Brace yourself. The terror war is spreading, as is terrorism itself, and the tone of the news reporting is becoming as overheated as the situation. “It’s Israel or Arafat,”says Ariel Sharon mimicking George Bush’s freedom or evil formulation, while media outlets increasingly buy into the simplistic either/or formulation.

Yesterday, the often sensible “liberal” New York Senator Charles Schumer called for the overthow of the Palestinian Authority, a position usually advanced only by the most extreme rightwingers in Israel. In a major stretch, he now compares them to the Taliban, “The PLO and Yasser Arafat” are the Taliban,” he said in the company of certain constituencies he is catering to. In contrast, Secretary of State Powll noted that the terror attacks in Israel were also an attack on Arafat and the any promise of a peace process as well as on Israel. Powell is fast becoming the only sensible voice in the War party. As rationality slips away on all sides, another one-sided offensive is on the way with few in the media counselling restraint.

A VOICE FOR SANITY IN ISRAEL

From Israel, Gershon Baskin of the IPCRI - Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, sounds like a voice in the wilderness. His is a peace voice that is not being heard in those newspapers that beat the drums for more killing. Newspapers like the New York Post with its quote from Sharon as its screaming headline: “IT’S US-OR THEM.” “Both sides are suffering almost beyond belief,” writes Baskin. “In my eyes one of the most amazing things is that both sides seem to want more. The calls for revenge come from the streets of Israel and from Palestine… When will it end? This is the question that journalist after journalist have been asking me during the past two days (and one that I have been asking myself for the past 14 months). This is the question that we should all be asking ourselves. How long will we allow violence to be the only tool used to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?”

DOES ARAFAT HAVE THE POWER TO STOP TERRORISM?

Can Arafat end terrorism, even if he wants to? The assumption in pundit land, is that he can. But there are doubts by those who look behind he rhetoric and calls for more blood, and stress the underlying grievances that keep the conflict on a high boil. Does YA have the capacity to do what Sharon, and Bush demand, and if not, why not? Isn’t that a question that media institutions should be asking? Listening to Curtis Sliwa and Ron Kuby this morning on ABC talk radio in New York. I learned that the CIA has been training the Palestinian Authority police at a base in North Carolina, which Kuby insists has also been used to train US backed terrorists.

I had to cross the Atlantic this morning to look for some clues as provided by in today’s Guardian. Suzanne Goldenberg in Haifa and Ewen MacAskill do some actual reporting, as opposed to the kind of polemicizing and punditry that all often substitutes for journalism. They write: “….if Mr. Arafat bows to pressure from the US and Israel to order his security forces to make widespread arrests, he will face internal problems. Previous attempts have ended up with the local neighborhoods turning out to protect those facing arrest, and have even led to bloodshed.

“These groups have gained huge support and respect among Palestinians over the last 14 months for what is regarded as their role in resistance against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Support for Hamas is running at 60%: before the Palestinian uprising, it was often in single figures and at best was between 10% and 20%.

“Previous attempts to crack down on Islamist militants resulted in mobs setting fire to or stoning police stations until the suspected bombers were freed.

“Punitive Israeli measures have left the Palestinian Authority with only enough funds to pay its bloated payroll of 112,000 souls, while Hamas is full of zeal and flush with cash - thanks to a £100m grant from Saudi Arabia……

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SAUDI CONNECTION?

US ally and oil supplier Saudi Arabia is a country which seems to have dropped out of the media, despite the fact that it was the home of 16 of the 19 hijackers suspected of carrying out the September llth, attacks on the US, the catastrophe that started all of this. As Tariq Ali writes in the new INDEX ON CENSORSHIP, “In normal times, the Saudi Kingdom is barely covered by the western media.” But these are not normal times, and the Saudi connection is barely scrutinized. Might I dare suggest that oil has something to do with it? Irag remains very much in focus, with even less of a documented link to 9/11/

Again, it was an English newspaper, The Observer, which seems to have the scoop. It looks like Washington will listen to the advice of a lobby of hardline conservatives who want intervention, and notAmerica’s European allies who oppose military action there. Peter Beaumont, Ed Vulliamy and Paul Beaver share credit for exposing the “Secret US Plan for Iraq War.” While The LA Times on Sunday reported that the US is sending teams to seven countries to mobilize attacks on Al-Qaeda, this rather important story was conspicuous by its absence. Where are America’s investigative reporters? This team reveals:

“America intends to depose Saddam Hussein by giving armed support to Iraqiopposition forces across the country, The Observer has learnt.President George W. Bush has ordered the CIA and his senior militarycommanders to draw up detailed plans for a military operation that couldbegin within months.

