We begin this morning with a startling sentiment by the ruler of all media, that king of kings, (Sorry, Howard Stern) HE Rupert Murdoch. In reacting to news of a possible merger between the cable properties of AOL Time Warner and AT&T, Variety reports that he is upset, noting that as a content provider, he opposes concentrations of power. This is a historic day. Murdoch comes out against media monopolies There must be something in the air. Is this case cutaneous or of inhalation variety? (As for the real, bio-war, hats off to PBS’s NOVA for an excellent report last night with its strong call for an upgrade of the U.S. public health system.)

THE SILENCING OF AL-JEZEERA: ANOTHER “MISTAKE?”

On to Kabul, where not one but three news organizations are poking through the rubble to find out what’s left of their offices. One office housing Al-Jezzeera, the Qatar based independent satellite station, the so-called CNN of the Arab World much criticized by the powers that be in Washington was wiped out in a missile attack, some of which was captured on TV by the BBC. London’s Independent reports that the journalists there were not pleased.

Fortunately, none were killed, according to Al Jezeera Managing Director Mohammed Jassim al–Ali. “When asked if he thought Al–Jazeera’s office was deliberately targeted, al–Ali said, “They know where we are located and they know what (equipment) we have in our office and we also did not get any warning.” The same missile that destroyed the Al–Jazeera office also damaged the offices of The Associated Press and the BBC.”

One citizen media monitor, writing on the Project on Media Ownership list, commented on this coverage thusly: “It is not a coincidence that the US has fixed it so we will not see how badly the Northern Alliance troops behave. We can’t have the world know that another of the U.S.’s allies are as rabid as the Taliban. I watched the ABC and BBC coverage of the Kabul story tonight. ABC used much of the BBC footage, but ABC cut much of the worst images of the killing of the Taliban and people who support the Taliban. We can’t be allowed to see the babies killed in Afghanistan because that’s just war. For heaven’s sake, why do they think people are against war?”

PROTESTS LATER TODAY

In San Francisco, the Media Alliance is planning a protest later today, asking: “Was the bombing of Al-Jazeera an “accident” or was it intentional? Al-Jazeera’s extensive coverage in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere in South Asia and the Middle East at least partially caused the U.S. government to need to hire a public relations firm to improve its image in the Arab world. Perhaps the P.R. advisers suggested that the easiest way to win the P.R. war would be to eliminate the truth-telling of the Arab satellite news channel.” The Alliance says that only Al-Jezzeera was in position to fully document alleged atrocities allegedly commited by the Northern Alliance against its enemies. A CNN report last night from Kabul interviewed an eyewitness to the execution of what he said was captured Taliban fighters. Its “crawl” this morning said it could not confirm reports of 600 such deaths in Mazar I-Sharif in the last few days.

As you will recall, the US media was echoing Washington’s demands that the Northern Alliance stop its offensive at the gates of Kabul. The indications all yesterday was that it would listen to its Pentagon patrons who made their advance possible. But, NO, at the last minute, they plunged ahead into town, citing the need to limit an outbreak of “anarchy.” This prompted the Independent’s Middle East specialist Robert Fisk to argue, with references to history which seems always absent in most TV coverage; “the behavior of the Northern Alliance presents a grave problem. As our “foot-soldiers” are in Afghanistan, we cannot disclaim responsibility for human rights abuses by the Alliance’s gunmen; yet neither the Americans nor the British appear to have tried to control the army they are now helping. Indeed, it seems they may not even be able to prevent the Alliance from entering Kabul.” He turned out to be ‘quite right,’ as the British say.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ATROCITIES?

Continues Fisk: “The massacres committed by malicious fighting in the name of outside powers have regularly brought shame upon their more powerful allies. The Contras in Nicaragua and the Phalangist militiamen in Lebanon contaminated their respective American and Israeli masters – the latter in the notorious Palestinian camp massacres of Sabra and Chatila in 1982. A glance at the Alliance’s track record of rape, pillage and street executions in Kabul between 1992 and 1996 suggests that the so-called Allies – America, Britain and just about anyone else who wants to join in – have good reason to exert their influence over the newly victorious militiamen from the north of Afghanistan.”

