Just listened to NPR's edit on Morning Edition ....
And I wasn't unhappy.
Guy wanted to talk about interventions and so we did. They didn't cut anything where I said the vast majority of cases won't involve military, or when I say I'm not talking about doing higher frequency but just doing same as we have for years now and doing it better, or when I say we need to focus on how we wage peace and not just war.
Yes, a bit much to whine about "rich" states deciding which "poor" ones to overthrow. We could say "good" states deciding which "bad" ones or "successful" states deciding which "failed" ones or "mature" states deciding which "immature" ones or so on. But better to make it sound like class war on NPR, I guess.
Other than that ideological whine, though, it seemed fine to me, and really, even that is not enough to get pissed about. Buddy, it's NPR!
The show also chopped up my explanation on the frequency of our military actions in the past. What I said was, there's about 100 countries in the Gap and at any one time there's about three dozen experiencing serious levels of mass violence (1,000 killed a year or more). In the past, we've intervened in 6-8 of these a year, with most interventions being very short in duration and usually only 2-3 a year being lengthy.
Well, NPR cut all that down to just "6-8 times a year," which left out a lot of explaining.
There were a few other big chops in there, but that one bugged me the most.
In the end, it's awfully sneaky how they get their full question in and then edit your answer as they see fit. I don't think they should put out their question unless they put out your entire answer, otherwise it looks like you've perhaps evaded portions of their question when in reality you answered it from stem to stern and they just decided which parts they liked and which they didn't.
That's why that sort of edited appearance can't compare to really getting a chance live on Diane Rehm for an hour. You hear the questions and my entire answers there, and guess what? Complex questions deserve complex answers, not edited ones. When your answers are cut down so, it makes it sound like your solutions are more pat, less thought out.
Still, this is all minor bitching. Fun to do but weak-ass in the end. In 7 minutes Inskeep got a lot in, and he deserves credit for that. If you don't want it used, then don't say it. I was happy with everything I got a chance to say, so how they edit shouldn't be a concern of mine. They can only use what you give them, so once you give it to them, no sense in whining.
Plus, I'm part of a trio that includes Richard Clarke (hyping his anti-Saudi book, now there's a tough literary target!) and Salman Rushdie (another controversial and well-known author), so hey! Got little right to complain about how it turned out. The questions were fair and my points got across. Inskeep did his job and so did I.
Plus the book plug was solid, so fair is fair.