Bill O’Reilly’s Fallacies *Punditry Trumps Journalism* Chomsky Responds

A serious “fallacy” to say the Chinese, on the eve of President Bush’s second state of the Union Speech, is undermining US policy. And what is that, you may ask? What fallacy?

“A signed commentary in the influential official journal Outlook Weekly has slammed the “Bush doctrine” of unilateralism.

“There is a serious fallacy in the ‘Bush doctrine,’” the article said. “The [Bush] administration has failed to find out the real cause of terrorism.”

“Causes”? Now there is a strange word for American journalists to ponder. Do crises really have causes, reasons for being, rationales for happening? China may be the wrong party to lecture us on this, but the point is nevertheless worth pondering as New York braces for a meeting of the World Economic Forum and the protests against it, Meanwhile media outlets prattle on within the implicit doctrine of Amercian exceptionalism, ie. that no international agreements or principles need apply to usif we don’t want them to.

FAITH-BASED DIPLOMACY

There was Mr. Anti-elitest, millionaire Bill O’Reilly over on Fox News last night interviwing a spokesperson of the International Red Cross and trying to skewer him for supposedly criticizing the treatment and status of the l58 prisoners of this “conflict” who are being held at Guamtanmo Bay in Cuba.

While the President still refuses to classify them as prisoners of war, as most of the world, human rights groups and Secretary of State Colin Powell want him to do, the controversy simmers. (Bush calls them “killers” although no Court or Tribunal has heard their cases.)

Bush now says the US will adhere to the “spirit of the Geneva Agreement.” How spiritual of him! Is this faith-based diplomacy?

This perspective is apparently too wishy-washy with the diehards at Fox because it suggests that there are international agreements out there, signed by Washington which the Administratoion is legally BOUND to uphold.

No matter. Bill O’Reilly still tries to browbeat this international civil servant who refuses to play the game, refuses to be suckered into denouncing US conduct, and explains that the Red Cross privately reports to the US as it does to all other governments–otherwise it could lose its credibility to act as an intermediary the next time an American gets into trouble.

That shut him up. In O’Reilly’s world, everyone lacks objectivity but him and the big mouths who agree with him. That’s another fallacy for you this morning, folks.

O Reilly then went on to interview the father of a girl who died at the World Trade Center and then he went on the Global Echange trip to Afghanistan. O’R. asked him more about the pain of losing his daughter — an old story — then what he saw and thinks about Afghanistan.That was safe. He didn’t want to browbeat him.

And then it was Bernard Goldberg’s turn. Goldberg is on an infinite string of appearances boosting his new book, Bias, whose central complaint is that the media calls conservatives conservatives but doesn’t call liberals liberals. Maybe the liberlas are not as liberal as Bernie boy thinks. Maybe the age of liberalism is dead, maybe…. This is an argument I will get into later. Just read the last paragraph in the next item and you will see where I am going.

NEW STUDY: OPINIONS REPLACE NEWS ON TV NEWS

Unfortunately, the opinionizing of the news talk shows has been long creeping in the news shows, as a new study released yesterday by the Project on Excellence in Journalism makes stunningly clear. Here you go: confirmation of what I and some others have been saying for months. Reporting has become casualty of this conflict. Here’s the digest of their findings:

“The study finds that since September the coverage has gradually become lessstrictly factual and more interpretive. Indeed, by November and December,the coverage was more given to punditry and less to straightforward factualreporting than we found two months into the coverage of the Clinton Lewinskyscandal.

The study also finds that the coverage provides a fairly narrow band of viewpoints. Less than 10% of the coverage that evaluates U.S. policy offers any clear dissent. Most offers no dissent at all.

The study is a broad examination of nightly newscasts of network and publicbroadcasting, cable news, TV talk shows, morning news, prime timemagazines, print magazines, and the New York Times, Washington Post, Cleveland Plain Dealer and the Fresno Bee.

The study also finds no discernible difference in the balance of viewpointsoffered by the signature evening newscasts on Fox versus CNN.”

SOMALI REACTIONS TO “BLACK HAWK DOWN

In the cultural crimes department, word is in from the accountants of Hollywood that in this climate of America Can Do No Wrong, the film “Black Hawk Down” is the top grossing movie at the box office.

I have already sounded off on how gross I think it is. When I saw it, I wondered what would Somalis think? I am sure there would be a riot when if it ever screens in Mogadishu. But what about among Somalis who have fled that county and now live in America? How would they feel?

Here’s a report from Atlanta with an answer to my question:

“The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

January 27, 2002

“Somalis see bias in ‘Black Hawk.’ Some immigrants boycott area theaters showing filmMoni Basu - Staff

“A boycott of “Black Hawk Down” called by Somali-American leaders is keeping many Somalis in Atlanta away from theaters showing the film. Many of those drawn by curiosity, meanwhile, are leaving the theater dismayed by its depiction of their homeland. The Somali Justice Advocacy Center, based in St. Paul,Minn., says the new Ridley Scott film portrays the people of the East African nation as “savages.” The center says the film fails to represent the Somali point of view.

