Share
Email This Page
add comment

Activist Historian Howard Zinn's Obit Causes a Firestorm

Print
Saturday, 06 February 2010 17:23
Author Howard Zinn speaks during the People Speak ASCAP Music Cafe performance held during the 2009 Sundance Music Festival in Park City, Utah, 01/23/09. (photo: Getty Images)

Author Howard Zinn speaks during the People Speak ASCAP Music Cafe performance held during the 2009 Sundance Music Festival in Park City, Utah, 01/23/09. (photo: Getty Images)


[NOTE: (2-5-10) I said that Allison Keyes declined to comment on her story. In fairness to Keyes, I should have said that David Sweeney, managing editor of NPR News, told me he would respond on behalf of the news department. It should also be noted that journalism is done collaboratively, and Keyes alone did not make the decision to put the story on the air. This is why Sweeney responded.]


here's a taboo not to speak ill of the dead. Or if you are going to, then at least be nuanced and even-handed about it.

And that's what hundreds said about a Jan. 28 remembrance of Howard Zinn, the activist historian who died Jan. 27.

Zinn was decidedly left of the American political spectrum and the first to say he was biased. His best-known book, "A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present," was a surprise best-seller. It told history from the point of view of those who had been vanquished or oppressed by the powerful.

Zinn, 87, died of a heart attack last Wednesday while on a speaking tour in California. NPR scrambled to get something on the air for All Things Considered (ATC) the next night.

The four-minute piece by Allison Keyes quoted three sources: two who praised Zinn and one, David Horowitz, who was harshly critical. It was the commentary by Horowitz that led Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a left-leaning media watchdog group, to initiate a campaign that resulted in over 1,600 emails, over 100 phone calls and 108 comments on npr.org. Others complained on air.

Horowitz, 71, is a former leftist radical who morphed into a right-wing author and commentator in the early 1980s. He is also founder of Students for Academic Freedom, a national watchdog group that promotes tolerance of conservatives on college campuses.

Not surprisingly, he was no fan of Zinn's.

"There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn's intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect," Horowitz declared in the NPR story. "Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse."

Ouch.

"I thought it was not only disrespectful, but ridiculous - and so typical of the 'liberal' media's desire to seek legitimacy by giving credence to hateful right-wingers," wrote Laura Paskus, from Paonia, CO. "I was one of those young people Zinn influenced; he didn't expect people to blindly accept his version of history. Rather, he taught us to question, probe, seek out alternative perspectives and to always be fair."

Victor Tishop of Kent Cliffs, NY added this:

"You don't alter the minds of millions if you are a fringe mentality," he said. "That's a contradiction in terms. Horowitz's whole commentary was specious and designed to destroy the works of Dr. Zinn. Many right-wing spokespeople on NPR are allowed latitude that doesn't seem to be accorded to quote unquote liberals on the left."

Many critics pointed to NPR's even-handed coverage of William F. Buckley, "a figure as admired by the right as much as Zinn was on the left," according to FAIR, which gave its members talking points and urged them to contact the Ombudsman.

NPR was complimentary and respectful in memorializing Buckley, who died in 2008. The network was equally nuanced in remembering pioneering televangelist Oral Roberts (who died in December) and Robert Novak, a conservative columnist who played a key role in the Valerie Plame debacle and who died last August. NPR's obituaries of these men did not contain mean-spirited, Horowitz-like comments.

It should be noted that Talk of the Nation did a segment on Zinn that discussed all aspects of his life that FAIR overlooked.

Obituaries are news stories that place a person in time and history - not tributes. For this reason, Zinn's obituary did need to mention that he was controversial and that some historians were dismissive of his work. But, several professional obituary writers said, Horowitz's harsh comments about Zinn were not appropriate.

"Obviously the deceased has no ability to refute or discuss or explain the accusation," said Carolyn Gilbert, founder of the International Association of Obituarists. "To pick a fight in the obit is not in the guidelines. It is a little too over the top and begins to open doors that shouldn't be open in an obituary."

Adam Bernstein, the Washington Post's obituaries editor, also heard the Zinn obit.

"I think the Zinn story misses the mark for two reasons," said Bernstein. "It quotes people with a vested interest in celebrating the man and then quotes a man who vividly despises what Zinn represents."

Neither works well.

