The Firing In Fallujah
April 30th, 2003 - by: danny
LIBERATING SAIGON AND FALLUJAH
CHEERS AND JEERS FOR BANFIELD
CNN SEEKS PENTAGON’S APPROVAL
It was on an April 30th like this, in a time long gone and in a nation far away. Another Liberation army was making history. The city Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City. The occasion: the end of the Vietnam War — an ignoble defeat for the United States and the day there was light at the end of a very long and very dark tunnel. That was 28 years ago, and it brought back an era evoked by the scene in the Iraqi town of Fallujah.
There, again today, US troops fired on protesters demanding that US forces leave a school, according to BBC, so that there kids can go there. Yesterday, the body count was 62 — 13 dead, the others wounded. Protests against that event in which both sides blame the other for firing first led to today’s incident. All while Secretary of Iraqi Freedom Rumsfeld was “in country” hyping the liberation. An Arab language newspaper in London published a letter purportedly from none other than Saddam Hussein himself urging resistance.
An Irish peace activist calling herself Caoimhe Butterly was there, reporting: “Liberation — an ephemeral, passing phenomena has come and gone inFallujah. It came, sat uncomfortably for a week — without translators,cultural or historical sensibility, brought a temporary horde ofjournalists to record its only lasting impression on a community; thatof violence, and pain, and loss; and left. Fallujah, we are told later via a news report by a BBC reporter, hasalways been “anti-American.” This should, and will, nullify or qualm anymurmurings of distrust abroad as to what lies ahead.”
WHY ARE THE TROOPS IN A SCHOOL?
I usually hold our mail for later in the column, but on this very point, a question has been raised that seems relevant here, Paul Pideon raised a question after reading this report from Reuters: “Soldiers inside the school,(emphasis are mine) braced for trouble from Saddam loyalists on the dictator’s birthday, seemed to have unleashed a hail of heavy fire on the crowd in the darkened street outside in response to what officers said was incoming rifle fire.”"Isn’t housing the military in schools, hospitals, & mosques one of the things we accused Saddam of doing? Why were our soldiers in a school? If we wanted to re-establish order, opening the schools might be one idea!!! Maybe, I’m stupid.”Stupid? I don’t think so.
A TILT IN THE REPORTING
And how is all this being reported. Here’s the N.Y. Times: “Iraqis said the U.S. soldiers opened fire, unprovoked,while the Americans said they were fired on first.” According to Media Lens in Britain: “Witnesses quoted by the French news agency, AFP, said the demonstrators had been marking Saddam Hussein’s birthday when the Americans opened fire.” Media Lens assessed one BBC report closely:
“BBC anchor, Anna Ford, began the report, saying:
“The US troops say they fired in self-defense after they’d been fired at.” (BBC 1 O‚Clock News, April 29, 2003)
“Ford then cut to BBC reporter, Clare Marshall, in Baghdad, who said:
“The American troops based here [Fallujah] say people holding a demonstration opened fire upon them & they shot back”
“The BBC then cut to an interview with Major General Glen Webster, Deputy Commander US Forces:
“Soldiers should be empowered to enforce the law and keep them from doing so [sic]. Now that does not mean that anyone breaking the law will be shot; it simply means that if that is the force required to protect life and property, then our soldiers are authorized to use it.”
“No Iraqis were interviewed; the ‘Arab street’ was shown shouting angrily in the usual media manner. Instead, Ford then put questions to correspondent Richard Bilton in Fallujah, who said:
“The US forces say … shots were fired, they [US troops] fired back, there was a gunfight that lasted about 20 minutes.”"Bilton then gave what viewers must have imagined would be the Iraqis version of events:
“Now what local people here say, this was a very specific demonstration. They had come to the schoolhouse because they were angry that the schoolhouse was being used, not for students, but for the US military. There is a lack of direct translators here, but I think communication was a problem. As soon as it got out of hand, there was a very large firefight… So it was a very confused scene… And there is this feeling that something very grim happened here last night. There is anger on one side, and from the Americans there is this feeling that they were defending themselves, that they were under very real threat.”
In the space of just over 3 minutes, the BBC repeated that the US was acting in self-defense five times…”
THEY SAY IT’S YOUR BIRTHDAY
Debka.com, the controversial Israeli intell web site reports: “Some are still celebrating Saddam`s birthday…”Several thousand adherents of the deposed Iraqi president gathered in his former power base of Tikrit Monday, April 28, to celebrate Saddam Hussein’s 66th birthday. They bore his pictures aloft withcongratulatory slogans….”
“According to DEBKAfile’s militarysources, a surprisingly small number of burnt-out Iraqi tanks were seenstrewn across battlefield landscape and routes of retreat ? No more thantens, when Iraq is known to have had thousands of tanks. Masses of Iraqiartillery and rocket launchers have likewise disappeared.
AMERICANS INCREASINGLY NOT WELCOME
Editor and Publisher Magazine, the trade paper of the newspaper business carries a report saying that Americans, including the press, are turning off the locals. Craig Nelson reports: “As American forces try to bring orderto the streets of Baghdad and the task of establishing a new Iraqigovernment enters a key stage, success is tinged with fears of suicidebombers and shrouded by difficulties in assessing who or what is a threat.
“We splashed that bastard,” a Western eyewitness quoted one Marine assaying to another after they’d shot an Iraqi dead. The man was gunned downafter he walked out of his door onto a balcony to see why three women werecrying from the street below. It turned out their car had been shot up byMarines two minutes earlier.
Nelson also writes about fears of an “agenda against embedded reporters by Baghdad-based foreign reporters who believe thatjournalists traveling with American military units during the war hadempathized too uncritically with their hosts. Episodes such as these — along with last week’s stories about at least sixU.S. reporters smuggling objects or money out of Iraq — tarnish the imageof Americans in Baghdad.”
