrating coverage of Howard Zinn. And please give him recognition commensurate with his accomplishments. He is a much grander figure than anyone who has died this past month, but he was treated uncommonly brutally. Remember how many informed people love him. It is far more than the number of books he has sold, and goes across generations. Does it feel good to alienate them? Your timing couldn’t be worse. The country is fracturing. Political parties are losing their shape. So much in the psyche can’t be put back together again. The thrill is gone. Which list does NPR want to be on?
I simply wrote to them:
Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests?
Is this going to be something new?
My Comment to NPR:
“Since when is character assassination part of ATC’s obituaries? It is one thing to include the reasonable, substantive comments of critics to put a scholar’s life work in context, but to give air time to the mindless, substance-free sniping of an attack dog like David Horowitz is not only an affront to the memory of Zinn, but to the intelligence of your audience.”
Like all media these days, it seems NPR bends over backwards to “balance” their programs with views from the right. The problem is, the more of this kind of “balance” we get, the less room is left for things like facts, truth, and reality.
Taking note of historian Howard Zinn’s death, the program on All Things Considered chose to interview David Horowitz, a right wing ideologue whose pronouncements typically trash the critical perspective that Zinn,using reason and evidence, represents. Giving no facts whatsoever, Horowitz (or perhaps the journalist – I can’t tell because it’s not within quotes) calls Zinn’s classic work, “A People’s History of the United States” a “travesty.”
This word means “a distorted version of something.” I’ve read it, and all the facts in it are backed up by the scholarly record. Horowitz, on the other hand and typical of his right-wing ilk, presents us with no reasons to believe his perspective.
This is not good journalism on NPR’s part. Please don’t relay the biased opinions of ideologues unless they are backed up with evidence.
In true tribute to Howard Zinn, the people have spoken. I usually do not read the comments, but I was so outraged by your program that I read all 67 of them, not one defended your coverage and sad state of obituary, I don’t think you have ever seen such an outpouring of condemnation by everyone. If I wanted to truly comment on the segment I would have copied and pasted all 67 comments, to show my true outrage and anger.
The 3 min 41 second that you gave to this brilliant, dedicated, historian, the person who gave voice to the voiceless, who lived his life by his principles, was not only classless, but bad journalism.
The only time I felt this angry was after making a donation to NPR I heard the commercial advertising that this station was supported by a criminal organization called MONSANTO.
Like others have suggested I would suggest if NPR wanted to make it a really balanced approach to invite and interview David Barsamian from Alternative Radio alternativeradio.org/speakers/ZINH.shtml or Naomi Klein or Amy Goodman about Zinn this week, or even better, dedicate one hour special program to read from “A People’s History of United States”.
By the way for NPR to be listed on FAIR (MEDIA WATCH GROUP) Action alert list says it all.
Please explain how NPR’s inclusion of David Horowitz as a commentator in its coverage of the death of Howard Zinn is not as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting described, i.e., “included merely to demonstrate that NPR will not allow praise for a leftist to go unaccompanied by conservative contempt”; when NPR’s coverage of the death of William Buckley did not include any of his critics dispensing anything like Horowitz’s bilious, ad hominem insults of Zinn.
I assume if “All Things Considered” – perhaps a title that can be taken too literally – had David Horowitz deliver a hatchet eulogy on Howard Zinn’s passing that “All Things Considered” can similarly have Triumph the Insult Comic Dog mark Horowitz’s death.
There are plenty of rational conservative historians who could have knowledgeably and critically placed Zinn’s populist history in context. But you went the rabid clown route. Hope you got a few giggles around the office, because now the activist left will defund you. That just isn’t up to minimal standards.
I assume if “All Things Considered” – perhaps a title that can be taken too literally – had David Horowitz deliver a hatchet eulogy on Howard Zinn’s passing that “All Things Considered” can similarly have Triumph the Insult Comic Dog mark Horowitz’s death.
There are plenty of rational, conservative historians who could have knowledgeably and critically placed Zinn’s populist history in context. But you went the rabid clown route. Hope you got a few giggles around the office, because now the activist left will defund you. That just isn’t up to minimal standards.
Nothing have I ever heard on NPR angered me as much as allowing David Horowitz to offer his comments on Howard Zinn. What were you thinking, or is that a complement?
I must say that it really was unnecessary to include David Horowitz’s comments about Howard Zinn in the obit. Really, those kinds of comments are appropriate for debates among the living, or editorial pieces. A simple obit was just not a decent place for his comments.
Sent to NPR – I must say that it really was unnecessary to include David Horowitz’s comments about Howard Zinn in the obit. Really, those kinds of comments are appropriate for debates among the living, or editorial pieces. A simple obit was just not a decent place for his comments.
Letter to ombudsman
Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests.
I don’t have a problem with balanced programming, but it needs to work both ways.
AND please seek individuals who are not extremists; these people do not seek to bring us together as a country. Only to divide and cause more problems in the US. Look for someone who can speak intelligently with some kind of integrity and acknowledgment that in our country it’s okay to have a different opinion. That doesn’t make someone “wrong.” It’s what makes our country strong. There is such a lack of good old fashioned respect in our society. Especially politics. How different our world would be if politicians and commentators etc. were role models for respectful behavior towards those they disagree with.
The flap(of which I do hope you’re aware)over your inclusion on ‘All Things Considered’ of a David Horowitz harangue against the legacy of Howard Zinn is a legitimate flap representing serious concern on the part of listeners who rely on NPR to be an oasis of serious, thoughtful and balanced coverage in the current climate of partisan rhetoric, scare tactics and distortion in the media.
The observation that NPR did not include any corresponding voice of criticism after Wm. F. Buckley, jr. died is relevant and mystifying. I happen to subscribe to the school of thought that says one should respect the newly dead and leave the criticisms to another time and place
– so I’m not sure I would have cheered a lengthy, clearly biased description of Buckley’s many controversial stances and their long-lasting effects, but if not him, why Zinn?
As a veteran listener, veteran member and major fan, I have to ask if you really can be unaware of the creep to the right that has been evident on NPR for some time now!?!
I see a growing deference to right-wing viewpoints and right-wing spokesmen and lessening patience with viewpoints on the other side.
I hear fewer discussions that include voices of equal weight, given equal time, from opposing points of view.
This is a very disturbing trend that is NOT in the interest of the nation.
As one case in point – WHY have you been spending so much time to discussions of the Tea Party Movement and its upcoming convention, when I don’t think I’ve ever heard you give any time to the various conventions that are held with and by Progressive movements.
You are adding to the media frenzy that is legitimizing a very questionable ‘movement.’
We are in trouble in this nation.
We desperately need serious commentary, discussion and information.
We used to be able to count on NPR to provide that.
You are beginning to show signs of having been pre-empted by one point of view. That is a tragedy.
SUBJECT: Howard Zinn bashing – is this what I get for my donations?
BODY: So, a great and noble man like Howard Zinn dies… and All Things Considered invites a hateful man like David Horowitz to fill the airwaves with spite against a man to whom he couldn’t hold a candle? Great. Really glad I donate annually to WITF.
Since when is it NPR’s policy to issue rebuttals to obituaries?
My letter to PBS/NPR:
I strenuously disapprove of your coverage of the death of Howard Zinn. Including the outrageous opinions of David Horowitz at this somber time for those who loved and respected Mr. Zinn was unconscionable. Horowitz said, â┚¬Ã…“There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect.â┚¬Ã‚ Well that would naturally be the opinion of a right wing ideologue. If you value his opinion it should have been saved for another venue not the occasion of reporting Mr. Zinn’s death. I believe if you compare your inclusion of Horowitz’s diatribe with your coverage of Mr. William Buckley’s death where no one was presented with anything against him you will see where you went wrong. Mr Buckley was certainly not without flaws and I’m sure you could have found plenty to castigate him. Perhaps the selection of Allison Keyes as the reporter was part of your problem. She is the daughter of Republican Alan Keyes another right wing ideologue. These choices and others I have observed such as the disappearance of the voice of the lies of Bill Moyers reveal to me that PBS and NPR have become what Ronald Regan, the Chamber of Commerce, and others had been seeking finally to achieve – a tool of the political right and powerful in this country instead of a voice of the people.
P.S. I suppose you consider this coverage â┚¬Ã…“Fair and Balanced!â┚¬Ã‚Â
My letter to NPR:
I am appalled.
When William F. Buckley died, we heard nothing but good things about him, despite some rather egregious behavior over the years that inflamed many.
When Howard Zinn died, we were subjected to David Horowitz’s polemic. I truly am at a loss for words. On the one hand, you have a man who was condescending, snobbish, and possibly racist, being treated with kid gloves on his passing. On the other hand, you have Howard Zinn who was a man of the people, trying to speak for those who have no voice, and he gets trashed.
I am seriously reconsidering whether I ever support NPR again.
Sent to NPR Ombudsman:
Last year, NPR’s coverage surrounding William F. Buckley’s death was entirely positive: only supportive and conservative guests were featured, ignoring the unsavory aspects of Buckley’s life. But when Howard Zinn died, David Horowitz was chosen to deride his life and work without contributing any substance to the discussion: “There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect.”
Why treat conservative icons with respect, but waste no time in tearing apart those on the other side of the aisle?
It is an absolute shame that you had David Horowitz providing the last malicoius word on the obituary of Howard Zinn! How dare you turn an obituary of one of this country’s most respected historians into an opportunity for slander and vile commentary! Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests?
I want to know why NPR felt it was appropriate and necessary to air the thoughts of David Horowitz in connection with Howard Zinn during the coverage of Professor Zinn’s death. Why in fact did you do this, when during the extensive coverage of the death of William F. Buckley, you included no critical guests. I certainly think it is the right and responsibility of NPR to present various views, but during the coverage of a death, when the person can no longer defend himself or his beliefs, I think that those critical comments are inappropriate.
Professor Zinn was a great teacher of mine and I take offense at NPR’s choice to facilitate criticism of him during the coverage of his death.
Sent to NPR Ombudsman:
I want to know why NPR felt it was appropriate and necessary to air the thoughts of David Horowitz in connection with Howard Zinn during the coverage of Professor Zinn’s death. Why in fact did you do this, when during the extensive coverage of the death of William F. Buckley, you included no critical guests. I certainly think it is the right and responsibility of NPR to present various views, but during the coverage of a death, when the person can no longer defend himself or his beliefs, I think that those critical comments are inappropriate.
Professor Zinn was a great teacher of mine and I take offense at NPR’s choice to facilitate criticism of him during the coverage of his death.
As a monthly contributor and daily listener of my local NPR station, I was appalled and offended to hear the commentary from David Horowitz on the passing of historian Howard Zinn:
“There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect…Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse.”
While citing such incendiary commentary about a historian and public figure who has recently passed, you leave no room for a response. It’s not only disrespectful to Zinn and his legacy, but not representative of the fairness in reporting that NPR normally stands for.
What purpose does this kind of commentary serve? I expect more from NPR.
Thank you.
Please explain why it was necessary to bring on David Horowitz to trash Howard Zinn? Howard Zinn is no longer able to respond to such unwarranted attacks on his work and person. He was an important progressive and deserved no less respect on his death than William Buckley received. This is below the standards expected of All Things Considered.
I listen to All Things Considered and other NPR news programs precisely to not be annoyed by the sort of “news” programming that is ubiquitous in the privately-owned media. I support my local public radio stations, which purchase, and so support, NPR programming, so that I can have intelligent news programs. All Things Considered in recent years has begun to take positions that are uncritical (at the least) and actively supportive (often) of conservative, right-wing politics and unduly critical of progressive and left-wing politics. Please, please reconsider. I want to know what the conservative view is on news/politics (but not in obit pieces about progressives and liberals), I want to know the liberal and progressive views on the same things (but not in obits for conservatives). And, please, no eulogies for any of these people. A review of their lives and work is acceptable and even useful, but without the posthumous score settling that appeared on the death of Howard Zinn or the near-canonization of William Buckley.
Allison Keyes’ report on Howard Zinn’s death was in very poor taste. David Horowitz’s comment about Mr. Zinn was mean spirited and inappropriate. It is not necessary to go for artificial political balance in an obituary.
This is not the first time that I have noticed that NPR show such poor taste after the death of a great person. Back in 1997, a conservative who may have been David Frumm made extremely nasty comments in the report of the death of Justice William Brennan. I never contributed to an NPR station after that. I was just starting to think I should get over it when your reporters did the same thing with another of my hero’s Howard Zinn.
To NPR ombud:
Even in death you trash a man who led a life that mattered.
Is David Horowitz your idea of balance?
NPR has come a long way down.
!!…. Dear NPR—-> Correction: I have not been seduced by Howard Zinn as noted on “All things considered”. Secondly, NPR is proudly supported by the corporations who don’t want the first hand accounts of history to be shared. The books of Mr. Zinn helped document real history, and the myths well documented in school textbooks. I don’t need to ask why your segment called a “remembrance” ended with hate speech. NPR and your show has become a pulpit for corporate interests. You invite these pathological liars on air for ratings and their shock value. That’s not all things considered, that’s propaganda.
Howard Zinn had to be dead in order to not be able to give a fitting response to David Horowitz’s offensive remarks about him. Shame on you for choosing such a nasty to “have the last word” (on your show only!)
about an activist and author who inspired countless people to recognize that they do have power and need not content themselves with the history accounts penned by “the winners”. I found that segment truly ignoble and have no heart to listen to ATC any more. So congratulations to you: you’ve managed to lose one more listener. You should be proud of yourselves!
NPR-you’ve gone over to the other side. I’m tuning out after 30 years. Howard Zinn challenged the status quo. I guess that was too much for your masters to bear. You could have offered up David Brooks’s shallow insight instead of giving the noxious Horowitz a forum. Try and not choke on your collective smugness. There is a special place in hell reserved for liberal fascists such as yourselves. Good riddance.
Pretty disgusting, letting Horowitz spew out his irreverant trash on your show. At least Howard would’ve been mildly amused. I’m not. That man is an American hero, and he changed my life, and the lives of millions of others like me. Let the right-wing say what they want… where is their substance to counter the hard facts that Zinn tirelessly offered in his expose of 99% of all wars past and present being waged for reasons of land, money, resources, and power rather than the “official” reasons of democracy, freedom, etc.?
(letter posted to NPR)
I expect your staff will hide behind bogus claims of “balance.” We would’ve hoped and expected a little of that in that fluff piece on Buckley you did some time ago. What a joke.