The Horowitz quote "seems a low blow that doesn't add much insight to the reader or listener," said Bernstein. "It seems to me your story would have been better to get a more-neutral authority who expresses why Zinn was influential and helps the reader/listener understand why many scholars - not just conservative firebombers like Horowitz - felt Zinn was not a force for good in academia."

NPR doesn't have a full-time obit reporter. Last year, the network ran 317 obits and the year before 327. So when someone dies, pieces are often crafted at the time of death. [NPR does prepare advance obituaries of many prominent people. For example, Neda Ulaby had already done a piece on J.D. Salinger, who also died last week, in anticipation of the 91-year-old author's death.]

The Zinn obit was assigned to Karen Grigsby-Bates late on the day he died but she had difficulty getting callbacks that day. Keyes got the assignment the next day to do the story for ATC that night.

"She reached out to as many voices on both sides about Mr. Zinn as she could," said managing editor David Sweeney. "Some were not available or refused to talk." Keyes reached Horowitz, who was willing to talk. Keyes declined to be interviewed.

After the flood of emails, I asked Sweeney to take another listen.

He agreed the Horowitz quote is harsh in tone. "That doesn't undermine the legitimacy of using his point of view," said Sweeney. "If there is a problem with what Horowitz has to say, it's that he's allowed to wield a sharp tongue without providing any justification or evidence to support his words: more heat than light."

I also asked Alana Baranick, author of "Life on the Death Beat: A Handbook for Obituary Writers," to listen to the story. She wrote obits for the Cleveland Plain Dealer for 16 years. She thought it was fair to use Horowitz to balance out leftist academic Noam Chomsky, who said "Zinn had changed the conscience of a generation."

"If I had been doing that NPR obit, I would not have cited Horowitz or Chomsky," said Baranick. "I would have looked to less controversial figures for comments. [Quoting] historians, who are not considered political activists, would have been more appropriate."

Writing an obituary can be a challenging assignment because it is often the last thing that will be said about someone, and the subject can no longer speak on his own behalf. It must be fair. It must provide context and it must tell warts and all - all in a limited space.

Critics are right that NPR was not respectful of Zinn. It would have been better to wait a day and find a more nuanced critic - as the Washington Post did two days after Zinn died - than rushing a flawed obituary on air.

Open Article On Originating Site

 

Comments  

 
+9 # Guest 2010-02-06 22:09
The obit, and this lame half-apology, illustrate why NPR has fewer listeners today than 10 years ago. That managing editor Sweeney manages to keep his job speaks volumes about how corporatist this station has become. Shame on you NPR.
 
 
+5 # Guest 2010-02-06 22:10
NPR should have a professional write the obituaries. Maybe if they could learn from their mistakes, then it would be worth it.
 
 
+7 # Guest 2010-02-06 22:50
Zinn changed the way I think of American history. Looking at the victims of USSA policy, I am no longer proud of the elites who vanquish, enjoin and exploit minorities and subordinates. I have become ashamed of the corporate NOT-SEE-ISM before my eyes.
 
 
+8 # Guest 2010-02-06 22:52
Howard Zinn is a national treasure and David Horowitz is insignificant. Horowitz bitter comment on the occasion of Howard Zinn's death might gain him a bit of lasting notoriety, perhaps for the shallowness of his grasp of what Zinn did. But frankly, I doubt that even that rude moment will be enough.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-02-06 23:09
Barn doors and horses come to mind.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-02-06 23:27
NPR is a consistent source of disinformation. Over time, it's pretenses about covering the news nearly evaporated as it became more and more a form of liberal entertainment. That the vapid sap Horowitz would be allowed to attack the liberal reformer Zinn is indicative of not only NPR bias, but sheer stupidity on the part of the many people who dabbled in creating the obit.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-02-07 00:55
"It should be noted that Talk of the Nation did a segment on Zinn that discussed all aspects of his life that FAIR overlooked."

First of all, that's poor writing-- FAIR overlooked aspects of Zinn's life?

Second, how do you know FAIR overlooked the Talk of the Nation segment? FAIR had no reason to mention it. That segment is not at issue. The obit is. The notion that a different program's handling of the subject ameliorates the obituary is nonsense.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-02-07 00:58
I do think that Zinn would have loved the idea that people are having this fight over him.
 