CNN AND THE PENTAGON
What was the relationship between US news companies and the Pentagon. Much was made of CNN Easum Jordan’s disclosure that he knew about certain Iraqi atrocities but did not report them to protect CNN employees, But Jordan said something else that went uncommented upon excerpt by the vigilant Howard Rosenberg of the LA Times. He noted that Jordan revealed to Howard Kurtz on his own network that he had cleared CNN military commentators with the Pentagon before the war.
“Kurtz, who juggles two hats while covering media for the Washington Post and drawing a paycheck from CNN as regular host of “Reliable Sources,” asked Jordan about government criticism of retired military men who had second-guessed aspects of U.S. invasion strategy during initial TV coverage of the war.
“The essence of Jordan’s reply to Kurtz was that he didn’t understand the fuss because he had received clearance in advance. According to a CNN transcript of the program, he said: “I went to the Pentagon myself several times before the war started and met with important people there and said, for instance, at CNN, ‘Here are the generals we’re thinking of retaining to advise us on the air and off about the war.’ And we got a big thumbs-up on all of them. That was important.”
“Important in what respect? CNN viewers were not about to learn, for time had run out. “OK, we’ve got to leave it there,” said Kurtz.
“Which was unfortunate, because Jordan had just revealed that he had asked the Pentagon, in effect, to vet and approve ex-military men that CNN hoped to use as analysts. That is getting cozy.”
Q: WHEN IS A SCOOP A SCOOP? A: WHEN IT IS TRUE
Media monitors are also beginning to skewer some of the “disclosures” we saw on TV. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting analyzes an ABC exclusive: “On April 26, ABC’s World News Tonight led with a major scoop. AnchorClaire Shipman announced at the top of the broadcast, “U.S. troopsdiscover chemical agents, missiles, and what could be a mobile laboratoryin Iraq. An ABC News exclusive.” But ABC’s “exclusive,” as it turns out,appears to be false.” See Fair.org for more.
Another report was sent to me. I am not sure where it first appeared but it raises questions about the SOURCE of documents we hear about that prove one thing or another. This may or may not be true but the issues it raises show why investigations into who found certain documents and what they are used for is important.
CASE IN POINT:
“Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein’s regime.”Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq’s intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qaeda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.”
“The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden,” By Inigo Gilmore, The Telegraph, Filed: 27/04/2003: “Top-secret Iraqi intelligence documents, unearthed by the Toronto Star in the bombed-out headquarters of the dreaded Mukhabarat intelligence service in Baghdad, have established the first clear link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda organization.”
“How Did the Documents Get to Baghdad?
“”The documents were found by correspondent Mitch Potter, the Star’s Jerusalem bureau chief. Potter, who has been in and out of Iraq since the war began . . .” (i.e. travelling between Jerusalem and Baghdad). (Toronto Star)
“What Function Do the Documents Serve?
“The papers will be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged – that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam’s regime had a close relationship with al-Qaeda.” (The Telegraph)
“Why Didn’t the CIA Find the Documents?
“Spies from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who scoured the building after it was bombed into rubble, apparently missed the documents.” (The Toronto Star)
“Why Didn’t Iraq Remove These Documents with the Rest of the Files?
“Apparently they were not worth bothering with.
“What Super-Encryption Method Did the Iraqis Use to Conceal the Evidence?
“Bin Laden’s name appears three times in the handwritten Iraqi file, but each of the references was clumsily concealed with White-Out and then blackened with ink.” (The Toronto Star)
BANFIELD BLISTERED
Yesterday we told you about gutsy criticisms of war coverage by Ashleigh Bancroft, the MSNBC correspondent. After the column went up, I discovered was sent reports to the effect that Banfield was being attacked on the air by Rush Limbaugh who suggested that she find a job with AL — Jazeera and in her offices by none other that her own bosses. The Hollywood Reporter reported: “NBC News president Neal Shapiro has taken correspondent Ashleigh Banfield to the woodshed for a speech in which she criticized the networks for portraying the Iraqi war as “glorious and wonderful.”
Banfield delivered her remarks Thursday at Kansas State University.
“She and we both agreed that she didn’t intend to demean the work of her colleagues, and she will choose her words more carefully in the future,” an NBC spokeswoman said Monday.
“Other sources inside NBC said Banfield promised, in effect, not to do it again and to check her facts before making public statements in the future. Banfield had criticized NBC in the speech for closing its bureau in Kabul, Afghanistan, a statement that the network said was untrue.” This is another example of the corporate chilling of free speech and a clear attempt to silence criticism from within the networks. I would welcome other cases. I hope the Committee to Protect Journalists is paying attention as the media readies itself to commemorate World Press Freedom Day.
HUMILIATE AMERICA, THE WEBSITE
In other parts of the world, criticism of US media coverage and policy continues unmuzzled. I was just sent an announcement of a rather unsubtly named website: “WWW. HUMILIATEAMERICA.COM. File this under ‘Why and how they hate us;
Not all journalists are critical. My new friend Dale Leach of the AP reports from Seattle: “Embedding reporters with fighting military units during the Iraq war offered unprecedented access to the battlefield and was generally a success, a panel of journalists told the annual meeting of The Associated Press on Monday.”
“Earlier, General Tommy Franks told the AP’s outgoing chief Lou Boccardi: “The further one gets away from the point of action, the less fidelity one has with what’s really happening,” said Franks, operational commander of the war, speaking from Qatar. “Embedding will happen again, and I remain a fan,” Franks said.
WHY ISNT THE FCC COVERED?