Don’t be surprised as honest thinkers become less and less enthralled with NPR’s ever-diminishing notion of “alternative” news, accompanied by less and less willingness to donate the funds that supposedly keep you guys afloat.
How does it feel to be shown clearly to be less provocative and groundbreaking than The History Channel? Pretty pathetic, I would imagine.
I am writing to inquire as to why All Things Considered brought on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests.
Is this really your concept of “balanced” coverage?
Or perhaps it is because Mr. Buckley had a television show that aired on PBS for many years?
To NPR: I need to know who made the call to disrepect the brilliant activist historian Howard Zinn by giving David Horowitz airtime? First, Horowitz has no credibility, so why give him an opportunity to make a fool of himself? Second, NPR lionized Bill Buckley when he died. No one was given airtime to detail Buckley’s awful career–anti-civil rights, pro-apartheid, pro-war, anti-First Amendment, etc.
Shame on you Mr. Horowitz! Howard Zinn was a great inspiration to me. I met him 4 years ago at an anti-war demonstration in Boston and was absolutely taken by his intellect and his vision. I will miss his gentle voice and clarity.
So, Mr. Horowitz, as we french say: Allez vous faire voir ailleurs. Vous etes bete et mechant.
That NPR would allow Howard Zinn’s name, in his obituary, to be tainted with the comment of a notorious racist, but darling of powerful interest groups, tells all about the network’s disappearance into the corporate swamp.
I am joining others who decided to tune out after this outrage! Nor will I support a media outlet that features this kind of reporting.
I don’t understand how an NPR show would air David Horowitz’s empty rhetoric about the deceased Howard Zinn.
Who is in charge over at NPR’s “All Things Considedered?” someone lacking decency?
How sad that NPR has sunk so low.
The disrespectful treatment of Howard Zinn, with the unnecessary critical comments of David Horowitz, was appalling. I have been questioning whether or not to continue my support of NPR for several years now. This treatment of Howard Zinn has clarified my decision: Amy Goodman will no doubt put my money to better use. What a dumb move on someone’s part: airing this disrespectful obit of Howard Zinn at the beginning of a pleadge drive. You must have suspected that trashing Zinn would alienate many of your listeners, which means that you disrespected your listeners, too. Goodbye, NPR.
TO NPR Ombud,
Could it be that NPR felt compelled to provide a rebuttal to your obit on the life of Howard Zinn in the form of an intemperate and ugly diatribe? Was it either required by some governmental and/or other funding source, or did it seem necessary to maintain some image of so-called middle of the road journalism? If so, is it true as FAIR reports, that NPR has no policy of providing rebuttal, balanced, or contrasting commentary on the death of notorious so-called conservatives, in particular William Buckley? [In that instance I understand one of your stars, if sometimes quite wrong headed, Scott Simon, offered a eulogy unbalanced, I understand, by avoiding any reference to Buckley’s truly unfortunate, embarrassing, and historically grotesque positions on civil rights in the US and abroad as well as McCarthyism, etc etc, with the generous phrase, â┚¬Ã‚Âso often a breath of fresh air.â┚¬Ã‚Â]
FRESH air? That adjective would not have occurred to me, Scott, as our fellow Quakers are wont to say. They would, however, hesitate to suggest where such freshness originated. I expect no one ever questioned Buckley’s intelligence, wit, and novel observations, but the quote in the Zinn obit â┚¬Ã…“rebuttalâ┚¬Ã‚ that Zinn’s work included, â┚¬Ã…“absolutely nothingâ┚¬Ã‚¦.that is worthy of any kind of respectâ┚¬Ã‚ is surely over the top.
I do not recall that even the clearly progressive Pacifica broadcasting network provides such lack of symmetry, if sometimes lack of commonly acceptable language.
As a more general comment on language, I suggest the words left and right are highly charged with implications of right and wrong, [even more obviously in French and Italian, gauche and even sinister.] And for many of us, the Far Right is Far Wrong. Surely it would be only decent to say the So-Called Right, perhaps even the Self-styled or So-Called Conservative, and, devoutly to be wished, grow out of the gauche label of Left or even the sinister Far Left. Too much commentary on policy matters is plagued by such unfortunate misuse of biased, loaded political language, even if unintentional and common.
Shame on NPR for including the lying rant of documented racist and right-wing attack dog David Horowitz in what was an otherwise fact-based account of famous historian and patriot Howard Zinn. How incredibly disrespectful to allow hate monger Horowitz to pee on Zinn’s grave. Please register this complaint with the appropriate NPR decision makers. We expect this type of propagandist yellow journalism from Fox News, not from our taxpayer subsidized National Public Radio.
Shame on NPR(National Pentagon Radio)!!
Support Democracy Now on Pacifica radio. Howard Zinn was a frequent guest on Democracy Now, hosted by Amy Goodman. Please listen to it on WZBC(Boston College Radio) 90.3 fm weekdays from 12:00 to 13:00.
Long Live Howard Zinn’s courageous work for truth and humanity!!
To NPR Ombudsman:
Many, far more eloquent than I, will respond to the inclusion of the Horowitz trashing of Howard Zinn on NPR’s All Things Considered. I’ll keep mine simple.
NPR increasingly reflects the views of corporate United States. This is painfully obvious. However, the inclusion of the Horowitz comment in a eulogy to Professor Zinn went far over the line.
Howard Zinn was a person you could trust – absolutely. He spoke truth to power. He was accessible and he was a friend.
I may never send NPR another penny unless a serious effort is made to apologize for this insult to a man whose life was devoted to the search for Truth and Justice for all.
as written to NPR:
Did you really think that a life marked by such compassion and intellectual curiosity as Howard Zinn’s was deserved no more than David Horowitz’s declaration that Zinn represented a “fringe mentality”? Since the mainstream of our society appears to have a high tolerance for the use of torture and the denial of Constitutional rights â┚¬“ abuses that Zinn consistently condemned â┚¬“perhaps NPR could do with a little more of being at the fringe of things.
Please explain why All Things Considered decided to include the not-so-well-considered opinions of David Horowitz in its obituary of the late Howard Zinn.
I would assume such a move was made not because the producers of ATC thought that Horowitz would have anything interesting or meaningful to add, but because someone in the mix is worried that the program, and NPR, may seem to be too progressive or too far left for the right-wing extremists represented by Horowitz. Therefore, someone thought they might offer a “fair and balanced” perspective on the death of a progressive hero by offering the translation of Zinn’s life’s work through the mind of of an ultraconservative. You might as well have asked for the opinion of a Ku Klux Klansman on the death of Martin Luther King, Jr.
NPR’s memorializing of William F. Buckley, a public figure whose views were socially and politically conservative and very controversial, was unfailingly positive. Why did NPR find it necessary to offer a “fair and balanced” perspective on Zinn’s death, but not Buckley’s? I ask you to explain this very disappointing choice.
I am very grateful for Zinn. He put a human face on our history; instead of a high gloss sheen like so many others tend to do. He exposed the intricacies and machinations of slavery, manifest destiny and the genocidal toll it took upon the indigenous people of North, Central and South America.
It seems, Horowitz would prefer to demonize and tear apart those who are not like him, and all the rest of the Dark Suit Horde that infests so much of American aristocracy. Men of his ilk look upon the working class as useful idiots.
However, People built this Nation; not bankers, robber-barons and the like. The peoples’ blood, sweat and tears watered our tree that bore the great fruits that Horowitz and men like him would now hoard. Without us, they would have to fend for themselves.
Perhaps as time goes by, we all will realize that even â┚¬Ã…“Public Fundedâ┚¬Ã‚ media, is beholden to influence of fascist corporatism.
A public apology… is the only way I would continue to listen.
NPR, I am breaking up with you.
I forgot to copy the text of my letter to the ombudsman, but it basically said that NPR has definitely proved itself not to be “left wing” radio, which I’m not sure if it ever was, and is now officially, in my book, “Neo-Con” radio. I already was having a hard time with All Things Considered, and now I’m done with it. Unless there are some dramatic shifts in their approach, which I seriously doubt. I’d rather watch MSNBC. Well, I guess the Neo-Cons get a place in the world, as if they didn’t have enough covert power in mainstream politics.
Please! There is nothing fair or balanced in soliciting a wingnut like Horowitz to debase the work and life of Howard Zinn during an obit. piece. Has your dependence on corporate sponsorship led you to such right-wing pandering?
Bring back the pre-Bush NPR!
Please! There is nothing fair or balanced in soliciting a wingnut like Horowitz to debase the work an life of Howard Zinn during an obit. piece. Has your dependence on corporate sponsorship led you to such right-wing pandering?
Bring back the pre-Bush NPR!
I found the decision by NPR to bring on the Islamophobic and far right activist David Horowitz to comment of the death of Howard Zinn in very poor taste.
Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley death included no critical guests?
I’ve been a loyal listener to my local NPR station for years but this will make me rethink listening in the future.
it is a shame that Horowitz was allowed to comment on such an occasion.
Todiscuss the villification of Howard Zinn by hate monger David Howowitz, on no less than ‘heroic’ NPR, is not worth the time to compose this email !!!!!!
Peace, Dan C. Winters
I’m writing about your choice of David Horowitz to provide a “counterbalance” to others’ praise of Howard Zinn in the wake of his death. What I wonder is, what’s NPR telling its listeners when it brings a frothing ideologue like David Horowitz on to comment on the death of a scholarly gentleman such as Howard Zinn?
In the light of Horowitz’s “Islamofascism Week” efforts to spread anti-Muslim hatred on college campuses, are we to believe that NPR thought Horowitz would present a thoughtful and well-considered exception to the substance of Zinn’s efforts to tell the story of America from the bottom of the social ladder looking up?
Are we supposed to think you expected the man who called noted black historian John Hope Franklin “almost pathological” to stay away from personal insult and instead focus on Zinn’s presentation of facts? Did All Things Considered know who this guy is?
Date Created: 1/30/2010 4:52 PM EDT
Subject: Howard Zinn’s Obituary Comments
Body: I was disappointed to find out that conservative commentators were used to critize Dr. Howard Zinn’s life work. This ham handed attempt to be “fair and balanced” is given the lie when only drooling admirers of someone like William F. Buckley are allowed to eulogise him.
I don’t know how this situation can be rectified, but I hope things will change in the future. Dr. Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” was the most honest appraisal of American history that has ever been written, to have bigots and idiots critizing him at his death because they hate to see America’s dirty little secrets exposed is below the standards of NPR.
Thank you for your time.
When infamous McCarthyist and white supremacist William F. Buckley died, NPR ran six segments commemorating his life (two segments on All Things Considered, 2/27/08; Talk of the Nation, 2/27; Day by Day, 2/27; Morning Edition, 2/28; Weekend Edition, 2/29). None of these featured any criticism of Buckley’s views or his work. I am OK with this: the mourning period is a time for remembrance and respect, not for the airing of grievances.
In fact, this is why I am deeply troubled by how All Things Considered handled the recent passing of historian Howard Zinn. ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123081519 ) Jarringly, Allison Keyes’ obituary moved straight from Julian Bond’s remembrance of Zinn as someone who chronicled the “forgotten people who did so much at a time when no one else seemed to step up”, to right-winger David Horowitz spitting on Zinn’s grave, saying, “There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect.” For an obituary to feature somebody actually asking people to disrespect the dead is shocking. Right-wing intellectuals do not have to fear this desecration on NPR; why do leftists not enjoy the same privilege on a non-partisan station? Horowitz went on to say, “Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse.” This content-free slander–I hesitate to call it “criticism”, for that implies critical thinking took place–is completely inappropriate for an obituary piece.
I anticipate your station’s forthcoming apology for inviting Zinn’s intellectual opponent to spit on his grave during his obituary. Until your apology comes, I will not be tuning in to KPBS or npr.org, and I will urge my friends and family to join me in boycotting your organization. I will also encourage members of my family to reconsider their planned gifts to KPBS.
TO NPR: In speaking of the death of Dr. Howard Zinn, hate monger and bigot David Horowitz obviously decided to segue from a discussion of Zinn to a characterization of himself, but got somewhat confused in the process, using Zinn’s name by mistake. What David Horowitz meant to say, or at least SHOULD HAVE said is, “David Horowitz represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse.”
I am sure there are many respectable people who disagree with Zinn’s historical analysis whom NPR could have selected to bring on “All Things Considered” for an honest critique and criticism of Dr. Zinn’s work. Shame on NPR for choosing David Horowitz instead, a morally bankrupt liar.
NPR stopped being a public-oriented news site over a decade ago. They have become increasingly corporate bought and sold since the 1980’s. Bill Moyers, one of the founders of NPR, has commented on this. I would suggest that NPR really stands for National Propaganda Radio, which is more loyal to its corporate owners and the American Empire than it is to the people of the United States. No wonder they would permit David Horowitz to demonstrate his ignorance and arrogance. I guess it is a sad footnote in the continuing People’s history of these less than united States.
Why were you impelled to include right-wing crack-pot David Horowitz’s comments on Howard Zinn’s passing but not anyone from the progressive end of the political spectrum to comment substantially on William F. Buckley’s passing?
One might expect such imbalance from the Faux News network which pretends to be fair and balanced but is decidedly neither. One didn’t expect it from NPR.
This is the very reason I no longer listen to,or give my money to Public Radio. I was a frequent listener but over the years integrity and quality have all but vanished. Like all media in America NPR has become homogenized corporate propaganda.
Here’s my letter to NPR:Message #: 5607-10102437
Date Created: 1/29/2010 6:04 PM EDT
Subject: Death of Howard Zinn
Body: I am truly appalled that NPR would feel the need to have such a negative commentator as David Horowitz on ATC to denigrate Dr. Howard Zinn who was arguably one of the most admired political scientists and historians of the past century. His book, A People’s History of the United States presented a whole different view of our nation’s past. It’s sold over 1 million copies! When William Buckley died NPR did not ask for someone who was opposite him politically to criticize him. In fact he was lionized. What is going on?
I was a long time financial donor to my local NPR station but because of the obvious movement away from balanced journalism I finally decided that I could no longer support it. This just reminds me why I made that choice.
Here is my message to the NPR ombudsman on this subject: As an NPR listener for over 2 decades, I was more disappointed than I can say to hear David Horowitz trashing the memory of the late historian Howard Zinn on January 28. I have heard many such remembrances on ATC and Morning Edition over the years, and I cannot recall another that included such virulent, dismissive commentary. It goes without saying that an influential writer and scholar from the left end of the U.S. political spectrum is not going to be popular with pundits from the right. Why was it necessary to depart from NPR’s usual respectful tone in stories like these by giving a platform to one of Zinn’s detractors? Is NPR so afraid of giving offense that it feels a need to cover its right flank?
