*ALL EYES ON THE SUPREME COURT

*HBO’S “LIVE FROM BAGHDAD”

*SIGN UP FOR THIS COLUMN

WMD — Mass distraction at work

There may be tensions in the world, American soldiers being fired on (again !) in Afghanistan, a massive famine threatening 38 million souls in Africa, protests on the streets in Venezuela and Haiti, and peace breaking out in Burundi. There may be all of that, but Michael Jackson’s mishigas gets the airtime and the headlines with even the New York Post giving Saddam a break today to put wacko Jacko back on page one with a “Devil Made Me Do It” headline and a story of his having been bit by a spider. Let us ask: Who Made THEM do it, the editors and news producers, that is, who feels compelled to keep us mesmerized by this Michael mania? That and The Sopranos. Like who cares?

THE MAN WHO MADE THE MAN “THE” MAN

The US Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments today from the Solicitor General of the United States (why is he a General, pray tell?) Ted Olson will be making the case for doing away with Miranda warnings. You remember Ted don’t you? The New York Times chose to remind its readers about him with this historical reference that one is rarely reminded of:

“Mr. Olson, a conservative Republican, successfully argued Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that made George W. Bush President.” Was it the case that “made” him President, or the Court or the fiasco in Florida? Never mind.

As for the case, Charles Sheehan-Miles fears that its being overturned is another step along the road to a police state. “The landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision ruled that suspects could not be interrogated without first being advised of their rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. The wording of Miranda is familiar to all Americans who watch TV, and is assumed as a basic right. The Justice Department wants to change all that.

“In other words, Olsen plans to argue the police can detain or arrest anyone for any reason and then beat you up or even shoot you to get information, even if there are no emergent circumstances.

“In other countries, this is called torture. In our country, we have the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution designed to prevent such horrendous abuses by the police.”

MEET ME AT THE PALACE

Today is day seven of the inspection regime in Iraq, and the press is filled with pictures of the Presidential Palace inspectors, who dropped in for less than two hours yesterday. What was the significance of the visit? It depends on who you read. The US Administration is not impressed, reporteth the New York Times:

” U.S. CONCERN: IRAQ INSPECTIONS TOO EASY”

The Bush administration is voicing concerns that there are not enough U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq and that there is not enough variety in the type of searches the inspectors have conducted so far, a senior U.S. official said. At the same time, John Burns, the Times journalist on the scene called the visit ‘remarkable’ and characterized it as a test of power between the US and Iraq, with the US the victor.

Not so fast, says the Guardian which pronounced it a diplomatic victory for Saddam saying it shows Iraqi cooperation. The Associated Press was beside itself in marveling over the forbidden palace’s “stunning opulence.” Just about everyone called the visit a first, but then, this morning, CNN’s International editor, looking very workmanlike in white sleeves with tie ajar, clarified the perception by reminding bleary eyed viewers like me that in fact inspectors had been to Al Sajoud (with its “soaring arched windows and enormous sky-blue dome) before, in the company of Kofi Anann when he tried to avert the Gulf War of l991.

*TOO EARLY TO KNOW ANYTHING

RFE quotes an expert to the effect that it is too early to know what is going on, despite all the TV pundits who pose as better informed than the inspectors themselves.

“Arms-control experts say it is still too early to say whether the early mood of cooperation is now breaking down under the pressure of sustained inspections. But they say that as the number of inspections increases, the arms monitors will be trying to establish whether incidents such as yesterday’s dispute over the missing equipment are part of a deliberate pattern of Iraqi concealment.

“John Hart, an arms-control researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in Sweden, said that establishing such a pattern will require many more inspections than those that have taken place so far.

“‘What has to be developed is a pattern. You can’t read too much into what does or doesn’t happen on a particular day. But as the number of inspections goes up, then it should become clear as a result of building a baseline of, say, 50 inspections or 100 inspections,’ Hart said.”

*RUMMY: IN THE EYE OF THE “BEHOLDER”

Do the inspections matter at all to the Bush Administration? Not really says Donald Rumsfeld, who seems to want to get it on. Read this transcript and you tell me what he is saying:

“QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, yesterday the president expressed a lack of optimism about the situation in Iraq, and yet the weapons inspectors seem to be getting cooperation, even to the point of going into one of the presidential palaces.

“We go back to early on in the former conflict against Iraq the goal was regime change, and then by the time it got to the U.N. it became disarmament. And now listening to the president again it seems to be back on regime change. Can you straighten this out? What is the actual goal?