“There is more news about impending FCC rule changes,. Critics have been calling on the networks to at least cover the issue. Multichannel news reports. “CBS refused to comment while NBC and Fox ignored requests for comment on charges that news outlets are ignoring the FCC debate over media ownership. The Seattle Time reports: “FCC chairman Michael Powell told reporters at the Newspaper Association of America convention that the 28-year ban on owning newspapers and TV stations in the same city will likely end.” Meanwhile in LA, Reuters covered “a public forum held by the University of Southern California, (where) independent TV producers urged U.S. regulators to rethink or delay the June 2 vote on changing broadcast rules.” None of these stories are being covered on the networks. Why? Because the networks have a big stake in the outcome of the story.
COVERING SARS IS DEADLY IN CHINA
AFP reports from Beijing, SARS capital of Asia: “Two editors at China’s state-run Xinhua news agency have been sacked for publishing a document about the SARS epidemic that the government wanted to keep secret, a press watchdog said Tuesday. Yang Zidi, a senior editor at Xinhua, and the unidentified head of the agency’s foreign desk were dismissed for publishing a government advisory on the virus, Reporters Without Borders said in a statement.
YOUR LETTERS
Joan Ruzsa writes from Toronto, Ontario, a city we are now being able to visit again:”"Thanks so much for all the great work you do. I found one section of the government document about embedded journalists particularly troubling:
“Media employees agree to:
“4a) participate in the embedding process and to follow the directions and orders of the Government related to such participation.”
What exactly does this mean, and how deeply does it impact on journalists’ ability to do their jobs?”
Mark Isenberg from Neptune NJ writes: “I just signed up for the affiliate page because of Danny Schechter’s unique advocacy of global media coverage which is rare except for those who did hard time at the church of WBAI in the 60s.Yes,t’was there he and Steve Post and Larry Josephson and Paul Gorman did discipleships under Saint Goodman, a Pacifica pioneer. Anyway, keep up the good work and drop us a line every then and now. ”
ROAD MAP WANTED
Can anyone enlighten me how and why John Ashcroft was given airtime this morning on all the morning TV shows AT ONCE to discuss the so-called Amber Alert. Next, they will give him his own show. He doesn’t dance but he does sing gospel…. The UN called yesterday and invited me to speak on a world press freedom day panel tomorrow at 4PM at Columbia University’s School of International Affairs (118th and Amsterdam) on the sixth floor. As the US prepares to drop its roadmap on the Middle East, I wish someone would drop one here. We need help on the road to sustainability. Special thanks to those of you who are volunteering and donating. I am told, book sales of our new Mediachannel study MEDIA WARS (see above) are happening. Write to me: dissector@mediachannel.org
See the whole Post / →
Assessing Media Coverage
April 29th, 2003 - by: danny
MEDIA CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
MEDIA PEOPLE INDICT WAR COVERAGE
FCC DEAL LEAKED
Not one, not two, but ten big investment banks are finally going to have to pay for their wheeling and dealing in a settlement valued at $l.4 BILLION. The regulators, according to the NY Times, “found fault with EVERY (emphasis mine) major bank on Wall Street. Has the President spoken out about this outrage. No, he is talking about “freedom as god’s gift to every person” as he pats the US military on the back for “superb progress” in imposing “democracy” in Iraq. Meanwhile in that country, 13 protesters were shot to death when US soldiers said they were being fired on. Incidents like these are becoming a daily occurrence as the pacification of the country continues.
WAR CRIMES PROSECUTION?
Largely unreported in this country except for the Washington Times is a story that a lawyer in Belgium is preparing to bring war crimes charges against Commander Tommy Franks.
“The complaint will state that coalition forces are responsible for the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians, the bombing of a marketplace in Baghdad, the shooting of an ambulance, and failure to prevent the mass looting of hospitals, said Jan Fermon, aBrussels-based lawyer. He is representing about 10 Iraqis who say they were victims of or eyewitnesses to atrocities committed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Mr. Fermon said the complaint will ask an investigative magistrate to look into whether indictments should be issued against Gen. Franks. If an indictment is filed against the general and other U.S. officials, they could be convicted and sentenced by a Belgian court.”
MEDIA CRIMES TRIBUNAL NEEDED
One doubts that this will go far. I would like to see an investigation of media crimes, that is how and why so many in the US media closed ranks to offer a sanitized and largely pro-government view of the war. This is an issue being addressed today by Paul Kugman in the New York Times who raises important questions: “Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to question the administration’s credibility? Some strange things certainly happened. For example, in September Mr. Bush cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report that he said showed that Saddam was only months from having nuclear weapons. “I don’t know what more evidence we need,” he said. In fact, the report said no such thing — and for a few hours the lead story on MSNBC’s Web site bore the headline “White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq.” Then the story vanished — not just from the top of the page, but from the site.
“Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions andmuted or suppressed retractions, the Americanpublic probably believes that we went to war toavert an immediate threat — just as it believesthat Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11.
“Now it’s true that the war removed an evil tyrant.But a democracy’s decisions, right or wrong, aresupposed to take place with the informed consentof its citizens. That didn’t happen this time. Andwe are a democracy — aren’t we?”
HOWARD KURTZ TURNING CRITICAL
Are we? It is significant that even mainstream media writers like Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post are beginning, now that the war is safely over, to assume a more critical tone. During the war Kurtz chided me for my criticisms during an appearance on CNN’s Moneyline. Now he is sounding like me, writing yesterday:
“They reported from the trenches, hitched rides in tanks, slogged through sandstorms, dodged enemy fire, and used whiz-bang technology to bring the war, live and unfiltered, into living rooms around the world.
“And yet, despite the investment of tens of millions of dollars and deployment of hundreds of journalists, the collective picture they produced was often blurry.
