Renee Montagne's NPR hit-job on John Edwards

You know, I used to like NPR.  Then, along came the Republican Presidency and control of congress and something happened.  They started towing the Republican line and now, I can't even listen to them.  WUNC, yes, NPR, no.

So, it was with trepidation that I went to the NPR site to listen to their morning interview with John Edwards. I should have tuned in to the John Boy and Billy show instead. Renee Montagne's questions were not aimed at determining what was going on with Poverty in America or how the Road to One America Tourwould address those issues.  The questions didn't follow-up on the answers, they simply brought up in order the right-wing talking points about how John Edwards.

The transcript of the interview is here.  A few excerpts of the interview questions about his "Poverty Tour". Bold words are Renee's questions, when they are italicized was when she asked them in her haughty, snide, crass, voice.

You say "taking time off from the presidential campaign." But isn't this part of the presidential campaign?
...
The last Democrat elected president — Bill Clinton — he won in part because he promised to reform the welfare system while emphasizing very much personal responsibility. How does that fit into what you're doing?
...
Now, you're beginning this tour in New Orleans. This city is still struggling to come back. Can you really make people care about fighting poverty when it appears that Katrina and its aftermath didn't?
...
Let me just put this to you, though. When you stake out the high ground on an issue like poverty, you open yourself up to accusations of hypocrisy. In this case, you've been criticized for living in an expensive mansion, for getting a very expensive $400 haircut, working for a hedge fund, and possibly more seriously — using monies from one of your foundations to raise awareness about poverty — using that money to effectively stay on the campaign trail. How do you answer those criticisms?
...
Voters ranked the war in Iraq at the top of their list of concerns right now. Why make fighting poverty a central theme of your campaign?

Well, there's a difference between looking at a poll to see what voters care about and only talking about those issues and leading.

I realize this is an ongoing issue — poverty in America — but it isn't just a poll with the Iraq war. It's a hugely momentous feeling across the country. It's a big issue for many, many people.

Ah, but don't worry, the interview ends with the disclaimer that details are available on the website.  Yep, 60 seconds of details about ending Poverty that were LESS important than her questions about haircuts and houses.

NPR - our newest right-wing shills.

•  Tips for JRE, Recs AGAINST NPR.

  Oh, how they have fallen.  It does my heart ill to know that what was once a constant in my life has become....this.

  by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:19:14 AM PST

  •  and the worst part

    aside from the fact that their lies are funded by their listeners, who, like the rest of the country, are sick unto death of the entire Right Wing;
    It's still the best news out there, not counting Blogsylvania.
    i stopped giving them money in 2003, the Golden Age of Ken Tomlinson.
    But I do answer their fundraising requests with a request of my own - regain your independence and i will resume my donations.

    by kamarvt on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:25:49 AM PST

    •  That is sad.

      Like I said, I still listen to the WUNC local programs and the weekend fun stuff, but Morning Edition (even Weekend Edition to some extent) has become the same kind of tripe you get on the tube.

      by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:27:35 AM PST

  •  Hey, I got my TU back.

    Thanks all.

    by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:34:27 AM PST

    •  Here's more mojo

      to hold on to it.

      by gchaucer2 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:38:01 AM PST

  •  +4 for WUNC nt

    by polecat on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:11:35 AM PST

    •  Tarheel through and through baby.

      by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:08:23 AM PST

      •  0 For Tarheels, +4 for Wolfpackers.

        -9 Billion for Blue Devils.

        by polecat on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:59:57 AM PST

        •  What about the Pirates?

          Everyone always forgets about the Pirates, not to mention the Deacs.

          by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:02:19 AM PST

          •  The Demon Deacons? Ha!

            What a joke.

            +2 for the Durham Bulls.

            by polecat on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:08:31 AM PST

        •  Amen. ;)

          I moved to NC in late 1973, just in time to watch the Pack go all the way, baby!

          Since then I've lost several thousand dollars five bucks at a time and degraded my Chi betting against Carolina. /;(

          But it was worth it!  

          by scharrison on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:32:09 AM PST

  •  I started coming to dKos about 6 months ago

    I can barely listen to NPR since.  I used to listen several hours each day.  Yesterday in a five minute spotcheck, I noticed the same forced, lilting, everything-is-fine-here-in-America tone used by corporate television to sooth our troubled psyches.  This is gut-wrenchingly sad.

    We need to do something about this--we need a major new mainstream news outlet committed, not to progressive values, but to objective, relevant news.

    by geomoo on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:24:58 AM PST

    •  That seems to be the pattern.

      Come online, have your eyes opened, realize that even NPR is tilted towards truthiness.

      by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:09:02 AM PST

•  Bush has trashed NPR just as he did

  the rest of government.

  Great diary, Chuckles.

  The elitists fear real change.  Rene says, "Why care about poverty?"

  What a revealing statement of her privileged life.  

  by TomP on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:22:04 AM PST

  •  She almost seems offended

    that someone would focus on poverty when Iraq is the issue du jour. I guess at Berkeley, if you didn't talk ONLY about the war you were ostracized.

    by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:23:51 AM PST

  •  Or...

    ...it's a deliberate softball question to let Edwards respond effectively:

    Voters ranked the war in Iraq at the top of their list of concerns right now. Why make fighting poverty a central theme of your campaign?

    Well, there's a difference between looking at a poll to see what voters care about and only talking about those issues and leading.

    I realize this is an ongoing issue — poverty in America — but it isn't just a poll [sic -- was it "par"?] with the Iraq war. It's a hugely momentous feeling across the country. It's a big issue for many, many people.