“RUMSFELD: Well, I don’t think anything’s ever changed. Years ago — four, five years ago, ‘98, ‘97, somewhere in that time frame, ‘99, the Congress passed legislation calling for regime change in Iraq. That has been the position of the government, and the reason it’s been the position of the United States government is quite simple.

“It is that the conclusion was made that he had refused to cooperate with some 16 U.N. resolutions and that seemed to be a behavior pattern which suggested that he would be unlikely to do so in the future. And therefore the way to achieve disarmament would be to change the regime and have disarmament occur that way.

“When the president went to the United Nations, the U.N. Security Council addressed it in a slightly different way and focused on disarmament, which had been the U.N. practice over a period of time.

“And I don’t see any change in the administration’s position. I do recognize that the U.N. has emphasized disarmament.Q

“UESTION: So to follow up, so the goal is actually two-fold: disarmament and regime change?

“RUMSFELD: I think, you know, beauty’s in the eye of the beholder. It depends on who you talk to and when you talk to them.”

WHAT WILL TURKEY DO?

Ok, is it all clearer now? Also unclear is what is happening on the periphery of Iraq, where US troops exercise openly in Kuwait and Qatar, and even the Saudis, who are reeling from bad press linking them to terrorists, are not willing to join “the coalition of the willing.” But what about the Turks? Todays LA Times says they will allow the US to use its bases. Here’s part of John Hendon’s take:

“ANKARA, Turkey — The Turkish government Tuesday offered the use of its bases in a potential war against Iraq, as U.S. officials confirmed that Saudi Arabia has also agreed to give its long-sought military support, twin moves that could clear the way for a formidable attack on multiple fronts.

REPORT FROM ANKARA

Early this morning, CNN carried a report from Turkey denying Ankara’s offer of bases. Adam McConnel writes helps explain from the Turkish capital:

“In contrast to what the LA Times reported, it seemed to me that Wolfowitz, instead of buoyed, was distracted while he was speaking to the press. Of course Wolfowitz’s comments were positive, but he seemed to be thinking about something else while he was talking (and I saw his comments from about five different angles on various Turkish and international news channels). Maybe this was reflected by the statement from the Turkish foreign minister, Yashar Yakish, later in the day that Turkey had not committed to allowing the use of air bases on its soil in a US attack on Iraq, but had only discussed the possibility.

“The results of the talks themselves were not surprising; after all, at this stage why would Turkey deny the use of air bases on its soil? Turkey and the US have been playing a steady game of quid pro quo since the 11 September attacks — Turkey needs aid in several forms, especially loans or cash from the IMF or the US government, and has been trading various favors with the US for exactly those loans or cash for the last year (naturally it is not stated exactly like that by the politicians involved).

“The problem is whether or not the US will come up with a package that is good enough for the Turkish government. NTV is reporting today that the US has offered the Turkish governemnt an aid package containing some 3.4 billion dolars over three years, much of which (2.25 billion) will go to military needs. Contrast that to what Fikret Bila, a columnist for Milliyet and an Ankara insider, says that Turkey wants from the US: 20-25 billion dollars. …

“Closely related to these developments are polls that were released by Istanbul University’s yesterday concerning Turkish citizen opinion of America’s moves towards war. According to the poll, 77% of the respondents feel that the US is the reason behind the rush to war, whereas only 11% feel that ‘Iraq’s support for terror’ is the reason.

“The poll also had other interesting results. The question `Turkey should stay neutral in the tension between America and Iraq and not open its bases for US use` garnered 77.4 % approval, whereas `Turkey should stay neutral and open its bases to US use had only 11.1% approval.”

HBO’S LIVE FROM BAGHDAD

In just a few days, Iraq submits its weapons declaration — and on the same day, HBO airs its “Live From Baghdad” TV movie. Journalist Lucy Komisar writes about a preview screening held in New York for Pacific News Service, and suggested that the film simply recycles misinformation reported in the media at the time:

“Remember the phony story about the Kuwaiti woman who testified in 1990 that Iraqi soldiers were throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators? It was later exposed as a public relations fabrication — but now it’s back on HBO.

“Live From Baghdad, made by HBO, purports to tell how CNN covered the 1991 Gulf War. It is based on a memoir by Robert Wiener, then a CNN field producer, who wrote the script with three others. Airing Dec. 7, this ‘fiction’ based on ‘fact’ propagates the famous Kuwaiti government incubator hoax. As the United States stands at the brink of war with Iraq, such fabrications may invite other, more dangerous hoaxes.,,,

“A recent Live From Baghdad screening, sponsored by HBO and the Council on Foreign Relations, included a panel discussion. Present were: Wiener; moderator Garrick Utley (formerly with NBC, now with CNN); Deborah Amos, correspondent with ABC News; Tom Johnson, former president of CNN; and Eason Jordan, chief news executive at CNN. None of the eminent journalists mentioned the incubator story.

