A letter to NPR

Yesterday, Weekend Edition Saturday aired a portion of an email written by an American dive instructor who survived the tsunami. It was a poignant story and one that ordinarily I would have commended NPR for. On the surface, it seemed to be another example of NPR presenting stories that other news sources might overlook. However, in this case I was privy to additional information. It would seem that I am only a couple of degrees separated from Paul (the man whose email the story focused on). As a result, I had received a forwarded copy of the original email a day or so before the story aired on NPR. Of course, the version of the email presented on NPR was edited, that neither surprised nor bothered me. The email contained some very graphic descriptions and some "strong" language. The email was also very long. Of course, NPR would have to edit for length, language, and descriptions. However, in my opinion, it is inexcusable that NPR also edited for content. They left out an entire section that illustrated some of the bureaucratic mess that has negatively impacted the US survivors of the disaster.

So, I wrote NPR a letter.

Since I very much doubt the letter will be read on the air - and if it is, I'm certain it too will be edited - I'm putting it here too... for posterity.

====================================================

Dear Weekend Edition Saturday,



Over the years, I've come to trust NPR as a primary

source of information, news, and entertainment. 

More often that not, thanks to NPR, I know about, and

have more thorough information about, important

national and international events before my friends

and colleagues.



So it is with sadness and distress that I write to you

about my recent disappointment in your abridged

version of Paul Landgraver's tsunami survival story.



I received a copy of the original email only a day

before your story aired.  Your coverage presented a

very slanted summary.  I understand that there are

time constraints on a radio program as well as a need

to edit the piece for language and graphic

descriptions. However, I felt betrayed by the fact

that you chose to omit (or perhaps censor?) what I

believe was one of the most significant elements of

the story. 



After surviving the destruction, helping as many

people as he could, and finally finding Karin, Paul

found that the US Embassy could provide him with a new

passport but no other real assistance.  While other

countries were charting planes to get their citizens

home, the US was telling Paul that they might be able

to loan him some money (in a week or so) if they could

find three people back home to "vouch for him."  While

other countries where trying to tally exact counts of

their dead and reassure the families of the survivors,

the US couldn't even remove Paul from the "neither

found nor alive" list (though he had visited the

embassy twice, received a new passport, and requested

that his family be notified that he was alive).  In

the end, an airline from another country stepped up to

the plate and helped Paul return home.  It was only

after three days in the states and three visits to the

hospital that Paul was finally listed as "injured".

As of the time that he wrote the original email, his

family had yet to receive official (government)

confirmation of his status.



The edited version of Paul's email that you aired was

certainly heart-wrenching and heartwarming but it was

not the whole story. In fact, it was arguably not the

most newsworthy part of the story.



I've always considered NPR as an honest source of news

that I cannot find elsewhere.  It is utterly

disappointing to find that in the case of this story

it is not true.