    As it is for me. It's a huge issue for America, it's a huge issue for the world. I wasn't for a second downgrading the importance of the war in Iraq and ending the war in Iraq. My point was that you can't just focus on one issue. The person who's running for president of the United States has to focus on the things that they believe should be the priorities of America. The war in Iraq is certainly at the top of the list. So is universal healthcare and addressing what I think is a crisis in climate change and millions of people who live in poverty. Because New Orleans has faded from some people's memory, and because I believe it's important for America to focus on this issue, I just want to make sure that this is one of the things that we, as a nation, are addressing.

    One could just as easily argue that the interviewer was doing everything she could to help Edwards by asking questions that would allow him to make a strong case for himself in response.

    by Adam B on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:25:31 AM PST

    •  Amen

      Sometimes the best interviewers are the ones that articulate the unpleasant questions that they know are in many listeners minds.

      I'm one of a few that think that is very much what was going on with Blitzer, Gupta and Moore.

      by Catte Nappe on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:59:45 AM PST

      •  When you your list of what is on ..

        ... 'the listeners mind' is identical to the Edwards talking points on The Drudge Report, though, it starts to seem an awfully lot like the old right wing game of pushing a bogus line out there with the blatantly right wing media outlets, and then the corporate-conservative media using that to say, "a lot of people are asking ..."

        by BruceMcF on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:13:54 AM PST

      •  Really?

        I didn't get that impression after watching the video Gupta put together that Moore got fired up about. I mean, the Gupta video was more about Moore, "fudging the facts" then it was about our broken health care system. It didn't seem biased in order to further the truth, it seemed biased in a way to downplay the truth.

        by sarahlane on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:16:39 AM PST

        •  Those alleged "fudges"

          They were pretty small and easily debunked by Moore. I commented at the time that the whole thing had the feel of pro wrestling. I think Gupta agrees with Moore a great deal more than he was able to let on, but he arranged a nice platform to let Moore get his story out.

          Had Gupta et al done a piece about the broken health care system they would have just been parroting Moore's points. No ratings there! Instead they set up a "faux fight" that generated just enough sparks to "deserve" a second appearance with Wolf and an "emergency" appearance on Larry King.

          How many people have now seen clips from Sicko and heard Moore make his case that otherwise would not have? I think it was masterfully done.

          by Catte Nappe on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:26:06 AM PST

          •  I hope we can expect more than that from our medi

            You may be right about some subtle way of getting the word out, but the fact is that "most Americans" are not confused by Edwards' focus on poverty while the Iraq War is the hot thing.  "Most Americans" are too busy trying to find a way to make ends meet that they aren't wasting time on such nitpicks.  It would be nice to think that "most Americans" could hear a straightforward discussion about the views of poverty from a highly capable presidential candidate who has a lot of ideas on the subject.

            The deal seems to be that our guys can get air time only if they are forced into a rightwing frame and treated with minimal respect.  I'm not content with the crumbs that fall from that table.

            by geomoo on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:32:56 AM PST

          •  I do agree

            that letting Moore go on and on was great. They probably did get a nice jump in the ratings, but I still wish they would be less biased in their reporting about UHC in other countries.

            by sarahlane on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:34:17 AM PST

          •  Gupta could have "arranged" a more truthful way

            of getting the facts out than using dirty tactics.
            The reason why SICKO is so good is that it's heart breaking and entertaining. If Gupta was as talented as Moore he could have found even more stories like Moore did.  He could have found more couples like the Colorado couple who were forced to live in a storage room.  He could have continued the outrage instead of belittling Moore.  

            No it was badly done.  But Moore made lemonade out of the lemon.
            CNN and Gupta have no credibility.

            by MontanaMaven on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:00:08 AM PST

      •  "Many right wing or corporate minds" not most

        Americans are asking "the unpleasant questions" about the more liberal candidates.  There are few interviewers except Amy Goodman and Bill Moyers and John Stewart who ask the questions that are on most people's minds and not the elites of both parties.  

        The only people who have asked me about Edwards haircut have been well to do or comfortably retired Democrats who worry that the "pinheads in the country" who can't see beyond the haircut to the issues because they're uneducated slobs.   It's condenscending, to say the least.  I want to write a diary called "When concern trolls are your "friends".  "I'm concerned about the haircut."  I'm concerned about his race." "I'm concerned because she's a woman".  No just say what you mean.  You don't like Edwards or you don't like Obama or you don't like Clinton.  Don't tell me about your concern.

        by MontanaMaven on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:54:46 AM PST

    •  Listen to the interview and her tone.

      Yes, he answered her questions effectively.  He always does.  But he has to wade through the "I don't buy it" tone from her.  

      by MontanaMaven on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:45:32 AM PST

      •  I did. They were softballs. NT

        .

        by Adam B on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:14:06 AM PST

•  NPR "liberals"

  don't care for populists.

  They prefer their liberalism without any of this nasty talk about economic injustice.

  by david mizner on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:23:01 AM PST

  •  They prefer them Republican n/t

    cl

    Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

    by Caoimhin Laochdha on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:25:44 AM PST

    •  To tell you the truth

      I barely listen to NPR, although I like Brian Lehrer, who's on in New York--he's pretty smart.

      by david mizner on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:35:01 AM PST

      •  I listen to WFUV all

        day through my computer. (It's Fordham U's NPR and mostly music)

        I love City Folk Sundays and live in their archives, archives that they had to cut recently because of a royalty/copyright ruling.

        by TomP on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:37:30 AM PST

        •  Oh, yeah

          FUV's good.

          by david mizner on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:39:06 AM PST

          •  The public radio channels

            do carry good programming. And locally, there is plenty of great radio out there. The national news correspondents are scary, however.

            cl

            Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

            by Caoimhin Laochdha on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:17:52 AM PST

  •  Listen to the interview

    The whole set-up is that Edwards is the second coming of RFK.  They're softball questions that allow him to make a case for himself.

