Activist Historian Howard Zinn's Obit Causes a Firestorm
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.
|
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. |










Comments
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.
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..
PS: Surely a copy of the Zinn's People's History is on the book shelf in every news room or Kindle.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-
I tried, but it always outruns me.
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.
There is no balancing with the extreme right: for them it's all their way or nothing doing.
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).
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.
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?
Zinn's writings ruffle the feathers of war-mongering, land-grabbing hawks even more effectively than "Avatar."
RSS feed for comments to this post.