“”The movie makes the Somali people look like animals,”said Atlanta radio talk show host Hussein Mohamed, who walked out of a Stone Mountain cinema 30 minutesbefore the movie’s end….

“Maye said the film did not use people who looked as if they were from the Horn of Africa. No Somali actors were used. The producers re-created the desert, ocean and Somalian towns in Morocco, where much of the filming took place.

“Immigrants here said most Somalis opposed the warlordsand welcomed the presence of U.S. and U.N. troops in their country. Mohamed said the movie falsely gives the impression that residents of Mogadishu, Somalia’scapital, were all vehemently anti-American.”

So much for winning hearts and minds!

The We Hate Arafat Club

Let us stipulate that Yasser Arafat is bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Corrupt. Incompetent. AndGiven to supporting violence, even terrorism for political goals. I keep hearing this mantra from my own editor Jeanne, a smart and enlightened, if often emotional, supporter of Israel who nevertheless is willing , in a calm moment to hear criticisms of its government. She doesn’t like Sharon. But she HATES Arafat, and with a ferocity that I think reflects the sustained media campaign directed against him these many months. She thinks because he backs terrorism, he is responsible for all the terrorist attacks. I respect her views which is why I cite them. But I beg to differ….

I will give her a chance to critique my critique tomorrow, but I must say what I think is missing in most of the media and much of the discussion is an understanding of what is behind Sharon’s hardline practices. and Arafat’s apparent impotence. (He doesn’t enjoy majority support among Palestinians from what I read!) This issue has been so sloganized and simplified so that it is hard for most viewes and readers to understand that fundamentalists and fanatics are at work on BOTH sides, both with an interest in polarization and eliminating any and all possibilities of accommodation, much less peace.

For years a sucession of Israeli governments has pounded Palestinian moderates and democrats because they prefer the issue be projected as one of Zionist good versus evil terror as the dominant frame of the debate and its coverage. Suicide bombings are precisely what the extremes on both sides want to justify and reinforce their garrison state, and Jihard crusade. Peace is precisely what the two sides don’t want because their respective hold on power is strengthened in a climate of alarmism, fear, and war/. Arafat or whoever clearly blew it by importing arms so publicly recently, or at least getting caught doing so, But does anyone ever ask who arms Israel, and who makes money on it.

A VIEW FROM BRITAIN

Forget about America’s role for a moment. Let’s look at Britain where investigative reporter John Pilger offers the kind of view in a mainstream media outlet that you would almost never get to read in American news outlet:

“Blair’s most important support for the Sharon regime has not received its due recognition. In May and July last year, the authoritative Jane’s Foreign Report disclosed that Britain and France had given “the greenlight” to Sharon to attack Arafat if the Palestinian resistance did not stop. The British government was shown a plan for an all-out Israeliinvasion and reoccupation of the West Bank and Gaza “using the latest F-16 and F-15 jets against all the main installations of the Palestinian Authority [and] 30,000 men or the equivalent of a full army.

“However, the Israeli plan needed a suicide bomb blast “which causes numerous deaths and injuries. The ‘revenge’ factor is crucial. It would motivate Israeli soldiers to demolish the Palestinians.” What concerned Sharon and his inner circle - notably the author of the plan, Brigadier General Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli chief of staff - was a secret agreementbetween Arafat and Hamas, the Islamic organisation responsible for most of the suicide attacks, that suicide bombing would be stopped in Israel proper.

“Following 11 September, Sharon worried that a Middle East “solution” would be a by-product of America’s “war on terrorism,” especially whenGeorge W Bush blurted out one of his non sequiturs: that he had always had the “dream” of a Palestinian state.

On 23 November, Israeli agentsassassinated the Hamas leader Mahmud Abu Hunud. Twelve days later, the inevitable response came in co-ordinated suicide attacks against Israel.”

There is more to this line of thinking, but rather than go there and debate the details, let’s simply say that are other ways of seeing this story that we rarely see. If Arafat goes, what comes next? Do you really think Terrorism will stop? Hardly.

SAUDIS AND SWEDESThe rest of the world is aghast, but most don’t see the role the media is playing in further stigmatizing Arafat, and more importantly Palestinian aspirations for a state, land, security and justice. This morning’s New York Times reports a criticism of US policy: a Saudi Crown Prince, in a front page photo, waving a sword “at a cultural festival.”

Ok, you say, that’s the Saudis. What do you expect? He is simply echoing a chorus of opinion in the Middle East. Now, let’s move to another “S” county with fairer skin and blonder hair, Sweden. Have you seen this item reported anywhere?

