" Media Matters ," week ending May 27, 2005 ... [Media Matters for America]: "Media quickly drops stories critical of Bush administration
Washington Post reporter Terry M. Neal wrote this week:
A certain and clear pattern has emerged when a damaging accusation or claim against the Bush administration or the Republican-led Congress is publicized: Bush supporters laser in on a weakness, fallacy or inaccuracy in the story's sourcing while diverting all attention from the issue at hand to the source or the accuser in the story.
Often this tactic involves efforts to delegitimize the entire news media based on the mistakes or sloppy reporting of a few. We saw this with the discrediting of CBS's story on irregularities in President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service in the 1970s. Although the CBS 'scoop' was based on faked documents, the administration's response and backlash from both conservative and mainstream media essentially relieved Bush of having to deal with the story. In other words, the allegedly 'liberal' media dropped the story like a hot rock.
We saw ex-members of the Bush administration -- former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill, former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John M. Shalikashvili and former director of faith-based charities John J. DiIulio Jr. -- similarly attacked by conservative bloggers and columnists. The mainstream media eventually backed away from coverage of their claims as well.
[...]
For conservatives and liberals alike, attacking the media has become a cottage industry, the very thing that drives both talk radio and blogs. Delegitimizing the media is seen as a legitimate way by some to protect those you support politically from the media's critical eye.
To be clear about something, the Bush administration's attacks on Newsweek don't represent a new phenomenon. The Clinton administration often attacked its accusers and criticized unflattering media reports. The big difference is that the Clinton administration didn't have any such supportive echo chamber of talk radio and blogs that now exist to amplify it.
...
To name only the most obvious example: The same news organizations that pursued the Whitewater "scandal" as though it were Watergate, Teapot Dome, and the Lindbergh Baby all wrapped into one virtually ignored Bush's controversial sale of Harken Energy stock. The basic information about that sale -- that Bush, while serving as a Harken director and member of the company's audit committee, dumped more than 200,000 shares of the company's stock shortly before Harken publicly announced massive losses -- was publicly available long before Bush ran for president. Yet The Washington Post, to name one news outlet, gave the matter a total of 26 words of attention during the 2000 presidential campaign. The July 30, 1999, edition of the Post reported:
Even now, questions linger about a 1990 sale of Harken stock by Bush that was the subject of a probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
That's it. Twenty-six words
Monday, May 30, 2005
Saturday, May 28, 2005
US media censor uranium weapons stories: Google "Depleted Uranium" and "ceramic uranium oxide gas + battlefield"
US media censor uranium weapons stories: Depleted uranium turns to poison gas | By Bob Nichols | Project Censored Award Winner & Online Journal Contributing Writer | May 27, 2005
Dedication to the Iraqi People in 2005: Iraq is uninhabitable. The wars in Central Asia all were nuclear wars fought with radiation-dispersing American weapons.
None of the Bushista NeoCons running this miserable genocide in Central Asia care one whit. In fact, it is what they ordered from the US military's list of services. Mostly, the remaining 300 million "good Americans" do not care, do not know and do not want to know.
Those Iraqis not yet radiologically contaminated must leave Iraq as soon as possible. Before they too get radiation poisoning, their genetic line is kaput, they die and become just so much radioactive sand in the deserts of Iraq.
...
Censorship at Work
...
Google these phrases ... depleted uranium ... ceramic uranium oxide gas + battlefield
Dedication to the Iraqi People in 2005: Iraq is uninhabitable. The wars in Central Asia all were nuclear wars fought with radiation-dispersing American weapons.
None of the Bushista NeoCons running this miserable genocide in Central Asia care one whit. In fact, it is what they ordered from the US military's list of services. Mostly, the remaining 300 million "good Americans" do not care, do not know and do not want to know.
Those Iraqis not yet radiologically contaminated must leave Iraq as soon as possible. Before they too get radiation poisoning, their genetic line is kaput, they die and become just so much radioactive sand in the deserts of Iraq.
...
Censorship at Work
...
Google these phrases ... depleted uranium ... ceramic uranium oxide gas + battlefield
Media keeps Americans in the dark about massive foreign policy failure: 14 percent of soldiers and 28 percent of marines had killed a civilian
Media keeps Americans in the dark about massive foreign policy failure: "By Kristina M. Gronquist | Online Journal Contributing Writer
May 27, 2005—The dismal failure of U.S. mass media to challenge Washington over its early decision and unsubstantiated reasons for going to war, combined with the media's incomplete coverage since the invasion, create a continual challenge for those of us who want to expose the truth about what is really happening. The success of the antiwar movement lies in its ability to disseminate information and provide a clear, truthful message about the need to end this war now.
