Hearing things
Did anybody else happen to catch our friend E. J. Dionne doing his weekly “political roundtable” gig on “All Things Considered” last night? David Brooks, Dionne’s usual amiable sparring partner, was on vacation, and taking his place was Mona Charen. I didn’t know Mona Charen before last night, but Wikipedia identifies her as “the author of two best-selling books, Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First (2003) and Do-Gooders: How Liberals Harm Those They Claim to Help — and the Rest of Us (2005). Her political stance is conservative.” You don’t say! Anyway, based just on that I’d say she’s not a natural fit for the job, but perhaps every other conservative commentator is on vacation this weekend along with Brooks. (Has the National Review cruise set sail?)
Now that I have become acquainted with Ms. Charen, the best thing I can say for her is that she made me appreciate David Brooks. I don’t have a high opinion of his analysis, but what he offers is, at least, analysis; what Charen had to offer was overt political spin. She seemed to think her role was not to offer a conservative (or a conservative-friendly) perspective on the week’s events but to be an outright spokesperson for the Romney campaign. Her response to questions about the revelation that Romney may have lied about his role at Bain post-1999 was that it just showed the Obama campaign was clearly desperate not to talk about the real issues. When the topic turned to Romney’s NAACP performance, she called his speech “beautiful” — three times. (They also talked about the rumors that Condoleezza Rice might be Romney’s VP pick, and both commentators were skeptical. In this case I thought Charen did her job, by pointing out something Dionne didn’t mention as an obstacle — Rice’s prochoice views.)
This morning I found myself wondering whether I hallucinated the whole thing. So I checked NPR.org. There I found an archive of a chat between Dionne and Charen, moderated by Melissa Brooks — but it is not at all the segment that aired when I was listening last night. The title still says “Week in Politics: Romney At Bain, NAACP” and the description says “They discuss Romney defending his record at Bain Capital and the NAACP convention.” But there’s nothing at all in the clip (or the transcript) about the NAACP, and the section that is about Bain is not what I heard. There is, for example, no discussion of the allegation that Romney may have committed a felony by lying to the SEC (which Charen, echoing Romney’s campaign, professed to find absolutely disgusting — the Obama campaign’s accusation, that is, not the alleged deception on Romney’s part, which as I recall she did not address). And the segment that aired last night while I was listening ended with a brief exchange over the term “Obamacare” — Dionne said he felt Romney might have known better than to use that term when speaking to the NAACP, and Charen interrupted to protest that Obama uses it in his own ads. I was relieved that Block cut it off there.
The author of “No More Mister Nice Blog,” which I linked to above regarding Charen’s take on Romney’s “beautiful” NAACP address, not only heard the version I heard — he apparently found it on NPR’s site, before they changed it. So they did change it. That strikes me as bad journalistic practice, altering the record without acknowledging it. I don’t visit NPR.org that often, and when I do it isn’t usually to revisit something I heard on the air. So maybe you can tell me: is it standard for NPR to post entirely different versions of the segments they’ve aired without noting as much? Or was this a deviation from the usual practice, and if it was, why? There is only this fine-print disclaimer at the bottom:
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio.
Agreed. But which audio? And am I supposed to be keeping the record?
UPDATE, 7/18: Here’s the response we got from NPR’s media-relations office:
NPR’s practice is very much like that of newspapers, where the final edition copy replaces the early edition version. In this case, after the first rollover (or feed) of the program, a series of network interviews about Romney’s tenure at Bain aired that spurred considerable media and public dialogue. All Things Considered recorded a new two-way conversation between Mona and E.J. to address that topic, which was ready for the third and final feed of the show. It is a usual practice for our newsmagazines to update stories and when possible conduct new interviews when stories change for inclusion in rollovers. It’s also our practice to post online the last, most current interview as of the time the program ends.
That explains where the second version came from. And it makes sense that they would “post online the last, most current interview as of the time the program ends.” But before they posted that version, they posted an earlier one, and then they changed it. When a newspaper significantly changes or updates the content of something posted online, doesn’t it typically also note that fact? (That’s what we do.) Since both versions of the segment aired, why not post both online? And if that’s not feasible, why not indicate that “this page has been updated with the most current version of the segment, which aired on the third and final feed of the show”? And if you want to feature only the most up-to-date version, shouldn’t you change the headline and description so that they don’t describe what used to be there? I don’t suspect anything sinister at work here, but if this is standard practice, I think it could use a little fine-tuning.
It struck me that-what’s on line now,Mollie, sounds more truncated pf what ypu heard than the manuscript there.
Interesting editing issue?
Shields/Gerson was far better though I found Gerson’s description of “harsh capitalism” as the best we have to be simplistic approval of the way plutocracy moves and operates.
Washington Week offers iMO the best balnced perspective on Friday night.
Charen is like the many talking heads who make the rounds to give balnce to the”two sides” of an issue = often a fiction in which spin is generatedout of half truths.