 
+19 # Guest 2010-02-07 01:33
The Zinn kerfuffle is just a recent example of NPR's News decades long drift into an center-right, EZ-lite one size fits all radio station. Changing demographics and budget cutbacks have turned NRP news into 'Newzak,' Muzak-inspired political correctness. Where Murdoch and Allies affiliates have a scorched earth policy against presumed enemies, NPR provides its listeners with unbalanced and uncritical lukewarm ear enemas. The more NPR regurgitates right wing propaganda with no context, the more I seek news from other sources more committed to social justice. Old left and right stereotypes are no longer valid. NRP repeats rather than question this fact. NRP's decision to dig up a born again bigot like Horowitz to cast shadows on the light Howard Zinn has shined upon our country's inconvenient truths is no surprise. NPR, like FOX, has become an equal opportunity contributor to Gore Vidal's United States of Amnesia. Maybe you should go all Click+ Clack, Wha d'Ya Know and Wait Wait.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-02-07 09:18
RPosner's keyboard mishaps notwithstanding , he expresses my sentiments well. [And, in fairness, it should be disclosed that I'm also just 'done' reading comments... stopping here.]
Ironic, perhaps -- we're up in arms over Horowitz bashing Zinn, postmortem; yet we're piling on when NRP, er, NPR is 'down'...
Well...
I need to download the podcast of yesterday's Wait Wait. [I hope!] I can still trust that Peter Sagal will have done this bru-ha-ha justice.
In closing, though, let's get serious for one moment: it should not escape notice that you are risking continuing support by long-time members like us if you can't figure out how to resurrect some serious liberal coverage of the public sphere..
 
 
+11 # Guest 2010-02-07 03:22
I will always be grateful to Howard Zinn for The People's History of the United States. Even those who disagree with Zinn's point of view, now have a thorough analysis with which to disagree. For the rest of us, Zinn painted a picture of our country that explains many of our current problems.
 
 
+10 # Guest 2010-02-07 04:58
David Horowitz is a jerk. His remarks were prejudicial and opinion rather than factual and therefore inappropriate in an obituary.
 
 
+9 # Guest 2010-02-07 05:39
This obit illustrates why we seldom listen to NPR anymore and, in fact, were unaware of its glaring disrespect. I am the daughter of a woman who wrote for a midwestern public radio station in the 50's and sixties so my allegiance should be there...but the drive to mediocre popularity has infuriated me over the years. Any competent reporter would know that anything Horowitz would say would be incendiary and, in my mind, sacrilegious. The flimflam of Horowitz is a sorry balance for Noam Chomsky; but once again, the false equivocating of NPR has confused his antics with serious intellectual thinking. How does this help the audience?
PS: Surely a copy of the Zinn's People's History is on the book shelf in every news room or Kindle.
 
 
+16 # Guest 2010-02-07 06:35
Right-winger Horowitz says there's nothing in Howard Zinn's intellectual output that's worthy of any kind of respect and that Zinn represents a fringe mentality that's altered the "consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse."

Insecure, small-minded people often hide their own shortcomings behind attacks on others in the hope that no one will see them for what they are.

Championing the underdog and providing voice for the abused and disenfranchised deserves far more respect than the ego-centric, "I got mine, screw you" mentality of Horowitz and his ilk who don't have so much as a nodding acquaintance with the Golden Rule and its many iterations known in all major cultures and religions.

As for fringe mentality, who ever heard of David Horowizt before NPR quoted him in Howard Zinn's obituary? Wonder if NPR and other mainstream media will do an obit on Horowitz when he passes.
 
 
+5 # Guest 2010-02-07 06:37
Mr. Zinn gave, and dedicated himself to educating as he saw it - the U.S. has a history of people vanquished and oppressed by the powerful. It follows that the opposing view is the powerful have the right to vanquish and oppress people. Let's be clear and debate correctly! If Mr. Zinn'n perspective is hollow then it ought to be a non issue...
 