U.S. media reporting since 9/11 has been, for the most part, excruciatingly shallow and jingoistic. Believing that 50 percent of voters support the current administration, the media feels the need to play to the "winners," the Bush clientele who want only upbeat assessments from Iraq. War news that does surface is sanitized, wrung through official channels, and presented in such a manner as to deceive American viewers into believing everything in Iraq will still be okay.
The basic truth—which is obvious to many but unreported—is that the spiraling violence in Iraq is symptomatic of a country in which there is mass opposition to the occupation and no government recognized as legitimate. Kenneth Katzman, an expert on the Persian Gulf region with the U.S. Congressional Research Service says, "We are approaching a situation that is unstable, of a war of all against all, complete chaos, where the government is ineffective, the security is ineffective, and anybody can be killed at any time by anybody."
...
Few Americans have a true sense of how profoundly botched and bloody things actually are in Iraq. Nor are people cognizant of the level of human suffering that exists in a failed state. As in all situations of war, women and children suffer the most; they face a continual lack of security, electricity, clean water, medicine, and food. The reality that the war has claimed tens of thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq is never mentioned in any mass media news reports, not on CNN, not on the Lehrer News Hour, not even on NPR. Civilian casualties are only reported in conjunction with resistance attacks. According to a study published in the Lancet, the most highly regarded medical journal in the world with stringent peer-review procedures, "at least" 100,000 civilians had died violently, the great majority of them at the hands of coalition troops." The study also described how American military doctors had found that 14 percent of soldiers and 28 percent of marines had killed a civilian: a huge, unreported massacre.
May 27, 2005—The dismal failure of U.S. mass media to challenge Washington over its early decision and unsubstantiated reasons for going to war, combined with the media's incomplete coverage since the invasion, create a continual challenge for those of us who want to expose the truth about what is really happening. The success of the antiwar movement lies in its ability to disseminate information and provide a clear, truthful message about the need to end this war now.
U.S. media reporting since 9/11 has been, for the most part, excruciatingly shallow and jingoistic. Believing that 50 percent of voters support the current administration, the media feels the need to play to the "winners," the Bush clientele who want only upbeat assessments from Iraq. War news that does surface is sanitized, wrung through official channels, and presented in such a manner as to deceive American viewers into believing everything in Iraq will still be okay.
The basic truth—which is obvious to many but unreported—is that the spiraling violence in Iraq is symptomatic of a country in which there is mass opposition to the occupation and no government recognized as legitimate. Kenneth Katzman, an expert on the Persian Gulf region with the U.S. Congressional Research Service says, "We are approaching a situation that is unstable, of a war of all against all, complete chaos, where the government is ineffective, the security is ineffective, and anybody can be killed at any time by anybody."
...
Few Americans have a true sense of how profoundly botched and bloody things actually are in Iraq. Nor are people cognizant of the level of human suffering that exists in a failed state. As in all situations of war, women and children suffer the most; they face a continual lack of security, electricity, clean water, medicine, and food. The reality that the war has claimed tens of thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq is never mentioned in any mass media news reports, not on CNN, not on the Lehrer News Hour, not even on NPR. Civilian casualties are only reported in conjunction with resistance attacks. According to a study published in the Lancet, the most highly regarded medical journal in the world with stringent peer-review procedures, "at least" 100,000 civilians had died violently, the great majority of them at the hands of coalition troops." The study also described how American military doctors had found that 14 percent of soldiers and 28 percent of marines had killed a civilian: a huge, unreported massacre.
Network Viewers Still in the Dark on "Smoking Gun Memo": broadcasters have maintained a near silence
Network Viewers Still in the Dark on "Smoking Gun Memo": "Network Viewers Still in the Dark on 'Smoking Gun Memo' | Print media continue to downplay story | Action Alert (5/20/05)
Following FAIR's call for more mainstream coverage of the 'smoking gun memo'—the secret British document containing new evidence that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify its plan to invade Iraq—a steady trickle of news reports have appeared. But that coverage has been downplayed in general and is still completely absent from the nightly news.
The Los Angeles Times published a page 3 story on the memo on May 12, and the Washington Post ran a page 18 story the following day. More than two weeks after the story broke in the Sunday Times of London (5/1/05), it finally made the front page of a major U.S. newspaper, the Chicago Tribune (5/17/05).
