IRAQ WAR NOW HAS A TV SERIES OF ITS OWN

If you didn’t like the coverage of the Iraq war as sanitized reality TV, you can experience it again as TV fiction. Tonight Murdoch’s F/X Channel launches “Over there,” a new TV series about the war in Iraq. (Check Local Listings.) The Houston Chronicle critic comments:

“When he’s at the top of his game, Steven Bochco dazzles us with fiction dripping with realism.

“Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue are iconic television dramas because he populated them with full-flesh characters, flawed but full of heart, and placed them in harrowing situations, often with ear-burning things to say.

“Over There is Bochco at the top of his game.

“But whether viewers will be able to stomach watching a fictional drama about the ongoing Iraq war — complete with its visceral images of men dying, sometimes in extreme fashion; its use of salty dialogue; its missteps in authentic detail — is a question with no easy answers.

Journalism’s biggest failure may become TV’s biggest success. America may not win this war but F/X may win the ratings race: Says the Seattle Times:

“The pilot is the weakest of the first three episodes; the third is the strongest. If “Over There” continues along this positive trajectory through its 13 episodes, it may end its season being FX’s most gripping and fantastic series yet.”

VLOG ON

From the site http://www.unmediated.org/

Re A Guide to Blog Power - Forbes.com

“In reviewing the entries for this guide, I was especially struck by the growing movement of video bloggers, or “vloggers”, online. More and more people with digital video cameras are easily creating mini-documentaries, newscasts, parodies and “television-like” reality series on their own. One New York City vlog, Rocketboom, reports the “news” every morning at 9 a.m. for three minutes in an irreverent, but endearing style. It has formed alliances with other vloggers so that it effectively has correspondents in Minneapolis, Boston, LA and Switzerland.”

“Elsewhere online, there are video directories forming so that one day soon you will be able to click onto a “guide” and watch whatever you want, whenever you want. Sound like Tivo? So just as 500-channel cable television disrupted the big powerful networks, thousands of vlogs could one day challenge now-thriving cable channels like MTV or CNBC.”

FCC ALERT: amBUSHing THE FCC

Reuters reports:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House aide Michael Meece has emerged as a top contender for one of two Republican seats on the Federal Communications Commission, sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.

Meece is the deputy director of the White House public liaison office and previously worked as deputy chief of staff to Don Evans when he was U.S. Commerce Secretary during President Bush’s first term.

Among other names circulating as potential occupants of the other seat are Deborah Tate, a director on the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, and Suzanne Terrell, who unsuccessfully tried to unseat Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu in 2002, the sources said.

GLOVER BACKS TELESUR

Actor Danny Glover is supporting Venezuela’s new TV station Telesur. He told CNN:

“Certainly the television station itself is not a tool that would be used to demonize the north,” said Glover, a member of the station’s advisory board. “It is a tool to be used to celebrate the extraordinary diversity of this hemisphere.”

CHINA JOURNALIST BUSTED

“The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns the imprisonment of Internet journalist Li Jianping on suspicion of defamation. Authorities detained Li on 27 May in Zibo, a city in northeastern China’s Shandong Province, and formally arrested him for defamation on 30 June, according to ChinaEForum, a U.S.-based dissident news forum. Charges have not yet been filed. Local police had summoned the journalist to the police station days before detaining him, Li’s wife told the editors of ChinaEForum. She also said that government-employed Internet-control personnel had searched his computer.”

http://www.cpj.org/news/2005

A 911 DISCOURSE

Letters Re my column on 911:

I have had a ton of them in response to my piece on Conspiracy Theories and the Search for Truth posted on Mediachannel.org. I can only post some of them.

Yesterday I spent an hour on Wisconsin Public Radio discussing the piece and my concern that some folks are not really able to hear what you have to say if you are discussing the topic in a way that unrelated to whether there were controlled demolitions in the World Trade Center of if a plane really hit the Pentagon.

One caller illustrated the very point I was making by jumping on me for dismissing questions being raised about the 911 investigation when in fact I was supporting them.

