The haughtiness of NPR
When 'just the facts' doesn't include necessary context about a drone attack.
One of Al Qaeda’s masterminds is dead. You probably know that by now. But you might not know everything.
GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Yeah, the U.S. has provided a few details, not that much. But clearly, they did have great intelligence on Zawahiri. They said his family moved into this large upscale house in the center of Kabul. This is a diplomatic area also favored by some of the Taliban leaders. And the U.S. was able to keep close watch on this house. And then Zawahiri himself moved in after his family did. He never left the place. But the U.S. knew enough about his movements to expect him on the balcony on Sunday morning. That's when he was hit by the - in the drone strike. A year ago, the U.S., as it was leaving Afghanistan, said it would keep tabs on the country from over the horizons. And many doubted this or mocked this because the U.S. military wouldn't be there. Diplomats were gone. Intelligence would be much harder to get. But the U.S. has shown that it is able to gather good intelligence and, at least in this case, carry out a very precise strike.
That’s all very interesting. But it was missing one important point, raised by an NPR listener:
Steve Inskeep did not like the question.
What arrogance.
Hawkes had a very reasonable question. Here’s an overview of why, from the Brookings Institution:
Based on 3,000 documents disclosed by the Pentagon, the study alleges to have identified “an institutional acceptance of an inevitable collateral toll” during U.S. strikes. Indeed, widely available data reflects the prevalence of civilian casualties resulting from U.S. strikes against suspected terrorists. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ), for instance, U.S. strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen from 2002 to 2020 killed between 10,000 and 17,000 people. Of these, between 800 and 1,750 are thought to have been civilians.
Emphasis added. And maybe you remember this, from last year’s withdrawal from Afghanistan:
WASHINGTON — None of the military personnel involved in a botched drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan, that killed 10 civilians will face any kind of punishment, the Pentagon said on Monday.
The Pentagon acknowledged in September that the last U.S. drone strike before American troops withdrew from Afghanistan the previous month was a tragic mistake that killed the civilians, including seven children, after initially saying it had been necessary to prevent an Islamic State attack on troops. A subsequent high-level investigation into the episode found no violations of law but stopped short of fully exonerating those involved, saying such decisions should be left up to commanders.
Lest you forget, a Pentagon generally initially called that massacre a “righteous” strike. The truth came out because journalists asked questions. There’s a lot of history — a lot — of American drone attacks being deadlier and messier than the U.S. government tells the public. Our country has, in the name of the War on Terror, inflicted a lot of suffering on a lot of innocent people.
None of that history — not even a head nod really — was mentioned in the Morning Edition discussion.
It wouldn’t have been hard for Inskeep to say something like: “We’ll report the facts as we have them. And we should have signalled to our listeners that we are trying to obtain these facts, given what we all know about American drone warfare practices.”
Instead, he insulted a listener for asking — again — a very reasonable question. Was it impertinently phrased? Sure. Inskeep is the face of a national media outlet. He should’ve done better.
Instead, his “just the facts” response leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The facts are important and essential. So is context. In this case, NPR did half the job — and then threw a tiny social media tantrum. How embarrassing.