I found out that as part of their coverage of Howard Zinn's death, that NPR/All Things Considered had a person who obviously didn't like Howard Zinn and had some very negative things to say about him. Here is a link to that information.
I frankly didn't understand why NPR would do that right at the time of Howard Zinn's death and sent the following email to the NPR Ombudsmann Alicia Shepard.
Dear Ms. Shepard:
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
I frankly didn't understand why NPR would do that right at the time of Howard Zinn's death and sent the following email to the NPR Ombudsmann Alicia Shepard.
Dear Ms. Shepard:
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
No comments:
Post a Comment