“The fog of war makes for foggy news,” said Robert Lichter of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. “War is too messy to package into sound bites and two-minute stories.”
“Now that the shooting is over, these questions hang in the air: What did the media accomplish during the most intensively and instantaneously covered war in history? Did the presence of all those journalists capture the harsh realities of war or simply breed a new generation of Scud studs? Were readers and viewers well served or deluged with confusing information? And what does it portend for coverage of future wars?”
COL. OLLIE NORTH: THE EMBEDDING WORKED
I think we can safely say that more embedding is in the cards. Last Friday night, I watched Oliver North, the Contra-convicted former national security staffer offer his last report on Fox News through a green haze of a videophone saying how happy the military and the media were with the embedding program.
As for “Ollie” as he is known on Fox, a former DEA agent who worked for him, Celerino “Cele” Castillo III, now a whistleblower, claims in a new piece on the web: “In 1974, North had to be hospitalized in Bethesda Naval Hospital afterhe was found running around naked, waving a .45 caliber pistol andbabbling incoherently. North was brought into the National Security Council staff in August 1981. His first major assignment was to draw up plans for emergency rule in case of nuclear war or national disaster. According to some reports, this plan involved the suspension of the Constitution in case of national emergency.”
WHO PAID FOR THE EMBEDS?
And what of the embeds? Were they or their news organizations charged for food etc by the military? This is a concern being raised by by Alice Cherbonnier in the Baltimore Chronicle.
“Well, here’s a question that occurred to me, and should have occurred to every journalist on the planet: Who’s paying for those embedded journalists in Iraq? And here’s another: Is there an official signed agreement between the Department of Defense and the participating news organizations that stipulates not only the allocation of costs for the “embeds” and the terms and conditions of their reporting, but also the apportionment of risks? I did a search on Google. Checked the American Journalism Review site. Searched the online archives of various mainstream news organizations. Watched for the answers to my questions in daily news reports. No results. Très curieux, I thought (readers will pardon my French).
“I persisted. Asked my intern at the graduate school of journalism at the University of Maryland College Park to ask his professors about this. Wrote an email letter of inquiry to the Society of Professional Journalists. Wrote another to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Waited. No reliable information came back–only assumptions: it was assumed the news organizations were paying their own way. For certainly, that is what journalism ethics require. This is only natural and right. If a reporter reviews a restaurant, and it turns out that the restaurant paid for the meal, how reliable would that review be? For the news to be untainted, it’s got to be free of any whiff of money passed under the table or special favors received. If somehow a conflict of interest does arise in an otherwise valid story, the journalist is duty-bound to reveal it so the public will know what hangs in the balance. I tried to content myself with this assumption, but the question still festered until, through a chance encounter, I learned what may be the answer.
“This past Saturday night, as a volunteer at a local theater, I was handing out playbills. A tall thin guy with curly hair dashed in at the last moment, still eating some rice out of a ceramic bowl. “You an emergency room doctor or what?” I wisecracked. And he joked back, “Something like that!” I rejoined, “Well, what other profession would have such a desperate deadline?” And it turned out he was a section editor at the Washington Post. “Great!,” I enthused, identifying myself as a fellow journalist. “Maybe you can answer a question that’s been bothering me. Can you tell me who’s paying for the embedded journalists?” I was expecting to hear that the news organizations are, but just wanted confirmation. But no! He said that so far the Department of Defense is footing the whole bill. He said news organizations had sought to pay their own way, but the DOD refused to accept payment–ostensibly because no price could be set because there were too many unknown expense factors involved. He said no one in the news organizations even knows how much the bill would be if they did have to pay it.”
For more: “http://baltimorechronicle.com/embedded-media_apr03.html”
THE EMBED DOCUMENT
All we could find here is this letter of agreement drafted by the Pentagon and signed by most journalists. Ted Koppel said he signed it but then ignored it:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/D20030210embed.pdf
NEWS PAPERS DE-EMBED
The International Freedom of Information Exchange is reporting that newspapers are pulling their embeds out. “Newspapers are pulling their reporters and photographers out of once-coveted military embedding slots in droves, choosing to bring manyPersian Gulf War II correspondents home and give others nonembeddedassignments. “They were finished,” James Smith, foreign editor of TheBoston Globe, said about his paper’s three embedded reporters, who lefttheir units last week to return to the United States. “The militaryaspects are over.” The embedding program, which once had nearly 800journalists traveling with US military units, has seen the number dropto fewer than 190 in the last three weeks, since the fall of Baghdad.”
TED KOPPEL ON MILITAINMENT
Some journalists who covered the war are speaking out — not in the media, but on college campuses. Ted Koppel was on CSPAN with Marvin Kalb who asked him if he practiced self-censorship, The response: “certainly.” Ted went on: “”Watching war on TV from a distance, is pulse-pounding entertainment That’s damn good entertainment. We need to show people the consequences of war. People die in war.”
Ashleigh Banfield of MSNBC shared her concerns during a talk at Kansas State University. Her disclosure: “As a journalist, I have been ostracized just from going on television and saying, ‘Here’s what the leaders of Hezbollah, a radical Moslem group, are telling me about what is needed to bring peace to Israel.’ And, ‘Here’s what the Lebanese are saying.’ Like it or lump it, don’t shoot the messenger, but that’s what they do.”
Just who is “they?” Presumably her bosses at MSNBC.
