NPR Screwed up--But Leftists They're Not

If you follow the news you probably have heard that NPR "analyst," Juan Williams was recently fired because of remarks he made about Muslims on Fox.   The comment he made was that he gets nervous when he sees people in "muslim garb" on airplanes.  Although it's factually true that no terrorist or attempted terrorist attacks on American soil have been committed by people wearing "Muslim garb" (as a general rule, those about to commit major crimes, particularly suicide bombers, prefer to look inconspicuous, that's sort of the whole point) it does seem absolutely ridiculous to fire someone for making that statement. Vivian Schiller, the CEO of NPR, screwed up. Of course Williams was compensated for his dismissal by Fox who immediately gave him a $2 million contract.  With repercussions like that we should all be trying to get fired from NPR.

But what bothers me is the way this story is being framed.  Suddenly NPR is a far left propaganda machine that won't tolerate anyone voicing contradictory opinions.  Quotes from far left journalists who were last heard on NPR 15 years ago are being played on Fox as if they happened yesterday.  The fact that NPR only a few weeks ago forbid its journalists to attend John Stewart's Rally To Restore Sanity because NPR didn't want any of its journalists to attend a public event hosted by a liberal political satirist unless they were covering it for an impartial story rarely gets mentioned.  For the record, I think journalists should be able to express their fears, be they rational or irrational, and attend rallies they think might be fun.  Journalists are, after all, human beings and human beings aren't impartial in every aspect of their lives.

I'll admit that there's a lot of programming on NPR that I just can't deal with. It irritates me, it bores me and it interferes with my music-listening time. And yes, It's also true that some of their programming has a liberal bent.  How liberal depends on the area of the country you live in. If you live in San Francisco the NPR member station will probably hand select many of the more liberal pieces but when I was listening to NPR in Virginia that really didn't seem to be the case.  But what I do listen to (when I'm int he car at the right time) are NPRs more popular shows, Morning Edition, Market Place and All Things Considered. In fact the majority of NPRs listeners listen exclusively to one or more of those three shows.  In fact All Things Considered is so popular most member stations choose to replay the hour long show three times in a row so no matte what time your commute is, you'll hear it.  Market Place is usually replayed twice a day and although I'm NEVER listening to NPR before 8 in the morning I'm assuming that Morning Edition is also replayed a couple of times.  What these three shows have in common is that none of them are really liberal.  That's up to seven hours of programing every weekday that is dedicated to pretty impartial news reporting.    Do they give liberal interviewees airtime? Yes, absolutely.   Recently I posted a link to a NPR interview with Michael Savage, a proudly liberal and gay activist.  He was talking about the issue of bullying of gays in our middle schools and high schools as well as his Youtube, It Gets Better project.  They interviewed him for about 9 minutes.  A few days after they had him on they had a military analyst on who expressed his opinion that we needed to make sure that our all-volunteer military force really was okay with gays serving before we changed the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell policy.  He also pointed out that our military is now mostly made up of people who grew up in very conservative areas of the country and we need to be sensitive and accommodating of their views.  I'm not going to get into whether or not I agree with him but I will say that he was expressing what most people would consider a conservative opinion and he did so eloquently.  The interviewer asked pointed and tough questions but he allowed the man to give long nuanced answers without being interrupted.  And he too was given 9 minutes of airtime.

And that brings me to another point. Nine minutes.  In a world where all the news organizations are hungry for sound bites NPR always gives people time to give long descriptive and satisfying answers.  There are so many times when I'll start to listen to a story, get out of my car to fill it with gas and then turn the radio back on to discover they're still on the same topic.  NPR doesn't just report on the sensational stuff. Nothing is glossed over and they're not all that into "highlight reels." They give you the story in all its complexity and allow you to form your own opinions with as many facts as possible.  Again, there aren't many news organizations doing that anymore because the market for it isn't very big. But for those of us who WANT to hear the whole story and both sides of it, NPR is one of our last bastions of hope.

But there are even more reasons why NPR's most popular programming is a cut above the rest.  3 1/2 years ago, when I first started listening to NPR with any regularity, I listened to their reports about the escalating drug violence in Mexico.  Now everybody is reporting on that but VERY few news organizations were reporting on it 3 1/2 years ago.  The other major news outlets waited until Mexico was practically under martial law.  I also remembering them doing a series of stories about a year and a half ago on a situation in Minnesota where American-Somali youths who were being recruited at their houses of worship by a terrorist group called Al-Shabab.  Without the teenage boys' parents knowing what was going on, representatives of Al-Shabab would woo these kids and somehow convince them to hop on a plane to Somalia where they would fight and be part of the terrorism that is now tearing apart that country, frequently at the expense of their lives. So far over two dozen youths have quietly left Minnesota for Somalia to become terrorists.