It was truly horrific that NPR brought in David Horowitz to disrespect the memory of Howard Zinn. While people disagreed with him, his life was spent working for people who did not have a voice in this country. Howard Zinn was a great American patriot and did not deserve such treatment by NPR.
NPR has indeed become corporate bought and sold, and the evidence mounts. The he-said-she-said pairing of Noam Chomsky with David Horowitz on the death of Howard Zinn is just the latest example. The second-latest was the January 26 broadcast of On Point “moderated” by Tom Ashbrook. Ashbrook paired John Bogle, arguably the greatest financial thinker alive, with Steve Bartlett, a former Republican Congressman from Texas who is now a paid flack for the financial services industry.
Ashbrook challenged none of Bartlett’s unsubstantiated statements â┚¬” the financial services industry has curtailed its outrageous pay shedules, the financial services industry is interested in consumer rights, etc. â┚¬” and listeners who called in to object or press for specifics were simply cut off, and their comments were not addressed.
As I noted in a comment on the On Point website, all the other listener comment, on-air and at the site, were misdirected. Rather than responding to disingenuous propaganda for a failed industry by someone paid to put it in the best possible light, they should have addressed the irresponsibility of NPR in airing such a mismatch. At the very least, Tom Ashbrook should have asked Bartlett for facts to substantiate his claims and asked him to address the points expressed by Bogle and by those who called in.
The same could be said for much of the the comment here. It won’t make David Horowitz a better human being, and unless it focuses on the problem, it won’t improve the discourse on NPR.
The problem is the increasingly irresponsible mass media. Unless we challenge it, and specifically in this case the air-the-flacks, take-no-sides format of NPR, you folks who know and care about what is happening to America are going to spend a lot more of your energy calling and writing in to protest unsubstantiated statements bought and paid for by the mega-corporations that have taken over your country, including National Propaganda Radio.
Here is my note to the NPR ombudsman. Let’s hope her ears are burning.
Dear Ms. Shepard,
I’m writing to object to the reprehensible and unseemly attack by David Horowitz on the late Howard Zinn. I can’t imagine what NPR was thinking in bringing in this extreme right wing ideologue to trash Mr. Zinn’s memory. This sort of commentary is what passes for daily fare for Fox News and the likes of Rush Limbaugh, but hearing it on NPR is a shock. I can’t think of an American intellectual with greater integrity and love of the American people than Howard Zinn, and it is truly shameful to hear him dismissed in this way by an individual as dishonest and unethical as Mr. Horowitz. I think NPR should issue a formal apology to Mr. Zinn’s many admirers, who must compose a significant portion of your listening audience. Until present, I have been a strong supporter of NPR and host stations in my area, but this turn toward the lunatic right alarms me and causes me to reconsider my support. NPR has truly disgraced itself this time. Howard Zinn was a true friend of America, and his life’s work on behalf of ordinary and working people doesn’t deserve this cowardly sliming.
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Smith
Note to FAIR readers and (former?) NPR listeners:
Give your financial support to a radio program that deserves it.
“DEMOCRACY NOW!” has been unfailingly consistent and brave throughout the years.
Consider making a contribution.
Thanks so much for having a rightwing crank like David Horowitz respond to the death of the great Howard Zinn. It reminded me of why I would never ever support NPR on any level.
My message to NPR ombudsman:
Please explain why on 1/28/10 David Horowitz, a right-wing critic of Zinn, was invited to bash Zinn when right-winger, William F. Buckley, was subjected to no such left-wing criticism on his passing.
Shame on NPR for trotting out racist right-wing extremist David Horowitz on All Things Considered to hatefully denounce the late great intellectual Howard Zinn mere hours after his death. What a disgusting and appalling desecration of a great man’s memory and the profound positive impact he had on intellectualism in America and abroad.
Your pathetic attempt at “fair and balanced” re: Howard Zinn was contemptible! How could you? Why?
You owe his fans an apology and an explanation! Mike Claassen
I will never understand the decision made last week to dishonor the memory of historian Howard Zinn, by turning a remembrance of him into a Point/Counterpoint affair, with David Horowitz, of all people, in the Dan Ackroyd role.
Horowitz is a mean spirited, bigoted individual who isn’t worthy of even uttering Howard Zinn’s name. Not only did you turn a remembrance of Zinn into a side show, you elevated Horowitz to heights he doesn’t deserve.
I stopped contributing to NPR a couple of years ago when I worked for Congressman Dennis Kucinich (on his presidential campaign) because the coverage given him was so biased. I don’t know why NPR has chosen to move so far to the right, or why so many stories fail to ask the important questions, or why so many interviewers behave like leg humping dogs at a neocon cocktail party when they are talking to Republicans.
I hope you’ll apologize to Zinn’s family for letting a bigoted nobody like Horowitz urinate on the memory of a great man.
Shame on you NPR! David Horowitz… PLEASE???!!!
Why did NPR on its All Things Considered segment and its reporting on the death of Howard Zinn, have the need to include David Horowitz on the program who decided to dismiss Mr. Zinn’s career and basically belittle him.
This kind of treatment is unprecedented. Why did you need to include someone like Mr. Horowitz on this program, to counterbalance a progressive voice, even though that progressive voice had just died. Has NPR and All Things Considered applied this same treatment to Conservative Voices when they pass away. I think not. When William F. Buckley died you did not include a Liberal Pundit to point out the many low points in his career.
NPR and shows like All Things Considered have sunk to a new low when they have critic destroy a dead man’s legacy. How is this fair to Mr. Zinn? He cannot defend himself at this point. At least allow another Progressive commentator defend the late Mr. Zinn on the showw.
Simply outlandish and another horrible moment in the many low point now at NPR. How low you guys have sunk!
Dear NPR ombud Alicia Shepard:
Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn? I’ve been a loyal listener to NPR, despite its often cold shoulder to intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, but this attack on the late great Howard Zinn will definitely make me rethink listening in the future.
A disappointed listener,
Gladys Contreras
What you did regarding Horowitz’s comment on ZINN is not good. I have listened to NPR for years and you miss one big story after another e.g. impeaching Bush and Cheney and you do this on purpose to cow tow to the conservatives in power.
There is no need to have far opposing views on a dead person. You have reporters experienced enough to gather reasonable views from different parties on a person’s dead.
Just do it right and start reporting news like right now you should be reporting daily on the Chilcot inquiry and what it implies for the US.
And be asking if the wars were started illegally, then how can we be continuing the wars.
NPR today is a disappointment to me.
Dear NPR
I was shocked to hear that NPR’s Allison Keyes brought on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn on All Things Considered. What a disgrace to a great man when Horowitz said:
“There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect. Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse.”
Horowitz’s statement was disgusting to hear. NPR should have known better than to feature a rapid right wing nut like Horowitz. Where have all the brains gone to at NPR?
Contrast this with NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley passing which included no critical guests.
According to David Horowitz, there is nothing in Howard Zinn’s work that is worthy of respect. Yet he somehow managed to mislead millions with his worthless opinions. How did he do this? By making brilliant speeches? By being a wealthy power broker? Did he have a his own gang of thugs? Very few people can influence millions without some outstanding qualities, particularly someone who rose to prominence entirely through his own efforts, as Zinn did. David Horowitz’s comments are worthless, illogical, and baseless. Even if NPR wanted to say something critical, this is not responsible journalism.
5607-10102716
Date Created:
1/29/2010 7:11 PM EDT
Subject:
Howard Zinn’s Death
How dare you spit on Dr. Zinn’s grave by giving David Horowitz the mike to disrespect this great American, Howard Zinn. Balance is one thing, but spitting on Dr. Zinn’s grave is just, plain wrong.
â┚¬Ã‚¨
Dear Ombudsman,
I was shocked to hear NPR air David Horowitz ad hominem attacks on Howard Zinn in lieu of “balanced” reporting. Howard Zinn is a respected historian who merely took a different point of view and if NPR wanted a balanced perspective, they should have asked a conservative historian. Horowitz is a complete kook. As an example, check out talkingpointsmemo.com’s coverage of his “Islamofascism Awareness Week. (Fearmongering is a separate debate.)
As FAIR points out, you eulogized William F. Buckley with no such balancing viewpoint from the left, let alone a left kook.
I respect what NPR does until they give air time to people who spout nonsense with no basis in fact.
Sincerely, Hugh ~~~
I’d like to ask the NPR ombud why All Things Considered brought on right-wing zealot David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests or comments. This may be another reason why I tune-in to NPR less-often in the future.
Probably over the top but what the hell:
What were the producers of NPR thinking when they rolled out an attack on Zinn on All Things Considered on January 28th? That the history of your ‘Fox News light’ programming eulogizing William F. Buckley wouldn’t be compared to the hit piece you did on Zinn? What I find amazing is the extreme degree of intellectual dishonesty on the right when if comes to their ideological stormtroopers. William F. Buckley was a nut case who provided a somewhat familiar and easing face of a grand father figure to push the ideas of white supremacy and the idea that nuclear wars were just wars that could be won. Not to mention the form of McCarthyism that he supported.
NPR isn’t the network that I listened to as a child and young adult. A network that was nearly the US version of the BBC who was unafraid to tweak the nose of those in power. A network that held the truth above ideology. Now you’re coverage and selective memory are just as dishonest and disgustingly tragic as the constant lies and contempt that Fox News has for the American people and our form of government and our societal values.
It is disgusting and tragic that NPR has been hijacked by a naked aggressive and dishonest ideology that apparently seeks nothing short of the murder of our once hallowed and respected democratic society.
I remember kids like you in elementary school. The naughty jerks throwing spitballs and taunting the other kids. The bullies that were so insecure themselves that they projected their fears and oppression on others. They were dealt with by a trip to the principal’s office and counseling. What do you do when the principal is the horrible taunting reprobate? You stop going to the areas that they frequent.
Eventually the mighty Fox News will fall. Eventually the ideology that nearly ruined the United States and the world will be exposed. Eventually the pushers and rabid supporters will be exposed and that day can’t come soon enough. Horowitz is a hack. You can’t claim ‘balance’ by wheeling his agenda out to the public’s airwaves and hang ‘honesty’ and ‘fairness’ on him. The coverage necessary would fall under its own weight.
I’m disgusted. Instead of being ‘fair’ you are a disgrace.
Why not just have a special, run it all day that lionizes Joseph McCarthy, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler and even Joseph Stalin! Throw in a little Chairman Mao too for good measure. Look at that coverage and see the future of the country you are building.
Yeah, over the top. The difference between Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin is that they pretty much directly killed people. The ideology of the right here incourages insurance companies and corporations to kill people here…
I was alarmed to find out that in the segment eulogizing Howard Zinn, you chose to include a rebuttal of the man’s work. And in particular by a man, David Horowitz, whose life is spent in a cloud of hatred.
What value did you intend to express in such a piece? Zinn has at the very least illuminated Americans’ struggle for liberation from the tyranny that Horowitz has clearly advocated in the past. And you wish to represent that view, as if it stands in for balance? As if balance requires no humanistic evaluation?
As usual, the hope for a better world is lost on you.
Ever since September 11, 2001 NPR has displayed an editorial stance which could only be described as placatory to the right. I have always supposed this to be a rabbit-like survival bid vis vis continual and often nearly successful attempts by the right to de-fund NPR, and have tried not to get too nauseated, continuing to tune in occasionally.
I think from an editorial perspective NPR has at last run off the cliff. Howard Zinn deserved so much better than the obituary he got from David Horowitz via Allison Keyes on All Things Considered. I don’t know whether this was some kind of loose cannon episode on the part of Horowitz, but how could anyone believe such a comparatively small man would have anything appropriate to say in this context?
Between the dry heaves I feel like crying, not just for Mr. Zinn, but for NPR.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
When William F. Buckley died, you did not bring on a guest to refute his life’s work. There was no pundit to proclaim how Buckley’s conservative positions helped to collapse our economy and destroyed the lives of millions of Americans.
When Howard Zinn–one of America’s best and most compassionate thinkers–died you haul out David Horowitz to spew hate.
It is incredibly disrespectful to the memory of Howard Zinn, his family and the millions of Americans who grieve his passing.
I will celebrate the day when my tax dollars no longer subsidize NPR, and I will certainly remember to spit on your grave when that day comes.
While I understand the need for balance and context in news reporting, ATC’s recent coverage of Howard Zinn’s death crossed way over the line into disrespect and just plain bad taste. David Horowitz’ downright nasty comment declaring that Zinn’s work was not “worthy of any kind of respect” was an affront to any thinking person’s sense of decency, delivered as they were mere hours after Mr. Zinn’s passing. I certainly don’t recall any bitterly partisan attacks being aired on NPR about William Buckley upon his death, nor for that matter, Ted Kennedy. Does NPR’s obsessive need to provide an alternate point-of-view in today’s ridiculously hostile political climate now mean that we shall be treated to hateful quotes upon the passing of all future public figures? Shame on ATC for giving Mr. Horowitz’s a platform to air this outrageously disrespectful attack.
Alicia Shepard, (Sent to NPR)
Howard Zinn was a well respected and well liked author, activist, and for me, an admired and important educator in social and political policy thought.
So I am shocked and disappointed by your decision to run a story on All Things Considered, that instead of honoring Howard Zinn and giving the man a few minutes of respect for his noted work and research, it turned into a one sided political debate.
Are you looking to become the next FOX network? Why was David Horowitz brought on to disparage and insult Howard Zinn, who wasn’t obviously even able to defend himself, when no person spoke about William F. Buckley after his passing? Not that I expected someone to insult Buckley after his passing in a news story that discussed his death.
What a disappointment on your decision. I just don’t understand it. Bring Horowitz on at a later date and debate with a live person, but to put him on without anyone there to give a rebuttal is shameful!
This is what I posted at NPR, naming my local Station, WRLN:
When progressive historian Howard Zinn died on January 27, NPR’s All Things Considered (1/28/10) marked his passing with something you don’t often see in an obituary: a rebuttal.
After quoting Noam Chomsky and Julian Bond, NPR’s Allison Keyes turned to far-right activist David Horowitz.”There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect,” Horowitz declared. “Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse.”
Upon the death of William Buckley in February 2008, NPR aired six segments commemorating him, none of which included a non-admiring guest. Is this fair at all?
I like NPR. I like All Things Considered. However I was taken a bit off guard when during the mere three minute, 41 second segment remembering Zinn, ATC felt the need to have David Horowitz speak ill of the man and his work.