 
+7 # Guest 2010-02-07 06:50
NPR abandoned journalism when they started hyping the "House Banking Scandal" back in the 90s (after originally reporting months earlier that it was a non-scandal). So why should we expect anything resembling a balanced treatment of Zinn in his obituary?
The Right loves to lambaste the "Liberal Media" when the real issue is whether or not we're getting the facts and some realistic perspective of how they fit into a greater context.
In an age when both politicians and so-called journalists make up facts to suit their own agendas, Zinn reminded us that historians have always done what politicos and talking heads are doing today - but at least historians have usually only edited history - most have stopped short of making history out of whole cloth.
Mr. Bernstein, the Post Obits editor, either is incapable of recognizing a fact if it bit him on his posterior or his own vested interests are getting in his way.
 
 
+4 # motamanx 2010-02-07 07:53
If NPR was around when Hitler died, would they have two comments praising him and one saying what a tyrant he was?
Perhaps there are two sides to every question, but that shouldn't be the focus of every single news item. Just tell it like it is.

NPR, it should be remembered, was supposed to have been fully funded by tax dollars. The right wing wouldn't allow it because of all the bad press they were getting.
 
 
+7 # Guest 2010-02-07 08:06
Lack of charity is a pervasive problem in our civic culture today. Everybody slams everybody. Some of the comments on this thread slam NPR as harshly as Horowitz slammed Zinn. Blogs encourage web posts to go to the jugular because the word limits are so tight. Who can ask nuanced questions - where was Zinn strong? where was Zinn weak? Where does Horowitz have something worth listening to? Where not? Where is NPR on target? Where not? And then express opinions in an all-sided way? When the format rewards soundbites and discourages reflection? Still, the format is not at fault - it is in our culture just now that we are somehow entitled to display enormous rudeness without anyone reminding us that we are being a bit ill-behaved. All Americans deserve respect as individuals; even those who are usually wrong have worthy insights; even those who are usually right can make mistakes. A culture of listening and all-sided inquiry would serve us better.
 
 
+4 # Guest 2010-02-07 08:16
I often listen to NPR in the same way I watch CNN, to understand the conventional wisdom of the day.

I am less inclined to contribute to WNYC because it is losing its non-commercial character with corporate donor spots that sound increasingly like ads.

I don't want NPR to be ideologically driven like Pacifica stations, but it should provide coverage that is more objective than mass media cheer-leading for US military adventures.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-02-07 08:32
I've stopped listening to NPR. Every time I turn on--in the midst of all kinds of key news events and crises--I get information on something like the history of the keyboard or how Sarah Palin cooks her moose.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-02-07 08:55
Horowitz seems unaware about wich body opening vents his words. Perhaps he will be remembered by Fox News
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-02-07 09:08
Amen! Steve Johnson, Lack of charity is a pervasive problem in our civic culture today. Everybody slams everybody. Some of the comments on this thread slam NPR as harshly as Horowitz slammed Zinn. Blogs encourage web posts to go to the jugular because the word limits are so tight. Who can ask nuanced questions - where was Zinn strong? where was Zinn weak? Where does Horowitz have something worth listening to? Where not? Where is NPR on target? Where not? And then express opinions in an all-sided way? When the format rewards soundbites and discourages reflection? Still, the format is not at fault - it is in our culture just now that we are somehow entitled to display enormous rudeness without anyone reminding us that we are being a bit ill-behaved. All Americans deserve respect as individuals; even those who are usually wrong have worthy insights; even those who are usually right can make mistakes. A culture of listening and all-sided inquiry would serve us better.
 
 
+4 # Guest 2010-02-07 10:32
It's not uncharitable to expose NPR's lazy inclusion of fascist propagandist Horowitz's mean-spirited lies about Howard Zinn. NPR has been infiltrated at the highest levels by political operatives of the right and thus all its reporting is suspect. I stopped contributing to this latter-day Pravda long ago.
 
 
+8 # Guest 2010-02-07 09:12
Why cant facts, logic, and reality drive the story? What to me is common sense, is now considered "radical left wing". I do feel many news outlets (NPR included) are so fearful of the liberal bias label that they skew things to the right to avoid it. When did advocating for the underdog and poor and calling out the corporate windfall profiteers become so radically left? NPR has a bad habit of going to questionable sources in others stories as well, such as Family research council/Focus on the Family etc...Pretty sad and a sign of foxification.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-02-07 16:46
max, hoorah for you.Well said and exactly how I see it.
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-02-07 10:02
NPR was once a "liberal" voice in a sea of whats now known as "hate radio." Its since become a center-right organ: often peopled by those, like ex correspondent Juan Willaims, who are unabashed reactionaries. Williams has since gone to Fox non-news, which hints at where the money remains.
It's employees helped buff up the entry into the Iraq war, and its uncritical of a disastrous American foreign policy. What happened? Follow the money-
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-02-07 11:01
Quoting
Follow the money-


