COULD “WE” STILL LOSE THE WAR?

ARNOLD ON THE DEFENSIVE

FCC VICTORY AT RISK

Do you know the name Thomas Ricks? He is the military correspondent of the Washington Post, as respected a mainstream print reporter as there is. Back on March 27th he wrote a front page story quoting “defense officials” who predicted that the US military would be in Iraq for ten years to come. A pile of bricks fell on his head. He was denounced for making it up. Bill O’Reilly of Fox “News” Network, whom he now calls a “clown,” gave his home phone number out on the air. People in the Pentagon swore up and down that no one said any such thing. They implied the Post had no source.

The next day, the Post in a rare moment of courage, published a picture of a General Wallace who had made the estimate and had the guts to say so. That shut up the naysayers. Yesterday in Iraq, General Sanchez, the man in charge of the US occupation, confirmed that US forces cannot leave. He also revealed that the US is facing a more sophisticated and organized adversary than ever before. In short, the Iraqis have regrouped and the war threatens to flare up again. It is getting worse, not better. And only incidents are being covered, without regard to the big picture.

WAR AT A MUSEUM

Ricks was on a panel at the Museum of Radio and Television last night along with NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, two NBC correspondents, the network’s sole self-admitted liberal military analyst Bill Arkin and former Pentagon Media chief Torrie Clarke (now with CNN). Tom Brokaw moderated.

The discussion was nominally about the publication of a book, skillfully crafted by veteran producer Marc Kusnetz with Brokaw, celebrating the story of NBC’s war coverage. The book comes with its own DVD featuring a selection of the coverage. The book is handsomely produced with lots of color photos and reminiscences by embeds and other NBC journalists. It will make interesting reading.

TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, pt 2

Promoting this endeavor last night was a short, over-the-top greatest-hits video that lionized NBC’s network team. It packaged the war and NBC’s work as if they were an epic — not unlike the highlights underscored with dramatic music that NBC gave us of the Olympics. (To borrow an ABCism, the subtext was the “thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.”) Sound the trumpets.

The hype is not the real concern here. We have seen plenty of that. The real problem is that the war it commemorates as a victory for NBC and the USA — in that order — is not over yet. Your News Dissector pressed Tom and Co. to acknowledge the many shortcomings of the coverage and take responsibility for TV news’s complicity in selling the war. It was a charge, predictably, that no one on the panel embraced or copped to. Only the audience in the room seemed to agree. They cheered me on.

Brokaw asked me if I was saying NBC was “on the pipe” — i.e., carrying the Administration’s water. He defended the network’s coverage with great passion as if all bases were covered, all viewpoints heard. I like him. He is willing to engage. Ricks offered a mild dissent in the form of a reality sandwich of an observation. He pointed out that that the war is still raging with more US soldiers dead after the Saddam statue fell than before.

WE ARE OUTTA HERE

In the wake of the statue toppling (by US soldiers, not the pre-assembled crowd) , Victoria Clarke noted that after that, there was a “flood” of journalists de-embedding, splitting, and abandoning the story. Many were anxious to call it a win and get the hell out of there. Ricks suggested that we now see that period not as the end of a war but as a mere half-time, “like in a football game.”

“We are now in the second half and it is not clear who will win.” He said we could lose. This was sobering coming from a military journalist who is in and out of the Pentagon (aka “the Building”) and who knows all the Big Brass — who largely respect his work..

AS WAR INTENSIFIES, COVERAGE SHRINKS

This prompted Kusnetz to ask why, if it’s worse than ever over there, NBC has reduced its reporting staff at a moment that demands more coverage, not less. Brokaw explained the problems and the complexities of covering a complicated story. He cited the recent attack that wounded an NBC employee at “our hotel.” Clearly, this back-and-forth speaks to a debate within the News Division about how many resources to allocate to a story that is not now as triumphalist as it was not so long ago.