Howard Zinn felt the need to challenge injustice, discrimination and repression wherever he found it, and to point out the inequities throughout our history so we may learn from them. This is what made him a great man. The idea that he is considered a “Radical” or that his ideas represent a “fringe mentality” is truly a reflection of how insensible our society is.
I am a long-time NPR listener who is very disappointed with your coverage of Howard Zinn’s death. If it is your policy not to speak ill of the dead, as was the case in your six fawning programs dedicated to William F. Buckley’s death, you should apply that policy consistently. There is no excuse for attacking dead leftists while leaving uncriticized someone who once supported white supremacy in the South or the fascist tendencies of McCarthyism (https://fair.org/index.php?page=3406).
Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised. Maybe this is just the kind of “news” that NPR has to stoop to to attract corporate sponsors.
Suggestion:
If you’re willing, send your comments to All Things Considered, as well. Maybe if enough of us complain to the show directly, they will air our criticisms.
Posted on the NPR site as well: I don’t object to having on a critic of Zinn, or even a severe critic (although as others have pointed out, it’s strange that there was none for William F. Buckley et. al.) What’s objectionable is the choice of David Horowitz, who far more than Howard Zinn personifies “a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people.” Surely there are conservative historians who are more learned and intelligent than this rhetorician who lacks standing to criticize ANY historian.
My Comment to the NPR Ombudman:
As a former UMass student, I found David Horowitz’s comments on Howard Zinn’s contributions to our understanding of society to be insulting. I didn’t always agree with what Zinn said myself, but he certainly provided food for thought about many issues.
Thus, I was very disappointed that NPR would even consider Horowitz’s remarks to be “providing balance”. Balance would have required that he actually have something intelligent to say by way of rebuttal rather than simply gratuitously dismissing the man and his work.
I contrast this treatment of Zinn with your virtual celebration of the life of William Buckley upon his death. Buckley, no less an ideologue than Zinn, and a man who did real harm to society by his support of Joseph McCarthy really deserved a little balance, but there was none. I’m sure one of his formidable adversaries, like Gore Vidal could have provided the right critical spirit without the kind of character attack that Horowitz engaged in, but all the commentaries were uncritical in their admiration. It was a veritable love-fest for Buckley.
I’m always amused when Conservatives talk about the “liberal press” these days. Once upon a time that was actually an accurate view of the media, but these days even NPR, which used to be openly liberal in its reporting, in its efforts to be balanced, has now become just another media voice that has been co-opted by the right.
True balance requires a critical approach to both sides of an argument, not just the uncritical airing of gratuitous opinions. It is not unbalanced to show the flaws in a position. Sadly these days, this is something your broadcasts seem especially good at when the argument comes from the left and rare when it comes from the right.
Why is this?
Yours truly,
An increasingly frustrated NPR listener
To ATC:
Where was your much-vaunted balance when you chose David Horowitz to do his predictable trashing of Howard Zinn?
“Seduce millions”? All Horowitz did with his denunciation of Zinn was to once again show the extreme fear Right-wing Americans have of knowing and confronting uncomfortable truths.
But when you program someone like Horowitz to do silly talk about a historian with opposing politics — with no alternative opinion — you give the impression that you’ve allowed the politics of certain funders to influence your programming.
In reporting on the Left or Leftist figures, to only air a Right-winger (or in this case a Right-wing fanatic with an unpleasant record of racism and Islamophobia), is rather like having a member of the Klan as your sole speaker on racism and African-American history.
I held my nose and sent NPR this short note:
“NPR’s Allison Keyes interviewed David Horowitz recently on ATC for an obit piece on Howard Zinn in which Horowitz stated: “There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect”. Speaking of disrespect, I don’t recall ever hearing such a magnitude of it in a public radio obituary. It sounded more like something from Fox “News”. Shame on NPR”
What I REALLY wanted to say can’t be read on radio. Tooooooo bad.
Howard deserved better than the slimy cheap-shot you took at him by inviting David Horowitz
to speak about him.
When Horowitz dies, who among all the lefties would ever say such disparaging things as DH said
about Prof. Zinn. It makes no difference because NPR is obviously too terrified of right wing verbal
terrorists to ever ask a radical on as a guest commentator.
When Abbie Hoffman died, NPR brought out Horowitz to disparage him, too.
Why the need to defame American activists of the left?
When is it a good idea to bring on direct criticism of a notable human being in their hour of death? Take for example, the case of my late friend Howard Zinn. Why did you find it necessary to invoke disrespect from such a venomous commentator as David Horowitz?
I thought public radio had more respect for the public and for grieving friends for a kind and gentle human being of the likes of Howard Zinn. What did he ever do to you?
What will be the stance of NPR the next time a right-wing person meets their demise? Will your obituary be as “fair & balanced” as, say, Fox News?
Can you explain the logic & the policy?
“Thanks for listening”
Many years ago I read A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn and it encouraged me since to look at the past to understand the present so we can all try to live in a better future world. Howard Zinn was in the front lines against racism, war and forgetting.
It was disingenuous of All things Considered to have David Horowitz on the same show with no right of reply for the now deceased Zinn… SO will you allow the family, friends, colleagues of Howard Zinn to delegate their answer as a courtesy to the listeners?
Viola Wilkins
Industrial Workers of the World
Melbourne Australia
This is from your transcript of the obituary of Howard Zinn:
“Mr. DAVID HOROWITZ (Author): There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect.
KEYES: Conservative pundit and author David Horowitz is among critics who fiercely disagree with Zinn’s politics. Horowitz calls “A People’s History of the United States” a travesty.
Mr. HOROWITZ: Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse.”
Not only is it rude and disrespectful, but I believe this is the first time you’ve had a “rebuttal” in an obituary. What is the possible point of having someone on to say that he thinks there is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect? How does that further anything except a tearing down of a man’s life and work?
It’s very sad to see the destruction of a formerly conscientious, middle of the road radio presence like NPR. If you’ve quite finished pissing into Zinn’s grave, perhaps you might spare some time to read some of what he wrote. Since you are working people, you might try to learn some of the history of the labor movement, including the continued efforts of industries and corporations to erase all the gains made by the working class, to create their own feudal system. A good place to start would be a book called “The People’s History of the United States”, by a fellow named Howard Zinn. He is very much worthy of respect.
Today I left the following message at the NPR Help Center. My first attempt was better, but when I clicked their button to find my local call letters, they erased by entire response and this was second best and quick.
Alicia Shepard
Why did â┚¬Ã…“All Things Consideredâ┚¬Ã‚ bring on the right-wing-nut David Horowitz to denigrate and insult the late Howard Zinn after his death when he could not longer respond? Would NPR do the same to a person on the right who supported white supremacy, Joe McCarthy’s witch hunt and nuking China? When the witty and entertaining William F. Buckley died, NPR’s extensive coverage included no critical guests in the extensive coverage to this author and pundit who like basically shared his opinions with his erudite rationalizations for them.
I feel that NPR owes Howard Zinn, his family and friends, an apology for this uneven, uncalled for, and biased handling of this story. As a historian he helped young people learn to think critically and self-reflection, rather than fall under the spell of one’s bias in favor of one’s self and one’s country. Reality is not as one sided as some would like to see it, and Howard Zinn helped people see that even we have our imperfections. How can we make progress unless we can honestly look critically at what we most cherish and what some hold sacred? We can’t.
Please make this up to those of us who want more extensive coverage of our progressive heroes who helped advance this country beyond the jingoistic and the purely self-serving, without derision from garrulous critics. I’m certainly not asking that you disrespect the right-wing heroes, just give the same courtesy to the progressives who I’d bet are more likely to support NPR. (Now there’s a question for your next listener survey.)
You must be deluged at this point by outraged listeners who caught the All Things Considered notice of the passing of Howard Zinn.
Here’s another measure of outrage to swell that deluge. Why pick David Horowitz — with his predictable arrogance and built-in blindspot — as the commenter? How bizarre to choose someone like D.H., certain to beLITTLE Zinn, a wise elder who, though humble in his person, towered over David Horowitz intellectually, spiritually, experientially.
Who is the shallow smart aleck who made the editorial choice for D.H.?
Will that person be formally chastised?
To Whom May Consider It:
Your invitation of the extreme right-wing commentator David Horowitz to ridicule historian Howard Zinn the day after Zinn died is deplorable. I regret to say my respect for National Public Radio, already diminished by previous obscene expositions of right-wing bias, is now at an all-time low.
Your organization is a fifth column for the the American Right and the American Right’s corporatist and imperialist agenda that has brought the Unites States to internal grief and worldwide disgrace in the past thirty years.
Even if I subscribed to the right-wing’s dogma, I would still find your treatment of Dr. Zinn’s death despicable. Nobody but the most ignorant reactionaries respects David Horowitz because he oscillated from the extreme Left as editor for “Ramparts” and supporting the Black Panthers in the 1960s and 1970s to the extreme Right in the 1980s and 1990s agitating for fascist organizations such as “Heterodoxy” and his own “David Horowitz Freedom Center. His raison d’être is now stirring hysteria against slaver reparations, McCarthyite blacklisting of academics, and promotion of racism against Muslims. The man is not a legitimate scholar of anything. He is just a troublemaker and is not qualified to criticize Zinn.
One might disagree with Zinn, but Zinn built his reputation by decades of consistent scholarly research. William F. Buckley made his bones the same way, though his views were diametrically opposed to Zinn’s. However, when Buckley died two years ago, NPR offered five days of unopposed hagiography and beatification of a man whose name was synonymous with controversy.
Thanks to our terrible economy, I have no money to donate to anybody, but if I did, I wouldn’t give any to you. NPR not only endorsed the policies which precipitated our current economic peril, you were the kid with the drum. Change your tune or be softcore FOX News, and for heaven’s sakes, stay away from David Horowitz!
(posted to NPR’s comment page Sunday, January 31)
I would appreciate a more substantive recognition of the life work of Howard Zinn than what I heard in his obituary on “All Things Considered”.
Zinn spent most of his life putting his body on the line for causes in which he believed, and eloquently expressed his philosophy and views in print, on film and on stage. While NPR may not agree with these views, I think it owes its viewers more comprehensive coverage of the life accomplishments of this man, who did more than most to perform what he saw as his civil duty.
Further, I was surprised that NPR found it necessary to disparage Professor Zinn in his own obituary. I cannot recall any precedent for such an unsavory action, which leads me once again to wonder what NPR has become.
I will not quote to you your own mission statement, but it is always helpful to revisit these documents. The term “in depth”, while often deserved by your program, certainly was not served in your coverage-to-date of this man, who had such a rich and extensive public life.
(to the editors: I understand the need to edit these for airing. I request that should this air, you allow me to communicate my distaste for the obit and my wish more indepth coverage of Zinn’s life.
I sent this (see below) to the NPR Ombudsman:
Why does Howard Zinn’s obituary need a disrespectful rebuttal from David Horowitz, someone who has a clear axe to grind against the left? Why wasn’t the left allowed to respond to the obits for William F. Buckley? Why the double standard?
Is this what NPR calls objective journalism? Brave, so very brave to trash someone like Howard Zinn, who committed the cardinal sin of standing up for the poor, civil rights, workers, and activists.
Keep on standing up for the powerful, NPR, make sure they get their voices heard. Keep silencing voices of opposition, and limiting the terms of debates to a ludicrous “objective” so-called centre. Keep propagandizing your country, and paying fealty to all your careers. Brave, so very brave.
I am very sorry to hear that NPR found it important to criticize Howard Zinn immediately after his death. This demonstrates how important it is for people who do not share mainstream/right political views to have media which permits the alternatives. NPR does a poor job of representing the public.
I am disgusted by NPR’s right wing attack disguised as an obituary for the Historian Howard Zinn on All Things Considered 1/28/10. I ask that ATC please have another obituary from someone who actually respects the life’s work of Howard Zinn.
My current NPR station is in a fund raising drive, and I am not giving any money to a station that would broadcast an attack obituary.
We are incredulous at your treatment of Howard Zinn. We are members and we and we have come to expect better from NPR. Whatever possessed you to have someone like David Horowitz speak on Zinn? The disrespect is bad enough, but to have someone with virtually no credibility assess the impact of a prominent historian raises the question of agenda. Indeed, one of us is a history teacher and is amazed that you found Horowitz’ pseudo analysis acceptable for your report.
Sid & Rachelle Kivanoski
As I tuned in to NPR Thursday I was saddened to learn of Howard Zinn’s death. The first part of the segment was a nice testament to his life. Why would you feel it necessary to belittle him by allowing a right-wing conservative to spout such negative comments. You’ve disgraced his memory (HZ) and insulted his family, friends and colleagues. Is it policy to follow up a death announcement with a pundits’ alternative opinion. This “fringe mentality” that Horowitz referred to just happens to encompass a large number of highly educated people who are supporters and listeners of NPR and who happen to respect the accomplishments of Professor Zinn.
Posted to the ombudsman for All Things Considered at NPR:
How shameful of NPR to include the inappropriate words of Mr. Horowitz in the obituary for Howard Zinn, a man of much greater stature and integrity. I am a regular listener of NPR and regularly upset by your corporate sponsorship, though I continue to listen. I can’t help but think that your choice to include Horowitz is somehow related to that corporate sponsorship. It is clear the right wing has not had good words for Howard Zinn for quite some time. This was totally predictable, and your editorial team should have nipped it in the bud. Needless to say I am disappointed with NPR and will not be listening to you or sending any more of my money your way for an extended period now.
I certainly hope to hear through the grapevine though, that there has been some kind of apology for this horrible indiscretion.
Posted to the ATC ombudsman
I must register my terrible disappointment with your treatment of Howard Zinn, and what I find to be a common practice of gratuitous swipes at those identified as Leftists. I feel his work as a historian and civil rights and peace activist is extraordinary, so I appreciate your reporting his death. But what does David Horowitz contribute? Certainly nothing to help us to understand the limitations of Zinn as a historian. Thoughtful analysis should be applied to anybody. But Horowitz’s sweeping denunciation of Zinn is truly mindboggling. You will find very, very few historians who share his view. My guess is that you made a Faustian bargain: find a right-winger to denounce your liberal subject to protect yourself from critics who will fault you for being too liberal. This is not journalism! For listeners who don’t know enough to judge for themselves, Horowitz’s bomb will undermine the interest some might have taken in Zinn. More than damaging Zinn himself, the result is to prevent listeners from embracing Zinn’s message, which is to value our collective history and to value our own potential as citizens. I’m really ashamed of you!
