Middle East expert Juan Cole on the newly exposed Pentagon campaign to influence military ‘experts’ on television (see previous post) to paint a more rosy picture of military operations:
“You always suspected these things about corporate media coverage of Iraq, but seeing it in cold black and white is bracing. I have more than once been put opposite some sunshine peddler on radio or television and wondered whether the person was on the take”
This really sums up the depressing media situation in this country right now:
Reporting on the last democratic debate, The Washington Post obsessed over “gaffes, missteps and past statements that could leave them vulnerable in the general election,” including such important issues as Obama’s remarks about small town values, questions about his patriotism and love of the flag, and the incendiary sermons of his former pastor, as well as Clinton’s disproved tales about Bosnia sniper fire.
Much like the actual debate, most of the coverage was devoted to such important election issues.
At the end of the article, they mentioned:
“The debate also touched on Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, taxes, the economy, guns and affirmative action.”
Glenn Greenwald, in his commentary on yesterdays Times article (see previous post), does a stellar job of showing how there is nothing truly new about the findings in the Times article - that the times actually reported on this thorny subject back in 2003, and that the only new aspect is the mock ’surprise’ over these revelations.
Furthermore, the Times is as guilty as any other outlet of these deceptions, itself acknowledging that “at least nine” of the Pentagon’s trained military analysts wrote Op-Eds for the NYT itself. Greenwald points out that “many of those same sources were also repeatedly quoted — and still are routinely quoted — in all sorts of NYT news articles on Iraq and other “War on Terrorism” issues, something the article fails to note.”
He summarizes:
“The single most significant factor in American political culture is the incestuous, extensive overlap between our media institutions and government officials. The former is a dependent appendage of the latter far more than they are anything else. This article discloses some new details and proof of how that toxic process functions, but the fact that our major news organizations — with some exceptions — largely serve as government propaganda outlets is not news.”
Military Experts on your favorite news station turn out to be Pentagon Hacks!
Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned against the influence of an ever more powerful military-industrial complex in 1961. Indeed, his vision of the merging of government, media, industry, and the military was ahead of it’s time. Yet no one could have predicted the acceleration of that trend in the last seven years.
Author Naomi Wolf (The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism) has argued convincingly that the same steps which worked to subdue and numb the people of Germany, Czeckoslovakia, China, and Latin American dictatorships are being imposed upon the American people equally successfully:
“…beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable…that it can happen here. And that we are further along than we realise.”
Among her “ten easy steps” to fascism in the U.S. (besides “Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy”) was “control the press.”
It was slightly unreal when, in 2004, the Guardian (UK) reported that “The US government admitted it paid actors to pose as journalists in video news releases sent to TV stations intending to convey support for new laws about health benefits,” including completely fake scenes of crowds giving George Bush a standing ovation as he signed health care legislation.
More disturbing still was the 2005 N.Y. Times disclosure that “A handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government,” and that:
“at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government’s role in their production.”
The most high profile case involved syndicated columnist and TV host Armstrong Williams, who, after being busted for accepting almost $1/4 million to promote Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” law, acknowledged that it was “bad judgement” on his part.
Care to imagine the ones that didn’t get caught?
Last year it was revealed that the White House had interfered in Global Warming reports from scientists, with the Christian Science Monitor reporting that “More than 120 scientists across seven federal agencies say they have been pressured to remove references to ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ from a range of documents, including press releases and communications with Congress.”
Today we learn that for years now, the administration has employed a handful of military retirees, to appear on network and cable news shows as ‘experts’ to help you and I understand everyday developments and decisions in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and our upcoming sequel, Iran). These hacks have been flown around in the plane normally used by Dick Cheney in a deliberate campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s military performance.
If your head isn’t spinning yet, the Times reports that the synergies of the relationships are not simply military or ideological, but financial as well:
“Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air…Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants.”
White House Tool/Puppet potentially ‘hot’ Press Secretary Dana Perino has been at the forefront of the administrations efforts to label Iran a rogue terrorist state bent on developing ‘nucular’ weapons (and ultimately a grave danger to us all).
These claims have been undermined recently by the release of a consensus report from 16 U.S. Intelligence agencies agreeing that the Islamic state halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Apparently Dana doesn’t know much about nukes at all - or, for that matter, historical dangers to the country.
Dana admitted this week that when a reporter asked a question about the Cuban Missile Crisis, she had no idea what it was, and glossed over it until she could ask her husband what it was:
“I was panicked a bit because I really don’t know about . . . the Cuban Missile Crisis,” said Perino, referring to the 1962 crisis on which the U.S. and Russia sat on the brink of nuclear war. “It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I’m pretty sure.”