INVESTIGATE MEDIA DISAPPEARENCES DEMANDS PRESS GROUP
The European Journalism Center reports that- “Press rights group Reporters Without Borders accused the US DefenceDepartment and the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission ofnot taking seriously the organisation’s requests for a proper search fortwo journalists who are missing in Iraq. French cameraman Fred Nerac andLebanese interpreter Hussein Othman, both from the British televisionnetwork ITN, have been missing for the past month. Replies from both thedefense department and the commission were very inadequate and evendismissive about the journalists, according to Reporters WithoutBorders, and demonstrated no interest in investigating the case, muchless punishing those responsible for the journalists’ disappearance.”The Pentagon’s reply is couched in such generalities and platitudesthat one can easily conclude that the US Army has no intention of makingany serious enquiry into the various incidents that led to the death ofat least four journalists,” said Secretary-General Robert Menard. “Theindifference and clear lack of intent to punish those responsible forthe errors that led to their deaths — if indeed they were errors — givesan appalling image of the US-British forces . . . .
WHY WAS DANIEL PEARL KILLED?
Paul Webster reports in the Guardian: “The American journalist Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered in Pakistan because he uncovered links between the British terrorist Richard Reid and the Pakistani secret service, according to an investigation by the French philosopher and author Bernard-Henri Lévy.
“Lévy’s book, Who Killed Daniel Pearl?, traces the Wall Street Journal correspondent’s last investigation after he was persuaded to go to Pakistan by a London-born double agent, Omar Saeed Sheikh.”
THE TV WAR: MULLAHS VS MESSIAHS
The New York Times reports today that an Iranian TV station broadcasting into Iraq is upsetting the US forces’ occupation. Headline: “International: Iranian News Channel Makes Inroads in Iraq.” Daily reports from Tehran are flashing from the television screens of every Baghdad resident with electricity.
The US government is finally getting its Arabic language satellite TV news station up. We have heard and I have reported on its content — but not on who is producing it. Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman report this shocker:” It is being produced in a studio — Grace Digital Media — controlled by fundamentalist Christians who are rabidly pro-Israel.
That’s Grace as in “by the Grace of God.”
Grace Digital Media is controlled by a fundamentalist Christianmillionaire, Cheryl Reagan, who last year wrested control of Federal NewsService, a transcription news service, from its former owner, CortesRandell. Randell says he met Reagan at a prayer meeting, brought her in as aninvestor in Federal News Service, and then she forced him out of his owncompany.
According to its web site, Grace News Network is “dedicated totransmitting the evidence of God’s presence in the world today.”"Grace News Network will be reporting the current secular news, along withaggressive proclamations that will “change the news to reflect theKingdom of God and its purposes,” GNN proclaims.
“The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the U.S. government agencyproducing the television news broadcasts for Iraq, likes to say it is theBBC of the USA….
FCC DECISION LOOMS
On the media front in this country activists are calling for peace movements to join the fight against FCC plans to deregulate broadcasting. “The FCC is about to put vital control of media in this country in a very few hands — and quickly needs to be stopped. Under “deregulation” rules proposed by the Federal CommunicationsCommission, the already dangerous monopoly of TV and radio (and therefore of news, public thought and action) would dramatically worsen. The fivecorporations that own TV networks would be green-lighted to buy up eachother. Local TV and radio stations would be swallowed by larger companies. Local newspapers and broadcast outlets would be allowed to purchase each other.
http://www.voice4change.org/stories/showstory.asp?file=030428~cfwp.asp
THE DONE DEAL IN THE WORKS
Meanwhile the TV trade paper, TV Week, is already reporting on the shape of the deal that is being hatched: “Despite the vehement opposition of key affiliates, a Federal Communications Commission majority is expected to substantially relax the regulatory cap on how many TV stations a single company may own, sources said last week.
As it stands, the rule bars broadcasters from owning TV stations reaching more than 35 percent of the nation’s TV homes. The affiliates and the National Association of Broadcasters have been lobbying to keep the cap in place in the interests of limiting network power.
But industry and FCC sources said top GOP agency officials have been signaling that they want to raise the cap to 45 percent on June 2, when the agency is tentatively slated to vote on new media ownership restrictions.”
YOUR LETTERS
David Bernknopf writes from Atlanta: “As a former CNN Vice President, I’ve been amazed at the devolution I am witnessing on all the networks.
“It’s as if journalists have forgotten most of the time what their actual jobs are.
“The intentional sanitizing of war images, the palpable fear of being seen asunpatriotic and unwillingness to demand answers to the difficult post-9/11questions that remain is quite depressing.
As for CNN, Eason Jordan continues to dig holes for himself by notremembering that one of his jobs was actually journalist (not diplomat, notPentagon PR chief…
Anyway, keep up the good work. Only good can come from the pressure.”
Kelly Patton Brook writes: “I don’t know what I can do but thank you for letting a little (more than) a light in. Please keep me on you mailing list. I’m an artist and very sad about all that Bush and gang are up to — up front and behind our backs.”
Larry Piltz writes from Texas about an item posted yesterday: “Your friend, Jeanette, “accidentally on purpose” omitted Palestine as a specific location for ongoing ethnic cleansing (how about the slow-motion genocide as well). Like a lot of my fellow American Jews, who still fear and tremble daily from the ravages of Nazified Europe, she can handle that truth from the past but then shrinks from the current truth. NOW COUNTS TOO! Omitting Palestine, Jeanette, would be impossible to an impartial, human rights-supporting observer who loves truth and justice.”
*****************
That’s all for now. I have another report up today on Globalvision News Network, Please check out info about our Mediachannel book MEDIA WARS. Buying one helps support our work, See above. Speaking of books, last night I joined a panel sponsored by Soft Skill Press to mark the release of Mickey Z’s new book, “The Murdering of My Years,” which challenges the myth of the American work ethic and the order that enforces it, asking the reader to understand that work as we know it is neither a natural or incontrovertible state of affairs.