I’m pained the way a neocon like David Horowitz tried to deride an intellectual giant in his awful comments on NPR. Howard Zinn was known the world over as one of the few conscience keeper of the US. His scholastic achievements can barely be exaggerated. Besides he was the one of the sharpest critics of the insane and hegomonic foreign policy pursued by the American Right, the worst manifestation of which was Geoge Bush’s plan to turn the US into a new imperial nation. Howard Zinn was much respected outside the US not only as a great historian but also as an activist of human rights and international peace. In his death the world has lost a truly great man. It is unfortunate that there still anti-people and anti-humanity forces out there who strive to enslave the people of the world for the interest of their corporate masters. Horowitz seems to be one of them. By the way who the hell is he?
Zaheer Ali
Message sent to NPR:
The inclusion of a “rebuttal” by David Horowitz added to the obituary of Howard Zinn was inappropriate and disgusting. It is also notable that controversial figured on the right such as William Buckley were subject to no such treatment. Given the solemnity of the occasion the decision to air uninformative slander was inexcusable.
My message to NPR: I am appalled that All Things Considered would invite right-wing crank David Horowitz on their show to vilify historian Howard Zinn on the occasion of his passing, on 1/28/10. Mama always taught me to never speak ill of the dead, which is advice I hope NPR will take to heart. Your coverage of Zinn’s death was at the very least in poor taste. It was the kind of â┚¬Ã…“fair and balancedâ┚¬Ã‚ coverage I might have expected from Fox News, but certainly not an otherwise respected source of news reporting like NPR. Shame on you!
Outside of trying to appear balanced, is there any particular reason you’ve decided to “dance on the grave” of Howard Zinn by including the exceedingly negative comments of noted right-wing activist David Horowitz? Also, how did you decide that William F. Buckley was exempt from this treatment?
What a wonderful way to respect the life and work of a great historian. You must be proud.
Here’s what I sent:
I was horrified that Alison Keyes marred the brief remembrance of Howard Zinn by the disparaging comments of David Horowitz. Allowing him the opportunity to “balance” the remembrance of Howard Zinn is for me one more move in the rightward drift of NPR reporting that I and many others have complained about. I didn’t hear any comparable trashing of William Buckley. Do you really need “balance” in an OBITUARY???
I routinely turn off your broadcasts when Fox News’ Mara Liasson or Fox News’ Juan Williams begin to blather. They are completely discredited by the association with Fox, and I refuse to listen to anything they say. I may no longer be able to support Nice Polite Republican radio as long as this right-wing embrace continues.
I will never give to my NPR station again. Unless you answer some basic questions.
The straw:
I am appalled that you brought on a notorious head hunter, David Horowitz, to speak about Howard Zinn’s career. This man creates lists that are intended to create havoc for certain academic’s lives. He’s never had an original idea, rather, his life’s work is to intimidate others. Congratulations on rewarding him.
Shame on You! Shame on You!
There is a larger pattern here. It is well documented that you prefer “experts” from the right and center-right institutions. It is well documented that throughout NPR’s existence it has moved to the right. And now you can’t even give a liberal scholar his due without having a hate monger with no credibility weigh in.
Shame on You! Shame on You!
Since you are a PUBLIC radio, I think you need to explain yourselves to the PUBLIC that supports you!
How was this decision made? Why was this decision made?
Why do you keep moving farther to the right?
Without clear answers coming from you, I cannot support you anymore. If you don’t understand it yourself, then create an independent commission to look into it. I cannot support you anymore until you answer these basic questions.
How inappropriate to remember one of America´s foremost intellectuals by minimizing his entire career. That is certainly not what I expect from “All” things considered.
At a time when â┚¬Ã…“Things Fall Apartâ┚¬Ã‚ (Chinua Achebe), we should herald those who seek truth, justice and fulfillment for millions of people they don´t even know instead of indulging in selfserving viewpoints that do little beyond reinforcing selfish individualism.
ATC minimized Howard Zinn´s important contribution to historiography and to those who have been excluded from the Master Narrative of US history. Despite
ATC shortsightedness, rest assured that his legacy will live far beyond him in the hearts and minds of hundreds and thousands of us.
Perhaps ATC should consider doing a series on American History from viewpoints other than what is taught in High School History classes, and even incorporate some of Mr. Zinn´s students into the endeavor. You could perhaps then invite Mr. Horowitz to defend his dubious intellectual position on a panel of people who truly understand Howard Zinn´s contribution to humanity.
Dear NPR Ombudsman,
I am curious as to why David Horowitz was invited on to discuss Howard Zinn after his passing? Very inappropriate and disappointing, especially when the same consideration isn’t given to critics of heroes of the right, like in last year’s reporting of the death of William F. Buckley. Is this a growing policy of NPR’s?
Dear NPR Ombud,
As a longtime supporter of NPR and public radio, I am deeply disappointed in Alicia Sheppard’s recent obituary of historian Howard Zinn which included disrespectful comments made by conservative David Horowitz. It would seem obvious that an obituary is not the time to bring on those who disagree, as it is the worst time for a debate!
As a liberal who does not consider myself “the fringe,” I have long admired Zinn’s work, as have millions of others. Zinn brought something unique to the study of history– he brought an interest in the role of common people in making history. In this regard he was the most American of historians.
Do we really live in a time when only right wing intellectuals can be buried with honor? God held us.
Shamefully, the handling of the NPR obit of Howard Zinn proved Mr. Zinn right in so may of his assessments. I listen to NPR (and donate) because I like to believe NPR is above such small-minded unbalanced commentary. Apparently, I’m wrong, and the corruption runs deep. Well, there goes one more listener…I am so disappointed in you.
Dear NPR Ombud,
I’d like to know what you are going to do to remedy the mistake you made when you invited the inappropriate comments of David Horowitz into the Howard Zinn obituary. This long-term contributor would like to know.
Thank you
I want to express disappointment with NPR’s version of an obituary for someone who gave so much of his life toward the advancement of American society, Howard Zinn.
I understand the effect that right-wing bully tactics have on news coverage, but such overt imbalance (i.e.Buckley and Reagan’s obits–two characters of American life with severe policy and character flaws, standing on the wrong side of history for most of their respective lives–as compared to Howard Zinn’s treatment) is an insult to journalism and your listeners.
I’m not an angry left- winger; my analysis is sober and objective, which opposes the cloud under which the majority of American news media outlets operate, from which, NPR has been unable to escape.
Much like President Obama seems to be learning during his 2nd year in office, no matter how much you compromise your integrity, or move toward irrationality in order to appease the right-wing establishment, they are never saisfied, will always request more concessions, and will “badmouth” you in the end, regardless of the situation’s reality
Once again, NPR’s ALC and ME have pandered to the far right. If NPR wishes to “balance” Mr. Zinn’s obit, it should have looked to his body of work and given opposing points of view rather than allowing some right-wing crank to simply make unsubstantiated criticisms of the man himself. In any event, we are all left to wonder why the same treatment was not employed when NPR eulogized W.F. Buckley. Another example of ATC and ME becoming publicly funded Fox News affiliates.
When a man of such intellect and importance as Howard Zinn dies, I expect NPR to note his many accomplishments, provide a brief summary of his life’s achievements, and interview individuals of his caliber to comment on his life’s work and contributions. Therefore, NPR, and specifically Allison Keyes and Scott Simon’s focus on the inane opinions of such right- wing minuscule intellects as David Horowiiz is alarming.
This NPR focus on attempting to besmirch and diminish the recognized contributions of Howard Zinn is a transparent attempt to court the rising conservative obtuse mind set in this country. I urge you to examine this issue in general, and the ridiculous coverage of Mr. Zinn’s passing in particular. Nothing less than a detailed discussion of his works as historian, playwright, educator, and author aired on NPR will suffice to correct this state of affairs.
Unbelievably irresponsible to include a reactionary’s words in Dr. Howard Zinn’s obituary. It’s not balanced when the “opposing” side is a crank who bases his arguments in bigotry and fiction. And since when does an OBITUARY require “equal time”????? To those of us devastated by the loss of Dr. Zinn and his activism, your obit was insult to injury. Hard to forgive such a cruel act on your part. Allowing a lunatic like Horowitz air time of any kind is bad enough. Allowing him to besmirch the work of the late Dr. Zinn is straight up wrong.
Unbelievably irresponsible to include a reactionary’s words in Dr. Howard Zinn’s obituary. It’s not balanced when the “opposing” side is a crank who bases his arguments in bigotry and fiction. And since when does an OBITUARY require “equal time”????? To those of us devastated by the loss of Dr. Zinn and his activism, your obit was insult to injury. Hard to forgive such a cruel act on your part. Allowing a lunatic like Horowitz air time of any kind is bad enough. Allowing him to besmirch the work of the late Dr. Zinn is straight up wrong.
CONTACT NPR: http://help.npr.org/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=5670&task=ticket
Sent this query to the NPR ombudsman
Date Created: 2/1/2010 1:20:41 PM
Subject Howard Zinn obit vs. Bill Buckley obit:
Body: Why was the treatment of these two leading thinkers in their respective orbits (intellectual left and intellectual right) so different? Specifically, why did Buckley rate several stories and commentaries, with no one from the left critiquing his legacy, while Zinn got one obit, a portion of which gave valuable air time to a critic from the right? To my eyes, it looked like yet another craven attempt to appease NPR’s right-wing critics. Stop it. It won’t work – the right has nothing but contempt for the kind of “balance” you are offering and will get rid of the lot of you at the first opportunity, or simply defund the show, as they’ve attempted in the past. Not only is it futile, it strips you of the credibility you once had with listeners.
Dear Ms. Sheppard,
I realize that after the assault on public broadcasting of the early 1990s, NPR felt it necessary to give the right-wing the loudest voice whenever left-wing subjects were discussed. However, those days are long past. It is now time to allow the left-wing to have its own voice without being shouted down. In your piece last week, on the passing of Howard Zinn, you allowed a right-wing propagandist, David Horowitz, to make ad hominem remarks disparaging Mr. Zinn. Meanwhile, such assaults are not aired when prominent right-wing individuals pass away. I would like to see the network end its practice of skewed-to-the-right productions meant to appease the right-wing of this country.
Sincerely,
David Korb
The following was sent to NPR Ombudsman on Feb. 1st 2010 :
Why have a negative point of view included in his obituary? The man stood for equality for all. I guess the only thing I can come up with was he opposed all wars including both World Wars. I am sick of all the hate-spewing by so-called experts. What kind of obituary was that supposed to be? Fair and Balanced, leave the junk journalism to Fox News. If you don’t have something nice to say, say nothing at all! Mr.Horowitz should have taken my parents advice. Shame on you NPR!!
1/30/10 Omsbudsman, NPR;
First came the glowing obits for American’s favority racist, William F. Buckley. Then came the pairing of a former republican congressman turned financial services industry flack with John Bogle. Three days later NPR made the death of Howard Zinn an occasion to broadcast lunatic fringe propaganda, dancing, as it were, on the grave of an American war veteran, anti-war activist and absolutely superb historian.
I have been contributing $10 a month to NPR for as long as I can remember. It has become obvious, however, that you don’t need, or particularly want, my money. Your large corporate donors have been calling the shots for quite a while.
So long, decency, so long, honest journalism, and so long, NPR.
In parting, I would only urge other individual contributors to follow my example.
My message to NPR –
Date Created: 2/1/2010 3:31:32 PM
Subject Allowing racist David Horrowitz to comment on Howard Zinn Death:
Body: It was exceedingly insulting to my ears, while listening to fair and fact based comments on the life and work of Howard Zinn, to be so abruptly assaulted by the irrelevant opinions of the reactionary racist David Horowitz. Was it so essential to dig up this category of a creep in order to offer some “balanced perspective”? It was a horrible decision to offer this lightweight right-wing paranoid full access to the NPR airways on this sad occasion of Howard Zinn’s death. Shame on NPR and the All Thing’s Considered producers for deliberately making this happen.
What did Horowitz say that was NOT factual?
letter to ombudsman
Message #: 5607-10104419
Date Created: 1/31/2010 12:50 PM EDT
Subject: Epitaph on Howard Zinn
Body: Where did you get David Horowitz on your experts list. This guy promotes McCarthy witch hunt tactics on college campuses to attack any professor who doesn’t follow the far right orthodoxy. He is not considered credible by most all academics. He lives on funding from far right foundation sources. In past times, it would have gone without saying that asking the John Birch Society for considered opinion was beyond the ken but now somehow its mainstream. As the 20- somethings might say “What’s up with that?” Please desist from putting crazies on your show as representative of viewpoints greater than those of the 1% fringe, especially following the death of a great American. I thought you could free yourselves from funding worries of Bush pressure on your content. Get rid of Fox news, national review type moles in you organization, who form a chorus which clouds your judgment on what is news
Hello,
The decision to have David Horowitz chime in on the death of Howard Zinn is, in my mind, continued evidence of the decline of NPR.
Where, for instance, was the criticism of Ronald Reagan, or Milton Friedman, as the nation noted their passing?
If such criticisms did appear on NPR, they were so mild and unassuming as to slip by, unnoticed by me even though I did my best to find any criticism.
The screed of Horowitz, was not nuanced in the slightest. I can certainly see why NPR would consider Horowitz a source of insight, however, since he is such a well-balanced and non-judgmental author.
The only reputation tarnished in this exchange, however, was the reputation of NPR.
I actually feel like writing a note to you practically every day that I listen to NPR. I have been listening to NPR for 30 years and, beginning about 10 years ago, began to realize that a faux balance was slowly replacing considered and nuanced analysis. This is just another slip down the rung.
Why not do a piece on the internal politics of NPR, and the changes that have appeared over the last decade (and more). Perhaps then we listeners would have some way of understanding where these programming and reporting decisions come from. I’ve asked for such reporting before. Would love it if someone would do it. That would be newsworthy work.
I add my name to this list of people who oppose the decision to allow David Horowitz’ commentary on Howard Zinn. This is not what balanced journalism is!
I was appalled at the lack of judgment on NPR’s part for providing an “alternate” obituary of Howard Zinn–especially from David Horowitz–a man who is one step away from Michael Savage in his level of hysteria and paranoia. He offered no qualitative analysis other than to deride Dr. Zinn who could not defend himself nor did you offer a rebuttal to any defenders of Dr. Zinn.
While such “he said, he said” treatment is sometimes bestowed by NPR upon world figures (dead Presidents, politicians, Popes, etc.), rarely does one hear such treatment or even understand the need for it for writers and intellectuals.
