1. A guest might fall through at the last minute (illness, missed plane, phone lines down in their far off country, whatever)

2. An important news story this morning might trump whatever other topic was being planned for this afternoon’s show.

Changes happen at the last minute all the time, either because news gets in the way, or because they can’t get the guests they want today, or whatever. Most of the time, that’s not political, it’s just the live radio biz.

Also, was NPR unable to find an “opposing” doctor, or was MSFC unwilling to have their doctor on if an opposing view was being aired? Did NPR plan never to air the segment, or simply to postpone it until a day when a second doctor could make it on the air? What language did NPR actually use to describe what they were looking for in the second doctor? Someone who opposed abortion on moral grounds? Someone who was anti-choice? Someone who chose not to provide abortions in his or her own practice? These are all questions we can’t know the answer to without having been there, and all questions that substantially affect how inflammatory this decision really should be.

What was the actual topic of the segment as defined by TOTN? In other words, you’ve presented the segment here as an antidote to a particular WaPo story, but is that how TOTN conceived it? They design these segments intentionally to provoke debate and discussion among listeners. Having only one point of view on the air, doesn’t really serve that purpose. So this could easily have been a tactical choice in terms of their mission and goals as a radio program, not a political statement at all.

I’m not suggesting that NPR can do no wrong, or even that they didn’t do wrong in this situation. I’m only suggesting that the outrage in this case may be premature, since we are missing a lot of key info and most of the comments are missing an appreciation of the basic nature of how talk radio works.

Because of a large amount of emails along with mine, the show has been rescheduled for Monday.

So “apparently” this may not even be a fact. A substantiating link would be helpful, as it’s doubtful that the producer used the word “anti-choice” in characterizing the doctor that was being sought. They might well have been seeking some doctor like the one who belonged to Medical Students for Choice, but ultimately declined to perform abortions. Also. “anti-choice” generally refers to someone who advocates the recriminalization of abortion, not merely someone who believe it to be immoral but is otherwise strongly pro-choice.

Same thing goes here. They aren’t interviewing a pro-choice activist, they’re interviewing a abortion provider for her views on what it’s like to do what she does. It’s not about her views or opinions per se. It’s about her experiences.

“… because the head producer refused to represent the doctor on air without also representing an anti-choice doctor.”

Remember, the world is going to end next month because “the liberals are trying to bring back the fairness doctrine.”

And don’t go bringing those pesky facts into this debate.