“The plan, opposed by Tony Blair and other European Union leaders, threatensto blow apart the increasingly shaky international consensus behind theUS-led ‘war on terrorism’.

“It envisages a combined operation with US bombers targeting key militaryinstallations while US forces assist opposition groups in the North andSouth of the country in a stage-managed uprising. One version of the plan wouldhave US forces fighting on the ground.

NEO-CONS LOBBY FOR BOMBING BAGDAD

Columnist David Corn, writing on Tom Paine.com, says identifies a conservative cabal working in the wings to pressure Washington to Go after Sadamm, no matter the risks.”It truly is a small band of neocons that are orchestrating the campaign for war in Iraq. They are a decidedly pro-Israel bunch, the spiritual heirs of the late Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the Democrats’ most assertive and most pro-military Cold Warrior of the 1970s. Another leader of this gang, R. James Woolsey, a former CIA chief, endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992 over President Bush because Bush wasn’t more supportive of Israel. Think Commentary goes to war. But credit this bunch for leveraging influence within the world of media punditry and within the Bush administration. Some political reporters have speculated that Bush is talking tough about Iraq but at the same time offering Hussein an escape clause. Here’s the deal, Saddam: permit weapons inspectors back into Iraq, and the United States would lose the rationale for attacking Iraq. The neocons are nervous that such an arrangement might actually transpire, and then they would lose the delicious opportunity of the moment.” See TomPaine.com for more.

A “SWEET” AMERICAN YOUTH IN AFGHANISTAN:

The other day I quoted the New York Times quoting the late Walt Kelley’s cartoon character Pogo who said, “We Met The Enemy and They Are Us.” How prophetic in light of the capture in Afghanistan of a Californian, an l00% American John Phillip Walker Lindh, aka Abdul Hamid, who somehow survived that prison massacre in Mazar e Sharif and is now being held as POW by American Forces. He is an Catholic who converted to Islam. If he survives, which is doubtful, will survive all the Hollywood agents and talk show hosts (Geraldo? Where is Geraldo?) who will be fighting over the rights to his story and the first interview. His mom says, as moms do: “He’s really a good boy, a really sweet boy.” Not so sweet is the battle reported at Time Magazine over whether make Osama bin Laden their “MAN OF THE YEAR.” Some Timesters think it will be in bad taste,while others remind that Stalin and even A. HITLER, the OBL of his time, were cover boys for TIME. Another AOLTimeWarner company, CNN, explores a more pressing question on everyone’s lips: “WHAT’S BIN LADEN WORTH TO MARKET?”

It’s impossible to quantify what the capture of Osama bin Laden would mean tothe families of the thousands of people who died September 11. But what wouldhis capture be worth to the stock market?….

WILL THE WAR ON “A” LEAD TO AN INFUSION OF “H”?

What effect will the war on terror have on the war on drugs? That’s not a question being widely explored. Stratfor com reports there is a big link, a kind of blow back analysis as in what goes around, comes around: ”

The downfall of Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban and the rise ofNorthern Alliance forces have led to a resumption in opiumcultivation in the country. The shift in control over the drugtrade will alter trafficking patterns, bolstering the opium tradethrough Central Asia to Russia and increasing the quantity ofheroin and morphine destined for Europe and the United States. (for more www.stratfor.com)

US OR THEM?, PT 2: BRITISH VS US PRESS?

As I mentioned in this column, I was interviewed last week by NPR’s On the Media segment about British journalism v American reporting. I defended the former, although my comments on the latter ended up on the edit room floor. I managed to get a only quick pop of airtime at the program’s end where I had to respond to a Brit attacking other Brits over sourcing in an interview that was not even played to me. No matter. I responded anyway. Now, try this on for size. Ray Greenslade of the Guardian lambasting US journalism. Maybe we can get the Oxford Union to schedule a debate.