I do not recall any voices of opposition when William F. Buckley died–I would certainly have been thrilled to hear from Gore Vidal on the occasion had you felt the need for “balance” at THAT time. Instead, glowing treatments were provided by his son, his proteges and his admirers. I do remember that you had RESPECTFUL opponents of Robert Novak when he died. I remember specific criticisms of his life/work–not ad hominem attacks.
I think NPR owes the family, friends, and admirers of Dr. Zinn an apology for this unfair and uncalled-for treatment of his passing.
I was sorry to hear of the passing of Howard Zinn last week. I was surprised to hear that his obituary on All Things Considered included a comments by David Horowitz. Why would NPR include critical comments from a man who has openly supported torture and illegal settlements in occupied territories? It left a very sour taste in my mouth on a sad day.
I thought it was very strange that as soon as Zinn died your show had a tasteless sort of death rebuttal from a detractor of Zinn’s, David Horowitz.
“There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn’s intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect,” Horowitz declared.
Despite the fact that what Horowitz said isn’t true in any sense whatsoever, this is just weird. Did you have liberals come on air to put down WF Buckley as soon as he died? As the nation mourned Michael Jackson, did any NPR shows air a counter view on his talent and impact?
This is all too clearly a trend: as long as the right says “the media is liberal”, the media, even trusted sources like NPR, turn to tricks such as these to somehow prove the right-wing detractors, so hateful of facts as they are, wrong.
The right has won — the result being media that continues to move in a conservative direction — obliging willingly, as if the detractors would somehow ever say, “Stop. You’ve gone too far past neutral now.”
As a long time NPR supporter and volunteer I am outraged that an American hero and historian, Howard Zinn, would be treated so appallingly by NPR. It was not fair and balanced, as they say they want to be. Where was the balance when right winger Buckley died? I demand an apology or another story about Zinn without the right wing hype. Just a story of his life and efforts.
Oh my god! How on earth could NPR disgrace itself by allowing the laughable David Horowitz, a man who epitomizes all that Zinn’s life work fought against, to urinate on his freshly dug grave?! Horowitz’s meretricious labors for the powerful against the rest of us, stand in stark contrast to Zinn’s lasting oeuvre.
All Things Considered…
not so much!
I would like Alicia Shepard to please explain the rational behind trashing anyone in their obit (unless they were an enemy to the people). Dr. Zinn was a hero of the people, for the people and to the people. So you bring on a trashy villain to spit on the people’s hero in his obit? Ugly.
tter to NPR:
The lack of respect you showed for a distinguished American historian is, alas, symptomatic of NPR’s shift, if not to the right, at least to an increasing sensitivity to right wing criticism. Speaking as an early staff member and historian of KPFA, which was a major influence on the formation of NPR, I am saddened by its accelerating slide down market. http://www.kpfahistory.info/
Open Letter to “All Things Considered”
I confess that, while I listen regularly to “All Things Considered”. I did not hear the program on January 28. Thus it came as a shock to me that NPR saw fit to bring on a commentator, David Horowitz, to provide “balance” to the obituaries of the late Howard Zinn. I read the transcript today in a message from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (fair.org).
Howard Zinn was one of my heroes, and I commend Sunday’s Boston Globe Book Section article (Jan. 31) by Alice Walker to your attention, if you want any confirmation of the many ways he has positively influenced large numbers of us and our society as a whole.
When did it become policy at NPR to provide rebuttals to obituaries? I’ll be listening for the “good-riddance” rebuttals from leading left-wing intellectuals the next time a right-wing blowhard or Pinochet-type dictator dies. I certainly don’t recall any such rebuttals in the past. Obituaries are not traditionally treated as opinion pieces that need political balance. Good deeds and a life well-lived do not deserve such disrespect, and the death of a public figure is certainly not the appropriate time to give it a platform. One might heed President Obama’s calls for civil discourse in the future.
To the NPR Ombudsman:
Inviting David Horowitz to denigrate Howard Zinn after his death was anything but balanced reporting. Horowitz is an angry crank — and Zinn didn’t deserve such treatment in life or death.
NPR does itself and your listeners a disservice when your producers attempt to feature phoney diversity in the left right spectrum, especially when so inappropriately applied to the death of a unique and venerated historian of Zinn’s stature.
Scott Harris
All Things Considered?…YEAH RIGHT!
This is why I tuned out of NPR long ago…i detected the MASQUERADE you perform long ago…i see your TRUE colors…and it has nothing to do with all things being considerd. I mean really on the death of a true historian (someone who advocates for the documenting and sharing of the full spectrum of history).
Just extra evidence to me that when it comes to integrity NPR is a JOKE and an insidious cancer to the media landscape. Oh and when HOROWITZ kicks the bucket maybe NPR can earn its way back into a favorable light by hosting a public commentary by citizens who may have a thing or two to say about what HOROWITZ life represented.
I am a member of NPR, have listened for many years and like the fact that generally both sides of a position are presented. Having said that, I am disappointed in your coverage of Howard Zinn. It is not necessary to present an opponent of a deceased political icon when this is not a pollcy. It would appear that perhaps your program considers Howard Zinn a minor icon and not deserving of a dignified obituary. I disagree. I did not much like William Buckley but I noticed that you did not disrespect his memory with a political debate which had to balance his point of view.
I appreciate that you put ‘everybody’ on, even criminals. I do not appreciate what appears to be biased coverage.
The media, particularly NPR is not ‘liberal’. Please do not blur the lines and become like Fox.
Thank you.
I am so done with NPR after hearing of this. Sheesh, I would expect this from the major MSM, I used to think you were different, now I think you are actually worse. Good luck with “pledge week”, you’ll need it. No self respecting listener would contribute to just another propaganda pushing pimp station.
here’s the message I posted to NPR:
Howard Zinn has been one of my heroes since about 1984, when I introduced my mother the American history teacher to his People’s History and she started using it in her classroom.
So I was distressed to hear FAIR’s comparison of his biography with Buckley’s.
Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests?
What were they thinking? To have a man of Howard Zinn’s stature critiqued by a right wing zealot like David Horowitz was atrocious. I am beginning to wonder if NPR has gone over to the FOX side. I hope that someone sees fit to offer an apology for this gratuitous slap at a man who caused many of us to take a clear-eyed look at our country’s history.
I have been a supporter of Oregon Public radio for more than 30 years, and have been considering including them in a larger way in my estate plans. By your actions you have given me second thoughts. We have enough captive media. I will be listening to see whether you have joined this group.
Dear Ms. Shepard. I am distressed that the report on the death of Howard Zinn was handled so unprofessionally. At the time that William F. Buckley died I heard eulogy after eulogy idolizing Buckley’s contributions. Personally I considered Buckley intelligent but totally disagreed with his assessment of the world. In particular I remember his support for racism both here and in South Africa, for US intervention in Viet Nam and in numerous Latin American countries, for his chauvinistic and anti feminist discussions, for the use of WMD ie. antinuclear weapons. No one on your station in any of the 1/2 dozen formats presented denigrate4d Buckley. And your station gave no one who disagreed with him an opportunity to make a statement about the “negative” impact he had on American youth. Why then would you denigrate Howard Zinn by giving David Horowitz a platform to not only malign Zinn but also the ‘millions’ of youth who appreciated Zinn’s work? Because your agenda is right wing vs progressive? Because you are trying to be bipartisan but only when you accommodate the right, never the “left”? Why would you not ask someone like Tom Fox, editor of the National Catholic Reporter his opinion of Zinn,or award winning journalist Amy Goodman from Democracy NOW, Dolores Huerta from the UFWA, Dr. Victor Sidel,Distinguished Professor from Albert Einstein School of Medicine, former Sen. Mike Gravel, performers Bruce Springsteen, Joan Baez and Bob Dylan, writer Alice Walker, actors Ben Afleck, Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman? Those who held Howard Zinn in great respect are more numerous than I could ever list. Horowitz’s comments are insulting to all of us as we are not a “fringe mentality” and certainly not “seduced” by Zinn. Howard Zinn deserves at least the same respect in reporting that you gave William F. Buckley 2 years ago. It is disturbing that that was not the case. If you are truly my public radio station, you would have been sensitive to this. I would appreciate an apology on behalf of a man I hold in great esteem and on behalf of all of us thinking sentient beings who choose to admire the intellectual and humanitarian contributions of Howard Zinn. Thank you,
I want to add my voice to what I hope is a growing chorus of complaint about your inclusion of David Horowitz in your obituary for Howard Zinn.
I am sure that many have pointed out the unprecedented aspect of this report–including critical comments about the person being memorialized. This, by itself, certainly raises questions about a profound political bias at NPR, which I hope you will do something to rectify–either by offering “both sides” to all obituaries, or by offering progressives the same “all positive” treatment as you do for conservatives.
But more broadly, it is particularly offensive that — in only instance of this new policy of offering “both sides” in an obituary — you chose David HOrowitz as the negative offering. Horowitz is not a thoughtful critic of Zinn or anyone else — he is notorious for having slandered large numbers of people who he attacks by innuendo and with unfounded assertions that are both malicious and false. (His comments about Zinn illustrate this habit perfectly.) He is not an informed(or respectful) critic of Zinn, but rather an irresponsible propagandist who should not be offered the NPR platform.
Date Created: 2/3/2010 1:17:17 PM
Subject Why Such Imbalance On Howard Zinn?:
Body: I have been contacted through FAIR of the imbalance of Howard Zinn, reason why I write to you and would kindly and respectfully want an answer from “All Thing’s Considered”. Peace is not an extremeist thought. And yes we need more Peace in our Nation as in the world.
2.3.2010
Allison Keyes:
Most people avoid trashing a person when they die, if for no other reason than out of respect for those in mourning. Your failed attempt at an obituary for Howard Zinn exposes your heartless position in this regard.
An obituary is not an opportunity for condemnation of those you dislike, rather, the publicizing of a person’s accomplishments and contributions. Instead of simply stating Howard Zinn’s noteworthy role in our history, you invited David Horowitz to spew malicious mockery. You disrespected Mr. Zinn and his family, disregarded his legitimate role in America, misused “publicâ┚¬Ã‚ radio, and made a spectacle of yourself.
Harboring ill-feelings for Mr. Zinn should have been reason for you to keep silent, not motivation to sully his name through baseless hateful commentary.
Kathy & Bob Burkart-Lemke
Milwaukee, WI
That’s NPR.
It is unbelievable that a feather-weight like David Horowitz was asked to speak about Howard Zinn. I think the individuals who planned this should be FIRED. This is not public radio. (I suspect that some corporate money might be to blame). Shame on you. An apology is expected.
(I pasted in the body of your information, and asked, in uppercase, why the show had hosted a fascist attack on Howard Zinn, and also to provide me the name of the person responsible. But, uh, yeah, I think I pretty much know why they did that. And that really stinks.
Long ago I worked for KQED – for a year or so. It wasn’t as warm and fuzzy as I thought it would be. Just another corporation. I listened to Morning Edition/ATC for many years, though. No longer. Too annoying. Too fuddy-duddy. Like Robert SEEgull’s snooty tone of voice. ug.
Kudos to FAIR, and to CMD for noting your great work in “The Weekly Spin”.)
NPR’s Disgraceful Inclusion of Horowitz for Zinn’s Obituary
I demand that when the next prominent Republican dies, you have me on to rhetorically piss on his or her grave.
NPR thy name is whore.
ab
Subject: Eulogizing Howard Zinn
It is with great disappointment that I write to inform NPR that it has, by giving voice to David Horowitz on the subject of Howard Zinn’s life and work, betrayed a trust in the judgement of its editorial staff.
It is not only inappropriate to attempt to politically balance a remembrance of the recently deceased by including the opinions on the decedent of low-life political hacks whose sole intention is to cast aspersions on him and his achievements, it is pandering of the worst sort.
I know that a vast sum of operational expenses for NPR comes from commercial entities led and managed by persons whose political interests lie substantially to the right of center, but NPR should also consider that its primary loyal listener base, and its natural audience as a public broadcaster, is typically more on the intellectual and liberal half of the spectrum. By treating that listener base to such a poorly considered (and some might say just plain idiotic) interpretation of journalistic devotion to balance, NPR risks eliminating its very raison d’etre (which I can’t imagine its more conservative funders would lose much sleep over).
I would expect more from an institution whose very purpose and social function is to challenge the (mis)information so sensationally disseminated by commercial interests as “news” and to fill the holes in essential coverage those interests conveniently leave behind in their slavish service to the next quarter’s stock performance.
NPR’s editorial staff owes a personal apology to the family of Howard Zinn for publicly desecrating his memory in an absolutely unforgiveable manner, and to its listeners for mistaking intensely poor editorial judgement for journalistic integrity and intellectual balance.
Sincerely and with deep regard,
Eric R Bassey
Ann Arbor, MI
Good work, NPR, on validating Zinn’s thesis about the cravenness of the U.S. mass media. By having a wingnut baselessly insult a dead historian as part of his obituary, you conclusively proved Zinn correct: Eventheliberal NPR is basically a servile tool of the Establishment. Well played, fake liberals. Well played.
Comments submitted in response to Alicia Shepard’s Ombudsman article on this topic:
Ms. Shepard
I note that the tone of your commentary on the response to NPR’s obituary of Howard Zinn seems to dismiss that response as a political maneuver orchestrated by a third party. I think the comments of Adam Bernstein contain excellent guidance and instruction for NPR staff to consider in future, and I think that your final comments about the value of doing a better obituary rather than a faster one are indicative of a desire to improve (at least I hope), but I am confounded by the lack of even an apologetic tone, much less an actual apology, to accompany the apparent mea culpa those comments communicate.
Frankly, I thought your article more defensive than pensive, and tellingly, that it reflects a failure to appreciate that legitimate criticism should not be tempered by consideration of the source.
Don’t defend a bad job (even half-heartedly). And don’t stop at admitting that it might have been a bad job. Make appropriate amends, make a commitment to doing better, and then get on with it.
Best regards,
Eric R Bassey
Dear WYSO:
As you know, Howard Zinn — political activist, historian, teacher and
playwright — has died of a heart attack.
â┚¬Ã…“His writings have changed the consciousness of a generation, and
helped open new paths to understanding and its crucial meaning for our
lives,â┚¬Ã‚ wrote Noam Chomsky. He was well known for a book entitled “A
People’s History of the United States” (1980). In addition, he was
the author of books such as “Logic of Withdrawal in Vietnam” (1967);
“Politics of History” (1970); “You Can’t be Neutral on a Moving Train:
A Personal History of Our Times” (1995); “Terrorism and War” (2003);
and, “A People’s History of the American Empire” (2008). He also
penned three plays.
