Don't blink, you might miss the truth

[jGilder]

On another thread I had pointed out how the US military staged the tearing down of Saddam's statue that was broadcast in the media adnauseam at the beginning of the US led invasion of Iraq, and how the US media ignored it a year later when the military admitted they faked the event. Well here we go again; on April 9th this year at the sight of the staged event in Baghdad tens of thousands spilled into the streets in the largest anti-American demonstration since the US-led invasion. The BBC barely covered it, and I haven't seen hide nor hair of the story here in the US. This demonstrates how the mainstream media is just a propaganda tool for the government and how we can't rely on it for any useful and honest information.

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

How to find hard evidence

Observations on journalism

By David Edwards
New Statesman
Monday 18th April 2005

Two years to the day after Baghdad fell to US tanks on April 9, 2003, the Press Association reported "the largest anti-American demonstration since the US-led invasion". The report continued: "Tens of thousands spilled into the streets, waving Iraqi flags and climbing on to an abstract sculpture said to represent freedom and built on the spot where Saddam's statue once stood."

Everyone recalls the saturation coverage of a few hundred Iraqis cheering as Saddam's statue was hauled down in Firdos Square, just as everyone recalls the mass coverage afforded recent demonstrations in the Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and Lebanon. By contrast, Channel 4 News followed its ten minutes of coverage of the royal wedding with 17 seconds on the Iraqi protests.

The programme's website delivered the facts that mattered: "The bride wore a cream silk basket-weave coat with herringbone stitch embroidery and a chiffon dress with applique woven lacquered disc detail."

The Orange Revolution, the Cedar Revolution - talk of "tipping points" and "ripples of change" in the Middle East. But when tens of thousands of Iraqis call for an end to our illegal occupation, our slaughter - silence!

Two years ago, the same royal correspondents currently reporting on Charles and Camilla were recruited to lend their considered opinion on the fall of Baghdad. The BBC's Nicholas Witchell observed: "It is absolutely, without a doubt, a vindication of the strategy." ITN's royal watcher, Tom Bradby, agreed: "This war has been a major success."

Subservience to privilege and power is like a moral illness raging throughout our media, with the Third World acting as its ravaged Dorian Gray 'portrait'.

The new World Bank president, Paul Wolfowitz, is a "powerful intellectual", a "very skilful diplomat", who "believes passionately in the power of democracy and grassroots development". Thus the BBC's Matt Frei, who told viewers:

"You have to try and distinguish between the perception of Paul Wolfowitz as he starred in the Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 9/11, the famous neo-conservative, and the reality of Paul Wolfowitz, which is actually quite different."

This of the chief architect of the atrocity in Iraq who, in the wake of the September 11 attacks, talked of "ending states who sponsor terrorism". This of the man who as ambassador to Indonesia said of the mass murdering Suharto that much of the country's "progress" on human rights "has to be credited to [his] strong and remarkable leadership".

But then it is fine for journalists to serve up baseless hagiolatry of Western leaders. Consider, by contrast, this response to serious allegations of US atrocities in Fallujah from the BBC's director of news, Helen Boaden: "it would not be responsible journalism for the BBC to report such claims without having found hard evidence that they are correct".

It's fun to imagine BBC managers nodding in agreement as they nailed hard evidence of Iraqi links to al Qaeda before broadcasting US-UK government claims. And of Iraqi WMD striking within 45 minutes. And of the Iranian "nuclear threat". Therapy for BBC managers might involve looking in the mirror and repeating: "For you, 'hard evidence' is when the powerful claim something is true!"

Writing in the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland notes that Bush and Blair are now prevented from bringing peace to places like Darfur because "Britain and the US are simply too overstretched in Iraq". Moreover, "the invasion of 2003 has tainted the very notion of humanitarian intervention", so that the public would be "too deeply sceptical" to rally to the call again.

The argument: Britain and the US are too busy killing 100,000 civilians in their illegal occupation of Iraq to restore peace and international law to the world. Curiously, Freedland omits to mention that the notion of "humanitarian intervention" had already been tainted by Hitler's invasion of France and Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. It's difficult to know whether to laugh or cry.

Back in the real world, Thomas Carothers, director of the Carnegie Endowment Program on Law and Democracy, notes a "strong line of continuity" in the US promotion of 'democracy' in the post-Cold War period. Carothers, who served in the State Department on "democracy enhancement" projects in Latin America during the 1980s, identifies the guiding principle:

"Where democracy appears to fit in well with US security and economic interests, the United States promotes democracy. Where democracy clashes with other significant interests, it is downplayed or even ignored."