“I came home and I asked my husband,” she admitted. “I said, ‘Wasn’t that like the Bay of Pigs thing?’”
Once again proving there is NO reason to take anything these people say seriously.
HUMOROUS UPDATE: Dana Perino’s husband is actually British!
From an article titled: Why Liberals Lie About Sex, by nutbag Kevin McCullough (apparently a radio host), mostly a rant about a new survey finding that teenagers are less sexually active today than several years ago:
“Liberals want your child to have sex. They want this to occur in spite of your religious, health, or parental objections. They are willing to substitute false thinking for solid fact on the consequences of what will happen. And they do so while simultaneously insulting you and your child’s ability to comprehend, discern, and choose behaviors that make the most sense.”
The same crap rag/website had headlines which included:
“Obama: Sex Ed for Tots”
and
“And You Thought There Was No Way Democrats Could Create A 20,000 Percent Tax Increase…”
This crap passes for journalism!
And then you wonder where we as a country are headed?
And why are we in this handbasket?
Speaking of ‘Crazies’ seeking war…(see previous post, below this one)
The above is an actual headline on the ABC news website.
The third paragraph, however, shows (to anyone with at least the mental capacity of Terri Schiavo) the whole premise to be questionable (or, at least nothing new):
“Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stopped short earlier this week of blaming Iran, saying the U.S. did not have evidence ‘of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban.’”
Well… would that not put the “red-handed” claim to bed for the moment?
Apparently not. The article goes on to make a number of dubious statements, almost all attributed to “a senior coalition official” (not named, of course):
“Clear evidence of Iran’s involvement…”
“Part of a considered policy…”
“Clear indications that [munitions recovered in two Iranian convoys] originated in Iran…”
“Iran has provided (lethal EFPs, or explosive formed projectiles, the roadside bombs) to Iraqi insurgents with deadly results…”
“These clearly have the hallmarks of the Iranian Revolution Guards”
The only other comments are from some closet neo-con wingnut at the Rand Institute who seems to make a living writing about the projection of American power abroad.
Wow. after all the flak about Iraq I would expect the lapdogs to be a little subtler this time around.
But the ‘hopeful’ part is in the comments ABC received. Maybe the party’s over for this kind of reporting?
Almost all the comments I read attacked the sensational headline and lack of real sources:
“Please don’t become part of the new neo con push for a new war in Iran. Check and double check your sources. We had far too much of the media serving as the mouthpiece for this administration leading up to the Iraq war. We don’t need another media encouraged disaster.”
“As soon as I see this reported by a reputable source that is not a member of the United States corporate media, I’ll start believing it. ABC News, like the rest of the American media, helped the Bush Administration lie us into the quagmire in Iraq. The RAND Corporation, who they quote so freely, is run by people who stand to make BILLIONS off of the next war that we are lied into. Let me hear this from someone who doesn’t stand to make a profit off of the next military misadventure.”
“If the report has evidence that the Iranian government is behind it, then, sure, make that headline, but hiding behind “Report says” and analysis of unnamed official without evidence should no longer be acceptable reporting in this country…Not after similar reporting contributed to the war in Iraq.”
“Read the article three or four times. You will see that both sources are SPECULATING that the Iranian government is inolved. COMPLETELY SPECULATING. So why does ABCNEWS say Iran was caught ‘red handed’? Why is this disinformation being used on the American public? For what purpose are we being lied to? Why are the powers that be trying so hard to get another diastrous war started?”
Write to ABC news. Let ‘em know how shameless they are, or go to the article above and post a comment (It takes 5 seconds).
UPDATE (6/7/07) - NATO Force General debunks claims:
Another news article out today centers on a direct rebuttal from U.S. Army General Dan McNeill, commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force. Interesting, as the ABC news site specifically attributed the ‘red-handed’ discovery to NATO:
Although he confirmed that NATO did intercept two convoys of weapons, he said there is no clear evidence that Iran is supplying the Taliban with weapons, and that it is common in Afghanistan to encounter weapons that originate in other countries.
General McNeill mentions the finding of mortar rounds of Iranian origin in one convoy, as well as explosives similar to the U.S.-made C-4 in the other.
“Beyond that, there’s not much significant to report on these two convoys,” he said.
From reuters (check it out) an account of an interview with the head of the IAEA.
Remember this the next time you see the administration and the media banging the drums for war, and using IAEA reports as ‘evidence.’
And if you really care, instead of just accepting what they tell you an IAEA report claims about Iran, try to get your hands on one, read it with some skepticism, and determine for yourself if the report truly supports what they say it does.