    On a side note, I've emailed you about this already at your posted address, but I do want to apologize for how derailed that diary of yours got yesterday.  That was unfair, and I'm sorry.

    by Adam B on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:28:02 AM PST

    •  Yeah, I saw that

      emailed you back--no problem. As far as I'm concerend, a comment thread belongs to the community, not the diarist, and people are free to do what they want with it.

      by david mizner on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:31:29 AM PST

      •  No Soup for you!!!

        No derailing my diaries you two!!!
        : )

        by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:32:16 AM PST

    •  Yes, you've said this above

      I disagree, I think most of us do.

      It's like me saying that "Oh, that interview with Scott  Simon about Barack's Iraq strategy that focused instead of his cocaine usage and blah blah blah (that is me being polite and not listing out things I don't like about him); that was just a setup for him to debunk and make a case for himself."

      by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:33:57 AM PST

      •  All the questions were about poverty

        And the questions "why should I care about poverty?", and "why do you care about poverty?"  They're set-up questions, is all.  Now, had they gotten into Edwards plans for alleviating poverty, that'd have been better, but this focus is understandable.

        Interviews can't just be "It's awesome that you're doing this: tell us why you're so awesome."

        by Adam B on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:37:40 AM PST

        •  See this comment below.

          For examples of "tough" questions.

          We've become too enamored with popularity contests and not tough enough on real questions about policy.

          by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:40:42 AM PST

          •  This wasn't a policy interview

            The question the piece was trying to answer is "Why is John Edwards doing this tour?"  It's a perfectly legitimate frame that allowed him to explain himself well.

            by Adam B on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:43:47 AM PST

            •  You're right.

              Let's not focus on issues and policy.  How about haircuts and where did he get that handsome suit.

              Hey, it worked for us in 1980 and 2000, why not do it again.

              by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:44:53 AM PST

              •  No one asked about haircuts or suit

                "Why do you care about poverty, and why should we care?" are legitimate, good questions.  They help him.

                Or would you rather they spent 5 minutes in a dry conversation about the EITC?

                People ultimately vote on emotions, not the nuts and bolts of policy.

                by Adam B on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:50:14 AM PST

              •  Tell Joe Trippi. Tell John Edwards.

                This is the email the campaign sent out about the tour this morning.  It's all about awareness and hementions the haircut/suit issues, but doesn't mention policy*:

                Dear Adam,

                One in 8 Americans currently lives in poverty. George Bush is ignoring all 37 million of them. We need to stop ignoring poverty—and make ending it a national priority.

                John Edwards is launching the Road to One America Tour next week to shine a light on the 37 million Americans who live in poverty. If we don't stand up for them, who will? George Bush and his corporate buddies won't. The lobbyists in Washington won't. And since the media can't stop talking about Paris Hilton, you can bet they won't help shine a light on it.

                Will you help end poverty by giving $8?

                www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/1-in-8

                That's why we need you. You can stand with us by making a small but meaningful contribution of just $8 to support the only campaign dedicated to ending poverty in America in 30 years.

                Since George Bush took office, 5.4 million more Americans slipped into poverty. Some people are working two jobs, and still can't put food on the table or buy the medicine they need to survive. This is not our America. John wants to end poverty in America within 30 years, and with your help we can do it. This campaign will not stay on the sidelines and ignore this problem—and we hope you won't either.

                Stand with us and take on poverty in America by giving just $8 today.

                www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/1-in-8

                Some people say it's hypocritical for someone who has money to talk about poverty. They think we should ignore the issue, instead of standing up for Americans who are struggling to make ends meet.

                But ignoring it, calling John a hypocrite and talking about haircuts while 37 million Americans continue to struggle for their next meal are all just distractions to get us off what really matters in this election: getting this country back on track. And that's why we're launching the Road to One America Tour next week—shining a light on the parts of our country that are being ignored by President Bush. Help our campaign to end poverty in America by signing our petition, giving just $8 and passing this on to your friends and family.

                Poverty affects all of us. George Bush has chosen to ignore it. This campaign has chosen to do something about it —but we need you. Stand with us, and help us end poverty in America.

                www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/1-in-8

                Thank you for all you do,

                Joe Trippi

                by Adam B on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:24:37 AM PST

            •  Policy is why he is doing this tour.

              Making it as if "policy" is one category, independent from .. oh, say, "issues" ... is precisely how this interview asks questions without actually doing a serious interview.

              As I said above, the majority of the questions could easily be prefaced with, "The Drudge Report has raised the question of ..."

              by BruceMcF on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:16:46 AM PST

              •  Actually, no.

                I just got this email from Joe Trippi -- the tour's about poverty awareness, not policy:

                One in 8 Americans currently lives in poverty. George Bush is ignoring all 37 million of them. We need to stop ignoring poverty—and make ending it a national priority.

                John Edwards is launching the Road to One America Tour next week to shine a light on the 37 million Americans who live in poverty. If we don't stand up for them, who will? George Bush and his corporate buddies won't. The lobbyists in Washington won't. And since the media can't stop talking about Paris Hilton, you can bet they won't help shine a light on it.