Dr. Zinn was a perceptive critic of imperial adventurism. With respect
to the election of Mr. Obama, he wrote in January 2010: â┚¬Ã…“I wasn’t
terribly disappointed because I didn’t expect that much. I expected
him to be a traditional Democratic president. On foreign policy,
that’s hardly any different from a Republican â┚¬“ as nationalist,
expansionist, imperial and warlike.â┚¬Ã‚ He was an opponent of aggression
in Vietnam, often speaking at demonstrations during the 1960s. He
later wrote that â┚¬Ã…“[w]hen the United States fought in Vietnam, it was
organized modern technology versus organized human beings, and the
human beings won.â┚¬Ã‚ As an embodiment of the ethos that the main goal of
the citizen must be to change the world for the better, his passion
for sustained political activism never abated.
Many would not know the extent of historical injustice if not for
Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States.” Thankfully,
Dr. Zinn overtook the various false witnesses of history. Yet in an
epoch when American Idol appears to be more important than sustained
political engagement, his death represents a great loss.
Alas, instead of properly using the occasion of Dr. Zinn’s death to
reflect on such issues, NPR’s All Things Considered (1/28/10) marked
his passing with contempt. After briefly quoting Noam Chomsky and
Julian Bond, NPR’s Allison Keyes turned to far-right nut David
Horowitz to symbolically spit on Zinn’s grave. He seems to have been
invited to speak on NPR merely to demonstrate that NPR will not allow
praise for Zinn to go unaccompanied by conservative contempt. Needless
to say, it is not the case that NPR has a consistent principle that
all its obituaries be thus “balanced.” Take its coverage of the death
of William F. Buckley, a figure as admired by the right as much as
Zinn was on the left. Upon his death in February 2008, NPR aired six
segments commemorating him, none of which included a non-admiring
guest. In fact, there was much to criticize about Buckley, who was a
supporter of, among other things, white supremacism in the U.S. South
and South Africa, McCarthyism, nuclear war against China and the
tattooing of AIDS patients’ buttocks.
On second thought, perhaps, I should thank NPR for including the views
of David Horowitz in its obituary for Howard Zinn. After all, if you
hadn’t quoted some fringe right-wing crank, it would have suggested
that Zinn’s six decades of teaching might be wrong. But since you did include it,
you demonstrated once again that Zinn was correct about NPR and the media
generally: you’re enthusiastic handmaidens of the U.S. government at worst, timid
“liberals” terrified to step one inch out of line at best. Therefore,
this really was the greatest sendoff you could give Zinn, essentially
validating his entire life.
Despite this validation, however, you should rest assured that no
member of my household will give money to NPR again. Since WYSO is
the local NPR affiliate, this holds for WYSO as well.
cc: Alicia Shepard
this was about as “fair and balanced” as a health care “town hall” here in Harrisburg PA. us little people were able to watch and listen as BlueCross and United Health execs spouted sophisticated dismissals of HCR. that and this Zinn head shaker are but a drop in the WTF bucket. when BlueCross billboards on my commute to school are outnumbered by “content made possible by ____” (choose any BigHealth Hut)… 2shame.
why?… because “viewers like me” don’t howl at the moon then tbag our neighbors
Alica Shepard’s less than felicitous response is up on her blog:
http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2010/02/howard_zinns_obit.html
She mentions FAIR, of course
‘It was the commentary by Horowitz that led Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a left-leaning media watchdog group, to initiate a campaign that resulted in over 1,600 emails, over 100 phone calls and 108 comments on npr.org. Others complained on air.’
‘Many critics pointed to NPR’s even-handed coverage of William F. Buckley, “a figure as admired by the right as much as Zinn was on the left,” according to FAIR, which gave its members talking points and urged them to contact the Ombudsman.’
I’m glad FAIR did the action alert. In my response (above) I didn’t use talking points at all and judging from the other commenters who submitted their letters here, they didn’t either.
What is shocking to several commenters on Shepard’s post is to read that Keyes refused to comment on it. So she stands by her story after all the complaints? NPR just doesn’t get it.
I cannot believe the insult to the life of Howard Zinn that was perpetrated on NPR in the form of giving a forum for right-wing critic David Horowitz, without challenging his completely unsubstantiated criticisms of Zinn. Given the context of a life remembrance, I did not think it made sense to have him on in the first place. However, to let him disrespect the life’s work of Zinn without question?
I am further incensed upon learning that a similar piece on NPR after the death of William Buckley did not have any critic from the left.
Despite the right’s attempts to attack public broadcasting as having a “liberal bias,” I have often felt the opposite is true. The coverage (what little there has been on NPR) of Howard Zinn’s death further confirms this impression.
My second letter to NPR:
Subject: NPR Ombud Alicia Shepard’s February 5, 2010 response concerning the fact that the critics were right about Howard Zinn’s death.
Thank you for responding to FAIR advocates who were disgusted by the horrible treatment of Howard Zinn’s obituary on All Things Considered. I think the letter fairly implies NPR’s deeply flawed and biased approach to the treatment of left-wing versus right-wing icons even though the letter neither explicitly admits that fact nor resolves to stop it. This was obvious in the adjectives used to describe left-wing versus right-wing figures, the unnecessary explanation of obituaries not being tributes, and the incorrect claim of FAIR’s providing talking points.
As an aside, I hope that realizing the irony of describing David Horowitz as the â┚¬Ã…“founder of Students for Academic Freedom, a national watchdog group that promotes tolerance of conservatives on college campuses,â┚¬Ã‚ wasn’t lost on NPR considering the extremely intolerant comments Mr. Horowitz spewed to unsuccessfully defame Professor Zinn. I say â┚¬Ã…“unsuccessfullyâ┚¬Ã‚ because Professor Zinn’s body of work is much too great to be negatively impacted by the likes of Mr. Horowitz’s psychotic ramblings. Yes, that is a biased comment on my part, and I can explicitly admit it. However, I do not have a megaphone to either express my bias as NPR has to express its biases.
The letter to FAIR demonstrates that NPR still has the knee-jerk need to â┚¬Ã…“balanceâ┚¬Ã‚ Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬Ã…“controversial,â┚¬Ã‚ Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬Ã…“leftist radicals.â┚¬Ã‚ Please contrast those adjectives with merely â┚¬Ã…“right-wing figure(s) admired by those on the right â┚¬Ã‚¦Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬Ã‚ NPR did not label the late Misters Buckley, Roberts, and Novak as â┚¬Ã…“controversialâ┚¬Ã‚ as it did Professor Zinn. I checked the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and â┚¬Ã…“controversialâ┚¬Ã‚ does not apply only to left-wing figures. That’s precisely a right-wing bias that NPR has adopted.
Moreover, I know that I did not ask for a tribute, and I highly doubt that the vast majority of people who admired Professor Zinn and were outraged by NPR’s shabby treatment of his memory expected NPR to pay tribute to him. I can safely assert that we are quite accustomed to unfair treatment by the media and its overcompensation to prove that it is not liberal. In fact I can safely assert that we would have been shocked if NPR had paid tribute to Professor Zinn! So your statement that â┚¬Ã…“obituaries are news stories that place a person in time and history — not tributesâ┚¬Ã‚ is not only unnecessary but schoolmarmish, reflecting a need to treat us like children. On the other hand your letter admits that â┚¬Ã…“NPR was complimentary and respectful in memorializing Buckley.â┚¬Ã‚ May I remind you that Buckley supported white supremacy, McCarthyism, warmongering with China, and tattooing people with AIDS. Those are facts, not opinion. That makes him a controversial, right-wing radical.
Lastly, I checked FAIR’s website for the Action Alert concerning NPR’s shameful treatment of Professor Zinn’s obituary. The alert was a narrative of what transpired with quotes from the horrible obituary of Professor Zinn while explaining how NPR celebrated Mr. Buckley’s life along with controversial facts about Buckley. A summary thesis in the action requested at the end of the alert (ACTION: Please ask the NPR ombud why All Things Considered brought on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests.) can hardly be described as â┚¬Ã…“talking points.â┚¬Ã‚ When asked to generate original letters of complaint, we don’t need bulleted talking points. Surely you have heard the simile we use to describe ourselves: Organizing liberals is like herding cats. Yes, liberals are self-critical. If you do not know that, rest assured that you are not one of us.
Your letter was a sincere apology. I especially appreciated the quotes from those who, while complaining about your unfair reporting, expressed an important impression of Professor Zinn (e.g., “I was one of those young people Zinn influenced; he didn’t expect people to blindly accept his version of history. Rather, he taught us to question, probe, seek out alternative perspectives and to always be fair.”)
Yet I have the impression that NPR is still very eager to prove that it is not liberalâ┚¬”Âan ironic but obtuse canard perpetuated by thousands of right-wing figures and activist voices on air, in print, and on the net. The Ombud was incapable of explicitly stating that NPR would resolve to treat left- and right-wing figures (both living and deceased) equitably. Are liberals and progressives supposed to merely be grateful that NPR will continue to be â┚¬Ã…“complimentary and respectfulâ┚¬Ã‚ to â┚¬Ã…“right-wing figuresâ┚¬Ã‚ but find a â┚¬Ã…“more nuanced criticâ┚¬Ã‚ for â┚¬Ã…“controversial, leftist radicalsâ┚¬Ã‚Â? If NPR is unwilling to state that resolution, I would gladly accept the practice of it. Either admit this bias as a warning to your listeners at the beginning of your broadcasts or stop expressing it.
Sincerely,
Benita J. Campbell
Why did All Things Considered bring on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests.
Having David Horowitz on air to spit on Howard Zinn’s grave was deplorable. Using public radio to broadcast Horowitz’s substance free venomous diatribe is unconscionable.
NPR was once a breath of fresh air in a swamp of corporate media. Can we now group NPR with Fox. Has the Bush effort to contaminate NPR been so successful that fairness and decency are no longer important to you.
David Horowitz “surfaced” as the cynical right wing frothing-at-the-mouth-“expert” at about the same time the audience building extremist crowd surfaced to “save” public radio, with programming homogenization and a scorched earth mentality for those who questioned (any of) their direction. In both instances it was fashionable with Reagan in charge; a bunch of white guys just following the march of the day.
Howard Zinn flew bombing missions over Germany in World War II. He proved himself as a patriot. If some of his critics since then were really honest, showing their true colors, they’d be crying about how Zinn “crippled the fatherland” with his bombing runs. No? I think some people on the right are only a step away from saying something like that, but instead they hide behind “patriotism”, calling out their adversaries as unpatriotic, or something worse.
REPUBLICANS WITHOUT DIXIECRATS !!!!!!!!
Republicans Without Dixiecrats !!!!
I was all set to download the NPR app to my iPhone….Not now. Not.Ever.
R.I.P. Howard.
Here is the reply to my email to NPR and a reproduction of my email below that:
From: “NPR – Listener Care”
Date: February 5, 2010 10:49:31 AM PST
To: “mloc@earthlink.net”
Subject: Howard Zinn obituary w/ Allison Keyes – Message #5607-10102699
Reply-To: NPR_Response@npr.org
Dear Maureen,
I want to thank you for your recent letter about an obituary for Howard Zinn that aired on All Things Considered on January 28. Following its broadcast, listeners contacted NPR to express their perspectives on it, and in particular the inclusion of comments made by David Horowitz. Some of those letters were included in All Things Considered’s “letters” segment on January 29, which you can hear here.
NPR News management has concluded that the quote from David Horowitz is harsh in tone, but that doesn’t undermine the legitimacy of using his point of view. Obituaries are news stories that place a person in time and history; for this reason, NPR needed to mention the controversy about his work. However, News management did determine that the statement was missing supporting evidence.
In addition to the All Things Considered piece, NPR discussed Howard Zinn’s legacy on Talk of the Nation in this piece; as well as on NPR’s Tell Me More; on our website with The Nation; and in blogs. I encourage you to review these additional materials.
Everything that airs on NPR needs to rise to the same high standards — from news reports to multimedia features to interviews to obituaries. It is always a disappointment to hear when a listener feels we have not met those standards. The goal of our reporting is not to take sides in an issue, but to bring diverse perspectives to our listeners.
The NPR Ombudsman has written a column about the obituary which aired on All Things Considered. Our Ombudsman believes that piece could have been better, while recognizing the constraints under which the reporter was working.
I regret that you feel disappointed, and I thank you for letting us know. It’s important for us to hear from listeners when they feel we’ve done something well, and when they feel we have not.
Thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Dana Davis Rehm
Senior Vice President for Marketing, Communications, and External Relations
Message Summary:
Date Created: 1/29/2010 7:04:17 PM
Subject Howard Zinn obituary w/ Allison Keyes:
Body: I have no idea why NPR felt it necessary to have David Horowitz comment on the death, life, work, influence or in fact any aspect or angle of the career of the amazing and brilliant writer and historian Howard Zinn. I am constantly astounded by your need to feature a “rebuttal” type of response from The Standard, The Washington Times, and similar organs of the Right whenever you have any story that might possibly be construed as concerning someone or something not to the right of dead center, politically. Did Rupert Murdock purchase NPR? Are you competing with Fox News for the “Fair & Balanced” Misnomer Award? Howard Zinn deserved an obituary free of this kind of pandering to the Right. I am ashamed of NPR. I won’t dignify Horowitz’s remarks by even quoting his nastiness. Suffice it to say, odd happenings at NPR stations, like firing Sandra Tsing Loh, more programming featuring religion and “spirituality”, and various other acts of moving toward the irrational and engaging in knee-jerk self-censorship seem much more in context now.
letter to NPR:
What you did to Howard Zinn was unfair and a low blow. You did a disservice to your program and yourself. I would please like you to listen to Howard Zinn’s speech “The Three Holy Wars.” This will help you to know this great humanitarian.
We have now received a response from NPR’s ombudsperson and about all that I can agree with is her contention that the obituary of Mr. Zinn was “flawed.” I thought the rest of her response was inadequate, evasive and unremarkable. Let’s not pat ourselves on the back so hard that we knock ourselves down on our face.
Thank you, Maura, for posting the email you received from NPR’s Dana Davis Rehm. I thought Rehms’s comments were evasive and kind of patronizing. Rehm said nothing about the shocking difference in the way Zinn was treated when compared to Buckley or other conservatives and is apparently so far gone that she actually believes that the piece rose to the same (allegedly) high standards as the obituaries of conservatives.