After referring to the memo (5/2/05) in a story on the British electoral campaign, the New York Times failed to report on the document's implications about the Bush administration until today (5/20/05); the one-column story didn't mention the manipulation of intelligence until the eighth paragraph. (Times columnist Paul Krugman also discussed the memo on the paper's opinion page on May 16.)
...
While the memo has begun to get wider coverage in print, broadcasters have maintained a near silence on the issue. The story has turned up in a few short CNN segments (Crossfire, 5/13/05; Live Sunday, 5/15/05; Wolf Blitzer Reports, 5/16/05), but the only mention of the memo FAIR found on the major broadcast networks came on ABC's Sunday morning show This Week (5/15/05), in which host George Stephanopoulos questioned Sen. John McCain about its contents. When McCain declared that he didn't "agree with it" and defended the Bush administration's decision to go to war, Stephanopoulos didn't question him further. A look at the nightly news reveals not a single story aired about the memo and its implications.
When finally questioned by CNN (5/16/05), White House press secretary Scott McClellan claimed he hadn't seen the memo, but that "the reports" about it were "flat-out wrong." British government officials, however, did not dispute the contents of the memo—which can be read in full online at http://downingstreetmemo.com/ —and a former senior American official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" (Knight Ridder, 5/6/05).
The Chicago Tribune (5/17/05) named several factors that had caused a "less than robust discussion" of the British memo: Aside from the White House's denials, and the media's slow reaction, the paper asserted that "the public generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war." Of course, it's hard to judge the public's interest in a story the media have largely shielded them from.
Following FAIR's call for more mainstream coverage of the 'smoking gun memo'—the secret British document containing new evidence that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify its plan to invade Iraq—a steady trickle of news reports have appeared. But that coverage has been downplayed in general and is still completely absent from the nightly news.
The Los Angeles Times published a page 3 story on the memo on May 12, and the Washington Post ran a page 18 story the following day. More than two weeks after the story broke in the Sunday Times of London (5/1/05), it finally made the front page of a major U.S. newspaper, the Chicago Tribune (5/17/05).
After referring to the memo (5/2/05) in a story on the British electoral campaign, the New York Times failed to report on the document's implications about the Bush administration until today (5/20/05); the one-column story didn't mention the manipulation of intelligence until the eighth paragraph. (Times columnist Paul Krugman also discussed the memo on the paper's opinion page on May 16.)
...
While the memo has begun to get wider coverage in print, broadcasters have maintained a near silence on the issue. The story has turned up in a few short CNN segments (Crossfire, 5/13/05; Live Sunday, 5/15/05; Wolf Blitzer Reports, 5/16/05), but the only mention of the memo FAIR found on the major broadcast networks came on ABC's Sunday morning show This Week (5/15/05), in which host George Stephanopoulos questioned Sen. John McCain about its contents. When McCain declared that he didn't "agree with it" and defended the Bush administration's decision to go to war, Stephanopoulos didn't question him further. A look at the nightly news reveals not a single story aired about the memo and its implications.
When finally questioned by CNN (5/16/05), White House press secretary Scott McClellan claimed he hadn't seen the memo, but that "the reports" about it were "flat-out wrong." British government officials, however, did not dispute the contents of the memo—which can be read in full online at http://downingstreetmemo.com/ —and a former senior American official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" (Knight Ridder, 5/6/05).
The Chicago Tribune (5/17/05) named several factors that had caused a "less than robust discussion" of the British memo: Aside from the White House's denials, and the media's slow reaction, the paper asserted that "the public generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war." Of course, it's hard to judge the public's interest in a story the media have largely shielded them from.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Judge: Public Has Right to See Abuse Photos
Judge: Public Has Right to See Abuse Photos: "Judge: Public Has Right to See Abuse Photos | By LARRY NEUMEISTER | The Associated Press | Thursday, May 26, 2005; 7:57 PM
NEW YORK -- A federal judge has told the government it will have to release additional pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, civil rights lawyers said.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein, finding the public has a right to see the pictures, told the government Thursday he will sign an order requiring it to release them to the American Civil Liberties Union, the lawyers said."
NEW YORK -- A federal judge has told the government it will have to release additional pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, civil rights lawyers said.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein, finding the public has a right to see the pictures, told the government Thursday he will sign an order requiring it to release them to the American Civil Liberties Union, the lawyers said."
Demolish the idea of a press independent of political parties by way of discouraging scrutiny of conservative politicians in power
WorkingForChange-Power 101: "E.J. Dionne, Jr. | Washington Post Writers Group | 05.27.05 | Power 101 | Newsweek flap offers lesson in conservative ethics
WASHINGTON -- So now it turns out that the FBI has documents showing that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained about the mistreatment of the Koran and that many said they were severely beaten.