                Will you help end poverty by giving $8?...

                There's not a word about policy in the email.

                by Adam B on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:21:26 AM PST

                •  are you serious? nt

                  by clarkent on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:39:36 AM PST

                  •  I reprinted the whole email elsewhere.

                    It does talk about haircuts, however.

                    by Adam B on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:43:08 AM PST

                •  That is an example of the pigeon holing ...

                  ... that I was talking about:

                  If we don't stand up for them, who will?

                  When he says "stand up for them" ... that means policy. Putting the spotlight on the problem is only half of it ... its for naught unless you also are willing to put forward solutions that have the ambition to actually tackle the problem.

                  by BruceMcF on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:26:58 AM PST

      •  Hmm. Except that cocaine use is

        pretty much inarguably bad.

        And caring about poverty is good, as well as a major (and laudable) focus of Edwards' campaign. So this interview gives Edwards the chance to make his case to a friendly audience, while laughing off the silly haircuts and hypocrisy charges.

        by brklyngrl on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:39:08 AM PST

    •  Hey, I'm sorry also.

      If I see her in EENR, I may mention a need to be more accurate.  You had a point, Adam.

      Sorry if I am a jerk at times.  I can get caught up in stuff.  You are a good kossak and we need more like you.  

      by TomP on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:35:37 AM PST

      •  I want to clarify this so it is not

        misunderstood.

        I do not believe Anne Frank was doing anything wrong.  My point is that adding an adverb sometimes or some qualifying language helps prevent any misimpressions by readers.

        For example, I might agree that Obama did not "fully" (or "strongly") (or "completely" or some other qualifier) support Lamont in the general election.  He did formally or verbally endorse  Lamont, but some in the Lamont camapign later were critical of his level of support.  

        The issue is how much support and how deep.  People here have debated that for a while.

        This is true not just about Anne, but me.  I sometimes make overly broad statements that I should qualify a little.  I should practice what I preach.  It is easy in our debates here to make broad statements and I often do.  I will try to be more accurate in the future.

        I just wanted to make sure my comment was not seen as critical of AnneFrank. It equally applies to me.        

        by TomP on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:58:08 AM PST

        •  good points Tom - thanks!

          by annefrank on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:32:38 AM PST

          •  Sorry if it seemed like

            I was being critical.  I did not say it well.

            by TomP on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:46:07 AM PST

            •  I understand --

              Peace  :)

              by annefrank on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 12:03:47 PM PST

    •  Completely agree

      In fact, I came onto this thread just to say precisely what you did--almost to the letter.  Whether his answers were good or not is up to the listener/reader to decide, but she did not press him hard on the answers that he did give.

      This was a safe forum for him to respond to frequent criticisms and his answers were allowed to stand.

      by Conservative Liberal on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:21:47 AM PST

  •  National Pablum Radio, I call it

    I continue to shock friends and people I meet when I call it that.  I say that NPR is for people who want to feel good about liberalism without doing anything about it.  They listen to NPR and then think they've done something for the poor or for civil rights or for peace.  It's shocking how low they have fallen since Bob Edwards left.  I used to be a big supporter here, but told them that until they cleaned out Cokie Roberts, Mara Liesalot and Renee Mundane, forget it.  I will call in to the local station tonight on "Your Opinion Please."

    by MontanaMaven on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:45:42 AM PST

    •  Bully for you!

      by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:46:31 AM PST

  •  Trying to figure out if I'm offended

    by your comment.  

    I really don't like that stereotype.

    no tip.

    by polecat on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:12:53 AM PST

•  "NPR - our newest right-wing shills"

  "Newest"??

  Renee Montange and Steve Inskeep are two grossly partisan Republican water-carriers. No GOP theme is too disingenuous for them to broadcast or support.  

  I stopped listening to them in the late 90s because my dashboard could not stand the pounding and my yelling scared my kids.

  Good catch, Renee and her colleagues are whores.

  cl

  Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

  by Caoimhin Laochdha on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:24:55 AM PST

  •  Perhaps it was my...

    naivety that lead me to believe they were more non-partisan.  There was a time, starting in the early 90s, when I listened to NPR nonstop from dawn till dusk and I thought it was pretty darn good and impartial.

    by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:29:05 AM PST

  •  It was downhill

    all the way when they fired Bob Edwards.  Dang, I miss that voice in the a.m.  I don't get XM Radio.

    by gchaucer2 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:39:49 AM PST

    •  That is for dang sure....

      except I thought he left to write a book?

      by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:45:19 AM PST

      •  Nope, they fired him

        just a month shy of his 25th anniversary.  XM picked him up right after that, but I'm not sure he is still there.  He does occasional guest spots on NPR but I seem to miss them.

        by gchaucer2 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:35:31 AM PST

  •  Maybe I should get a bike radio ...

    ... if I get good and mad, I might get to work 5 minutes earlier.

    Of course, I could also pull a muscle and get in thirty minutes late ... and since I am slinging boxes up to 90 pounds off the box line, in serious pain by the end of the day.

    by BruceMcF on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:18:47 AM PST

•  All of the candidates

  and not just Edwards, better get used to this. Be prepared to offer a "smack down" of the right wing talking points.  

  Michael Moore showed how to do this in his interview with "Wolf" Blitzer, Bill Clinton showed how in his interview with Tim Russert.

  Edwards style certainly differs from Moore's but he is a smart guy and he can learn to smack them down if he puts his mind to it.  So can Hillary and Obama, I'm sure.

