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