The documents specifically include an allegation from a prisoner that guards had "flushed a Koran in the toilet."
What, then, is one to make about the Bush administration's furious assault against Newsweek magazine for bringing allegations about the abuse of the Koran to popular attention?
Let's be clear: Newsweek originally reported that an internal military investigation had "confirmed" infractions alleged in "internal FBI e-mails," including the Koran incident. The new documents made public Wednesday include only an allegation from a prisoner. And the Pentagon insisted that the same prisoner, reinterviewed on May 14, "did not corroborate" his earlier claim about the Koran in the toilet.
...
But this particular anti-press campaign is not about Journalism 101. It is about Power 101. It is a sophisticated effort to demolish the idea of a press independent of political parties by way of discouraging scrutiny of conservative politicians in power.
WASHINGTON -- So now it turns out that the FBI has documents showing that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained about the mistreatment of the Koran and that many said they were severely beaten.
The documents specifically include an allegation from a prisoner that guards had "flushed a Koran in the toilet."
What, then, is one to make about the Bush administration's furious assault against Newsweek magazine for bringing allegations about the abuse of the Koran to popular attention?
Let's be clear: Newsweek originally reported that an internal military investigation had "confirmed" infractions alleged in "internal FBI e-mails," including the Koran incident. The new documents made public Wednesday include only an allegation from a prisoner. And the Pentagon insisted that the same prisoner, reinterviewed on May 14, "did not corroborate" his earlier claim about the Koran in the toilet.
...
But this particular anti-press campaign is not about Journalism 101. It is about Power 101. It is a sophisticated effort to demolish the idea of a press independent of political parties by way of discouraging scrutiny of conservative politicians in power.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Bush's spokesman: the United States, is in Afghanistan and Iraq by invitation.
Antiwar.com Blog: "Thu May 26, 2005
Thomas rips McClellan
Drudge is running a report about an exchange between the only White House correspondent who matters - Helen Thomas - and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. It goes like this;
Q The other day -- in fact, this week, you said that we, the United States, is in Afghanistan and Iraq by invitation. Would you like to correct that incredible distortion of American history --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, we are -- that's where we currently --
Q -- in view of your credibility is already mired? How can you say that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I think everyone in this room knows that you're taking that comment out of context. There are two democratically-elected governments in Iraq and --
Q Were we invited into Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: There are two democratically-elected governments now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments, and we are there today --
Q You mean if they had asked us out, that we would have left?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, I'm talking about today. We are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments -- Q I'm talking about today, too.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are doing all we can to train and equip their security forces so that they can provide for their own security as they move forward on a free and democratic future. Q Did we invade those countries?
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve. (Emphasis gleefully added by me)
Yes, Steve, go ahead. Please bail me out of this disaster. I shouldn't have to answer unpleasant questions like this.
Anyone who has to resort to using a phrase like 'I think everyone in this room knows' is full of crap. Imagine if the entire press corps weren't a passel of gutless power worshippers -- imagine they all had the sack to tell the Emperor that he was buck naked -- now that would be fun, unless your name is Scott McClellan."
Thomas rips McClellan
Drudge is running a report about an exchange between the only White House correspondent who matters - Helen Thomas - and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. It goes like this;
Q The other day -- in fact, this week, you said that we, the United States, is in Afghanistan and Iraq by invitation. Would you like to correct that incredible distortion of American history --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, we are -- that's where we currently --
Q -- in view of your credibility is already mired? How can you say that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I think everyone in this room knows that you're taking that comment out of context. There are two democratically-elected governments in Iraq and --
Q Were we invited into Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: There are two democratically-elected governments now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments, and we are there today --
Q You mean if they had asked us out, that we would have left?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, I'm talking about today. We are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments -- Q I'm talking about today, too.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are doing all we can to train and equip their security forces so that they can provide for their own security as they move forward on a free and democratic future. Q Did we invade those countries?
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve. (Emphasis gleefully added by me)
Yes, Steve, go ahead. Please bail me out of this disaster. I shouldn't have to answer unpleasant questions like this.
Anyone who has to resort to using a phrase like 'I think everyone in this room knows' is full of crap. Imagine if the entire press corps weren't a passel of gutless power worshippers -- imagine they all had the sack to tell the Emperor that he was buck naked -- now that would be fun, unless your name is Scott McClellan."