  I want to see a new "Wave of Smackdowns" of right-wing clowns in the media. Tucker Carlson's turn is coming soon.

  by libertyisliberal on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:24:56 AM PST

  •  I loved the way President Clinton destroyed

    the guy on FaUX.  I can't recall his name but he is Mike Wallace's son.  It was perfectly splendid.  I wish I could have it framed and hang it on my wall.  ;-)

    by macmcd on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:28:19 AM PST

    •  I think that IS his name.

      Mike Wallace's son.

      by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:30:12 AM PST

      •  yes, you're right

        it was Wallace Wallace

        not Tim Russert

        by libertyisliberal on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:33:06 AM PST

        •  Chris

          Chris "the apple that fell far from the tree" Wallace

          by NCrefugee on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:38:06 AM PST

  •  Have you seen the smackdown of Tucker?

    Tucker gets his Right Wing handed to him.

    by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:29:53 AM PST

    •  well, I guess it just needs to happen

      more often...way way more often

      like every day

      by libertyisliberal on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:32:21 AM PST

      •  Yes.

        I do agree.

        by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:47:04 AM PST

•  You are absolutely correct about the timing of

  the demise of NPR.  It was exactly when Bush influenced it and put another of his cronies in charge there.  If I recall, they immediately did some sort of survey to compare the number of pieces done pro and con on progressives versus conservatives.  Anything that was fact-based was clearly determined to be pro-progressive and con-conservative.  It was no time at all before they had damaged our old stand-by of neutral journalism so that it is no longer recognizable.  May it RIP.

  by macmcd on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:26:03 AM PST

•  Montagne's voice is like

  fingernails on a blackboard to me. Never listen any more. It's all garbage on NPR.

  by bookwoman on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:28:41 AM PST

  •  Makes me ashamed of my gender with her, Cokie,

    Mara Liesalot.  They all sound like "ladies who lunch" or at a  Junior League tea party.  But mostly they remind me of a Restoration Comedy.  I picture them with fans and big powdered wigs and beauty marks to cover their sores.  

    by MontanaMaven on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:57:49 AM PST

    •  You hit the nail on the head!

      by bookwoman on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:52:50 AM PST

•  I just read the whole interview

  and Edwards did a very good job of handling the FOX-news-type questions, though I wish, when the twit said essentially that people cared about Iraq not poverty, he'd pointed out that you can't look at any issue in a vaccuum, that the war in Iraq, the money we're spending there is money we can't spend on social programs, and that many of the corprorate interests profiteering in Iraq and benifiting from privatization are the same interests that benefit from an unfair tax code that hurts the poor. It's all connected, is what I'm trying to say.

  by david mizner on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:29:09 AM PST

  •  He needs as snappy a comeback as he had with the

    "president borders on delusional".  He needs to be less polite to this people.  He should do some visualization exercises. Put a big powdered wig on her or horns on her head or imagine a swastika on her arm.  Then hit her with,  "You know, Renee, I was born in a 700 square foot house (or whatever it is), and now I live in a 10,000 square foot house.  I have never forgot where I came from, but many people have either never been there or haven't a clue that people still live without safe water in the United States of America.  Not Nigeria, not Rwanda, but here.  Forgive me if I'm starting to get angry about this but no one is talking about it and It's just wrong. It's just wrong."

    "I've been talking about the war until I'm blue in the face.  Now it's up to Congress to get it done. Everything is connected.  The war is sapping us of our youth, our money, our hope and our dreams.  And nobody cares about the rural and inner city kids who are patriotically dying for their country.  It's time, Rene, to be patriotic about something other than war and that means being patriotic about something other than stopping the war too.  We are nothing if we don't take care of the least of these my brothers, Rene. "

    by MontanaMaven on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:08:00 AM PST

•  I hope Edwards

  answered that, in fact, people did care about Katrina.  Bush didn't.

  Now, you're beginning this tour in New Orleans. This city is still struggling to come back. Can you really make people care about fighting poverty when it appears that Katrina and its aftermath didn't?

  I mean Jebus.

  by LithiumCola on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:29:32 AM PST

  •  He did.

    Now, I would disagree with that analysis, although that's what a lot of people think. I think that what we saw in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, particularly in New Orleans, was an outpouring from the American people to help their fellow Americans who were struggling and suffering and give them a chance. But what happens is, when there's no national leadership on these issues and time passes, people go back to their lives. They have busy lives. And that's the reason shining a light on this issue is so important — because with national leadership, the will is there, the desire is there. It just has to be tapped into.

    by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:31:17 AM PST

    •  Perfect.

      by LithiumCola on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:47:25 AM PST

•  Oh, Renee, lookie here

  Released: June 04, 2007
  Zogby Poll: Majority Call Fighting Poverty a "Top Priority"

  58% of voters more likely to vote for '08 candidate who sets goal of halving poverty within a decade

  Poverty is on the minds of a majority of Americans as the 2008 presidential contest moves headlong toward a compressed primary calendar, new polling conducted by Zogby International ahead of a Democratic candidate forum shows.

  by bookwoman on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:30:43 AM PST

•  I WANT reporters to ask tough questions...

  I WANT reporters to hit candidates "where it hurts".

  I WANT reporters to ask questions that force the candidates to move past their canned, pre-screened, polled-to-nonsense talking points.

  I WANT reporters to expose the candidates weaknesses, to see how they'll handle adversity.

  What questions would you have asked Edwards? Line them up and tell me how they would provide us insight into him as a person and a candidate. And then, if that's the best you can do, let's hear you give the same kinds of questions to Rudy or Brownback or any of the other Republic candidates.

