On Tuesday's edition of All Things Considered, Robert Siegel hosted
this puff piece about people born the same year as Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito and how their views had changed in the past 20 years.
Here is how the piece is described on the npr site:
All Things Considered, January 10, 2006 · As Judge Samuel Alito testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Robert Siegel talks with Alito's contemporaries -- those who are 55 or so -- to see how much they and their views have changed since they were 35. In his testimony, Alito has said his views have changed since 1985.
Siegel talks to Judy Carter, who performs corporate comedy; Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute; Arianna Huffington, editor of the Web site The Huffington Post; Carl Rohde, an entrepreneur and part-time actor from Greenwich, Conn.; and Alan Ito, who works for the California Department of Toxic Substance Control.
In my opinion the piece is effectively saying that Alito's views in 1985 aren't so meaningful. Let's remind ourselves what those views were:
On November 15, 1985 Judge Alito wrote the following as he sought to become an Assistant Attorney General with the Reagan Administration:
"... particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed, and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."
"... a member of the Cocnerned Alumni of Princeton University, a conservative alumni group."
Here is how those featured in the piece have changed their views over the past 20 years:
Judy Carter was a "radical feminist" but isn't anymore.
Patrick Michaels (a senior fellow at the conservative Cato Institute) used to believe that human activities effect the environment, but doesn't anymore.
Arianna Huffington (the shortest feature of the story) used to believe the private sector could solve society's problems, but doesn't anymore.
Carl Rohde used to naively think that the world would get better, but sees that it hasn't.
Al Ito (ha ha ha isn't NPR cute and clever) isn't as politically progressive as he once was. He no longer engages in "identity politics."
Summary
This NPR piece is a method for influencing the debate over whether Alito should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. NPR seems to be saying that Alito's radical conservative expressions aren't important because he made the assertions 20 years ago and he may have changed his views since.
It has the effect of shouting down those voices who would assert that what the man said and did 20 years ago was just as politically important -- furthermore inflammatory -- then as it is now.
It is also biased against progressive politics, dismissing schools of thought that are important to the social and political framework of our modern society: such as feminist theory, the role of race in social relations and the effects of human activities upon the natural environment.
That NPR would invest it's time and resources to create and run this piece doesn't come as a surprise. It is common knowledge -- at least in these parts -- that NPR has taken a decidedly pro-corporate, anti-progress turn over the years.
The reason this piece is noteworthy is that it signals that NPR can no longer be considered a source for high journalism. By high journalism I mean meaningful, academic, probing, theoretical, revealing, even uplifting at times. This type of journalism no longer exists in the eighties range at the left side of your radio dial.