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
McClellan Backs Away from Claims that 'Newsweek' Story Cost Afghan Lives
McClellan Backs Away from Claims that 'Newsweek' Story Cost Afghan Lives: "By E&P Staff | Published: May 24, 2005 1:10 PM ET
NEW YORK At a White House press briefing Monday, Press Secretary Scott McClellan, pressed by reporters and with Afghan President Karzai in disagreement, retreated on claims that Newsweek's retracted story on Koran abuse cost lives in Afghanistan.
He also claimed that he had never said it did, even though a check of transcripts disputes that. On May 16, for example, he said, 'people have lost their lives.' On May 17, he said, 'People did lose their lives,' and, 'People lost their lives' due to the Newsweek report."
NEW YORK At a White House press briefing Monday, Press Secretary Scott McClellan, pressed by reporters and with Afghan President Karzai in disagreement, retreated on claims that Newsweek's retracted story on Koran abuse cost lives in Afghanistan.
He also claimed that he had never said it did, even though a check of transcripts disputes that. On May 16, for example, he said, 'people have lost their lives.' On May 17, he said, 'People did lose their lives,' and, 'People lost their lives' due to the Newsweek report."
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
The Tillman Scandal: 'Newsweek' Error Bad, Pentagon Lying OK?
The Tillman Scandal: 'Newsweek' Error Bad, Pentagon Lying OK?: "The Tillman Scandal: 'Newsweek' Error Bad, Pentagon Lying OK? | By Greg Mitchell
(May 24, 2005) -- Where, in the week after the Great Newsweek Error, is the comparable outrage in the press, in the blogosphere, and at the White House over the military's outright lying in the coverup of the death of former NFL star Pat Tillman? Where are the calls for apologies to the public and the firing of those responsible? Who is demanding that the Pentagon's word should never be trusted unless backed up by numerous named and credible sources?
Where is a Scott McClellan lecture on ethics and credibility?
"
(May 24, 2005) -- Where, in the week after the Great Newsweek Error, is the comparable outrage in the press, in the blogosphere, and at the White House over the military's outright lying in the coverup of the death of former NFL star Pat Tillman? Where are the calls for apologies to the public and the firing of those responsible? Who is demanding that the Pentagon's word should never be trusted unless backed up by numerous named and credible sources?
Where is a Scott McClellan lecture on ethics and credibility?
"
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Real Gitmo shame? Report U.S. soldier rapped for Koran abuse at lockup
New York Daily News - World & National Report - Real Gitmo shame? Report U.S. soldier rapped for Koran abuse at lockup: By JAMES GORDON MEEK | DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU | May 20, 2005
WASHINGTON - It wasn't tossed in a toilet, but disrespecting an inmate's Koran got at least one American soldier reprimanded at the Guantanamo prison for terrorists, the Daily News has learned.
...
But two reliable military sources confirmed the previously undisclosed reprimand at the Camp Delta prison - contradicting Bush administration denials of any "credible and specific allegations" about Koran desecration at Gitmo.
"That's true," an ex-Army interrogator at Gitmo said. "I am aware of somebody having their hand slapped."
The source said a soldier on another interrogation team was punished for "trying to be insulting" of a detainee's Koran.
WASHINGTON - It wasn't tossed in a toilet, but disrespecting an inmate's Koran got at least one American soldier reprimanded at the Guantanamo prison for terrorists, the Daily News has learned.
...
But two reliable military sources confirmed the previously undisclosed reprimand at the Camp Delta prison - contradicting Bush administration denials of any "credible and specific allegations" about Koran desecration at Gitmo.
"That's true," an ex-Army interrogator at Gitmo said. "I am aware of somebody having their hand slapped."
The source said a soldier on another interrogation team was punished for "trying to be insulting" of a detainee's Koran.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Stacking the audience: [Bush] "would like to visit with" a young worker who "knows that [Social Security] could run out before they retire,"
How Bush Makes Sure They Agree: "May 20, 2005 | THE NATION | By Warren Vieth, Times Staff Writer
# A memo illustrates the way the White House is selectively casting members of the under-30 set to promote its Social Security plan."
...
"President Bush will be in Rochester, N.Y., for an upcoming event and has called on WIPP for help," said the memo to New York-area members, from one of the group's leaders. "He would like to visit with local workers about their views on Social Security."
The memo went on to solicit several types of people "who he would like to visit with" — including a young worker who "knows that [Social Security] could run out before they retire," a young couple with children who like "the idea of leaving something behind to the family" and a single parent who believes Bush's proposal for individual investment accounts "would provide more retirement options and security" than the current system.
