Tell Me More
 

Who Should be Heard?

Today we began with the provocative question of whether the world community has a moral duty to intervene in Myanmar when the military regime has demonstrated a clear willingness to allow people to suffer rather than to allow foreign aid - and more to the point - aid workers into the country.

Here's the question, as posed by Washington Post Editorial Page editor Fred Hiatt: "When a parent abuses or neglects a child, government steps in to offer protection. But who steps in when government abuses or neglects its people? " (You can read Fred's full piece here).

But the short answer, according to Hiatt, is the United Nations. But how exactly would that work? And does that really make sense. And if the UN refuses, what then? This is one of the tortuous segments that raises more questions than it answers I am afraid, but it is a conversation that I think one wants to have. Where does moral responsibility begin and end? Our house, our neighborhood, our state, our shores? Pulitzer Prize winner Samantha Power was our other guest. We invited her because of her remarkable work considering the question of genocide. It raises terribly important theoretical and practical questions. Our sister program Talk of the Nation, considered this topic earlier in the week. I read some of the blog postings on the show today. Here they are. You can see the consensus seemed to be, who the hell are we to even think about intervening? But what about Darfur? what about Rwanda? What lesson of history should guide our discussions here?

Speaking of interventions, I think we can all agree that the burden of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not equally borne. Many people find themselves wanting to do something to support the families on the front lines. The folks at Sesame Street realized they could contribute something they already do well - by helping kids make sense of what's happening to them. They have developed a new set of DVD's aimed at military families to help them talk to their kids about issues like redeployment and a parent coming home injured. You can find out more here. I must say I thought these DVD's were a powerful tool, even for folks who are not in the military, dealing for others who are also going through similar things. The discs are free, by the way, to service members and their families.

A word about last week's program. We are getting QUITE a lot of feedback about our interview last week with Karl Rove. Here's a typical example:

I admit, I would like to consider my NPR news a place where one would not have to encounter Karl Rove. If he is considered a credible person because he managed to get Bush elected or at least helped him steal two elections, I am a monkeys uncle.


Here's another one:

Do you folks not realize that the man belongs in jail? Just because he escaped the White House by the skin of his teeth of being indicted in the Valerie Plame affair, and now has been embraced by the right-wing propagandist Rupert Murdoch, you are going to treat him as acceptable? Disgusting

Ok. My turn. I am hearing that many of you don't like him. I am hearing that many of you disagree with his politics and tactics. But let's get real here. He was the deputy chief of staff to the President of the United States and one of the most influential political strategists of this era. So his influence and significance - his legitimacy if you will - are not a function of whether he appears on NPR or not. You are certainly free to disagree with his politics and tactics, you are certainly free to say you don't like anything he stands for. But to say NONE of our listeners should hear him because many people (you) disagree with him is just wrong. By that standard, Martin Luther King Jr. would never have been on the air.

Yes I said it.

Do I think Karl Rove will have the same place in history as MLK? No. But don't get confused. Many people considered MLK a traitor, many considered him destructive and yes "disgusting." Many of the white reporters who put him on the air were thoroughly abused for their efforts. But history shows that that was a voice we needed to hear.

A better analogy for some of you might be aides attached to such controversial political figures as: Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, etc. Would we put them on the air? Of course we would. We interview people because they are interesting and important. I know those comparisons/analogies will be offensive to some if not all the people reading this post but that's the point. One person's traitor is another person's hero and in a country like this one - with competitive elections and a reasonably free and open media it is just not for us to say - this person should not be heard because I think he's wrong and I don't like his politics and what he has participated in because of his office.

I am frankly disappointed that some of you don't see that. Our program is a primary news source in a number of markets and as such as we have a responsibility to present our listeners with a range of views and information.