James Campbell writes;

” Thanks for your article! I don’t know exactly why alternative media such as Democracy Now are ignoring the 9/11 Truth Movement; nor do I know why 9/11 Truth activists are ignoring the war in Iraq. But I do know there is a huge difference between saying that 9/11 was used as a pretext for war and saying that 9/11 was fashioned by agents and officials of our own government in order to justify wars overseas and exploitation at home.

“It is my general impression that people in the 9/11 Truth Movement are by and large convinced that exposing the traumatic hoax perpetrated on Sept. 11th, 2001 is crucial for stopping the “War on Terror” in all its guises. This hope is based on the realization that on 9/11 the forces of global domination made a tremendous mistake by over-reaching and leaving too many clues…”

LETTER FROM DAVID RAY GRIFFIN

One of the letters sent my way came from a writer I admire, David Ray Griffin, the foremost critic of the 911 Commission report and author of The New Pearl Harbor, a very procative and carefully reasoned book about 9ll. I sent him my report. He responded.

This is not a mind or man to tangle with since he writes very analytically and in a measured manner that inspires respect even if you feel he may be overreaching. And yet in the interests of a political discussion of the kind I hoped to have in Washington, I am sure he wouldn’t mind my reprinting his letter and responding.

I have edited it somewhat because he calls attention to one error and some typos that I have fixed and that’s not too interesting. The rest of it is, even though he reprimands me on some points.

He calls my column: “Your Summation.”

“Dear Danny,

“It was nice meeting you in Washington. And I am glad you wrote your summation….

“More generally, whereas I found the first half of your review good and helpful, the 2nd half probably conveys a more negative impression of the National Press Club event than you intended—or at least than is fair.

“That is, the room was packed. Although I did not try to count or even estimate, I would suppose there were at least 150 people there. By far most of them were sane, serious, fact-based people with a very big picture of how 9/11 is interrelated with Iraq, the need for media reform (as dramatized by the mainstream press’s treatment of the Downing Street Memos), and preventive-preemptive war. But by focusing on 3 or 4 problematic people and talking about “self-righteous activists,” a reader might well get the impression that the room was filled with hostile, single-issue, shouting fanatics.

“I was also, frankly, surprised at what seemed to be a criticism of my presentation: “some argue that the 9/11 Commission failed because it did not respond to their criticisms, as if that was its purpose.”

“The Commission’s mandate was, in its own words, to provide the definitive account of “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001″ (xv), indeed, “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11″ (xvi).
“Surely included in such “events” and “facts and circumstances” would be all those that seem to suggest that the official story is false including those that suggest that the Bush administration wanted the attacks to happen, some of which even seem to suggest, in fact, that this administration planned and carried out the attacks. My first book was a summary of such facts and circumstances. I cannot see how you can suggest that the purpose of the commission should not have have included the task of responding to allegations based on such facts and circumstances.

“Of course, you’re right to imply that it was indeed NOT the actual purpose of the Commission to respond to these charges and certainly not to explore the possible truth of the alternative conspiracy theory. But your wording seems to suggest that it SHOULD not have been the Commission’s purpose to do this, i.e., to search for the truth. I’m sure you don’t mean that. But that leaves me puzzled as to the meaning of your statement.

“I was also puzzled by your statement that the press briefing was a case study of “why the 9/11 Truth Movement has to do to better to get its issues before the American people, a public that might agree with them if they were better able to articulate their concerns.” How does that fit with your laudatory statements about the books by Paul Thompson and me and about Nafeez’s presentation? We are generally regarded as among the major voices of “the 9/11 Truth Movement.” But you give the impression that the movement is best represented by the 3 or 4 problematic people in the audience you interacted with.

“As I pointed out, several hundred copies of each of my books were sent to mainstream journalists, but there has yet to be a single review. Do you really think that the problem is that part of the reason I and other intellectual leaders of the movement have thus far not been able to get our issues before more than a miniscule portion of the American people is that we have done such an inadequate job—that the press would carry our stories if we were only “better able to articulate [our] concerns.” You of course know that’s not the problem.

