No other story evokes responses like the Middle East. The recent seven-part series by NPR’s Mike Shuster, “The Middle East: A Century of Conflict”, continues that tradition.
The criticism of this series has been intense. Some even denounced the series before it aired. If previous reporting on the Middle East is any indication, the fierce debate will be both informed and inflamed by this series.
Most of the serious criticism centered on three issues:
First, the choice of historians — some claimed the scholars were biased in advance against Israel. But in this series, I think that the historians kept away whatever political agenda they may have. They kept to the point of the series quite closely and did not use the series as a springboard for polemics.
Second, some objected to confining this history to the modern era… that the series didn’t go back far enough. But there are limits — even on NPR — to when a history series should begin.
Third, there was no mention that hundreds of thousands of Jews fled from Arab countries after Israel was founded in 1947 even though the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem was prominently discussed. A valid point, in my opinion.
I think that despite the criticism, “The Middle East: A Century of Conflict” was an important service to the listeners. It may also be an important change in how NPR serves the listeners.
Even though the series was flawed for some, the series showed, in my opinion, how public radio must try to provide more background, more context and more explanatory journalism on complex issues.
NPR should take the criticism seriously. This and future series must serve as yet another way to help the listeners understand the world in ways that news reports and in-depth interviews cannot.
Many called and wrote to thank NPR for presenting the historical record in context. Some said they had always been confused by the claims and counter-claims. They appreciated the resources available on the NPR Web site and some said they would share the transcripts with their children as an educational tool. To that extent, the series helped the majority of listeners who are not partisans in this bitter struggle.
As a series, I think that NPR did a good if imperfect job. Journalism, like history, is an imperfect endeavor. Journalists, like historians, make choices that are often disputed. Some listeners, like some historians, believe that the facts cannot be questioned. But history, like journalism, is more complicated than that. It is the job of historians and journalists to questions those assumptions.
Not every fact could or should be included for reasons of relevancy. Radio adds another restriction — that of time. Not everything fits and some events alas, end up on the cutting room floor.
So choices are made and will be disputed. That’s why on the Middle East, this series and this story will always have its critics.
But that shouldn’t be a reason not to keep trying.
Listeners Want More on the Iraq Debate
As the Bush administration moves towards what seems like a military action against Iraq, some listeners complain that NPR is already “missing in action.”
From Sarah Richards:
Why, oh why, are we hearing so little of the huge numbers of protests about Bush’s intent to attack Iraq going on throughout the United States and the world? Why are we hearing so little of the fact that the U.S. legislators are getting overwhelming numbers of their constituents calling and writing to oppose the pre-emptive strike against Iraq?
Other listeners point out that a series of demonstrations around the United States went almost unreported except for a brief mention on NPR newscasts.
From Leslie Kielsen:
I was extremely disappointed by the coverage on NPR (or lack of it) about the anti-war rally in New York City on Sunday. I listened to Morning Edition this morning and was very upset that this rally of 25,000 or more people was not given top billing. I was not able to listen to the whole show, but I was tuned during the major times — 7:30, 8:00, 8:30 — and did not hear anything from NPR, only a short piece from WNYC that did not mention numbers.
I expect much more from NPR to accurately report on the sentiments of so many Americans that is being ignored by corporate media.
I urge you to improve your coverage!!!!!
NPR has reported on the growing debate around Iraq. Over the past five weeks, the Iraq question has been reported on and discussed and argued on the NPR airwaves 188 times.
But in an assessment of the reports, only 42 could be considered giving voice to opponents of the prospect of war. The rest were either neutral or entirely pro-administration.
That means that something is indeed missing in NPR’s coverage. In my opinion, it’s that groundswell of opinion — both inside and outside of Congress.
This may be one of the unintended consequences of political polling. If the polls claim that a majority of the population is in support of President Bush, it gives journalists less motivation to report other opinions.
But that should not be NPR’s position. NPR needs to make sure that it airs a variety of opinion — despite the polls. Polls are not supposed to be predictive, only a snapshot in time. But often polling data is (mis)used to dismiss a range of opinion. Public radio should know better. After all, (to paraphrase a line from PBS), if NPR doesn’t do it, who will?
And to quote the old song: “Something’s happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear…”