“At question time, two people in the audience shot up their hands to ask why the film had perpetrated the phony incubator story. Jordan evaded the first question by relating how Saddam Hussein had ordered a Kuwaiti oppositionist cut up in pieces. A follow-up query pointed out that Jordan hadn’t answered the question, and that the film perpetuated rather than corrected the phony incubator story. The film ends with text over the close telling what happened to some of the characters; surely, it was suggested, the film could easily run lines telling the truth about the hoax…”

A few days after the screening, Wiener was interviewed on CNN and, disputing that the network had promoted Iraqi propaganda, pointed out the trip to investigate the incubator charge. He admitted that the incubator allegations ‘turned out to be false’ because those accusations were made by the daughter of the Kuwaiti official and were never proven. ‘That was my regret in one instance,’ he said.”He didn’t regret it enough to tell the truth in the film.”

FOLLOWING FOX

Michael Wolff of New York Magazine offers another view on Fox News. (He always offers another view.) In a recent column summarized in PR Spinwatch, he says that its biases are not just political or pro-Republican:

“There’s something ‘incredibly creepy’” about Fox TV mogul Roger Ailes, writes Michael Wolff.

“He looks the way you imagine the man behind the curtain looking: That is, he doesn’t care about how he looks (which is, as it happens, gray and corpulent). He understands it’s all manipulation.”

Wolff examines the techniques that Ailes has used to turn his right-wing network into a ratings phenomenon:

“Fox is not really about politics (CNN, with its antiseptic beltway p.o.v., is arguably more about politics than Fox). It certainly isn’t arguing a consistent right-wing case. Rather, it’s about having a chip on your shoulder; it’s about us versus them, insiders versus outsiders, phonies versus non-phonies, and, in a clever piece of postmodernism, established media against insurgent media. … In the conventional-wisdom swamp of television, this passes for serious counter-programming.”

MAXWELL AND THE MOSSAD

In news of another media mogul, now departed, and rest his soul, the Daily Mirror in London reports: ROBERT MAXWELL WAS A MOSSAD SPY. Gordon Thomas And Martin Dillon write about the former owner of that newspaper and the NY Daily News:

“ELEVEN years after former Daily Mirror owner Robert Maxwell plunged from his luxury yacht to a watery grave, his death still arouses intense interest, ter two and a half years of investigative journalism, we believe we have unearthed the true story of Maxwell’s death and can reveal how he was murdered by the Israeli secret service, Mossad.

“Our work, supported by documents, including FBI reports and secret intelligence files from behind the Iron Curtain, shows Maxwell had worked as a secret super spy for Mossad for six years.

“The Czech-born millionaire and former Labour MP died the way he had lived - threatening. He had threatened his wife. Threatened his children. Threatened the staff of this newspaper.

“But finally he issued one threat too many - he threatened Mossad.

“He told them that unless they gave him £400 million to save his crumbling empire, he would expose his assocation with them.” Without holding my breath, I await MOSSAD’s response. Maxwell is not talking.(ed note: Maxwell, by the way, was buried with honors by the Israeli government on the Mt. of Olives, in the cemetery above the Valley of the Dry Bones, where great rabbis from Eastern Europe, Jewish leaders from all over the Diaspora and other distinguished Jewish people are buried–from school teachers and social workers to founders of the Hasidic movement in Europe, to the leaders of the Neturei Karta–who live in Jerusalem and do not believe in a Jewish State. His wife, Elisabeth, believes he was murdered. The family and their representatives were not able to view the body or do their own forensic examination before the Spanish authorities did a butchering job of an autopsy.)

IN Our IN-BOX:

From Larry Houghteling: “I haven’t written for a while but I am a daily reader.And I am in awe at your energy and your good sense, on so many fronts. (I finally saw the movie. Bravo!)….As perhaps you remember, the Times is my bete noire.The damned paper is in a position to do so much good, and occasionally it does - Pentagon papers, etc. But most of the time it is SO-O-O-O weak, so pusillanimous in the face of power. But I loved Maureen Dowd’s comment about Kissinger. Daniel Schorr said a similar thing the day before that on NPR: the one thing Bush can count on from Kissinger, he said, is that none of the mess will splatter onto the White House. A lot of people wonder how Kissinger has managed to stay afloat for so long, but I think I know. He is (besides being very smart, etc.) the kind of man who can get the smart people who work for him to do things that reflect well on him. My father spent a number of summers in the fifties and early sixties working for HK at the summer program at Harvard he headed that brought smart politicos and policy people from all over the world to Harvard (and made HK many, many friends around the world whom you may be sure he later knew the phone numbers of). My father, a very liberal Democrat who hated the war in Vietnam and so on, still would always insert in his remarks on Kissinger that “he was always very nice to me.” And I knew another guy, an artist, who worked for the summer project about the same time, who said the same thing. Treated clever underlings well….. Your admirer, Larry Houghteling

“PS: “The media are” just sounds so much more MATURE than “the media is,” goddammit!