Did you know anything about that? Probably not.  Only a few news organizations have even mentioned it and that's only happened within the last six months.  Most news outlets now wait for a politician to set a talking point and then they dissect and, if we're lucky, research their talking points.  In other words they wait for our government officials to tell them what to investigate or for a problem to become a catastrophic crisis.  On the rare instances when they investigate something that isn't a talking point it's called a "special report."  True investigative journalism shouldn't be "special." It should be the norm.  Remember when BP was telling us only a few tons of oil were being spilled into the gulf per day and then all those university experts took a look at the footage and revealed that the amount was at least ten times higher than BP's estimates? You know who contacted those professors and asked them to look at the footage and use their equipment to make estimates? That would be NPR.  Do you know that there's been a religious revival in China (despite the Chinese government's discouragement) and that Christians may outnumber communists in China now?   Did you know that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac might end up getting an additional $90 billion from our Treasury Department over the next three years in ADDITION to the $135 billion tax payers have already given them? Did you know that in 23 states unemployment has actually fallen but that it has risen in 11 of them? Do you know which states?  Again, you probably don't if you aren't listening to NPR.  And tell me, which of the stories that I've just listed are "liberal?" The Al-Shabab story has so much potential for sensationalism (and even when reported evenly is incredibly disconcerting) that I'm sort of surprised Glenn Beck hasn't been screaming about it from the rooftops. But then again, maybe he doesn't know about it. It's not like Beck is a journalist. But the people on NPR are.  

So yes, the CEO of NPR screwed up and yes, NPR's guidelines for journalists is unreasonably restrictive.  But 1 + 1 doesn't equal 4.  Those who want really liberal programming listen to Air America because as far as their concerned, NPR is too conservative and not...well, angry enough. Fox News watchers will undoubtedly feel just the opposite (although they may agree about the noticeable lack of shouting).   However if we start labeling NPR as a far left station conservative politicians will be less likely to talk to them and potential listeners who consider themselves to be somewhat conservative will never even give NPR a chance. Then NPR will be forced to gear all their programing towards predominately liberal interests just to keep their listeners.  We'll lose one of the few truly balanced news sources left to us. Then there will be a problem.  But there isn't one now. Let's not create one.

Kyra Davis

Bestselling Author of:

The Sophie Katz Mystery Series 

and

So Much For My Happy Ending

Order Vows, Vendettas &; A Little Black Dress today! 

We Shouldn't Have To Impress Those Who Love Us

Project Runway has always been a guilty, mindless pleasure of mine.  But last night's episode was depressing as hell.  For those of you who don't watch the show, this last Thursday was part one of the season finale and as always, one of the designers was eliminated.  This time it was Michael Costello, who performed unevenly throughout the season.  It's not uncommon for a contestant to shed a tear or two when they're told they're "out" but Michael completely broke down.  And since we learned earlier in the episode that Michael's boyfriend outed him to his parents (WTF?) and that his parents were unsupportive of his creative ambitions or...well of anything he was doing, the breakdown was probably a long time coming.  But what was really sad was that Micheal felt the first signs of support from his family didn't come until he got on Project Runway and he had somehow convinced himself that if he could just win the contest his parents would finally be proud of him and it would fix everything.

Again, WTF?  I haven't heard the parents side of things (they refused to appear on any of the episodes they were invited onto) but no one should feel like their parents' love is dependent on their career success.  Parents are supposed to love us because they're our parents.  They're supposed to be proud of us because we're good people.  And when we put our all into something and are still unable to grab a victory our parents are the people who we turn to for support.  That's the way it's supposed to work.  You can encourage your kid to join the football team if that's what he's into. You can be proud of him for trying out and working hard to be the best player he can be. You can root for him from the stands. But you can't stop being proud of him just because he got tackled on the 40 yard line!!

And of course even if his parents had been proud of a win that wouldn't have actually fixed anything.  Eventually he would have had a career setback because that's life. Even more likely his winning the competition wouldn't have changed the dynamic between him and his parents at all.  In fact I have a REALLY hard time believing that his parents were going to jump up and down for joy and cry, "Wow, now that Heidi Klum thinks you're a winner we are 100% cool with having a gay, fashion designer as a son!"  There's even a little part of me that is sort of glad he lost because 1) I think the disappointment of not having his parents support after a win would have been even more difficult than not having their support after a loss, and 2) the contestants who don't make Fashion Week on Project Runway are required to speak to a therapist or psychiatrist to make sure they're ok and in Michael's case I really think that's a good thing (and maybe he'll take a second look at his relationship with his boyfriend too.  Any guy who outs their partner to their partner's parents has Issues).