See www.murderingofmyyears.com
Keep your letters and comments coming. We have a tough fight ahead to keep Mediachannel alive. Your help and support is so appreciated. Write to me at: dissector@mediachannel.org
See the whole Post / →
Truth Crushed To Earth Will Rise Again
April 28th, 2003 - by: danny
THEY SAY IT’S YOUR BIRTHDAY
ON THOMAS FRIEDMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS
NEW MUST READ PROPAGANDA DOCUMENT
I am sure someone among the perception managers in the information operations division of the ministry of “newsspeak” considered adding an extra 6. Saddam Hussein (spelled interestingly Saddam Husayn Al-Tikriuti on the ace of spades playing card) is 66 today. 666 would have been perfect don’tcha think? He is also very much alive according to Tariq Aziz, not always known as a truth teller, having reportedly survived two decapitation strikes.
Carol Morello of the Washington Post was on MSNBC today talking about the disappointment many Iraqis expressed to her about not being able to celebrate the big B-Day as they have in years past. (Notice how many newspaper reporters are now being milked for stories by the cost-cutting cable nets. Are they getting paid?) She said that most of the folks in the streets of Baghdad she talked with believe he is alive. Many are apparently pissed at him NOT because of all of the dreadful things about his regime that bombard us daily but because he did not, as promised, defend the capital and them.
MORE “REVELATIONS” DEBUNKED
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who was not “inclined” to tell reporters at a briefing last week where he was going, has showed up to thank his military forces for a job well done. The President will offer a more subdued victory statement later in the week. Meanwhile four more US soldiers were wounded in another sniping incident as General Jay Garner begins his democracy building-reconstruction exercise. There has been more debunking of false stories in the media. The Mail and Guardian reports: “Western intelligence officials are playing down the significance of documents appearing to show that Saddam Hussein’s regime met an al-Qaeda envoy in Baghdad in 1998 and sought to arrange a meeting with Osama bin Laden.
Also, a bunch of barrels widely reported as having chemical weapons now apparently, on closer inspection, did not. One thousand more “experts” are on the way to join the elusive weapons hunt. (My suggestion: send in the DEA, they always find the illicit substances–one way or another.)
WEAPONS SEARCH A MESS
The Times is reporting that the search for weapons, the nominal purpose of the war, is righteously screwed up. “Disorganization, delays and faulty intelligence have hampered the Pentagon-led search for Saddam Hussein’s suspected weapons of mass destruction, causing growing concern about one of the most sensitive and secretive operations in postwar Iraq, according to U.S. officials and outside experts familiar with the effort.
“The slow start has created so many interagency squabbles that a National Security Council military staffer at the White House has been assigned to mediate among the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the CIA, the Energy Department, and other government agencies involved in the hunt.
“And some weapons experts warn that the lapses have even raised the threat of arms proliferation from Iraq.
“SELECTIVE USE OF INTELLIGENCE, EXAGGERATION.”
The Independent on Sunday yesterday said that intelligence agencies in the US and Britain are now saying (where were they before the war?) that their findings were misrepresented. ” Raymond Whitaker reported “The case for invading Iraq to remove its weapons of mass destruction was based on selective use of intelligence, exaggeration, use of sources known to be discredited and outright fabrication.”
“A high-level UK source said last night that intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war with Iraq. “They ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat,” the source said. Quoting an editorial in a Middle East newspaper which said, “Washington has to prove its case. If it does not, the world will for ever believe that it paved the road to war with lies”, he added: “You can draw your own conclusions.”
ABC News is reporting on another aspect of what was suspected but now confirmed as intentional deception: “To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy.
“NOT LYING”
Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam’s weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.
“We were not lying,” said one official. “But it was just a matter of emphasis.”
THE CRIMES OF WAR
In addition to the widely reported human rights crimes, possible war crimes are surfacing. AP reports: “Military officials are investigating a Marine who says he shot an Iraqi soldier twice in the back of the head following a grenade attack on his comrades.
The Marine Forces Reserve announced the preliminary inquiry of Gunnery Sgt. Gus Covarrubias on Friday, the day the Las Vegas Review-Journal published an interview in which he described the killing.
Covarrubias, 38, of Las Vegas, said that during an intense battle in Baghdad on April 8, he pursued a member of the Iraqi Republican Guard who fired a rocket-propelled grenade at his unit.
“I went behind him and shot him in the back of the head. Twice,” Covarrubias told the Review-Journal.
He said he also shot the man’s partner, who tried to escape. He showed what he said were the men’s ID cards
“WHITEWASHING THE FACTS”
Human Rights Watch is disputing Pentagon claims on the use of cluster bombs. The story in the Times: “U.S. Misleading on Cluster Munitions.” The U.S. Army has used ground-based Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and other artillery-launched cluster munitions in populated areas of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, Human Rights Watch said.
U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Staff Gen. Richard B. Myers told a press conference in Washington that coalition forces dropped “nearly 1,500 cluster bombs of varying types” during the war in Iraq, and that only 26 of those fell within 1,500 feet of civilian neighborhoods, causing only “one recorded case of collateral damage.”
“But Myers did not mention surface-launched cluster munitions, which are believed to have caused many more civilian casualties. “To imply that cluster munitions caused virtually no harm to Iraqi civilians is highly disingenuous,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “Instead of whitewashing the facts, the Pentagon needs to come clean about the Army’s use of cluster munitions, which has been much more fatal to civilians.”
THE MORAL UNIVERSE OF THOMAS FRIEDMAN
“America did the right thing here,” argued Thomas L. Friedman, minister of conventional wisdom, on the NY Times Op-ed page yesterday. “It topped one of the most evil regimes on earth.” And so a new rationale of the war is emerging post-hoc, picturing the Bush Administration as human rights avengers, “globo-cops” out to right wrongs. Friedman uses a skull of one of Saddam’s many victims as a symbol of why the war was worth it. I read that with a certain degree of mirth because as every serious student of US human rights policy knows Washington’s stance on human rights is selective, guided by perceived US interests, not morality.