I tried, but it always outruns me.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-02-07 10:04
NPR has demonstrated to the corporate establishment that it is a "team player" complete with left-bashing credentials. I gave up supporting them a long time ago. They will be remembered in the next "People's History", written by the next great Zinn-type person, as just another hack ridden status-quo toe-liner operation that they are. Re Horowitz...he would have made a great Goebbles.
 
 
+4 # Guest 2010-02-07 10:04
I must agree with the writers who complain about the general tendency of TV and radio news to "balance" all their coverage by finding someone on the far fringes of a topic--like a climate scientist whose work is funded by Exxon--to balance the viewpoint that climate change is caused by greenhouse gases.

I'm sure there are academics who can intelligently critique Zinn's work. But his works are not complicated theoretical works. They are popular history, mainly facts, dates, and numbers. You may criticize some he includes, or some he leaves out, but at least read the books.

High school grad.
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-02-07 10:42
This business about Zinn brings up a metronomic, sleep-making tendency in NPR/PBS reporting. The obituary may have been bad, but The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer is worse. Instead of seeking the truth, the NewsHour has sought "balance." The issue can be torture or cannibalism, and--so help me--Lehrer or Woodruff will seek out the pros and cons of it. The illusion created is that all questions are forever open--and that truth is unattainable. The approach is meant to leave the NewsHour irreproachable; it's actual effect is to make it irrelevant. I agree with Max Wineinger--foxification is afoot; and young people are running from NPR/PBS in great numbers for just this--that so often the foxy people in charge provide no nourishment.
 
 
+4 # Guest 2010-02-07 11:12
The Zinn business manifests a metronomic, sleep-making tendency in NPR/PBS news reporting. It's even worse in the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Instead of going for the truth, the NewsHour goes for "balance." The topic can be torture or cannibalism, and--so help me--you can hear Lehrer or Woodruff go for the pro's and con's of it. The intent is to make the NewsHour irreproachable; but the effect is to make it irrelevant. The approach suggests that all question are forever open, and that truth is unattainable. I agree with Max Wineinger: foxification is afoot. My impression is that nearly the whole of the college-age generation is running from NPR/PBS--and for good reason: they so often find that the foxy people in charge provide no nourishment.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-02-07 12:05
It's exactly the character of a conservative to pick a fight with a dead man. It figures that Horowitz didn't have the cajones to take on Zinn face to face. Conservatives are pervasively underhanded, overly aggressive, win-at-any-cost, unethical and hypocritcal. But I suppose you must be when you must constantly obfuscate what you really stand for and make up rationals to appeal to the underinformed.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-02-07 14:54
I didn't hear NPR's obit on Zinn (wondered whether they did anything at all), but apparently they did do a "controversial" one.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-02-07 15:48
I have read much that Zinn has written, and have met him, also. He was a warm and open man who treated everyone with honesty and integrity. His intellect was superb. He helped his students to analyze the status quo and figure out themselves if they wanted to do anything to change it. I will miss him.
 
 
+6 # Guest 2010-02-07 16:19
Where did this notion of 'balance' rather than accuracy come from in the media and newspapers. I see articles all the time in the NYT where no matter what a Republican says, no matter how devoid of content it is, it ends up headlining or triumphally 'besting' the actual news. To what end?

There is no balancing with the extreme right: for them it's all their way or nothing doing.
 
 
-6 # Guest 2010-02-07 16:53
NPR is a left-leaning station and I assume so are most of the listeners. Therefore there would seem to be no need for "even-handedness" and it would be most appropriate for an NPR obituary to reflect that political orientation. Howard Zinn was an icon for the leftist moevment and his NPR obituary would expect to be nothing less than to be fully reverent of his legacy of lifetime teachings and achievements.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-02-07 18:50
No more contributions to any NPR station. Allowing this indecency is in character with NPR's lean toward balance over truth. I'm tuning you out.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-02-07 21:27
I'm glad to see RSN has picked up this story.