“You also seemed to convey the impression that the people there were not receptive to your presentation. But remember that the organizers of the event invited you, and they had a good idea what slant you would take. And I know from talking to many of them afterwards that your presentation was greatly appreciated, and that they were as upset with the people you got into shouting matches with as you were. I’m afraid that on this and the other points you let your anger at a few people there—some of whom are widely regarded as problematic within the movement itself—color your assessment.

“So, in sum, whereas the first part of your review pointed out that the 9/11 truth movement has provided some excellent presentations, which have been unjustly ignored by mainstream press, the second part of your review conveys the impression that the fact that we have been ignored is largely our own fault.

“In any case, it was good finally to meet you and I greatly appreciate your willingness to deal publicly with these issue. I will look forward to reading your books.

“Cordially, David”

You see what I mean? The writing is impeccable and his frustration with my comments is tempered and quite gracious. I appreciate his taking the time to write and write the way he did.

At the same time, there are two points on which I would respectfully disagree.

First, the Commission in my opinion was not set up to–and did not-function independently or with an eye at looking at all points of view Griffins book, The 911 Commmision Report: Omissions and Distortions” makes that clear. It was stagemanaged by the Administration and even when it was critical here and there of intelligence failures those criticisms did not go very deep nor were the findings very comprehensive. No one was held a accountable and the intelligence “reforms” were opposed by most people in the intelligence world and of questionable value.

If that’s true, then an indictment of the Commission on what it should have done or could have done is really besides the point. And to suggest that the Commission blew it because it avoid the questions raised by Mr. Griffith comes off as bit of hubris. The 911 widows who fought for the investigation had a right to be enraged when their their concerns were bypassed. They were after all promised that their questions would be answered–not muzzled.
But no such promise was given to Mr.Griffen or any of the critics. The Commmision was an exercise in restoring the government’s credibility and keeping real questions from being considered. It had all the marks of a cover-up. I think it is a mistake to imply that its PR had anything to do with its real mission.

That’s what I was referring to. I didn’t single Mr. Griffin out in my article by name because others are guilty of that same conceit.

And I may be guilty of overreacting to the overreactions of a few of the questioners. I have since had some very supportive letters from people who were there and I know are very sincere and committed.

That said, I still feel that this Movement is inchoate in its overall approach. The messages are many and all over the place. It doesn’t seem to have a strategy for getting into the media and is often self-marginalizing. The fact as there was very little press at the National Press Club event.

And the attitude of SOME of the activists can and does drive media people away. I was told by someone who knows them that some of the 911 widows who testified earlier didn’t come because they don’t want to be associated with conspiracy theorists. I am not surprised.

Some of these activists are arrogant to a fault. And others in the movement need to challenge them and not allow them to dominate their meetings. These are issues that one needs time and patience in explaining. Reducing them to slogans often does them a disservice. (Although not always. My favorite headline in the post 911 period was in the Administration loving NY Post. It outraged the White House. Do you remember its simplicity: “BUSH KNEW.”)

Professor Griffin says many of the activists care about the Iraq War and the Downing St Memo but you couldn’t tell if you checked out the literature tables I saw. Those concerns weren’t very conspicuous. If they had been, maybe more folks in those movements would also take part in the call for 911 Truth.

We all need to a better job of understanding media and communicating to it and through it. That’s why I am doing what I am doing–and not always successfully. The fight for media reform is a fight for truth on all levels and I welcome the 911 activists to join this fight too.

THIS JUST IN:

C-SPAN’s BookTV will broadcast the Beyond Downing Street Town Hall meeting featuring Nafeez M. Ahmed, author of The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism, on Saturday, July 30 at 8PM EST, Sunday, July 31 at 1PM EST and 1:15AM Monday, August 1st (late Sunday night).

This presentation by eminent researcher Ahmed was recorded at the America University during the Washington, D.C. Emergency Truth Convergence [www.truthemergency.us] last Saturday, July 23 from 4-5:30

Your comments on this issue and others are welcome. The Mediachannel.org has adopted new software to permit more interactivity. See the comments on my article and add your own.

And of course, write to me at dissector@mediachannel.org