“Stockholm — Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh Monday rapped the Middle East policy of U.S. President George W. Bush, calling it “stupid” and “crazy”, Swedish radio reported.

“Ahead of a meeting with European Union foreign ministers, Lindh told Swedish radio she was very concerned about Bush having equated Palestinian President Yassir Arafat with terrorism. Lindh said this analysis by the U.S. administration was “factually incorrect, stupid and very dangerous”.

“The Bush administration’s policy of solely rewarding Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon” for what she called his policy of violence was “pure lunacy”, Lindh charged.”

MISSING IN THE MEDIAI don’t want to debate the Middle East but clearly, Americans anyway, are not getting the full story. With Arafat getting the Osama bin Ladin treatment on many media outlets — CNN’s Quick viewer poll asked viewers to decide his fate — imagine! Rightwing media in Israel are quite proud of what is happening, although US media can’t seem to see their agenda. (The Financial Times did carry an editorial cataloguing all of Arafat’s ills and then concluded that if he goes, all hell will break lose.)

Here’s Debka.com, a hardline “intellgence site’ supportive of the Israeli right:

The New York Times and other sources have pointed this out, but the aggressively right-wing Israeli web site DEBKAafile has spelled this out very clearly:

“DEBKAfile’s political sources note that what really aggravates his opponents is Sharon’s confident air, produced by the strongest backing anyIsraeli prime minister has ever received from Washington. He knows, and so do they, that he is safe in pursuing his siege tactics against Arafat for as long as he does not take it all the way and eliminate the Palestinian leader. This US support is not personally-motivated. Sharon is one of thelynchpins of the Bush administration’s projected post-Afghanistan global redesign for the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Asia Minor, Central and Southwest Asia, while Arafat is viewed as an impediment. Washingtontherefore cheers Sharon’s efforts to undermine the Palestinian leader, as long as he treads with care and is closely coordinated with the US government. With George W. Bush looking firm on a course that ought to takehim to a second term as president, Ariel Sharon can also afford to feel optimistic about his chances in Israel’s next general election next year - for as long as he watches where he is treading.”

Please Jeanne, don’t mutilate the above in editing, but do drop me a few dissenting lines for tomorrow and tell where I have gone astray. I would just add that if every corrupt and violence-prone leader was to be Arafatized (a form of being demonized in the media) there would be far fewer attendees at the World Economic Forum. Incidentally, that was the last place I saw Chairman Arafat, some years back, making nice with Shimon Peres and winning a big hand as a peacemaker. Today, he wouldn’t get a ticket to the party.

A WORD OF THANKS FROM NOAM CHOMSY

Yesterday, I reported on an upcoming trial of the Turkish publisher of a book by MIT’s Noam Chomsky. When I am reporting about someone known as a stickler for facts, and who often footnotes his essays, I try to get it right. So I sent the report off to Chomsky Central with hopes that he would welcome coverage of a case that has received a smattering of attention in the UK, but none to my knowledge in the US press or a global website like Mediachannel.org

Noam Chomsky writes, and it is not really personal so I will share his thoughts.

“Thanks very much. Really appreciate it, and I am sure the Turks will too.

“On the conspiracy story of the week, I’ve been deluged by demands that I say something about it (apart from dismissing it) since almost the beginning. It’s going to have quite a life, I suspect, and will probably be as harmful to the activist left as most others. Have never understood their enormous appeal.

“The charge of ‘anti-Americanism and being soft on terrorism’ is an interesting one. Take the term “anti-Americanism.” Such terms are only used in totalitarian states or military dictatorships. Russian dissidents were accused of ‘anti-Sovietism,’ but no one though they were anti-Russian — that is, opposed to the people of Russia and their interests. Brazilian generals used the notion; as I suppose did others with totalitarian tendencies. But can you imagine the reaction in Italy to a book called “the Anti-Italians”? It wouldn’t even rise to ridicule, unlike here, where it receives sober reviews and commentary. Strange feature of the culture. The notion ’soft on terrorism’ is also interesting. Apart from the absurdity that you mention, no one accuses me of being ’soft on Western state terrorism.’ On the contrary, I’m denounced for even mentioning it. But that’s by far the most extreme, just for reasons of scale of power. So I ought to be accused of being ‘hard on terrorism’ — though that would require ascending to the unimaginably high moral level of applying to ourselves the standards we demand of others.

Noam

DISSECTING ON ALL SIDES OF THE BARRICADES

Thanks for sharing Noam. You are always welcome here, as our our many readers, who know, by now that I am just an email away at dissector@mediachannel.org. I will dissecting on all sides of the barricades this week as the World Eco Forum invades the Waldorf. I will be on the inside but also moderating a panel Friday at the Public Eye on Davos Forum which critiques the WEF, as I have in years past. I will try to keep columnizing all throughout these events–which tend to become marathons.