The people solicited appeared to represent various arguments that Bush has been making for why Social Security should be overhauled. The memo requested an immediate response, because "we will need to get names to the White House."
# A memo illustrates the way the White House is selectively casting members of the under-30 set to promote its Social Security plan."
...
"President Bush will be in Rochester, N.Y., for an upcoming event and has called on WIPP for help," said the memo to New York-area members, from one of the group's leaders. "He would like to visit with local workers about their views on Social Security."
The memo went on to solicit several types of people "who he would like to visit with" — including a young worker who "knows that [Social Security] could run out before they retire," a young couple with children who like "the idea of leaving something behind to the family" and a single parent who believes Bush's proposal for individual investment accounts "would provide more retirement options and security" than the current system.
The people solicited appeared to represent various arguments that Bush has been making for why Social Security should be overhauled. The memo requested an immediate response, because "we will need to get names to the White House."
Galloway Senate testimony PDF goes AWOL - Comittee removed testimony from UK MP George Galloway from its website.
Galloway Senate testimony PDF goes AWOL - vnunet.com: "Evidence 'missing' from Committee website | Iain Thomson, vnunet.com 20 May 20
The website for the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs has removed testimony from UK MP George Galloway from its website.
All other witness testimonies for the hearings on the Oil for Food scandal are available on the Committee's website in PDF form. But Galloway's testimony is the only document not on the site.
"I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him," Galloway told the Committee.
"The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns."
Press representatives for the Committee had no comment.
The website for the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs has removed testimony from UK MP George Galloway from its website.
All other witness testimonies for the hearings on the Oil for Food scandal are available on the Committee's website in PDF form. But Galloway's testimony is the only document not on the site.
"I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him," Galloway told the Committee.
"The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns."
Press representatives for the Committee had no comment.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
If we believe that the present war in Iraq is just and necessary, why do we shrink from looking at the damage it wreaks?
village voice > news > Press Clips by Sydney H. Schanberg: "Not a Pretty Picture | by Sydney H. Schanberg | May 17th, 2005 2:22 PM
Looking this war in the face proves difficult when the press itself won't even put in an appearance
If we believe that the present war in Iraq is just and necessary, why do we shrink from looking at the damage it wreaks? Why does the government that ordered the war and hails it as an instrument of good then ask us to respect those who died in the cause by not describing and depicting how they died? And why, in response, have newspapers gone along with Washington and grown timid about showing photos of the killing and maiming? What kind of honor does this bestow on those who are sent to fight in the nation's name?
The Iraq war inspires these questions.
An Iraqi comforts a wounded fellow civilian who was shot in the arm and chest by U.S. troops after not heeding warning shots.
photo: David Leeson/The Dallas Morning News
The government has blocked the press from soldiers' funerals at Arlington National Cemetery. The government has prevented the press from taking pictures of the caskets that arrive day after day at the Dover Air Force Base military mortuary in Delaware, the world's largest funeral home. And the government, by inferring that citizens who question its justifications for this war are disloyal Americans, has intimidated a compliant press from making full use of pictures of the dead and wounded. Also worth noting: President Bush's latest rationale for the war is that he is trying to "spread democracy" through the world. He says these new democracies must have a "free press." Yet he says all this while continuing to restrict and limit the American press. There's a huge disconnect here.
Looking this war in the face proves difficult when the press itself won't even put in an appearance
If we believe that the present war in Iraq is just and necessary, why do we shrink from looking at the damage it wreaks? Why does the government that ordered the war and hails it as an instrument of good then ask us to respect those who died in the cause by not describing and depicting how they died? And why, in response, have newspapers gone along with Washington and grown timid about showing photos of the killing and maiming? What kind of honor does this bestow on those who are sent to fight in the nation's name?
The Iraq war inspires these questions.
An Iraqi comforts a wounded fellow civilian who was shot in the arm and chest by U.S. troops after not heeding warning shots.
photo: David Leeson/The Dallas Morning News
The government has blocked the press from soldiers' funerals at Arlington National Cemetery. The government has prevented the press from taking pictures of the caskets that arrive day after day at the Dover Air Force Base military mortuary in Delaware, the world's largest funeral home. And the government, by inferring that citizens who question its justifications for this war are disloyal Americans, has intimidated a compliant press from making full use of pictures of the dead and wounded. Also worth noting: President Bush's latest rationale for the war is that he is trying to "spread democracy" through the world. He says these new democracies must have a "free press." Yet he says all this while continuing to restrict and limit the American press. There's a huge disconnect here.