Isn’t it interesting how Saddam’s crimes are being splashed across our TV screens now, but so many others in so many countries, over so many years were ignored, or criticized without commitment to action. Today, while the Bush Administration points to human rights abuses in Iraq, it will not support an International Criminal Court to try offenders. Talk of human rights abuses in the US is verboten.
Thomas Friedman waffled for weeks about the justification for going to war with Iraq. Now that war has been “won” he is out front supporting it as a humanitarian intervention. Come on. Last week Philip Weiss skewered Friedman’s pretensions in the NY Observer. This week, some letter writers speak about this self-described liberal with a clarity that bears repeating.
Cathryn Carrol of Annapolis writes, “If people wrote about blacks, the way he writes about Arabs, he metaphorically (and justifiably) would be drawn and quartered.” She also lambastes Friedman’s certainty, his sanctimonious insight, and his pseudo-depth.
Jim Furlong of Connecticut takes on his core ideas: “democracy and love of capitalism flow from the barrel of a gun: that seems to be our new idea. It is a variant of the idea that the ends justify means.” Henry Bright of Florida charges that Friedman “has become an intellectual captive of the people he admires: the titans of industry and globalization.”
REMEMBER CAMBODIA
Friedman holds up the skulls of Saddam’s victims as reason enough for the intervention. I wonder if he remembers the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia to topple the genocidal Khmer Rouge who piled up many more skulls that Saddam ever did. That invasion was condemned by all the policy wonks in the US. Washington later supported the killers, not those liberators. But then again, there was no huge supply of oil in Cambodia.
I was talking the other day with a Falun Gong practitioners who reminded me that 50,000 of her fellow non-violent colleagues are in jail, many tortured or dead, thrown out of buildings and trains. Have we heard a peep about that? We do business with China and so can pragmatically overlook their treatment of Tibetans or pro-democracy activists.
YOU NEED A COMMENT FROM SADDAM
I was reminded also of a personal experience. Along with my colleagues here at Globalvision, we produced a special on human rights, which included a segment on Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds. At that time, in the Bush years, the neocons were demanding more “balance” at PBS. Local programmers took a mechanistic approach to the issue. We were shocked when we found our program rejected because we didn’t have a personal response from Saddam to the charges leveled against him. Have you ever seen a documentary on the holocaust rejected because the Nazis didn’t have the right to respond.
Later, our series Rights and Wrongs, was rejected by PBS not because the journalism was bad but because the subject was considered superfluous. “Human rights, “we were told,” is an insufficient organizing principle for a television series.” Unlike gardening or home repair! We finally did get our series on many local PBS stations where it ran for four years. But once our funders experienced “fatigue,” the run ended. No network has since aired regularly scheduled programming about human rights.
60 MINUTES ON IRAQ
Did any of you see 60 Minutes last night. It opened with a strong piece about juicy no-bid contracts to politically connected corporations for the reconstruction of Iraq. It represented compelling investigative journalism showing how Dick Cheney used his connections to build the Halliburton company, which is now being rewarded with a contract paying $50,000 a day for a five-man fire fighting team. The third segment of show featured Mike Wallace in Syria where he interviews the foreign minister. He asks him why he thinks the US invaded Iraq. The guy suggests that it has a lot to do with those post-war contracts, which were given out before the war began. Mike looks askance. Clearly, he had not seen the first segment of his own show. The Syrian may have been conspiratorial but so was 60 Minutes. Where there’s smoke . . . .
WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS CHEER BUSH
As for media coverage of the war, it was distressing to see so many at the White House correspondents dinner cheer President Bush’s defense of the war. His presence there is supposedly a sign of respect for the office, not compliance with his policies. The New York Times described the dinner as a tepid affair. There was nary a word of dissent. The outgoing president of the Correspondents Association said some members had suggested the Dixie Chicks or Harry Belafonte as the entertainers. “Can you believe that?” he asked his colleagues. “You can’t make this stuff up.” After watching the dinner, I couldn’t make that up either. Disgraceful, except for the award to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post for challenging presidential claims on a regular basis while the rest of the crowd sleeps on.
The Observer yesterday reported on how the owners of virulent pro-war media outlets are gloating over the outcome of the war. Yet, their sales are going down. Peter Preston writes: “So, who really won the war? Conrad Black doesn’t seem to have many doubts. ‘We [that's his Daily Telegraph ] have obviously surpassed our competition — and even bear favorable comparison with the New York Times ,’” he tells his staff.
“But the loudest cock-a-doodle-doos surely belong to Lord Black’s most ferocious competitor, Rupert Murdoch.
“His Fox News won the cable-ratings conflict. His New York Post was top of the pops. His Weekly Standard is now the neo-conservative organ of Bushy choice. He finally took DirectTV as the Marines took Baghdad. A forthcoming Federal Communications Commission review looks certain to let him own more papers and TV stations. He’s on a roll; a big, big winner.
“It seems almost churlish to spoil the fun, to point out that circulation wars have little in common with shooting wars (except self-deception and mendacity). But let’s examine the March ABC wisdom with a leery eye. The Telegraph was down 7.56 per cent, year on year: selling 926,500 a day, including 27,137 sales in foreign parts, 15,775 bulk copies, 307,596 pre-paid subscriptions, and 40,666 one-off cheapies. The Times was down 6.91 per cent, year on year, including 30,167 foreign copies, 32,892 bulks, 101,986 subscriptions and 14,673 cheapies.
