On NPR, please follow the script
�
Robert Jensen
School of Journalism
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
work: (512) 471-1990
fax:� (512) 471-7979
rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu
copyright Robert Jensen 2003
Posted on ZNet, WorkingforChange and Common Dreams web site, March 24, 2003.
by Robert Jensen
Last week I found out that National
Public Radio wants the opinions of antiwar activists -- as long as we follow the
right script.
After a day of antiwar protests on the
University of Texas campus and in Austin, I found myself booked as a late-night
guest on NPRs all-day coverage of the war to be interviewed by Scott Simon,
the popular host of Weekend Edition on Saturdays. [Click
here to read the transcript of the interview.]
I knew something about Simons
politics from an essay he published in the Wall Street Journal a month
after 9/11. In that piece he explained that he had become a Quaker and pacifist
during the antiwar movement of the 1960s but now supported Bushs war on
terrorism. His prose at the time was undistinguishable from the presidents
rhetoric:�
But those of us who have been
pacifists must admit that it has been our blessing to live in a nation in which
other citizens have been willing to risk their lives to defend our dissent. The
war against terrorism does not shove American power into places where it has no
place. It calls on Americas military strength in a global crisis in which
peaceful solutions are not apparent.
So, when I found out Simon would be
interviewing me, I had an idea of what to expect: The liberal defense of the
American empire that one hears from people who have accepted the idea that we
now intervene only for humanitarian or defensive reasons, and besides
everything is different since 9/11. These people would never be so crude as to
try to silence antiwar activists or question their patriotism; instead, they
prefer to indulge our naivet� with that someday you will understand look.
Even though I was not in the studio with him, I could feel that look on
Simons face through the phone line.
After the first question, it was clear
Simon expected me to follow a script that would go something like this: Yes,
Im against this war, but I know that Saddam Hussein is such a monster that
nothing short of war can deal with him. Yes, Im against this war, but now
that the president has made this decision we should unify as a nation. Yes,
Im against this war, but -- in the end -- I realize that I should acknowledge
that I am a na�ve and foolish person who cant deal the harsh realities of a
harsh world.
Well, I didnt follow the script, and
it wasnt long before it was clear in Simons voice that he wasnt
pleased.
Instead of accepting the assumptions
built into his pro-war framework, I challenged them. I agreed that Hussein was a
totalitarian thug, but argued that had little to do with why the Bush
administration had pressed for a war. I talked of U.S. plans for empire and the
longstanding U.S. project of controlling the Middle East as a source of
strategic power in the world. I referred to the Bush administrations own
National Security Strategy document (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html),
which lays out a plan for U.S. dominance, and the U.S. military Space
Commands plans for controlling space (http://www.gsinstitute.org/resources/extras/vision_2020.pdf).
With each point I made, Simon returned
to some version of, Yes, but certainly you must acknowledge
But I never did acknowledge what he
wanted me to -- not out of obstinacy but because I thought he was wrong. When it
came time to take callers, Simon didnt invite me to stay on the line, even
though it was clear that he and I could have engaged in a lively exchange with
listeners. After going off the air, I listened to the callers and was amused by
the way Simon tried to spin my comments and put back in place the proper pro-war
framework.
Since 9/11, I have been interviewed
about antiwar politics hundreds of times on radio and television, including on a
number of right-wing shows. I have been invited back on several of those
conservative shows, where the hosts generally dont mind a guest who strongly
disagrees (although they keep tight control over their shows and generally like
to get the last word).
But I dont expect ever to be invited
back on a show hosted by Scott Simon. He might argue that is because my ideas
are so crazy that they dont deserve a hearing. But what Simon either
doesnt know -- or doesnt want to know -- is that the analysis I offered
that night is hardly unique to me.
Simon should acknowledge that millions
of people around the country and the world share a radical analysis of this war
for oil and empire. And they are growing increasingly weary of the condescension
of liberals.
-----------------------------
�Robert Jensen is a founding member of the Nowar Collective (www.nowarcollective.com), a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and author of Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
BACK TO ROBERT W. JENSEN'S HOME PAGE