Okay, so I know it probably happened a while ago, but a story I heard this morning really highlighted the decreasing quality of critical coverage on NPR.
On the same day
Salon runs a story on the sneaking in of wounded soldiers to Walter Reed Medical Center under the cover of night,
NPR runs a story about how great the wounded are treated. The Salon story is critical of the Pentagon's attempts to hide the true cost of war from the public. Remember the controversy over photographs of flag-draped caskets? Well, photographs of wounded returning from Iraq are just as scarce. NPR touts the increased survival rate for wounded (25% of wounded dies during the Vietnam War, while only 10% of wounded US soldiers serving in Iraq meet the same fate), and while this is good news, the NPR story also lauds the amount and quality of body armor available (and although this situation has reportedly improved, I think this is still a
big issue - this is just one of many stories on the subject) and mentions nothing about the policy of hiding the wounded from the public or the problems many returning wounded face while still in the hospital (remember that wounded soldiers have to
pay for their meals at Walter Reed). There is a brief mention of the 1,500+ dead and 10,000+ wounded, but no discussion or connection to the larger issues (and policies) surrounding these numbers.
Sure, it's a good thing to hear about positive experiences during wartime, but journalists also have a responsibility to include relevant related information, even if it is critical of the administration or the Pentagon. If NPR is not going to do its job, why should they bother reporting and why should we continue listening?
I remember the days when NPR actually investigated what it reported - the days when the stories didn't sound like PR. It's a sad day for journalism when NPR cares more about corporate sponsors (and Administration influences) that continuing its role as a competent and critical news organization.