I think a more compelling question is raised by those of you who say that his views can be heard elsewhere - like Fox - so why do we need him here? I think that's a valid question. I would argue that that is because he is choosing to speak to an audience that most Republicans are AVOIDING right now, that is to say the diverse audience of listeners who comprise and characterize the TMM audience. And the fact that he is engaging in these conversations and giving that perspective TO that audience is important. As always, I thank you for your feedback - all of it - except that which includes personal invective and these juvenile "I dare you to read my post" nonsense. I mean, really. (But, you know, I even need to vent sometimes so ... you know, do your thing). Let's keep the conversation going. And I love the fact that this Friday's political chat will be of a very different ... er ... hue. But that's what we're here for. That's what we do.

comments | |

3:55 PM ET | 05-15-2008 | permalink

 

Comments

View all comments »

Add a Comment

Please note that all comments must adhere to the NPR.org discussion rules and terms of use. See also the Community FAQ.

NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.

Michel, I am glad that you had KR on the air. Talking with the enemy is a necessary proposition. We may not like what the enemy says but we must listen to begin to understand it. KR is the evil mind/evil architect of the GOP's current political strategy. There is not a single Democratic strategist that doesn't pay attention to what KR says as it relates to what the GOP should, could or will do during this presidential campaign. I don't agree with KR's politics and he is one of if not the biggest political hypocrite, however, hearing his opinion on the coming general election and his insight as to the strategy the GOP will pursue is of VITAL importance. So Michel...Broaden our minds, present topics that are different,new, and uncomfortable...Thats what news is about.

Keep doing your thing!!!
Peace

GlennD

Sent by Glenn | 4:56 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I am a Christian,Conservative, Republican,White male. Probably not the demographic you are going for. However, I listen to your program regularly because I believe that it is fair and offers me a point of view I will not hear elsewhere. That is not to say I have not heard things that have offended me or upset me. Of course, I have. However, I believe that covering my ears and closing my eyes to others' perspectives, even if I don't agree with them, is truly un-American. My Mother used to say of so-called liberals who were unwilling to even listen to the other side's point of view: "Liberal they are not". I would never say that about your program. Thanks for being reasonable and fair.

Sent by Mark | 10:21 AM ET | 05-16-2008

If Karl Rove belongs in jail, so do many others of various political stripes.

And Rove deserves to be heard if only because many many of his supporters also support - through taxes and charitable contributions - the NPR network.

Sent by True_Liberal | 10:27 AM ET | 05-16-2008

I certainly understand that Karl Rove should not be silenced by the opinions of a few million. I will however choose to turn my radio off whenever he comes on. He has proven again and again that he is a bitterly partisan man who will lie, cheat and manipulate to advance his cause. So he is a dangerous and deceptive man and I'm glad someone is watching what he is up to next.

Sent by Michael Archbald | 12:12 PM ET | 05-16-2008

So open-minded, tolerant, progressive NPR listeners suddenly, quite suddenly, turn closed-minded, intolerant, and regressive when Karl Rove is interviewed on your show. Perhaps, it wasn't so much that they "suddenly turn" as much as they always were closed-minded, intolerant, and regressive, but their politics deluded them.

This brings to mind when Brian Lamb of C-SPAN interviewed the man formerly known as Stokely Carmichael (don't ask me to spell his new name). After the interview, Brian read an e-mail chastising him for the interview, declaring at the end, "this interview is equivalent to talking to the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan." After reading that, Brian looked straight into the camera and said, "I would love to interview the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan." No one would accuse Brian of supporting the KKK, but the message was clear.

You say you want to have a show that gets listeners who normally don't listen to NPR. While my jury vote is still out on that regard, I take the interview with Karl Rove as an honest effort in that direction.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 1:29 PM ET | 05-16-2008

So, I have to say that hearing Karl Rove commenting on almost anything makes my skin crawl, I agree that it is still important to hear all opinions. In this case, especially important in terms of being able to handle the deluge of hatred, racism and general nastiness that is about to come out of the woodwork. It's been bad on both sides so far for Hilary and Barack, but it will get worse for the general election.

I routinely watch fox news because I feel it is important to know what the enemy is saying. And, yes, I consider them the enemy not journalists.