I have been kind of amazed, with what has gone down the last 6 years, how few artists and musicians have taken a stand against or even spoken out against things like the Iraq War, torture, the rape of our constitution, or corruption.
Some people say there is no place for politics when it comes to art - but I think that’s a cop-out and that the contrary is more true. If musicians are composing about things that they truly have passion about, surely some would take a stand, despite the risks involved.
The only ones I remember taking an early stand were the Dixie Chicks, who were vilified for a simple remark at a concert in Europe (more are espousing political views in their music since the administration has begun to crater).
I am convinced that many artists are as bothered by this stuff as I am, but they can’t bring themselves to express it in their music because of fear: Fear of reprisals from the government; the press; record companies owned by large corporate interests; and, ultimately, the American people.
The reason this bothers me is that when I wonder why we haven’t just thrown the crooks out, much of the problem is related (directly or indirectly) to ignorance. People are just so uninformed (in some cases, by choice). People who open themselves up to information tend to call a spade a spade. And those who don’t live on in a fog of misinformation and meaningless sound bites thinking that everything must be OK.
But musicians have immense power as opinion leaders - even more so than hollywood types do (some of whom have been quite vocal against the administration). Young people are impressionable, and might actually be affected by something that busts into their thoughts from their favorite band or an interview with a star. I’m not naive enough to suggest a song might get them marching in DC or writing their representatives, but it may well them more aware, or interested enough to pay attention.
To be a ‘wordly,’ informed person (which, I presume, at least some pop stars are) and not speak out just makes you part of the problem.
This administration, on EVERY level (domestic or international), has been a bull in a china shop. No, wait, an armored Humvee in a china shop. And there are many who watch it continue its path of destruction, but pretend everything’s OK.
Music played no small part in transforming opinion about the vietnam war (and wildly enough, some of those same artists are around today). But it is the younger bands (with younger fans) that I would like to see speaking out.
So it was a nice surprise to see the new Linkin Park video for their new single, “What I’ve done.” The words by themselves are vague enough to not raise any political flags…but the images in the video say it all:
Powerful stuff:
What I’ve Done - Linkin Park
In this farewell,
There is no blood,
There is no alibi,
Cause I’ve drawn regret,
From the truth,
Of a thousands lies,
So let mercy come and wash away…
What I’ve Done,
I’ll face myself,
To cross out what I’ve become,
Erase myself,
And let go of what I’ve done…
Put to rest,
What you thought of me
While, I clean this slate,
With the hands,
Of uncertainty,
So let mercy come, And wash away…
What I’ve Done,
I’ll face myself,
To cross out what I’ve become,
Erase myself,
And let go of what I’ve done…
For what I’ve done,
I start again,
And whatever pain may come,
Today this ends,
I’m forgiving what I’ve done…
I’ll face myself,
To cross out what I’ve become,
Erase myself,
And let go of what I’ve done…
What I’ve Done,
What I’ve Done,
Forgiving what I’ve done…
Seems like Linkin Park sees the bull in the China shop…
The N.Y. Times finally gets some balls!
The following are excerpts from today’s editorial about the White House offer to allow interviews with top officials (including Karl Rove) instead of testifying properly under oath in the attorney purge scandal.
The times slammed Bush’s speech from yesterday, in which he claimed the democrats were more interested in scoring political points than uncovering the truth, then went on to deny that the Bushies should testify properly:
“In nasty and bumbling comments made at the White House yesterday, President Bush declared that ‘people just need to hear the truth’ about the firing of eight United States attorneys…That’s right. Unfortunately, the deal Mr. Bush offered Congress to make White House officials available for ‘interviews’ did not come close to meeting that standard.”
“Mr. Bush’s proposal was a formula for hiding the truth, and for protecting the president and his staff from a legitimate inquiry by Congress. Mr. Bush’s idea of openness involved sending White House officials to Congress to answer questions in private, without taking any oath, making a transcript or allowing any follow-up appearances. The people, in other words, would be kept in the dark.”
“Congress has the right and the duty to fully investigate the firings, which may have been illegal, and Justice Department officials’ statements to Congress, which may have been untrue.”
“…No great surprise that top officials of this administration believe they do not need to testify before Congress,” since “this is an administration that has shown over and over that it does not believe that the laws apply to it, and that it does not respect its co-equal branches of government.”
“The White House notes that making misrepresentations to Congress is illegal, even if no oath is taken. But that seems to be where the lack of a transcript comes in. It would be hard to prove what Mr. Rove and others said if no official record existed..Mr. Bush’s overall strategy seems clear: to stop Congress from learning what went on within the White House, which may well be where the key decisions to fire the attorneys were made.”