But for the rest of us that episode should be a wake-up call.  We shouldn't have to impress the people who are supposed to love us.  Impress your boss, your colleagues, your competition, the girl/guy you've been trying to pick up, but if someone who says they love you still needs to be impressed in order to keep loving you there's a big problem.  That's not the kind of love that any of us need in our lives.  And we need to let the people who we love, be they our children, our parents, our spouses, our friends or whatnot, know that they don't have anything to prove to us.  We need to make sure they know that while we want them to pursue their goals with gusto we won't walk away if, despite their best efforts, things don't work out they way they dreamed they would. 

Otherwise you might see your twenty-something-year-old kid having a nervous breakdown on national television all because they got kicked off a reality show.  That's not good for anyone.

Kyra Davis

Bestselling Author of:

The Sophie Katz Mystery Series 

and

So Much For My Happy Ending

Order Vows, Vendettas & A Little Black Dress today! 

Making A Case For Mere Lip-Service

I recently had a discussion with a friend about the blatant and frequently flaunted racism and prejudices you see in certain areas of the world (including areas in this country) verses the concealed racism and prejudices that exist in other parts of the world/country.  When I talk about concealed prejudices I'm talking about all those people who will tell you (sometimes passionately) that they believe that we are all created equal regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or nationality. And yet they don't really believe it. Deep in their hearts they do feel that some people are lesser than others and they betray their expressed lofty ideals with hundreds of little insidious (and usually subconscious) actions that undermine those they look down upon.  So the question is are the under-cover racists really any better than the racists who freely own up to their prejudices?

Yes, they are.  For one thing, under-cover racists are a lot less likely to burn a cross in your yard or commit a violent hate crime and there really is something to be said for NOT being lynched.  But I also believe that those who pay lip service to tolerance and equality are better because unlike their Klan-like counterparts they intellectually know that their prejudices are wrong.  Maybe they're afraid of the big black guy walking down the street but they're ashamed of their fear.  They're ashamed that they're holding on to stereotypes that they know on an intellectual level (if not a gut level) are unjust.  Perhaps they get squeamish when they see two guys holding hands but they're embarrassed by their own discomfort. They want to be as good as their words.  When you grow up being taught one thing it's hard to do a 180 and believe something else.  The fact that these people want to be accepting and tolerant counts for something and we should applaud their efforts by reaching out to them rather than berating them for being hypocritical.  And of course if those they quietly discriminate against reach out to them these secretly prejudiced individuals may truly change their way of thinking. Clearly they're trying to do that anyway so why alienate them? 

But the most important reason why we should appreciate those who at least pay lip-service to equality is because of the lessons they are teaching their children.  When I was a kid I was incredibly close to my grandmother and she always told me that judging someone based on their sexual orientation was simply illogical. "What do I care about what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom," my grandmother would say indignantly.  "Why should anyone waste their time worrying about who other people are dating? If they're a good person they're a good person."  In fact my grandmother's only complaint against  the gay community was that they had hijacked the word "gay" which in her day was a very descriptive word for a certain kind of happiness.  My grandmother loved words and resented it when they were co-opted by a group and given a different meaning.  But aside from that she claimed to be completely accepting of the gay community and wore her tolerance with pride.  This was of course a rather radical stance for a woman who was born around the turn of the 20th century and I took her message to heart.

It wasn't until much later that I realized that my grandmother wasn't actually comfortable with the idea of homosexuality.  She frequently refused to see it even when it was in front of her face and when forced to she became...well, she became uncomfortable.  It wasn't all that difficult to make my grandmother angry or indignant but she was rarely uncomfortable and when she was it was definitely noticeable.  The truth is she didn't want those close to her to be gay.

But by the time I figured this out it was too late. I had spent my early childhood years (those years when I was too young to fully understand that what grown-ups say and what they believe are often quite different) listening to those I loved most in the world tell me over and over again that we are all created equal.  The message had been driven home.  By the time I understood my grandmother's true feelings I had already made up my mind to believe in her earlier teachings.  And the very fact that she refused to articulate her true feelings on the issue showed me that she believed her true feelings were wrong.