Anyone with a shred of integrity and humanity can recognise that Iraq is all about the second sentence.

David Edwards is co-author, along with David Cromwell, of Guardians of Power, forthcoming from Pluto Press

[Unseen122]

The media another thing I can't get behind (for yous not in the know it really pisses me off is what I am saying).

[anniemcu]

Yup, here in the Free Press US (cough), we like to *think* we get told what's happening, but we don't...

[Miwokhill]

Perhaps a little bit of a tip off is that each night on the network news broadcasts they usually have identical stories playing at the same time. Oh well, these guys are sponsored by corporations who are paying millions of dollars to advertise on the shows, what else would one expect but a biased version?

On a slightly different tangent, I remember years ago listening to the talk radio station in San Francisco and someone accused the morning host of being a shill for the cia. I probably laughed but over the years there has been more than a few occasions when that made sense.

mmike

[cowtime]

Even in our little rural county weekly paper,I never cease to be amazed at how little actual "reporting" is done. Every weeks it's the chamber of commerces latest "party" or somesuch.

We recently had a person drive THRU the wall of the post office lobby where I work. She was in "lala land", was not questioned by police, was not ticketed, nothing. AND the paper made no mention of the accident! I finally wrote them and so there was a small paragraph two weeks later about the incident, buried back in the middle of the fourth or fifth page.

The lack of real information and real reporting of what is really going on reaches down to the smallest levels.

[jGilder]

We recently had a person drive THRU the wall of the post office lobby where I work. She was in "lala land", was not questioned by police, was not ticketed, nothing. AND the paper made no mention of the accident! I finally wrote them and so there was a small paragraph two weeks later about the incident, buried back in the middle of the fourth or fifth page.

Probably a death squad cadet being trained by the CIA -- we never hear about them.

[Doug_Tipple]

If you are smart enough (don't rely on the media to tell you the truth), you can see what is going on. However, if you focus on only the corruption, you cannot possibly go on with your life without it affecting you. When I internalize such things too much, I get really upset and depressed. I have had periods in my life where I couldn't work because I was thinking about Vietnam or other such unpleasant realities. The war in Iraq is just another indication that what I have been praying for so far, is not coming into fruition. So many innocent lives lost on both sides. I can't handle a daily dose of corruption, deceit, and personal tragedy. I need to protect myself somewhat from this horror. I meditate, affirm thoughts of peace, and try to go on with my life, even though it is hard at times.

[jGilder]

If you are smart enough (don't rely on the media to tell you the truth), you can see what is going on. However, if you focus on only the corruption, you cannot possibly go on with your life without it affecting you. When I internalize such things too much, I get really upset and depressed. I have had periods in my life where I couldn't work because I was thinking about Vietnam or other such unpleasant realities. The war in Iraq is just another indication that what I have been praying for so far, is not coming into fruition.

I know exactly what you mean. Back in the mid 70s when I started to learn about this sort of thing I remember getting so upset that I couldn't sleep well and it started to consume parts of my life. It took a while to adjust to what seems impossible to do anything about – and I’m still adjusting. But at the end of the day – you know something has to be done.

At this point the pursuit of the truth is what keeps me from internalizing it too much. This pursuit puts me in contact with others doing the same sort of thing and we share our frustration -- and feel like we're doing what we can. My main objective has been to facilitate the truth since it's not getting much help from the "free press" these days. The truth is our only weapon against a Goliath of deceit, corruption and greed.

[jGilder]

Here's CNN President Jonathan Klein explaining to Charlie Rose why there's no progressive voice in mainstream media. Check it out.

CNN's New Boss: Progressives "Don't Get Too Worked up About Anything"

Over the years, media owners and editors have come up with different explanations for the lack of left or progressive voices across the media landscape. We're told those ideas are unpopular with the public, for example, or that leftists aren't as engaging or likeable as, say, Sean Hannity.

The new CNN President Jonathan Klein offered another theory during an appearance on PBS's Charlie Rose Show on March 25: Progressives aren't angry enough. When Rose asked if there could ever be a successful progressive version of Fox News Channel, Klein thought not. He explained that while Fox was tapping into a brand of "mostly angry white men" conservatism, "a quote/unquote, 'progressive' or liberal network probably couldn't reach the same sort of an audience, because liberals tend to like to sample a lot of opinions. They pride themselves on that. And you know, they don't get too worked up about anything. And they're pretty morally relativistic. And so, you know, they allow for a lot of that stuff."