Furthermore, a proper apology never uses phrases along the lines of “I regret you feel that…” Using those terms is dismissive, offensive, indicative of a lack of personal responsibility and infers that while she feels badly that you feel badly, she really doesn’t think she did anything wrong and that if you feel bad, it’s your own fault. It is always better to dmit it when you make mistakes and take responsibility for those mistakes by acknowleding those mistakes. The people at NPR don’t seem to be morally big enough to take responsibility for their mistakes. They also don’t seem to be capable of learning from them.
NPR seems to have figured out that they offended a large number of their listeners, but they still don’t seem to think they did anything wrong, they haven’t taken any responsibility, and are unwilling set the record straight.
Advisory: The following is a satirically annotated response of NRR’s Dana D. Rehm to Maureen’s email. My annotations, in brackets, are in Mr./Ms. Rehm’s â┚¬Ã…“voice.â┚¬Ã‚Â
After all the complaints NPR received, it continues to ignore legitimate grievances in its double standard treatment of left-wing views and people versus right-wing ones. The only thing left to do is to mock NPR’s glaring omission to first acknowledge this fact and then move to correct it.
Dear [Little] Maureen,
I want to thank you for your recent letter [surprisingly not written in crayon] about an obituary for [Controversial] Howard Zinn [Isn’t that his first, middle, and last name?] that aired on All Things Considered on January 28. [BTW, directly addressing your silly claim that NPR has a need to balance only left-wing views and personalities serves no purpose because to do so would be controversial and some things are just not addressed in polite company. Besides this is standard modus operandi. Almost all media organs do this, other than the few controversial ones. Treating right-wing views and the people who hold them to the same balancing standards would upset our corporate masters. Everyone knows that conservatives are special. Didn’t you receive that memo? See if your mother has it.] Following its broadcast, listeners contacted NPR to express their perspectives on it, and in particular the inclusion of comments made by David Horowitz. Some of those letters were included in All Things Considered’s “letters” segment on January 29, which you can hear here.
NPR News management has concluded that the quote from David Horowitz is harsh in tone, but that doesn’t undermine the legitimacy of using his point of view [We must not offend Mr. Horowitz. His mission, insuring tolerance for conservatives on campuses, is especially special when he expresses extremely intolerant opinions of controversial progressives â┚¬“ always a legitimate goal of balance.] Obituaries are news stories that place a person in time and history; for this reason, NPR needed to mention the controversy about his work [because special conservatives are never ever controversial and their glutei maximi must be kissed. (Note to self: Send Little Maureen a copy of that old memo.)] However, News management did determine that the statement was missing supporting evidence. [Doesn’t that sound fair that we need supporting evidence for opinions?]
In addition to the All Things Considered piece, NPR discussed Howard Zinn’s legacy on Talk of the Nation in this piece; as well as on NPR’s Tell Me More; on our website with The Nation; and in blogs. I encourage you to review these additional materials. [Don’t look at that man behind the curtain!]
Everything that airs on NPR needs to rise to the same high standards [according to that memo about double standards] â┚¬” from news reports to multimedia features to interviews to obituaries. It is always a disappointment to hear when a listener feels we have not met those standards. The goal of our reporting is not to take sides in an issue, but to bring diverse perspectives to our listeners. [Please note that we have diverse people praising special conservative figures when they pass, and we have people with diverse and balancing, offensive opinions when controversial progressives pass. Isn’t NPR merciful and fair?]
The NPR Ombudsman has written a column about the obituary which aired on All Things Considered. Our Ombudsman believes that piece could have been better, while recognizing the constraints under which the reporter was working. [If that reporter had offered offensive balancing opinions of a special conservative who had passed, these constraints would not be considered because all our reporters have received the memo.]
I regret that you feel disappointed [there there, little girl], and I thank you for letting us know. [We adults have a duty to help children with disappointed feelings.] It’s important for us to hear from listeners when they feel we’ve done something well, and when they feel we have not. [Here are some cookies and milk. Now go to bed, dammit!]
Thank you for writing.
REMINDER: I annotated this memo with my own satirical musings in Ms./Mr. Rhem’s “voice.”
Howard Zinn was a great man that inspired me and countless others of my generation to stand up to injustice and speak out for what we know is right. That fact that you had David Horowitz present to criticize Zinn while William F. Buckley, an ignorant bigot, was met with nothing but the highest praise is shocking and disheartening. I’ve lost all respect for NPR after this.
Why did All Things Considered bring Horowitz to criticize Howard Zinn when NPR’s extensive coverage of William F. Buckley include no critical guest?
My email to NPR:
Alicia Shepard. I would like to know why NPR felt it appropriate to trash the lifes work of Howard Zinn by bringing on David Horowitz, a political hack.
Howard Zinn was always honest, fair, level-headed and hard-working. His work has emboldened millions of people around the world to take action and work to make our world a better place.
Bringing in David Horowitz, who predictably trashed Howard, is a direct assault on the hard work and effort of eveyone of those millions of people who have fought and sacrificed so much.
How dare you. You should be ashamed of yourselves and whoever the producer was should be fired immediately and NPR should issue and immediate and thorough apology.
You disgust me.
HOROWITZ MAKES ME SICK IT IS ILL TO DISRESPECT THE DEAD ESP. VERY RESPECTABLE ONES ,WHEN I HEARD OF ZINNS PASSING I WAS DEEPLY SADDENED, WHEN I HEARD HOROWITZS WORD I WAS JUST PISSED
My belated letter to NPR:
I just found out about your shameful bashing of Howard Zinn in your so-called remembrance a while back.
I used to listen to NPR all day long and was always a contributor to my local station. That is no longer the case, precisely because of this kind of shamefully biased reporting.
I’ve seen your excuses for how the quotes by Horowitz were included in your on-air remembrance, but that doesn’t excuse it.
And it doesn’t cover up the fact that equally controversial figures on the right do not receive the same treatment from NPR. That’s just a sad fact.
NPR used to be the last source of real journalism in broadcast media. It lost that status years ago. And it lost me as a member and a listener.
I, too, came late to this event but am very familiar with the issues. NPR, like nearly everyone else, gets weak knees when dealing with tough-guy/person blowhards from the right. NPR’s public funding makes it even more timid than most, but it needs to toughen up. It’s time we start calling most of these right-wing hammerers fascists. They are ideologues, heavily engaged in a serious and coordinated propaganda war.
Conservative viewpoints are incredibly rare on NPR. Get over yourselves you Zinn sycophants. As long as there is one penny of government funding for NPR there should be some sort of offsetting view of the progressive line. Wouldn’t that only be FAIR? That is what Howard would want right? Fairness?
Clean the wax outta your ears, so full-of-yourself-you-wouldn’t-know-who-needs-to-get-over-themselves, history-deficient-anal-crevice. You wouldn’t know fairness if came up and slapped both sides of your face. Conservative viewpoints are always viewed on NPR. You are so full of right-wing idiotology that Faux No-News is your idea of fairness. Look, David Horowitz sycophant, NPR never balances remembrances of right-wing nuts like William F. Buckley, Robert Novak, and Oral Roberts but is compelled to balance left-wing activist like Professor Zinn because the milk-toast-to-con managers of NPR are so afraid of being accused of being liberal by the blinded idiotlogue likes of you. Your unfairness and wacked-out imbalanced views precede your ability to see that, so you have already proved that you don’t know what fairness means. Cons aren’t the only people who pay taxes; liberals, and moderates do too. Therefore, NPR needs to balance your right-wing nutty heroes. Of course, in your crazed mind, only cons’ taxes matter. Go play with yourself on fake media criticism sites like AIM where you can relish in your repeated lies that the media are liberal. If you repeat a lie enough, it is believed by willfully ignorant people. That’s propaganda. GOP means Grouchy Old Propagandists.
So what’s the remedy for burned buns? RLE needs to sit in a bucket of ice water because he’s a liar, liar pants on fire vicitm.
Howard Zinn would wear RLE’s churlish remarks as a badge of honour. I’ll always remember him for his keen intellect, passionate activism, and steely resolve. His work and influence will remain for generations. From beyond Howard is chuckling at NPR’s cowardly compulsion to balance anything progressive.
I must admit that I’m a little late to the party, but apparently, you still do not understand why NPR’s Howard Zinn obituary was so horrible.
If it is true that:
1. Obituaries are news stories that place a person in time and history — not tributes.
and
2. Obituaries need to mention controversy and represent those who are “dismissive of [the work of the deceased].”
..then how do you explain your obituaries of Robert Novak, Oral Roberts and William F. Buckley? The “warts and all” standard was completely absent in the obits for these three men. I couldn’t imagine more controversial figures.
It is profoundly disturbing to me that you would allow this kind, gentle advocate for the disenfranchised to be trashed during his obituary on your airwaves.
Think about it this way: you allowed Pol Pot to pass with platitudes and when Mr. Rogers died, you punched his corpse and pissed on his grave.
When Mr. Horowitz dies, give me a call. I’d love to provide the counterpoint to his life of accomplishment.
Dear NPR,
I know this will come as “old news” to you. I was listening to NPR on the morning of Jan 27, actually my 30th anniversary, when I learned that a much admired mentor, Howard Zinn, had died. This was more than a shock. Zinn was a thoughtful, committed, “don’t couch your bias in bull” historian. His meticulous research, his compassion for the powerless and voiceless on the “undersdie” of the dominate paradigmn and powers of history never ceased to riase the flag for freedom and justice for ALL.
This extraordinary man and historian was no ivory tower intellectual. His incisive intellect was accompanied by the experiential, a life lived by what he believed.
Then, even more shocking and horrifying that morning, NPR chose to “balance” an obituary in the person of fringe, far right activist David Horowitz, with a statement essentially attesting to Zinn’s worthless, deceptive work and lack of contribution to history and the body politic. I could not beleive that NPR would be so crass and thoughtless as to include such slander and drivel in a piece honoring the life and testifying to the death of a patriot historian. Seldom, if ever, have I heard NPR do this for anyone else.
Howard held strong convictions and conclusions from his study and experience of history. There certainly is much to debate. Horowitz’s comments have NOTHING to do with debate however or balance. They are dismissive and inflamatory, lacking respect and honor toward a man who gave his life to our country and betterment in more ways than one. To include a slanderous, malicious comment like that of Horowitz was insulting to the Zinn family and all those who experienced profound grief over Zinn’s death. You could have at least waited until such time as you did a retrospective of Zinn’s life and work and its “controversial nature.”
I write now after listening to a tribute to Zinn and recalling the NPR report. I always expect more from NPR than the news that is bent as entertainment and bias.
Sincerely,
Rev. Bill Beardslee
The following is a response to a letter I posted 19 entries previous to this one:
Dear Benita,
Thank you for taking time to write the Office of the Ombudsman. Alicia Shepard is currently on medical leave. She had surgery on her shoulder and is unable to type.
She did, however, read your email and requested that I contact you to thank you for your thoughts and taking the time to write. You submitted a very thoughtful email and your concerns will be taken into consideration.
Best,
Lori Grisham
==================
The following is my response to Ms. Grisham:
Dear Lori,
Please send Alicia my wishes for a complete and speedy shoulder recovery.
My first wish, however, still stands: Please stop balancing progressive ideas and the people who hold them with conservative ideas or comments, or start balancing conservative ideas and the people who hold them too.
Having said that, please do not believe that balancing controversial conservative views with polite, measured progressive opinions while continuing to balance controversial progressive views with over-the-top, disrespectful opinions from someone like David Horowitz, someone who is viscerally obsessed with destroying liberalism (as if that were possible), is reasonable or would go unnoticed. If you want a list of “muscular” liberals who can deliver firm critiques, I can supply you with it.
My second wish would be for NPR to stop liberally using the adjective â┚¬Ã…“controversialâ┚¬Ã‚ when describing mostly progressive values, ideas, or people while regarding equally controversial conservative values, ideas, or people as if they are benign and normal.
Lastly, people from all political persuasions want to be treated fairly on all NPR programs, but fairness on NPR’s Morning Edition and All Things Considered carries more weight than the other broadcasts.
Fairness is subjective and a high ideal for which to strive, but NPR is surely qualified for this worthy task.
Thank you for your response.
Sincerely,
Benita J. Campbell
OBSCENE demonstration of the rabid rightWinfNut bias of NPR-‘All Things Considered,’ – especially given the over-the-top slobbering coverage over the RACIST William f. buckley some years ago – without any kind of commentary from Progressives.
I really enjoyed the nonsensical defenses of the left on this page, Time for a reality check, folks. Your hero was nothing more than a communist who wrote history from that perspective:
http://theothermccain.com/2010/07/31/fbi-files-reveal-historian-howard-zinn-lied-to-hide-cpusa-membership/#comments
Being on the left, you probably won’t read this. Why should edification be a part of being on the left. Horowitz was correct and you guys can’t stand it. Fine. See you in November. You’re done and it begins then.
The folks at NPR should be ashamed to have allowed the substanceless abuse of Howard Zinn to take place by a “man” who chooses to use the cheap rhetoric to run down the life work of this great American on the eve of his passing. Case in point is the troll-like threats of “princetrumpet” who like Horowitz, can only use cheap threats, smears and low brow innuendo to make his schoolyard bully case. God Bless Howard Zinn.
So Howard Zinn, as one commentator above put it, was “a gentle advocate for the disenfranchised?” My foot. Professor Zinn’s America was one in which a tiny, money-hungry plutocracy perpetually lords it over vast multitudes of virtuous, helpless victims of capitalism, colonialism and racism — as if we hadn’t heard that tune enough. Wake me up when it’s over. Yes, I have read a lot of Zinn’s work. It’s not all bad, but it is highly skewed and usually wrong-headed. Put simply, he just wasn’t that good.
I will allow that some of David Horowitz’s comments had an unpleasant tone. And NPR should have brought aboard a supporter of Zinn as a counterweight. But in substance Horowitz overall was right about Zinn’s legacy. Horowitz knows all about being a “good Leftist” — he spent the first 40 years of his life in that territory. He moved away not for the money, but for the integrity. He knew all too well what happens to a society when its Howard Zinns seize the apparatus of state power to create Social Justice.
As for “right-wingers” — I guess there are no “left-wingers” — they most certainly do have a right to be represented on NPR. Their tax dollars, as much as anyone else’s, help support the network. If our noble progressive revolutionaries don’t like it, tough luck. They should tune into Amy Goodman’s show and give generously. Problem solved.
roxy エナメルバッグ,ロキシー
I like your website.. excellent colorations & topic. Do anyone pattern this website you or perhaps did you actually hire an attorney to get it done for yourself? Plz interact since I!|m seeking to pattern my own site in addition to would wish to learn where u became this kind of by. appreciate it