Sent by Anna | 1:44 PM ET | 05-16-2008

Michel I fear that you are in the minority in your profession not to mention among many of your audience BUT you are not wrong to forge ahead. I will admit that the access to information on the internet, where I listen to your program, it has become too easy to filter out opinions and views I don't agree with but I make self listen anyway. Michel, I hope your disappointment gives way to a renewed sense of purpose. The folks at TMM are trying to accomplish something rare in today's media market and you are going to be met with resistance and intolerance to some degree. To other listeners I would ask you to please thoughtfully disagree with the things you hear, here and in life, but please think twice before you call for silence . The voice that goes unheard may be your own.

Sent by raul | 3:32 PM ET | 05-16-2008

Wow, I missed the hoopla over Karl Rove until I read this piece. Granted, my first reaction when I tuned in to the show last week was "Oh boy, I'm about to listen to Bush's Brain (scary)" but I've always chosen to be logical about letting a person be heard even when I don't agree with his/her brand of politics.

Also, I watched the Barbara Walters Special a few years ago calling Rove "the most fascinating person" for that year. After seeing that BW special, I wouldn't say I liked Rove policies but in a weird way, I understood him and dare I say I found him quite "fascinating."

Sent by Moji | 3:39 PM ET | 05-16-2008

I was upset to hear Karl Rove, I think as a gut reaction initially. I believe that he has done a lot of damage to this country. I'm gay, and I know that in many elections, in Texas and in the two Presidential elections he used people's fear of gay people to get people to vote for his candidate and discredit more accepting and tolerant ones. I think for that reason more than any other I dislike the man, although he's done much worse, in my opinion.

I also didn't like how nice Michel Martin was, how respectful she was. Only because I find him very distasteful. He did take a few very partisan shots, but that's what one expects.

Apart from that, I really want to say that I love this show, I love the perspectives I hear here, and all the different recurring segments and I think Michel Martin is a fantastic host of the program; keep up the good work.

Sent by Daniel J. Miller | 7:14 AM ET | 05-17-2008

The more we (or any group of people)isolate ourselves from people we do not agree with, the more extreme our opinions are likely to become.
I'm not alone here, in that don't agree with Karl Rove and many others whom I have heard on TMM. However, I appreciate that this program, unlike many others, gives us a chance to at least listen to those voices.

It is good practice to listen to people we think we don't agree with.

Sent by Isabella | 10:16 PM ET | 05-17-2008

Although I disagree with you on this particular issue, I respect your opinion always. In your vent though you never addressed whether he denied you the right to ask him any question you may have had.

Sent by darren adkins | 8:08 AM ET | 05-18-2008

Considering Martin Luther King was trying to speak for the downtrodden masses of this country, not to mention his was a unique voice speaking out to attempt to vouchsafe the civil rights of and to do what would be best for all citizens; and, from what I can tell (and I don't think I'm alone in this viewpoint) Karl Rove seems to seek to preserve the power of the corporate minority and wealthiest of the wealthy, those who are so consumed by unrequited greed that they would gain their wealth and power no matter how many minions, nationally or globally, who become "collateral damage". In short, wouldn't it be more fair to compare Karl Rove's possible legacy with that of someone more like Rasputin?

Sent by Valerie Myers | 4:46 PM ET | 05-18-2008



   
   
   
null


 

'Tell Me More' with Michel Martin

"Nothing is assumed." That's the unofficial motto of Tell Me More, the new Monday-Friday talk show with host Michel Martin. Grounded in lively interviewing and compelling storytelling, the program seeks to present diverse new voices, cross borders, challenge conventional wisdom and discover how other people think.

 
 

'Tell Me More' Podcast

Tell Me More PodcastListen to NPR's Tell Me More as a podcast every weekday.



» Get the Podcast

 
 

Related News Feeds

 
 

Discussion Guidelines

Read the discussion guidelines for our blog.

 
 

Search 'Tell Me More'

Search for the word(s):
 
 

Contact Michel

If you would like to submit a general comment to Michel and the Tell Me More staff directly, please use our contact form.

 
 
 

Browse Topics

Services

Programs