And just why did the Taliban forces abandon Kabul? Did you see any military analysts debating that question? Does anyone recall that this was the exact same strategy pursued in the Afghan war against the Russians in the 1980’s. I saw little analysis or background offered other than up beat reports “proving” that the US military strategy is working. Wasn’t anyone CNN watching the documentaries on the Mujadeen war against the Ruskies that ran on their own network this past weekend? I must admit, I tended to underestimate the deadly impact of the systematic pounding the Taliban has been taking. But, as one sociologist noted on a listserv I follow: “. It is the strategy of the Taliban to withdraw from the cities and convert a religious struggle into an ethnic one - that is, hold up in the “wild” areas of Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan and conduct hit and run raids on the cities and towns. This is the fight the Taliban have always wanted - a protracted guerilla war, not using the caves, but using Pakistan as the base.”

NELSON MANDELA SPEAKS OUT, SORT OF

I was struck last night to finally find an African voice on US TV. Tacked on to the end of last night’s Larry King Show — which opened with yet another just us boys interview with CBS Bob Simon, the “expert “of choice on many networks, perhaps because he is well connected and articulate — was a short Q&A with former South African President Nelson Mandela. Mandela rates TV attention because he is a celebrity and a world hero. I saw no TV interview with current South African President Thabo Mbeki who was in the country for the UN General Assembly and who also met Bush.

‘Madiba,’ as he is known by his clan name, met Bush yesterday and came away full of praise for him, largely, I would guess because he has been willing to meet African leaders and has continued AIDs funding even as that issue drops out of the media. He is also a very smart politician, aware that South Africa needs a close relationship with the White House. Mandela supported ONLY the “limited” objectives of the bombing campaign as long as it is aimed against terrorists, and expressed the hope it will end soon. (Remember, was once considered to be a terrorist by the apartheid regime he overthrew). Mandela did NOT favor attacking Iraq, and called instead for peaceful negotiations instead. Parts of his interview, not that last part, was recycled on the morning news on CNN no doubt because they had the exclusive. Not sure if any other network had more than footage of his visit to the White House.

Larry King, of course, was only interested in what Mandela thought of us, caring not a whit about what is going on in South Africa. Although he broadcasts from Washington I wonder if Larry read the Washington Post of November 6 in which on John Jeter reported on South Africa’s new “revolution,” which certainly deserves more media attention than it has had. As usual, US TV focuses on what people at the top say, not what people at the bottom do.

“REVOLUTION” IN SOUTH AFRUCA

Jeter writes: “Seven years after voters of all races went to the polls for the first time, ending 46 years of apartheid and white rule, churches, labor unions, community activists and the poor in all-black townships are dusting off the protest machinery that was the engine of their liberation struggle. What most provokes South Africans’ defiance today are what they see as injustices unleashed on this developing nation by the free-market economic policies of the popularly elected, black-led governing party, the African National Congress. Materially, life here has only gotten worse since 1994 as the ANC has pursued a course of piecemeal privatization of state industries, whittling of import taxes and loosening of controls on foreign exchange. The policies have expanded opportunities for foreign investors but so far have deepened the poverty inherited from apartheid’s segregationist policies.”

This type of story is essential because it speaks to the background of the conflict between rich and poor in the world, some of the issues that are being argued over, and going uncovered in the WTO meetings in Doha, Quatar.

JUSTICE IN THE HALLS OF JUSTICE?

Here at home, a new anti-terrorist measure has civil libertarians up in arms although I saw no interviews last night with ACLU officials whose opposition to President Bush’s order, signed last night before trekking off to Texas for more arm wrestling with Russia’s V. Putin at the ranch. (Dubya: don’t forget Putin has a black belt in judo.) His new order will allow the government to try people accused of terrorism in front of a special military commission instead of in civilian court. This was no doubt what the Administration has had in mind when, for weeks, it has spoken about bringing terrorists “to justice” or rather bringing justice down on them. These trials will be held in secret and there are no appeals. Judging by experiences elsewhere as in Peru, as Lori Berenson and others discovered, military tribunals have an insidious and unchecked potential for abuse. To paraphrase the late, great Lenny Bruce, in those halls of justice, “the only justice is in the halls.” Dubya’s record as Texas Governor in America’s #1 state for capital punishment does not inspire great confidence. But, alas, this issue too received scant coverage on the channels I watched last night. Most were only focused on endless speculation about Monday’s plane crash in New York.

WHAT IS BUSH ABOUT?

What is Bush up to? A French magazine suggest he has a messianic complex that may be every bit as fanatical as the ones held by the “evil ones” he is pursuing. I missed this email report from Europe when it came in, but it is worth considering.