  Either you hold ALL of their feet to the fire, or you hold NONE of their feet to the fire.

  I vote fire.

  by kmiddle on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:35:44 AM PST

  •  How about...

    questions about poverty, since that was supposed to be the focus of the interview.

    How are you going to fight poverty?

    How will you pay for it?

    Can we actually have NO poverty?

    Etc.  There are lots of real questions, but that is not what she asked.  If you think these are tough questions, then you haven't been paying attention.  These are bullshit questions that are designed to tear down our candidates based on Republican talking points and NOT on their ideas and ideals.

    by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:37:45 AM PST

    •  Softball...pure softball..

      My journalism professor would give you a C-minus for those questions.  

      by kmiddle on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:38:50 AM PST

      •  How about interupting your guest and

        misinterpreting their response before they even finish while admonishing them for it.

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        by jsamuel on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:44:28 AM PST

      •  Were you and Monica Goodling classmates?

        Seriously, "journalism" shouldn't be about gotcha/bull/personal questions.  It should be about what will they do, how will they do it, and are they lying.

        For instance, as Edwards always says, anyone who says they will bring Universal Health Care, more jobs, end poverty, cut the deficit AND cut taxes is lying.  Yet, why do we never hear reporters calling candidates on their lies?

        by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:49:22 AM PST

        •  Seriously...

          I was a reporter well before Monica (and probably you) were born. Before Woodward and Bernstein.

          I know a softball question when I hear one.

          Interviews, in their best form, should push candidates beyond their comfort zones. None of what you would ask does that.

          Granted, folks like Tweety have taken this to an illogical absurdity (not even allowing the interviewee to answer the question); but that doesn't mean you just sit there and let them spout their prettified mush, either.

          Plus, if you hand Edwards the "give us your canned speech about poverty" questions, then you have to ask Rudy "tell us about how you will fight al Qaeda" questions, and ask Brownback questions about "protecting the family."  

          I WANT reporters to ask Hillary about her relationship with Bill and how she might use him in the White House (talk about the elephant in the room). I WANT reporters to corner Obama about whether he should automatically garner the support of African-Americans just because his skin color is mocha.  I want reporters to ask McCain whether Cheney/Rove have pressured him to get in line on Iraq and why he "let" his handlers "make him wear gay sweaters". Unless the candidates are pushed past their comfort zones, the only result will be us having load after load after load of wool being pulled over our eyes.

          by kmiddle on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:18:19 AM PST

          •  So, you want "shockers"

            that have little to do with governing?

            I LOVE hard questions, but how about they be about real issues like "Who do you get your campaign funds from" or "Isn't your vote for/against blank a sell-out of Democrats" etc.  

            Push them past the comfort zones, but about issues, not ... Paris Hilton.

            by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:14:25 AM PST

            •  None of those questions are "shockers"...

              they're all very legitimate questions about politics and/or governance.

              Will Bill Clinton have a role in the Hillary Clinton White House? After all, Bill once said that when you voted for him, you were voting for her, too. Is that feeling reciprocated? How?

              "Shocker" questions for Hillary would be "did you participate in Bill's 'escapades' with Monica? Are you secretly gay? Is Bill your 'beard'?"

              Does Obama feel he deserves the African-American vote more than the other candidates simply because he's a person of color? If so, does this mean that Hillary should, of necessity, get all of the female vote? Why not? And why shouldn't the other candidates, then, feel that they should of necessity garner all of the white vote? How should race play a role in political decision-making and voting (because it does, and you know it)?

              What does McCain's "gay sweater" incident say about his choice of advisors and his ability to see beyond what's "pretty" versus "what's right"? Why is he defending the President's failed Iraq policy when increasing majorities of Americans are loudly saying that we should move in another direction? How has the White House shaped his position? How does he reconcile this with his supposed "maverick" persona?

              Those aren't "shockers"; and they most-definitely  have something to do with the race and the candidates' abilities to think and articulate positions.

              Even questions about Edwards' hair cuts aren't out of bounds. Why? Because they're not about his hair. They're about whether or not he's just a 'pretty face' and not a serious politician. You might not be old enough to remember Dan Quayle, but ALL of the criticism of him early on was about him just being a pretty-boy candidate (the fact that he was dumb as a post came out in dribs and drabs, and unfortunately didn't drag down Reagan to any great degree).

              So, is Edwards just a Democratic Dan Quayle? Or does he have some substance under that physical charisma? If Edwards can't answer those questions -- in fact if he doesn't RELISH the chance to answer those questions -- then he's not the candidate I think he is.

              BTW, and apropos of very little... at this point in the proceedings, I'm pretty much an Edwards guy, absent Gore getting into the race.  

              by kmiddle on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:13:49 AM PST

•  I quit NPR several years ago.

  When I tried to find a phone number or email address to correct some absolute lies they kept slipping in during the 04 primary.

  There was no place to communicate to ask for corrections. NPR as a top down media outlet, was able to be decapitated and overtaken fairly easily it seems.

  Now with the imminent death of Internet radio at the hands of the FCC and our know-nothing Senators and congresscritters, NPR will slowly boil the frog since no one notices unless they become news/cspan junkies like many of us here.

  Every air America show has contact info if you don't want to wait in line on the phone. It ain't perfect, but you often hear facts corrected by listeners.

  by NCrefugee on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:36:55 AM PST

•  NPR is now.....