Does Klein really think progressives don't get too worked up about anything? If he does, that might be because he's watching too much CNN, where centrists are often booked to stand in for bona fide progressives.

But outside the CNN studios, evidence would suggest that progressives get plenty worked up. Internet organizing groups like MoveOn.org, which advocates against Bush administration policies, attract millions of members. Hundreds of thousands of Americans marched against the Iraq war, and the 2004 Republican convention in New York City provoked massive protests. The expansion of liberal talk radio network Air America, as well as the success of the Bush-bashing documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, would also seem to suggest that there's an audience for programming from a distinctly left-of-center perspective.

As for progressives being "pretty morally relativistic," Klein's insult seems misapplied. One could argue that it's the right and not the left that tends to see the killing of civilians as important only if the civilians are of the right nationality, for example, and thinks that torture may be acceptable if the right people are torturing.

Presenting a skewed political dialogue that underrepresents progressive points of view is bad enough; but Klein's explanation that progressives simply don't get "worked up" makes no sense whatsoever.

[jim stone]

Helpful to readers to make a standard practice of listing
the sources of stories and articles that
one posts here,
both the author, if possible (it isn't always),
and especially the place where
the story was found (e.g. AP, reuters,
MoveON, NRA website, whatever).
So if I post an article 'Concealed Weapons
Proven to Lower Rate of Violent Crime,'
it's generally useful to the reader to
know that the source was the
NRA website, for instance.
Reuters is a very good source on
the middle east, IMO, much less good
on domestic issues--so the info
that the story is from Reuters can
actually be helpful. It's standard
practice here and elsewhere to
give such citations.

[jGilder]

Helpful to readers to make a standard practice of listing
the sources of stories and articles that
one posts here,

I agree, and I always do. The title is hyper-linked to the source. In the case of the first article, besides the hyperlink, I included the publication, "The New Statesman" just above the author's name. In the second case of I provided the hyper-linked title, but the fact that he said it to Charlie Rose is clear as to where it came from. It does mention in the article as well that it was a quote from Charie's show.


(I had the wrong name for the publication when I double-checked the link. But the link was right so it didn't really make a difference -- you would have gotten to the source anyway. I just edited in the right name.)

[susnfx]

I can't handle a daily dose of corruption, deceit, and personal tragedy. I need to protect myself somewhat from this horror. I meditate, affirm thoughts of peace, and try to go on with my life, even though it is hard at times.

Ten years ago when I was suffering from horrible panic attacks and anxiety, I read an article that said people who have panic attacks shouldn't watch the news or read newspapers. It adds to their feeling of anxiety and lack of control in their lives. I found it actually helped if I cut myself off from those things on a daily basis. I sometimes wonder if we're really better off knowing about every bad incident that happens throughout the world daily. I think it's really possible to have too much information. (I'm not talking here about not trying to get at the truth...I'm just talking about having information from every corner of the globe thrown at us hour after hour every day.)

Susan

[dubhlinn]

"I shot a man in Reno,
just to watch him die"

Johnny Cash.

February 26, 1932 - September 12, 2003.



Slan,
D.

[jGilder]

I sometimes wonder if we're really better off knowing about every bad incident that happens throughout the world daily. I think it's really possible to have too much information. (I'm not talking here about not trying to get at the truth...I'm just talking about having information from every corner of the globe thrown at us hour after hour every day.)

It is daunting. The events I focus on are the ones that a line can be drawn between our government (US) and the event. Unfortunately the bad things outnumber the good things that are done. We usually have no problem finding out about the good things, but the bad things go un-reported. I think, as taxpayers and citizens -- we have a right to know what happens in our name and with our money.

There are multitudes of well-meaning Americans who have no idea what happens in there name, and because of intentionally manipulated "news" – they never find out. I have witnessed profound transformations in people when they finally do. This is what inspires me to keep looking, and keep talking.

[jim stone]

Helpful to readers to make a standard practice of listing
the sources of stories and articles that
one posts here,

I agree, and I always do. The title is hyper-linked to the source. In the case of the first article, besides the hyperlink, I included the publication, "The New Statesman" just above the author's name. In the second case of I provided the hyper-linked title, but the fact that he said it to Charlie Rose is clear as to where it came from. It does mention in the article as well that it was a quote from Charie's show.


(I had the wrong name for the publication when I double-checked the link. But the link was right so it didn't really make a difference -- you would have gotten to the source anyway. I just edited in the right name.)

I see. The complete computer idiot, I am.
Thanks.