A study of how TV News plays into and does not clear up the many misperceptions that TV viewers have about Iraq, the WMDs and Al Quaeda’s “link” with Saddam came out just yesterday but was not commented upon.. It sampled the public and looked at the frequency of misconceptions among the viewers of different networks. It found that 30% of NBC viewers had misperceptions on the terrorist link to Iraq. That was not as bad as the 45% of Fox viewers or as good as the 11% of the PBS-NPR viewer-listeners. (see Pipa.org for more.)

TO NBC’s CREDIT

I was surprised to learn from another study that NBC actually featured more coverage of anti-war protests than BBC during the run-up to the war,. It did offer diverse analysis by analysts like Arkin, who quarreled with Clark last night, and even General McCaffrey who pissed off the Pentagon at one point by questioning their plan. Reporters like the late David Bloom, who died in Iraq, were offered inventive and gutsy reports. Whatever good one can say about NBC cannot be applied to its offspring MSNBC, which spent the war dueling with Fox over who could be the most obnoxious.

I will continue to write about these issues. Next week I will be at the Arab Media Summit in Dubai. It will be interesting to find out how people there regard US coverage. I will be reporting as I can, hopefully from poolside.

WHERE O WHERE ARE THE WMDS?

This issue will not go away, since the Weapons of Mass Destruction have not been found. Inspectors like David Kay thought they were sure to find them. He admitted interim defeat yesterday. Reports the NY Times: “The preliminary findings support the claims of critics that President Bush used dubious intelligence to justify his decision to go to war.” The new US “draft resolution” at the UN seeking international help in Iraq doesn’t appear to be going anywhere either because of opposition to the way it will reinforce unilateral US dominance.

The issue won’t go away either because the emerging White House leaking scandal is moving into second gear as the Justice Department “investigation” gets going. It has now been confirmed that Presidential advisor Karl Rove, who is suspected of leaking information on a CIA agent’s identity, was himself once an advisor to Attorney General John Aschroft, who is in charge of the investigation. This morning a Talking Head on Fox cited an incident in which President Bush the First fired Rove for leaking. To whom, you ask? Answer: Bob Novak.

A CIA TAKE ON THE SCANDAL

What is really going on here? Former 27-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern, a whistle-blower in his own right, asks:

What could have been going through the heads of senior White House officials when they decided to expose a CIA officer working under deep cover? Why would they want to blow the cover of Valerie Plame, wife of former United States Ambassador Joseph Wilson?

What will the FBI find out? It is not altogether reassuring to learn that John Dion is heading the investigation. Dion is widely known in intelligence circles as one who does not feel he can go to the bathroom without first asking the Justice Department for permission. Sadly, we can expect the kind of “full and thorough investigation” that Richard Nixon ordered then-Attorney General John Mitchell to conduct into Watergate.

The important thing is not who-done-it, but why. What ulterior motive moved White House officials to “out” Ms. Plame when they knew full well it would burn her entire network of agents reporting on weapons of mass destruction, put those agents in serious jeopardy and destroy her ability at the peak of her career to address this top-priority issue?

SCANDAL PATROL

Other investigations are underway that has news junkies in danger of OD-ing. First, there is the Rush Limbaugh scandal. The Daily News reports that this moralizing big mouth is being investigated for allegedly buying addictive painkillers from a black-market drug ring, according to the National Enquirer.

Meanwhile according to the LA Times, the Enquirer has shown no interest in investigating the Arnold Schwarzenegger scandal that suggests that Mr. Hasta-La-Vista-Baby has roving hands and a past far more aligned with fascism than democracy.

SEIG HEIL?

He now says he can’t remember ever saying he admired Hitler. Here’s that story: ABCNEWS obtained a copy of an unpublished book proposal with quotes from a verbatim transcript of an interview Schwarzenegger gave in 1975 while makingthe film Pumping Iron.

Asked who his heroes are, he answered, “I admired Hitler, for instance,because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, upto power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what hedid with it.”