  .....an official organ of the KKK/Nazi/Republican party. I did a diary about their "senior news analyst" Ted Koppell, and his lie and minformation studded piece on public sentiment toward the iraq war. I confess, I am not the best writer on dKos, and the diary only got a very limited amount of traction, but one commenter was very  emphatic that it is not "fair" to call NPR a right wing shill organization just because they put a lying, decietful, moronic, fascist enabling has been pseudo journalist like Koppel in the position of having the above mentioned title.
   I disagreed, and still do. They can do a lot better, they just choose not to, and they choose that way because that is their policy now, and that makes them right wing shills, as you say.
   I am totally done with them. If I want right wing propaganda, I'll just turn on FOX news for laughs, (or tears).

  by Dr Felch on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:37:55 AM PST

  •  Wow.

    I'm not sure those words mean what you think they do.

    by Adam B on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:38:45 AM PST

  •  Jesus Christ

    "KKK/Nazi"???

    I guess it's all relative, and if you're far enough out on a fringe, anybody could look like the KKK or the Nazis from there.  But terms like "KKK" and "Nazi"can be very powerful and useful terms; they lose that power when so grossly over-used.

    by rock the ground on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:45:01 AM PST

  •  This is officially the dumbest

    comment I've read on Kos today.  Congrats!

    by lightiris on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:42:35 AM PST

  •  How does this comment get uprated?

    Wow, KKK/Nazi/Republican party?!?

    by Yoshimi on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:50:12 AM PST

    •  I agree with you for once.

      by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:03:18 AM PST

•  I couldn't believe it when she layed into him for

  saying that paying attention to poverty doesn't come from polls, but from caring about the issue.

  She took that as an oportuninty to LAY INTO HIM saying something equivalent to "I don't think that Iraq should be ignored because it is at the top of polls."

  THAT ISN'T WHAT HE SAID!  GRRR....

  by jsamuel on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:41:43 AM PST

  •  It's like I said above,

    perhaps Berkeley liberals are ONLY allowed to care about wars.  

    Perhaps Ms. Montagne should go visit the central PA region where I grew up, or better yet, tag along with John Edwards on his poverty tour to see the effects of poverty.

    by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:43:00 AM PST

  •  She loudly interupted him. Cut him off.

    He didn't say "ignored".  You know, John Edwards, is so graceful and so kind, but sometimes I think he is too nice to these folks.  I think it comes from his upbringing.  If he really came from money from birth, he'd be rude to her in that wealthy condescending way that you get from rich folk both from the left and the right.  I've lived in both worlds.  But I grew up in a small house and we worried about new shoes and we watched how far we could drive and how long we could talk on the phone.  But that's nothing to what was going on in the inner  city of Chicago 15 miles from me.

    To not talk about how to solve the problems of poverty is perverse.  I like the idea of making her go on the Tour, but she sounds insufferable. A real drag.

    by MontanaMaven on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:53:28 AM PST

•  I had to turn off the Edwards

  interview.  I was also annoyed at Nina Totenberg's analysis of the Miers' hearing last night.  I generally like Nina but that commentary was dreadful.  Not a word about Sanchez's opening comments laying the case law groundwork for contempt.  A dreadful clip of Mel Watt which spent more time on Cannon interrupting him.  Mel was the hero of the day and I'd love a copy of his statement just to frame it.

  Nice diary, chuckles1 and I'm glad you got your TU back.

  by gchaucer2 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:43:15 AM PST

  •  Mel Watt was fantastic yesterday!

    He laid the lying, cheating, stonewalling and incompetence of the Bush administration on the line.

    by funluvn1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:45:16 AM PST

    •  And didn't he use the

      term Imperial?  I know someone else referred to Bush as the Emperor -- drawing from a Repug "emperor has no clothes comment."  Mel Watt gave one of the bravest commentaries I've heard in years.  And good on Sanchez for smacking down Cannon's attempt to strike the comment from the record.

      by gchaucer2 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:47:23 AM PST

•  I listen to WUNC every day

  and NPR has become almost impossible to listen to.  It's pathetic.

  by funluvn1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:44:00 AM PST

•  His answers are good.

  Hey, you know, overall I think it's an effective interview. I don't like the way she framed the questions either, and I think the media just needs to drop the "hypocrisy" bullshit. But, Edwards answered the questions very well and he needs more media exposure right now, so I think overall it's a good interview.

  by be inspired on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:44:43 AM PST

  •  I agree, Edwards' responses were very good.

    They offset the tone of her questions well.

    by jsamuel on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:45:54 AM PST

•  I thought Edwards handeled himself well.

  Especially when the three H's came up. What is it about Edwards that they don't like? Is it because he holds up a mirror and they see that selfishness and being inhumane is not a pretty sight?

  by waiting for hope on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:47:02 AM PST

•  Fighting poverty in the media

  Okay, I'm not as down on NPR as others are here, but I think this does illustrate an important point.  A big issue is that poverty doesn't get the attention in the media that other issues, like the war do.  Media coverage plays an important role in determining what people are concerned about.

  When asked,

  Can you really make people care about fighting poverty when it appears that Katrina and its aftermath didn't?

  A response that I would have liked to have seen is something like:

  Some of the reason Katrina and its aftermath didn't get as many people involved in fighting poverty is that the media dropped the story too quickly.  People need to know about the problem of poverty in our country.

  I declared my candidacy in New Orleans to help highlight this problem.  I am going on the Road to One America Tour to help highlight this problem.  I will keep highlighting this problem because it is important.  It says something about who we are as a country.