In the last decade the number of interracial marriages has risen 20%. How many of those people were raised by parents who gave lip-service to racial equality but secretly wouldn't have dreamed of dating outside their own race?  But it doesn't matter what the parents were willing to do.  What matters is what they taught their kids.  On a societal level this method makes for a slow learning curve but it's a learning curve nonetheless.  Sometimes it's not such a bad idea to talk the talk even if walking the walk is a struggle.  

Kyra Davis

Bestselling Author of:

The Sophie Katz Mystery Series 

and

So Much For My Happy Ending

Order Vows, Vendettas & A Little Black Dress today! 

Oh Wow, My Son Actually Likes Girls...

This week my son came out as a heterosexual.  It wasn't an official pronouncement or anything but I think there's little doubt about which team he's batting for at this point.  When I told a male friend about what brought me to this conclusion he was thrilled. "This is great news!" he gushed and lifted his hand for a high-five.  "Your son's straight! Of course it's okay if our children do end up being gay but we hope for straight, right?"

To be honest, no. At least not in my case.  It's not that I was exactly hoping for gay, I was just fairly ambivalent about the subject.  Although it did occur to me that my son, who is a little outside the mainstream anyway, might have an easier time getting a date if he WAS gay.  Plus it would give him a group to belong to, a cause to root for and all that.

I know what you're all thinking. Being a gay adolescent and teen is TOUGH.  For one thing there's the bullying to worry about...except, like I indicated above, I already have a child who has to worry about that kind of thing regardless of what his sexuality is which is one of several reasons why I have him at a private school where bullying of any kind isn't tolerated. At. All.  And the kids at this school are all unique and very accepting of each others' differences so I don't think that in this setting being gay would have been a problem.  There's also the Harvey Milk High School in New York. I don't anticipate moving to New York but in the back of my mind I always thought that if my son was gay we could move there and then I could get him into a public school with small class sizes, a supportive social environment and a great arts program.  And again, it would be public so no tuition! Now we're not really eligible for the program, all because my son is no longer afraid of cooties.

And I think there might be other benefits to being gay too. For instance, my single gay friends who are my age and live in tolerant areas of the country and come from accepting and loving families seem to be significantly happier than the singe straight friends who have those same advantages.  This, by the way, is NOT true of the gay guys I know who are in relationships (it seems that gay relationships have the same potential of being dysfunctional as straight ones) nor is it true of my lesbian friends. But the vast majority of my gay friends are conspicuously calm about being single.  In fact it's something they celebrate it.  The gay guys who want to have a child obviously have to consider some unconventional methods but again, in the areas of California that I've lived in (and obviously this isn't true everywhere) there's a lot of support for those who are willing to pursue those methods be they adoption or finding surrogates (which is good because these aren't easy processes to go through).  But the difference is that while they can find support if they want to have kids no one is pressuring these guys into it. If they don't want them it's all fine. Again, many of my single straight friends who don't want kids feel like they are somehow letting society down.  They feel like they're being judged for their lifestyle choices.

Now please remember that I spent most of my life in the Bay Area and many of those years in San Francisco which is probably the most gay-friendly area on earth. And even there you can find accounts of violence committed against people by bigots who are too insecure with themselves to live-and-let-live.    As a black-Jewish single mom I know from experience that being a minority comes with some serious challenges...challenges that my son with his blond hair, blue/grey eyes and fondness for girls will rarely have to deal with first hand.  I know what it's like to feel that there are parts of the country where I might not feel welcome.  I also know that those challenges, as ugly as they sometimes are, foster a sense of community among the persecuted group.  If my son had been gay I would have helped him find ways to be part of that community and learn to embrace this difference.

But it seems I have a white, straight son.  So now my job will be to let him know that he only has to have kids if he wants them and help him understand that, should he ever date a black woman, he needs to keep his hands off her hair for at least three days after she's had it done (this is information that is frequently passed on to young black boys in barbershops but my son doesn't have typical African-American hair so that lesson will be mine to teach).  Obviously I will love him regardless of whether he ends up marrying, staying single, dating men, women or both.  I really don't care as long as he's happy and is a good person.

So I'm here to say I'm okay with my son's heterosexuality.  When he eventually does pair up I'm sure he'll make some wonderful woman very happy.

As for the guys out there, sorry, your loss.

Kyra Davis

Bestselling Author of:

The Sophie Katz Mystery Series 

and

So Much For My Happy Ending

Order Vows, Vendettas & A Little Black Dress today!