What has not been widely reported is that this sounds like the words of Jeorg Haider, the right-wing Austrian politician who claimed to be Arnold’s friend and spent time with him. Arnold reportedly was a backer of his until he very publicly distanced himself from the controversial Haider as his political plans started to form, Earlier, he had been close to Austria’s Kurt Waldheim, the UN Secretary General who had served with the Nazis in World War ll. Arnold’s father was one of Der Furher’s servants. The LA Times reported that his dad had been much more active in the Third Reich than was previously known. Note how Arnold is always portrayed as a moderate Republican. A cover?

WHY THE LACK OF SCRUTINY?

The LA Times says “American Media chief David Pecker has reportedly assured Joe Weider, a pal of Arnold Schwarzenegger, that his tabloids would ‘lay off’ the candidate.” Perhaps that’s why Moveon.org is moving on the media in California, urging its members to push the Press there to stay on Arnold’s case.

And then there is the sex issue that Arnold tried to “nip in the bud” by offering a broad apology to any he may have offended. The “apology” is unlikely to quiet this fire storm. That issue is out of the box. Several women, including a British TV reporter, say that Schwarzenegger touched them sexually without their consent. What is interesting is that this is not a new issue, but most of the media seems to have had amnesia about it until now. Back in March 2001, Premiere carried a story by Joe Connolly called “Arnold the Barbarian.” It read in part:

Once, he was a box office terminator. But now that Arnold Schwarzenegger has lost some of his muscle in Hollywood, stories of his boorish behavior can no longer be routinely erased. Then again, he’d make a helluva politician. The tabloid press got a nice Christmas present late last year when Arnold Schwarzenegger tore through a day of publicity work in London, promoting his latest film, The 6th Day, which had just opened there. In less than 24 hours, the star was said to have attempted to, as high school boys used to say, cop a little feel from three different female talk-show hosts.

The level of consternation expressed by those who received this hands-on treatment from the hulking, Austrian-born international superstar ranged from none whatsoever (Denise Van Outen of The Big Breakfast invites her guests to lie on a bed with her and, hence, probably has a rather elastic definition of what constitutes inappropriate behavior) to irked (on tape, Celebrity interviewer Melanie Sykes looks a little thrown off after Arnold gives her a very definite squeeze on the rib cage, directly under her right breast) to, finally, righteously indignant.

Anna Richardson of Big Screen claims that after the cameras stopped rolling for her interview segment, Schwarzenegger, apparently attempting to ascertain whether Richardson’s breasts were real, tweaked her nipple and then laughed at her objections. “I left the room quite shaken,” she says. “What was more upsetting was that his people rushed to protect him and scapegoated me, and not one person came to apologize afterward.” No apologies, indeed: A subsequent statement from Schwarzenegger attorney Martin Singer characterized Richardson as someone trying to get her “15 minutes of fame”?

LETS GO TO THE VIDEO TAPE

Our friend Scott Pelligino says there is video of Arnold in action. He writes

I’ve been making a play to RU-486 Arnold’s campaign by attempting to force the release of British TV footage of Schwarzenegger groping women. Rush & Molloy are going to break (or re-break in some cases) this stuff in tomorrow’s New York Daily News. At my prompting, the Daily News and their lawyers have been trying to acquire said footage for the past week. Other stories have mentioned some of these items, but no one’s been able to bag the footage thus far.

Hopefully tomorrow’s piece will be just the expectorant needed. I’ve just brought CBS and others onto the case as well. If the footage remains unearthed for the next week, it could still eventually fuel a reverse-recall or messy resignation in the near future.”

SCANDAL IN ISRAEL

The Israeli government is planning to bulldoze the Rachel Corrie Peace Center named after the American activist who was killed by an Israeli tank. Mike Alewitz, Artistic Director, Labor Art & Mural Project explains:

The Center was built by an international effort - including participation by students and faculty of Central Connecticut State University. Working together, Israeli and Palestinian volunteers and I painted a mural on the building that expressed our opposition to the occupations of Iraq and Palestine. The City of New Britain, CT, in a special commendation by the Mayor and Common Council, recognized this contribution to peace.