CHEAP SHOT

Shebar Windstone is more critical:

“I think you took a cheap shot at an individual’s private (& public) sexual preferences, where the UN inspector is concerned. See http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1129-05.htm. A later story in the Star Tribune reports his resignation was rejected:http://startribune.com/stories/484/3466689.htmlWe should be more concerned about those whose fascination with games of dominance & submission or sadism & masochism, is expressed & acted out more covertly.” Shebar and all interested, see Alexander Cockburn and Chris Caldwell writing extensively about this matter. I don’t care about the man’s sexual proclivities. I just found it ironic that on the day the Brits were denouncing Saddam’s regime for Sadism, there was a debate underway in America about a US inspector who is into S&M.

Also speaking of ironies, here are three stories in a row on IWantMedia.com about media and money: ” Glossy and Greedy: Real Page-TurnersWashington Post, Tuesday, 12/03/02

Today’s magazine execs are “empty suits with spreadsheet souls,” which is why magazines are so “tepid,” says Peter Carlson.

“Publisher of Post Pushes for ProfitsNew York Daily News, Tuesday, 12/03/02News Corp.’s Lachlan Murdoch is telling media colleagues to focus on profit, because “good business supports great journalism.”

“Andy Rooney: Newspapers Are Great!CBS News, Monday, 12/02/02″People don’t have a high regard for anyone in the news business, but I do. Most of them are more interested in their work than in money.”

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

Denise Kreps writes Mediachannel: “I came across your web site and was intrigued, if not inspired and encouraged. I have been writing letters to various television ‘news gatekeepers,’ wanting better news coverage, giving positive as well as critical feedback. I have yet to hear from anyone in management. Today’s news has sadly gone down hill even though every station out there seems to be aware of the need for and / or that there exists a lack of ‘viewer connection.’ They also seem to have forgotten the television air waves are a public trust, especially with the mega media mergers of the 1990’s.

“Where management has not responded, response letters have come from some of the busiest journalists in the business, anchors and correspondents at major 24 hour news networks. A correspondent / anchor at FOX regarding the public and the decline of journalistic news stated, ‘Without a public as committed and concerned as you seem to be, the media will continue to be unresponsive.’ One of the leading correspondents at CNN wrote to me and suggested, ‘Don’t be one lone viewer. Start a movement. That’s what it’s going to take.’ MSNBC is still out on the matter.

“I am not a journalist, owner, or manager of any media outlet. I am the ‘public,’ the consumer of news, and am greatly concerned about the state of our news today, the public’s involvement, and those in management engaging their viewers.

“My first question to you is, has anyone figured out yet how to tap the public, wake them up, and inspire them? I think we all have a responsibility to the news. Journalists, of course, need not lay down their values for their paycheck. Owners and managers need to give the news rooms back to those who do the news, and stop watching the ratings numbers. Sponsors and advertisers need to understand that news is a ‘commodity’ unlike any other business society has. The public needs to wake up and demand that this ‘public trust’ be treated accordingly.”

ON MICHAEL ALBERT’S BOOK ON LIFE AFTER CAPITALISM

Chad Durangama (?) writes: “Many thanks for your bit about Michael Albert’s Parecon discussion at the upcoming WSF meeting. It’s far from perfect, but at least Participatory Economics gets people thinking outside the traditional Capitalist/Marxist dialectic. There’s actually an entire website devoted to it at http://www.parecon.org.

“As an aside, thank you for the Media Channel. It’s one of the only sources for news that doesn’t leave this 23-year-old any more alienated than he needs to be.”

SIGN UP TIME

Please sign up for this column via email and urge others to do so. I have been debating whether I doth go on too long in this space. Actually, I know I do, but I always justify it on the grounds that there is so much important news and criticism that goes underplayed or uncovered. What do you think? A top journalistat a network show I know is telling me less is more. She’s probably right…but? Tell me what you would suggest. Write dissector@mediachannel.org