“US papers affect to hold the moral high ground, announcing their serious intent and commitment to a public ethic by the restrained presentation, selection of material and the - often tedious - length of their articles. Their editors and journalists tend to thumb their noses at Britain’s broadsheets for being too racy in publishing too much content they regard as trivial.

“Trying to compare papers on either side of the Atlantic has always been difficult because of their distinctive traditions and differing sense of purpose. But September 11 and its aftermath have provided a rare chance to make some kind of comparison…..

“American papers appear to treat the president as a sacrosanct figure. Whatever their private misgivings, senior journalists are giving Bush and his administration an easy ride, failing to put his policies under proper scrutiny. This undeniable truth doesn’t surprise, or even apparently alarm, the LA Times’s deputy managing editor, Leo Wolinsky, who believes that in following such a course his paper is reflecting the mainstream viewpoint.

“Only a very small segment of society is critical of the president and his decisions,” he says, implying that this could be the reason that there is so little sceptical press analysis of the war, its conduct and the suppression of civil liberties.

“There are no big, visible debates,” says Wolinsky. “Newspaper people are contrarian by nature, but there has been little internal debate here about either the need to go to war or the way it has been prosecuted so far.”

“Perhaps it would be unfair to accuse serious American papers of jingoism, but there has been none of the persistent questioning of motive, strategy and tactics levelled at Blair’s government by the British press…..

“How odd, I reflected, that these same tamed journalists spared no effort in their relentless search for muck about the former president’s sex life. Yet they have failed utterly to apply the same energy to hold this president to account over infinitely more serious matters. And they think we’re trivial!

Ok, who wants to answer back?

A THOUGHTFUL LETTER TO MEDIACHANNEL

Johanna Kovitz writes: “After reading your important critique of American media coverage of our election disaster, I think back to the days of the Clinton scandal and compare the media’s over-eagerness to cover every detail of the “Monica” story, versus its glossing over the question of the legitimacy of our electoral process. The former story was relevant for a small handful of people (the Clinton and Lewinsky families), while the latter should concern all Americans: not only whether our current president was legitimately elected, but whether the United States can consider itself a real democracy at all. I don’t believe the war is a sufficient explanation for the media’s reluctance to cover the election story.

“During election coverage it is not uncommon to hear commentators pronounce, as a matter of course, that the candidate with the most money is expected to win. Nobody seems to wince at this open admission that our system is terribly corrupt. Candidates run campaigns by hiding their true agendas, rather than speaking honestly about difficult issues. The news media are too willing to let those with power (read: money) define and limit the terms of discourse, thus perpetuating a charade that we have open debate. And on the matter of public participation, we could afford to be reminded that in some nations, elections are considered invalid if fewer than 50% of the people vote. Such elections must be held again. But in the US it is not uncommon to see less than 20% voter turnout in local elections. Nobody seems to care that most people are not informed and don’t vote. This is the real scandal, and nobody wants to cover it.

“These days one often hears rhetoric about terrorists threatening our democracy. I think we need to be reminded that while the terrorists destroyed thousands of human lives and several important buildings, we ourselves are destroying our democracy from within, by keeping quality education and important information away from the majority of our people.”

CHECK OUT THIS WEEK’S NEW YORKER

We have arrived: Ken Auletta quotes my Globalvision partner Rory O Connor and myself in a piece in this week’s NEW YORKER about network news in the aftermath of September ll. I will write about it once I have read it. In the meantime, you might want to check it out. We appreciate all the media interest in our work. I was interviewed by Mexico City’s La Jornada and Cairo’s AL-Ahram. In the last few days. Hopefully, some American mainstream outlets will start paying more attention to critics like ourselves.

Is this column too much? Too long? Too detailed? Am I boring you? Am I overloading your intake capacity? Let me know. I am hearing from friends who say that I am shoveling out too much, that I am over obsessed. Frankly, I am not wedded to this format. Tell me what to do. Should I crawl back into my cave in the mountains? Write: dissector@mediachannel.org