“There is an article in the October 18th issue of “Paris Match” magazine(yes, I speak French too) telling of the days, hours and even minutes leading up to the commencement of the bombing campaign over Afghanistan, in a kind of play-by-play, decision-making sequence. Towards the very end of the article, the author, Mr. Romain Clergeat, the magazine’s “permanent correspondent” in New York, quotes a person (not identified by name) who knows Bush well, as saying “Il est persuadÈ qu’une destinÈe mystique l’a placÈ dans ces circonstances [….] il est persuadÈ que Dieu l’a choisipour mener une guerre sainte et dÈbarasser le monde du terrorisme.” I don’t know if you took French in school, so I’ll translate: “He [Bush] is convinced that destiny has placed him in these circumstances…he is convinced that God chose him to lead this holy war and rid the world of terrorism.”

THE EYES OF TEXAS ARE ON RUSSIA

Bush carries his crusade today back to Texas. What is going on in his talks with Putin, and what relevance can they have to the war now underway. Am I the only media maven who sees some connection? Davd Kotz , a Russia expert at U-Mass/Amhearst and co- author of “Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System” told the Institute of Public Accuracy: “There are reasons to be wary of the newly developed closer relationship between the Putin and Bush administrations…. The tactical importance of Russian help for the administration’s war in Afghanistan has led Bush to softpedal any criticism of the brutal Russian military tactics in Chechnya. This reinforces the impression that American criticism of ‘evil’ in the world depends strongly on the context — that is, on whether the perpetrator is a government that the U.S. desires to befriend or to oppose. Even worse, implicit American acceptance of Russian brutality in Muslim Chechnya lends support to the charge that the U.S. is leading a war against Islam. Russia’s recent Chechnya experience has lessons for the United States. Following several apartment bombings in Russia attributed to Chechen terrorists, Russian forces re-entered Chechnya behind brutal artillery bombardments. The years of lawlessness and chaos in Chechnya during the period of de facto independence had made many Chechens ready to welcome the Russians back. However, Russia’s military tactics outraged and alienated the local population, undermining the Russians’ aim of effectively regaining control of the breakaway province. There is a danger that the U.S. may be making similar miscalculations, if American military tactics outrage Muslims around the world, dissipating the sympathy for America and the support for anti-terrorist action engendered by the Sept. 11 attacks.”

THE FLORIDA FIASCO: A LAST WORD FOR NOW

Just a quick trip back to the media consortium’s findings on Florida. Microsoft’s Slate carries two articles challenging the impression conveyed by the news reports on findings by the Media consortium that were interpreted as proving Bush won. Here’s Jacob Wesiberg’s comment. (Other links are on Media Channel this week): ” The news organizations that participated in the media recount of the Florida vote all seem extremely eager to conclude that George W. Bush really won the election. Three different versions of the story in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post all lead with the assertion that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t choose the president because the recount that the court stopped would have favored Bush anyhow. This is not merely an erroneous conclusion, for reasons that Mickey Kaus, my co-obsessive on this topic, lucidly explains here. It’s is an erroneous conclusion that answers the wrong question. ” Check out the full articles for the right questions. For more on the media role on the election itself, read the book I did edited with Roland Schatz of Media tenor on the role of the U.S. media in the 2000 election. If you do, you will find the way this “recount” story has been played perfectly consistent with the larger pattern of coverage. He book is called “MEDIAOCRACY: Hail to the Thief.” The e-book is available through electronprss.com

INVITATION TO AN EVENT TONIGHT

And speaking of books, I will be speaking about my latest one, News Dissector, at a book store TONIGHT in New York City. Here’s the info: Wed. November 14th @ 7:30pm Barnes & Noble-Astor Place 4 Astor Place (b/t Lafayette & Broadway) You are invited. If you live in New York, drop by and say hi. Pass the word on.

Mistakes: In my report on the appearance Monday night by Bruce Springsteen at a Creative Coalition functioning honoring musician Little Steven and others. I inadvertently used the phrase land of hope and glory, what I thought was the name of the song Bruce sang on the telethon in the aftermath of September llth. The correct title is “land of hope and dreams,” a distinction with a real difference. Also, the other day, I was wrong to cite p. 178 as the page in which I am quoted in the new issue of VANITY FAIR. It is p. 182. I have been going steady with the magazine because of all the perfume ads.

Onward!

Write to me: dissector@mediachannel.org. I am getting tired filing these daily dispatches. Should I keep them up?