Pilger: The Propaganda War on Democracy
(DV) Pilger: The Propaganda War on Democracy: "by John Pilger | www.dissidentvoice.org | May 17, 2005 | First Published in The New Statesman
In 1987, the Australian sociologist Alex Carey, a second Orwell in his prophesies, wrote "Managing Public Opinion: the corporate offensive." He described how in the United States "great progress [had been] made towards the ideal of a propaganda-managed democracy," whose principal aim was to identify a rapacious business state "with every cherished human value." The power and meaning of true democracy, of the franchise itself, would be "transferred" to the propaganda of advertising, public relations and corporate-run news. This "model of ideological control", he predicted, would be adopted by other countries, such as Britain.
In 1987, the Australian sociologist Alex Carey, a second Orwell in his prophesies, wrote "Managing Public Opinion: the corporate offensive." He described how in the United States "great progress [had been] made towards the ideal of a propaganda-managed democracy," whose principal aim was to identify a rapacious business state "with every cherished human value." The power and meaning of true democracy, of the franchise itself, would be "transferred" to the propaganda of advertising, public relations and corporate-run news. This "model of ideological control", he predicted, would be adopted by other countries, such as Britain.
Monday, May 16, 2005
22% support censorship; 43% of the public says the press has too much freedom, while only 3% of journalists agree
New Survey Finds Huge Gap Between Press and Public on Many Issues: "By Joe Strupp | Published: May 15, 2005 9:30 PM ET
NEW YORK A survey to be released Monday reveals a wide gap on many media issues between a group of journalists and the general public. In one finding, 43% of the public says the press has too much freedom, while only 3% of journalists agree. And just 14% of the public can name 'freedom of the press' as a guarantee in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the major poll conducted by the University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy.
Six in ten among the public feel the media show bias in reporting the news, and 22% say the government should be allowed to censor the press. More than 7 in 10 journalists believe the media does a good or excellent job on accuracy -- but only 4 in 10 among the public feel that way. And a solid 53% of the public thinks stories with unnamed sources should not be published at all. "
NEW YORK A survey to be released Monday reveals a wide gap on many media issues between a group of journalists and the general public. In one finding, 43% of the public says the press has too much freedom, while only 3% of journalists agree. And just 14% of the public can name 'freedom of the press' as a guarantee in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the major poll conducted by the University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy.
Six in ten among the public feel the media show bias in reporting the news, and 22% say the government should be allowed to censor the press. More than 7 in 10 journalists believe the media does a good or excellent job on accuracy -- but only 4 in 10 among the public feel that way. And a solid 53% of the public thinks stories with unnamed sources should not be published at all. "
Sunday, May 15, 2005
36 percent said that coverage of major stories is accurate ... down from 55 percent in previous polls
Outside view: Media misses the news - Independent Media TV: "May 13, 2005 | By: Greg Guma
A few months ago, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey of public attitudes about U.S. news coverage, asking people whether the media "usually get the facts straight." In past polls, 55 percent have said the media usually gets it right, an outcome considered shockingly low at the time.
This time, 36 percent said that coverage of major stories is accurate. And this isn't an isolated finding. Explaining the survey, Pew Research Center President Andrew Kohut added that various questions show "fewer people believing what they read, what they hear and what they see in the news media."
You can't blame them. The disconnect between "official" news and reality on the ground continues to grow. It doesn't help that the government openly pays journalists to plant stories and spin policy.
...
But the problem goes even deeper. Sometimes the mainstream media simply ignore the news. Case in point: a British newspaper recently revealed clear evidence that U.S. intelligence was shaped to support the drive for war in Iraq. The evidence includes various documents, including the minutes of a July 23, 2002 meeting in the office of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, during which British support for the war was considered a given. "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the minutes state.
...
Another recent example of how the media carries water for the administration and its friends comes from The New York Times, which recently was drawn into some historical revision work. According to a May 7 article in the newspaper, Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga wants an apology from Russia for the Soviet Union's decision in 1939 to join German forces in occupying Poland.
Vike-Freiberga's statement followed a letter sent by President George W. Bush to the presidents of several Baltic nations on the eve his trip to Moscow to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany's World War II defeat. In the letter, Bush called the end of the war the beginning of the unlawful Soviet annexation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Vike-Freiberga, a close U.S. ally, also told the Times about a "Soviet occupation" of the three Baltic nations. In 1940, however, after the German invasion of Poland, the three Baltic countries initially invited in Soviet troops for protection.
Soviet troops also never joined forces with Germany in attacking Poland. Rather, a week after Germany invaded, they moved into eastern regions of the country, taking back territory Poland had previously annexed from Soviet Ukraine.