The failure by NPR to see and admit to the double standard in how they handle obituaries (fawning and completely complimentary to political conservatives and mean-spirited and derisive to political liberals) is apalling! As is their failure to admit to their apalling errors in judgment in airing the piece as they did and their failure to apologize for doing so!

While NPR's ombuds-apologist did allow that NPR's obituary of Howard Zinn was "flawed" she didn't say anything else that was particularly noteworthy. And no one else at NPR had anything worthwhile to say, either.

At best NPR is guilty of sloppy and unprofessional reporting and at worst they are guilty of promoting a right-wing political agenda.

Additionally, it is ironic that at least two of the unprofessional reporters involved in NPR's smear against him would be women of color (Grigsby-Bates and Keyes).
 
 
0 # John Cosmo 2010-02-07 22:18
I'm glad to see RSN has picked up this story.

The failure by NPR to see and admit to the double standard in how they handle obituaries (fawning and completely complimentary to political conservatives and mean-spirited and derisive to political liberals) is apalling! As is their failure to admit to their apalling errors in judgment in airing the piece as they did and their failure to apologize for doing so!

While NPR's ombuds-apologist did allow that NPR's obituary of Howard Zinn was "flawed" she didn't say anything else that was particularly noteworthy. And no one else at NPR had anything worthwhile to say, either.

At best NPR is guilty of sloppy and unprofessional reporting and at worst they are guilty of promoting a right-wing political agenda.

It is ironic that at least two of the unprofessional reporters (Grigsby-Bates and Keyes) involved in NPR's smear against him would be women of color.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-02-08 04:43
NPR is also worth tuning out because of their war against Classical music.
Louisville solved the problem generations ago with one station for Classical, and another for voice. We now have that solution by default in DC. It seems that the good classical stations are all independent. Who needs another bad new source?
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-02-08 05:41
This is typical of current NPR...they have thoughtful left leaning commentators and then they let a right winger spew a bunch of lies that go unchallenged. Way to be consistent NPR.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-02-08 06:45
I agree that NPR has become a tepid, generally war-supporting soma-inducing kind of a station. As a former New Yorker, I miss WBAI. Now there's a station with balls. Comaparing NPR with WBAI highlights the difference between truly "Listener supported radio" and so-called "Public" radio that in reality is beholden to corporate money and ideology.
Zinn's writings ruffle the feathers of war-mongering, land-grabbing hawks even more effectively than "Avatar."
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-02-08 07:04
Have to agree: NPR is warmed over oatmeal these days that consistently avoids critiquing the endless wars-of-choice our "leaders" are prosecuting. New York has a station with balls: WBAI. I'd recommend to all frustrated NPR listeners to find a way to switch to WBAI instead of NPR's tepid fare. After 5 minutes you'll understand the difference between truly "listener supported"(WBAI) radio and "public" (i.e. individual and corporate sponsored)(NPR) radio!
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-02-08 09:21
NPR's disingenuous "balance" has motivated me to stop funding their pablum and to donate my money to WRIR, Richmond VA's local independent station. The tipping point for me was the coverage of the theft of the presidency in 2000. The truth of things more widely spread would have made a difference, but NPR was sadly no longer in the truth business.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-02-08 10:14
Zinn was a great man. Horowitz is a small man and his taking pot shots at Zinn in his grave proves how small Horowitz is. I'm thankful for all Zinn did to spread knowledge and understanding...and compassion, which some have yet to learn and understand.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-02-08 11:13
The right wing cut public TV/Radio's funding so that the obvious would happen; NPR goes after "Corporate"/"Foundation" funding; NPR quakes at loosing same, net result...unfair and unbalanced. The airwaves belong to the people, why can't we have just a bit for the people's news? Free, unpaid speech.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-02-08 14:52
David Horowitz's remarks disrespecting Dr. Zinn disrespected everyone who admired Dr. Zinn, which is par for the course for a man who ranks with Rush Limbaugh for infantile self-centerness and sociopathy. He doesn't appear to care whom he hurts, he has no apparent conscience, and he acts like he thinks he's better than anyone else and that gives him license to just spout off without mind for the collateral damage. That anyone still pays attention to him just goes to the sad state of our *ad hominem* culture of disrespect and hatefulness.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.