Given the money paid t all these analysts/ think tannks etc. real rational discussion will just get harder (though EJ is a gentleman; BTW his podcast on his new book at america is gem of a listen!)
Bob, it isn’t just shorter than what I heard – it’s a different conversation altogether. They must have completely re-edited the interview.
I heard the exchange on the radio as well, and was surprised that Ms. Charen had been invited to fill Mr. Brooks’ spot. Our local paper used to carry her syndicated column, and she always struck me as a more sincere, slightly less jaded version of Ann Coulter. Still a “liberal” baiter, but with more conviction and less panache. I also found her comments on the program to be less than enlightening, and the word “shill” popped into my brain numerous times. So there’s that.
Then after reading your post, Mollie, I Googled “Mona Charen NPR” and found that not only does she fall on the strident side of the conservative spectrum, she really doesn’t like NPR and would like to see it lose its government funding (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261888/all-things-contemptible-mona-charen). So I began to wonder why someone who has this much contempt for NPR would deign to appear on one of its most popular shows? She always struck me as a better fit for echo chambers like Hannity or Limbaugh. Even more to the point, I wondered why NPR would invite her. Surely they knew what they would be getting.
Lots of cognitive dissonance here–a dissonance greatly amplified by the change of transcript. Unless the folks at NPR realized what a colossal mistake they had made, and tried to clean up their image. If so, it’s pretty disturbing.
Mollie –
If NPR can do this legally, so can all the stations. This is seriously scary.
Does anyone know whether the TV tapes (or whatever they use for recording) can be altered without any detection? I know stuff can always be cut out, but can it be cut without detection? And can segments be shuffled around? If they can, then these stations could get away with historical murder. I wouldn’t put anything past Fox.
Mollie, I suggest you contact the NPR Ombudsman with your question and comment:
http://help.npr.org/npr/includes/customer/npr/custforms/contactus.aspx?omb=t
I think that link will work. While I am not a fan of this Ombudsman, I feel he is way to uncritical of NPR, I do think he tries to answer questions such as the one you raise.
I also think Shields and Gerson/Brooks on NewsHour is the better exchange, usually.
Suggestion – NPR has adopted the same methods as EWTN and Arroyo when posting the final recording. Nothing like taping your own history.
jbruns – good idea. I’ve sent an email to the ombudsman, and I’ll let you know if I get a response.
Mark Jameson – yes, you can’t say they didn’t know what they were getting. Maybe they’re still doing penance for firing Juan Williams? I wonder whether any of Charen’s readers at NRO will ask her what you did – namely, if NPR is so contemptible, why accept the invitation to appear on the air?
I need to point out that while I was reading this my wife called out from the next room, “DAVID BROOKS IS SUCH AN IDIOT!”*
So your saying, “Now that I have become acquainted with Ms. Charen, the best thing I can say for her is that she made me appreciate David Brooks” carried special force.
*She was reading this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html?_r=3
(I did not read the Brooks piece, but I did read the Gawker commentary on it, which was très amusant)
” … why accept the invitation to appear on the air?”
The stipend can’t be very good, either. Mona – if you are going to sell your soul to the “devil,” find one who pays a lot.
Gerson’s comments with Mark Shields on PBS were similar enough to Charen’s take on Romney to suggest that both were just doing their best to assume what they took to be the latest approved GOP posture on the matter: shocked amazement that a sitting president could stoop so low. Another Casablanca moment.
Whoops. Charen’s take on Obama’s comments on Romney of course.
I have no idea of how NPR handles such things, but I’d be very interested in what response you get from the network’s ombudsman. Otherwise the whole business sounds scarily like the stories I read about Chinese censorship and changing the record. Maybe you should send the clip to Mark Shields (a friend of Commonweal, after all!) and ask for his take.
Abe: Holy cow. If I’d just published a column like that I’d be on vacation too (possibly involuntarily). My reaction was a lot like Gawker’s. (Also good: Jason Linkins… And Alex Pareene’s Hack List writeup is never out of style.) By the time I got to “They work much longer hours than people down the income scale, driving their kids to piano lessons and then taking part in conference calls from the waiting room,” I was more or less convinced that some Brooks impersonator had filed that column to punk us all. But then I think that every time I read Tom Friedman, too.
Susan: Yes, it’s that vaunted GOP message discipline at work. The Romney campaign set the tone (i.e., the real scandal is that the Obama campaign would say something so low!), Romney himself said it on every program that would have him, and then the conservative commentators repeated it in every venue, regardless of what they were asked. That approach is effective in its way. But it’s totally useless if analysis is what you’re looking for.
It’s interesting that Alex Pareene, of all people, purports to be identifying hacks: http://patterico.com/2012/07/10/salon-does-damage-control-for-brett-kimberlin/
To anyone still reading : we received a reply from NPR. I updated the post.
Thanks, Mollie. I think you’re right — their intermediate version should have been noted as a revision. The NYT corrects online texts all the time and says so at the end of the online version.