  All of us that are running for President get a great bully pulpit to talk about the issues that matter, that we want to address.  We can use this bully pulpit right now, to get people thinking about the issues that matter, and not simply respond to the latest polls or wait until we are elected to get something done.

  by aldon on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:47:36 AM PST

  •  here was his response

    Now, I would disagree with that analysis, although that's what a lot of people think. I think that what we saw in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, particularly in New Orleans, was an outpouring from the American people to help their fellow Americans who were struggling and suffering and give them a chance. But what happens is, when there's no national leadership on these issues and time passes, people go back to their lives. They have busy lives. And that's the reason shining a light on this issue is so important — because with national leadership, the will is there, the desire is there. It just has to be tapped into.

    by jsamuel on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:49:09 AM PST

    •  Good response, but we should push for more

      I think that was a good response.  Yet I would like to see all of us working harder to keep the issue of poverty in the national media.

      I think this gets to the importance of blogs and why I've been pushing for people to promote poverty blogging.  Let's get people who are struggling with poverty to write about their experiences online.

      Sure, they probably won't have access to nice computers with high speed connections at home, but there are many libraries where anyone can get online.  People struggling with poverty may not get many chances to get to the library, but when they do, they can write powerfully.  I've read a few great homeless blogs that way.

      by aldon on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:58:47 AM PST

    •  Great response. Then he should have invited her

      on the tour and told her that one of the reasons for nothing done on Katrina's aftermath is that it leadership in Government and leadership in the media.  He's got to start using that charm he's got more along with some sharp jabs to show steely determinations and flashes of anger.

      by MontanaMaven on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:15:13 AM PST

      •  I think this could be a great tactic to get to

        the media.

        Q: "Why are your concentrating on poverty?"

        Edwards: "If you don't know why, come with me on a tour of poverty across the country."

        Q: "NO THANKS! But I love what your doing."

        Guilt trip them.

        by jsamuel on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:26:46 AM PST

•  ...and just in time for a Right-wing meltdown!

  These laughable slabberdegullions will soon drown in the vomitorium of their own Mammonized decision-making processes.

  Renee and the other slowheads should be recorded and mocked to the ends of the earth. Rub it in their face. Have they not even one original thought left in their increasingly simian skulls?

  We, the Creators, will wash over the Reactives in a tidal wave of change and truth.

  Demand original questions.

  by anonyMoses on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:49:40 AM PST

  •  Talk about being on the wrong side of history!

    It was Max Beerbohm who said "History does not repeat itself. The historians repeat one another."

    In NPR's case, they're repeating some pretty empty right wing talking points. Along with all the other mockingbirds repeating these empty memes, NPR becomes little more than a talking footnote in the unimaginative history of the right wing that has repeated itself again and again and has helped to gain us a President named George W. Bush.

    Perhaps we should 'salute' the once-liberal NPR for their moving to the Right by pulling away our contributions. I donated a car to them three years ago. Now I feel like saying f**k 'em. Leave 'em to the right wing if that's who they want to sound like.

    by Iddybud on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:03:16 AM PST

    •  I think a lot of right wing commentators need

      to be let go - let them experience no paychecks.  And I think a lot of new commentators can be hired with a "classic liberal" outlook.  That is one that looks for truth and facts in reporting.  As Colbert says "facts have a liberal bias".  

      I am not looking for left wing ideologues to take over everything (but maybe some things) however our news needs some honesty.  I want to see NPR and PBS overhauled after the election, if not before.

      by pioneer111 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:14:11 AM PST

•  NPR is fighting a battle

  with CPB over several issues right now, not least of which is the accusation of liberal-leaning reporting. This probably already has had an impact on the tone of certain reports/stories, but I'm not sure if this is an example of that.

  John Edwards is my guy, and these talking points are pretty thin, but they are and will be issues that need to be dealt with. Regardless of who shaped the current debate in an effort to slow Edward's popularity growth, it is not up to NPR to reshape the debate, and I'm not sure I would even want them to.

  by scharrison on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:53:20 AM PST

  •  I don't want them to reshape the debate

    I want them to ask real questions about things we SHOULD know, not what Republican ownership of Fox and Carolina Journal (they started the house story) THINK we should know.

    by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:55:56 AM PST

  •  They used to delve into issues that MATTERED

    I think that's the point.

    by Iddybud on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:04:11 AM PST

    •  They still do, in my opinion.

      But if they don't ask the questions that are at the forefront of public concern (no matter how they got there), they will cease to be a news entity and will become agenda-driven. In this day and age it's damn near impossible to find a source of information that isn't, but I believe NPR is one of them.

      by scharrison on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:07:51 AM PST

•  I am sorry my tax money goes to NPR/CPB/and

  the tv outlet of this group...I'd like it completely shut down.

  by daliscar on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:39:02 AM PST

  •  No, that is what the Repubs want

    I want it to be completely revamped and rededicated to informing the citizens about the world and about truth. I am willing to wait since starting it up again would be impossible.

    by pioneer111 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:49:11 AM PST

•  'hit job'? hyperbole much?

  this interview was no "hit job"

  by tcandew on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:54:23 AM PST

  •  That's your opinion.

    It was a pointless exercise in regurgitating right-wing frames against Edwards in the disguise of an interview about his poverty tour.

    by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:15:36 AM PST

•  Leno had a funny "Poverty Tour" joke...

  ...he said that John Edwards' first stop on the Poverty Tour would be at John McCain's headquarters.

  Nice one.

  by ThunderHawk13 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:04:49 AM PST

  •  Yeah

    I laughed my butt off at that.

    by chuckles1 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:14:58 AM PST