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