“Neither title, in short, has anything much to crow about.”
PILGER: CORRUPTION IN JOURNALISM
Also from London, John Pilger skewers his colleagues for the role they played. “Something deeply corrupt is consuming journalism. A war so one-sided it was hardly a war was reported like a Formula One race, as the teams sped to the checkered flag in Baghdad.” I read in the Observer last Sunday that “Iraq was worth $20m to Reuters.” This was the profit the company would make from the war. Reuters was described on the business pages as “a model company, its illustrious brand and reputation second to none. As a newsgathering organization, it is lauded for its accuracy and objectivity.” The Observer article lamented that the “world’s hotspots” generated only about 7 per cent of the model company’s $3.6 billion revenue last year. The other 93 per cent comes from “more than 400,000 computer terminals in financial institutions around the world,” churning out “financial information” for a voracious, profiteering “market” that has nothing to do with true journalism: indeed, it is the antithesis of true journalism, because it has nothing to do with true humanity.
“There is something deeply corrupt consuming this craft of mine. It is not a recent phenomenon; look back on the “coverage” of the First World War by journalists who were subsequently knighted for their services to the concealment of the truth of that great slaughter.”
See: http://www.johnpilger.com/print/132939
THE ART OF PROPAGANDA
Here is a must read. It speaks to how media strategists shape public perception through a skillful use of “message development.” This particular document was prepared for pro-Israel activists by Frank Luntz’s research companies, an agency that worked for the Bush presidential campaign, and most recently for MSNBC. As you evaluate it for yourself, think about the similar media plans that were used by the Administration to sell the war to the media and the public.
The Arab Anti-Discrimination Commission (ADC) sent me a copy, calling it a “vital: propaganda strategy document for the period following the war in Iraq. The document, entitled “Wexner Analysis: Israeli Communications Priorities 2003,” was prepared for the Wexner Foundation, which operates leadership training programs such as the “Birthright Israel” project, which offers free trips for young Jewish Americans to Israel.
Here is a taste of the “analysis” and recommendations:
“‘Saddam Hussein’ are the two words that tie Israel to America and are most likely to deliver support in Congress. The day we allow Saddam to take his eventual place in the trash heap of history is the day we lose our strongest weapon in the linguistic defense of Israel.”
“Iraq colors all. Saddam is your best defense, even if he is dead. For a year, a SOLID YEAR, you should be invoking the name of Saddam Hussein and how Israel was always behind American efforts to rid the world of this ruthless dictator and liberate their people.” 3) “It DOES NOT HELP when you compliment President Bush. When you want to identify with and align yourself with America, just say it. Don’t use George Bush as a synonym for the United States.” 5) “SECURITY” sells. The settlements are our Achilles heel, and the best response (which is still quite weak) is the need for security that this buffer creates. 9) “A little humility goes a long way. You need to talk continually about your understanding of “the plight of the Palestinians” and a commitment to helping them. 10″ Of course rhetorical questions work, don’t they? Ask a question to which there is only one answer is hard to lose.”
Did you see Now last week? Bill Moyers interviewed media exec Barry Diller, who alone among the moguls is demanding more regulation from the FCC, not less. He said in part. (The rest is on the NOW website) "Five, ten years ago there were thousands and thousands of cable operators, you know? Serving their local communities. Now, there are three big ones and three mid-size ones. And no one else essentially. BILL MOYERS: And the consequence is? BARRY DILLER: . . . It gives them such overwhelming power in the marketplace that, in fact, everyone has to do essentially what they say. SUGGESTION FROM A READER (more to come) Edward Teague" has a suggestion that we keep a running glossary of the language of the media deception. Perhaps others will supplement it "maybe along the lines of Ambrose Bierce, Appropriate quotes etc.: SPEECHES OF NOTE Congrats to Jeanette Friedman, our editor, now on another assignment, for her speech at New Jersey’s Liberty State Park on the remembering the holocaust. An excerpt: “Hate and genocide go hand in hand, everywhere we look: Cambodia, Rwanda, East Timor, Yemen, the Sudan, Lebanon, the Former Yugoslavia. We live in a world where the words “ethnic cleansing” hint at “sanitation engineers” cleaning up garbage instead of murdering people. “There are sixty seconds in a minute, sixty minutes in a hour, how much time must pass before the world changes? This year marks the 60th anniversary of a seminal event, the Jewish uprising against the Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto, one of the fiercest battles the Nazis encountered in the course of the war.” I will be speaking on a panel at Housing Works on Cosby Street in Soho tonight at 7. Come if you are in town. Please see above for information about our new book MEDIA WARS. We need your help in spreading the word. Your words, by the by, are always welcome. Write dissector@mediachannel.org PLEASE VISIT THE MEDIA CHANNEL AND SIGN UP FOR OUR FREE WEEKLY E-MAIL UPDATE Danny Schechter Executive Editor Mediachannel.org http://www.mediachannel.org Executive Producer, Globalvision.Inc 1600 Broadway, #700; NY, NY 10019 USA 212-246-0202 F: 212 246-2677
“Regime change = illegal invasion”
“As Soon As Possible (for US to leave Iraq) = whenever
“Collateral = You or someone else dies
“War hero = Our soldiers die
See the whole Post / →
The Radio Show
 | New show every Friday at 1PM ET from NYC on the internet at the Progressive Radio Network. |
Click here for the latest podcast.
About Danny Schechter
Danny Schechter is an Emmy award winning journalist, television producer and independent filmmaker who also writes, blogs and speaks about media issues.
His latest film is PLUNDER The Crime Of Our Time.
Mr. Schechter is NOT the Godfather of Soul.
read more about The News Dissector →