The center now stands surrounded by tanks. I hold President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon directly responsible for any violence directed against the center or its supporters.

“CLOSE TO HOPELESS”

Israel’s situation is captured in stark terms in the current New York Review of Books by Tony Judt. I quoted from his piece yesterday. Here’s another taste:

The situation of Israel is not desperate, but it may be close to hopeless. Suicide bombers will never bring down the Israeli state, and the Palestinians have no other weapons. There are indeed Arab radicals who will not rest until every Jew is pushed into the Mediterranean, but they represent no strategic threat to Israel, and the Israeli military knows it.

What sensible Israelis fear much more than Hamas or the al-Aqsa Brigade is the steady emergence of an Arab majority in “Greater Israel,” and above all the erosion of the political culture and civic morale of their society. As the prominent Labor politician Avraham Burg recently wrote, “After two thousand years of struggle for survival, the reality of Israel is a colonial state, run by a corrupt clique which scorns and mocks law and civic morality.

Unless something changes, Israel in half a decade will be neither Jewish nor democratic.

FCC VICTORY AT RISK

Our friends at Media Reform.net write: “The campaign to block the FCC’s disastrous loosening of media ownership rules has reached a make-or-break moment in Congress. On September 16, we won an historic victory. In response to 3 million Americans like you who contacted the FCC and Congress demanding a rollback, the Senate voted by an overwhelming bipartisan margin — 55 to 40 ? to strike down the entire package of FCC media ownership rule changes through a “resolution of disapproval.”

However, the Speaker of the House — Rep. Dennis Hastert — is rejecting the democratic process. Hastert says he has no plans to allow a vote on the resolution in the House, and House leadership has called it “dead on Your phone call is the only way to force a vote. Visit mediareform.net for more.

YOUR LETTERS

Larry H:

Dear Danny,

Here’s an item from the Verizon news page an index of which comes up automatically for me: “An ABC-Washington Post poll found 69 percent ofAmericans, including 52 percent of Republicans, believe a special counsel should be appointed. A substantial majority, 72 percent, said it’s likely that someone in the White House leaked the classified information, but only 34 percent think it’s likely Bush knew about the leak beforehand.”

How’s that for a dumbass conjunction? Here’s my rewrite of the last 2 clauses: ” . . . 72 percent said it’s likely that someone in the White House leaked the classified information, AND a full 34 percent think it’s likely Bush knew about the leak beforehand!!!!” mean even I don’t think Dubya knew. Who are these 34 percent of the population who do - radicals?

EDWARD SAID

Adam B. McConnel writes from Turkey:

Danny — Thank you for including all of the comments concerning Edward Said over the past few days; it means a lot to me and the many others who were affected by him or his writing. . .

Lee Humphries of Austin, TX comments on a comment by reader Brian Tilly:

First off, many thanks to you for your OUTSTANDING work on the blog. I stumbled upon it within a couple days of the US’s 9/11 tragedy, and have been addicted ever since. I just wanted to direct your attention to an article I just came across right almost immediately after reading your posting for today (10/2/03), which appears to confirm the suspicions mailed in by Brian Tilly:

What if she is in fact not just an “analyst” or even an agent, but a case officer in charge of network(s) of spies. I find it interesting that her husband, an ambassador, might have actually been her cover allowing her to both recruit and access her network(s) in the countries where he was posted.?.Thank you again, and keep up the great work.

I am off into the wild blue yonder. I hope to do some filming for my Iraq media war documentary. (Thanks for those who wrote in with suggestions yesterday.) Keep these words of Samuel Adams (not the beer people) in mind “[I]t does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..” Fire on. Write me at dissector@mediachannel.org