Maybe it’s the time of year, or maybe it’s the time of man. In any case, my cultivated tolerance for media complicity in Bush administration crimes — a tolerance bred in simple awareness, in the interests of my emotional health — has reached its knee-high threshold yet again.

Tonight, a word on the lips of NPR’s Mara Liasson ticked me off. I was inspired thereby to contact NPR’s ombudsman on the matter, which I believe has certain implications beyond the simply linguistic.
There’s a bit of background to this. Our local NPR affiliate, the blessedly hydro-powered WJFF (Jeffersonville, NY) has received increasing numbers of complaints from listeners regarding the top-heavy play given NPR news programming as opposed to Pacifica, the BBC, CBC & local reporting, with comparisons highly unfavorable.

Recently, these complaints reached such an intensity as to have NPR’s ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, commit to a call-in interview with the station manager so that JFF’s supporters could air their grievances directly.

Ashamed to have missed the program, I did catch his aired reminder that, as concerned NPR listeners, we should feel free to contact his office regarding our concerns; the lines, as they say, are open.

The clear bias adopted by NPR News under CPB’s deposed chair, Ken Tomlinson, has been of greater concern to me than similar bias apparent in other outlets’ reporting. Why? Because even those of relatively progressive political bent continue to trust NPR for ‘balanced’ reporting; they cite NPR as an example of journalistic integrity for other news outlets to aspire to. Personally, I believe this is due to an ancestral memory regarding the original purpose, function and economic providence of public national media.

What this ultimately means is that the particular shade of NPR’s administration-friendly reporting is swallowed with nary a blink, with a cherry on top, by those who generally view the corporate media with sharp suspicion under similar regard.

No wonder Tomlinson bragged to Karl Rove about his success in balancing public broadcasting’s liberalism. This was a big one.

And so, after a few deep breaths, I composed the following for the home office, sent via contact form at npr.org:

On this evening’s ‘Weekend Editon Saturday’, Mara Liasson referred to improvised explosive devices used against US troops in Iraq by ‘terrorists’.

Those engaged against US forces in Iraq are opposing an occupying military, which was commanded to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq entirely illegally in terms of both international and domestic law. Additionally, the US has not met even the most basic responsibilites of an occupying force in terms of the welfare of Iraq’s citizens. Also in addition, continued occupation completely assures that random violence, destruction, suffering and death will continue to be inflicted upon them as a matter of course.  

Either every party engaged in the Iraq conflict is a ‘terrorist’, or none are. In terms of the form of action which is terrorism, there are no opposing sides among perpetrators; the intended result is the same.

Realizing the political bent of NPR news clarified under former CPB head Tomlinson compels me to give NPR plenty of room in terms of the simplifications inherent in propaganda. However, the unfortunate use of the word ‘terrorist’ to replace ‘insurgent’ in Iraq reporting is extremely unfortunate. This ill-considered use of terminology contributes generally to a poor understanding of events on the part of your listeners, as well as a generally muddy world-view.

Unfortunately, I sense a growing trend in the mainstream news media in terms of this terrific linguistic sloppiness. In short order, ‘terrorist’ has become a term not relating primarily to a very specific form of action, but a stand-in for the word ‘enemy’. Those deemed enemies of the state, however, may or may not engage in terrorist activity — and so the term ‘terrorist’ is reduced to an empty buzz-word.

By virtue of the expanded use of the word ‘terrorist’ in public discourse, any individual or group of individuals acting to oppose administration policy, in any conceivable way, can (and will) be labeled ‘terrorist’, and subject to the same draconian punitive measures supposedly initiated to counteract actual terrorism. As a result, no difference between terrorist action & other forms of action will survive.

If those opposing a military occupation in Iraq are ‘terrorists’, then so were those French citizens and their allies working against their nation’s occupation in World War II. The linguistic issue is just that simple; I’m sure you see that nuance and understanding aren’t served at all by blanket use of the term.

In listening to news reports, I wish to be educated and informed concerning the multitude of events that directly or indirectly impact my community, my region and the nation. I do not wish purposefully confused or left clueless.

In part because of the systemic ‘dumbing down’ of our media (and its direct political consequences), the people of the United States are considered by many internationally as ignorant, ill-educated and deranged. Can we blame them?

Sincerely, ..

The moral of the story: listen closely, regardless of the source; use your judgement; react as you see appropriate,  using as many tools as are available to you. This blatant, inflamatory stupidity simply must stop. It’s killing us.