The Charge of the Light Brigade
...happened (according to my early morning math) 162 years ago today. The NPR commentator this morning noted it briefly and said simply that a greatly outnumbered British force charged an overwhelming Russian force, received heavy casualties, "and accomplished nothing."
A few of points about that charge.
1. Hindsight is 20/20 (Worse odds have turned out differently)
2. Anytime you lose a battle - however well or poorly planned - you usually accomplish nothing.
3. Lord Alfred Alfred Tennyson could kick the arses of Carl Kasell, Steve Inskeep, and Renee Monatgne all at the same time.
Accomplishing nothing or not, there was a time when we honored astonishing bravery, if not the foolish command that required it.
The Charge of the Light Brigade
1.
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
2.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
3.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
4.
Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
5.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
6.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
The piece you mentioned was part of the "what happened in history today" section at the top of the hour. It always lasts about 15 seconds, no matter what the topic.
I have found their reporting to be, on the average, centrist. They go left with some stuff (especially Daniel Schorr), and right with others (I've heard some completely unbiased reporting on standard right-wing topics). And the reports are in-depth (I've heard 25-minute pieces, during the news, for heavens sake!).
OTOH, if you spin the dial to any other station, you'll get must-hear tabloid journalism at its finest. Ten-second news blurbs, mostly about stuff that won't matter in ten years.
My dial is set on 88.5 KPLU, thank you.
I'd love to hear them go right sometime...never have. But I've certainly hear them go left - ALOT. (e.g. yesterday's astonishingly anti-Bush book reviews - I had to check to see if I hadn't gone and slipped over to 1090 AM.)
An example even from this morning. A reporter was paraphrasing a US general in Iraq in which he said to have said that "Iraq had not slipped into civil war, yet." Heavy emphasis was given on "yet" by the reporter...but in fact the General never even used the word "yet"
Subtle...but quite common. I'm of the opinion that no news agency can approach the news today without their bias coming through, often in very subtle but effective ways. I would contend that NPR's bias is decidedly left leaning. I listen ever single day...often for hours. Sometimes by choice.
With regard to the "today in history"...yeah I know what it was. I just think the image of Lord Tennyson being pissed off at the "accomplished nothing" ending and thereafter cleaning their clocks funny.
My dial sways the whole spectrum of radio waves.
Meg...sometimes I think I am a firm believer in the"Articles of War" as read and enforced by Capt. Aubrey.
"Master-at-arms, take that man below
and clap him in irons. Mr Pullings, defaulters at eight bells."
I don't buy into the "NPR is left wing propoganda" belief, and basically agree with Liz.
I generally think that media is big business and leans corporate.
If Fox News is right wing, believe me, NPR is left. Generally, I think, if you are not picking up the slant of a particular media outlet, then odds are you share their slant to begin with - whether conservative or liberal.
May I offer an example to clarify my point?
If Fox News did a "book review" segment in say 1998, in which they reviewed a "shelfull" of books all of which presented a "coherent narative" that ripped apart the Clinton administration and a specific policy of his - labelling it not just "failing" but demonstrably failed already. If the reviewer offered no challenge to the points of the books and no contrary opinions from other books (that surely exist), well you and I both would be likely to contend that this is simply an expression of Fox News' political leaning.
But somone who agreed with all that was written and said..well hey they are simply reporting the obvious.
I do not believe we can get both sides of the story by limiting ourselves to one media outlet - even if we believe it to be centrist. One persons's centrist is another person's extremist.
Don't get me wrong, I LIKE and listen to NPR often...but I sense their subtle (and sometimes not subtle - as displayed by the book review) slant.
I agree very much with this, and I also tend to agree that the facts that are chosen to be picked up and hilighted certainly indicate bias, as well as agreeing that I tend left, so tend to agree with stories that confirm and enhance my beliefs (as we all do, I suspect).
However, what I mean by being corporate is that generally all major media outlets tend to choose stories that will bring readership and viewers - the famous "if it bleeds, it leads" and one of the things that we as a society tend to watch is the fall from grace of a previously puffed up figure, be it our president, a celebrity, or a person on the street.
As to your book review example, I seem to remember quite a few books about the Clinton administration that were unflattering to him, his family, and his policies being published, reviewed and discussed while he was President.
I also know that the first two books that Bob Woodward wrote about the current administration were flattering to it, and reviewed on NPR.
Gotcha...I do not doubt it. However, they also know their target audience, which is how Fox News gets labelled a conservative media and - in my opinion - how NPR gets labelled a liberal one. It is widely listened to at my work, and my work is decidedly left leaning.
When NPR reviewed some brutally unflattering book about the Clinton's or even a whole shelf full of them at one time...I serious doubt they would have done so without some - however remote - note of criticism. And would they have let an author of a similar book actually be the reviewer? Call em a cynic, but I seriously doubt it - especially not a mere couple of weeks before an important election.
If they had not been critical of the works, I expect at the time I would have been irked as would most of their audience.
I dunna Mimi, I'm really not with you guys on NPR not leaning fairly heavily leftwards. I can recall a coworker and I used to take bets - half in jest - on whether the next "Fresh Air" interview would be a gay playwrite writing about homosexual janitors in the school system or a lesbian comedian doing a "triangle tour." On numerous occassions I have been astounded by the anti-religious...or should I say...anti-traditional religious bent that I have been treated to on a number of different programs.
It's not a completely consistent bias, I suspect it varies to degrees based on who is doing the actual story or interview. But I cannot count the number of times that I have heard a story or interview that desperately cried out for an intelligent alternative opinion (like mine of course) that would remain lacking.
Ahhh...if only they ask me to do social and religious commentaries for them. Now THAT would PROVE they are "fair and balanced."
I'm waiting by the phone.
I have found one of our NPR stations (we have two locally)to be quite balanced in what it chooses, even if the particular pieces themselves are not. A sort of equal opportunity of slant. The other is less so.
But both of them are certainly less biased in their presentations of news and current events than both Air America and any of the multitude of conservative talk shows here, which is why I listen to NPR almost exclusively while driving.
Chance
While I'd still argue that their national programming generally leans left, the KUOW local programming leans much more so.
But, we still get the same national news, "Morning Edition", "All Things (except conservative POV) Considered", etc.
:)~
Uh oh...standby for some sectarian violence between the pro-NPRers
:)
During the off hours, esp. on Saturday, NPR runs the REAL left wing stuff, the batty conspiracy types like Chomsky emerge.
- Steve K.
Anyone remember the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill scandal? That was started by Nina T. Once it was all over, it became clear why it should have never been aired to start with. It was a desperate move on her part, not to report the news, but to actually manipulate it.
- Steve K.
Steve this must be in your local NPR outlet. Our affiliate station mostly plays Prairie Home Companion on repeat all weekend long...unless that's too left for you.
Just curious.
If NPR ain't liberal leaning, then Fox News - where you can find Juan Williams regularly - is not right leaning.
How's that for "fair and balanced."