Bush's letter provoked an angry response from Russia, which in turn prompted the Latvian president's retort. The Times printed the U.S.-Latvian version of history as if it was fact.
With coverage like this, it's no wonder people think the media often don't get it right. News consumers may be misinformed due to all the spin and omissions, but fortunately most aren't as gullible as the administration and its water-bearers in the national media corps think.
A few months ago, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey of public attitudes about U.S. news coverage, asking people whether the media "usually get the facts straight." In past polls, 55 percent have said the media usually gets it right, an outcome considered shockingly low at the time.
This time, 36 percent said that coverage of major stories is accurate. And this isn't an isolated finding. Explaining the survey, Pew Research Center President Andrew Kohut added that various questions show "fewer people believing what they read, what they hear and what they see in the news media."
You can't blame them. The disconnect between "official" news and reality on the ground continues to grow. It doesn't help that the government openly pays journalists to plant stories and spin policy.
...
But the problem goes even deeper. Sometimes the mainstream media simply ignore the news. Case in point: a British newspaper recently revealed clear evidence that U.S. intelligence was shaped to support the drive for war in Iraq. The evidence includes various documents, including the minutes of a July 23, 2002 meeting in the office of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, during which British support for the war was considered a given. "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the minutes state.
...
Another recent example of how the media carries water for the administration and its friends comes from The New York Times, which recently was drawn into some historical revision work. According to a May 7 article in the newspaper, Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga wants an apology from Russia for the Soviet Union's decision in 1939 to join German forces in occupying Poland.
Vike-Freiberga's statement followed a letter sent by President George W. Bush to the presidents of several Baltic nations on the eve his trip to Moscow to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany's World War II defeat. In the letter, Bush called the end of the war the beginning of the unlawful Soviet annexation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Vike-Freiberga, a close U.S. ally, also told the Times about a "Soviet occupation" of the three Baltic nations. In 1940, however, after the German invasion of Poland, the three Baltic countries initially invited in Soviet troops for protection.
Soviet troops also never joined forces with Germany in attacking Poland. Rather, a week after Germany invaded, they moved into eastern regions of the country, taking back territory Poland had previously annexed from Soviet Ukraine.
Bush's letter provoked an angry response from Russia, which in turn prompted the Latvian president's retort. The Times printed the U.S.-Latvian version of history as if it was fact.
With coverage like this, it's no wonder people think the media often don't get it right. News consumers may be misinformed due to all the spin and omissions, but fortunately most aren't as gullible as the administration and its water-bearers in the national media corps think.
The Power of Nightmares: In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.
The Power of Nightmares: "The Power of Nightmares - Part I | Baby It’s Cold Outside”
In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.
The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.
This is a must watch documentary - Broadcast BBC 2 10/20/04 - Written and Produced by Adam Curtis"
Part 1
Part II
In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.
The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.
This is a must watch documentary - Broadcast BBC 2 10/20/04 - Written and Produced by Adam Curtis"
Part 1
Part II
Friday, May 13, 2005
Googling for Fun: The results present a sorry picture of timid or outright biased media in the U.S.
Dave Lindorff: Googling for Fun: "May 13, 2005 | What Google Knows But the NYT Doesn't | By DAVE LINDORFF
Just for fun, try googling some of the most important stories of the day. The results present a sorry picture of timid or outright biased media in the U.S.
On May 12, I googled "MI6 and memo" and found loads of articles about the memo that had surfaced two weeks earlier (reported on in Counterpunch by Ray McGovern on May 5) proving that President Bush & Co. had planned to invade Iraq back in July 2002 and to "fix" the "intelligence and facts" to fit the policy. My search revealed articles all over the British press, the Sydney Morning Herald had it in Australia-even China Daily, the heavily censored party organ of the Chinese Communist Party, had I! Not the corporate U.S. media, though, where this explosive story was hard to find. ...
...
... Googling "John Conyers and Iraq" shows that even the dramatic news that Rep. John Conyers and 87 other House members have written a letter to the White House demanding answers from Bush about the British memo have failed to make it into the mainstream American media. ...
...
I also googled "real wages fall" and found a number of foreign articles, including a big one in the British Financial Times, detailing how U.S. wages in constant dollars have fallen by about 1 percent in 2005, and that since the fourth quarter of 2004, have fallen at the fastest rate in 15 years. Those statistics come from the US. Labor Department, but they've nonetheless gone largely unreported in the mainstream media here ...
Just for fun, try googling some of the most important stories of the day. The results present a sorry picture of timid or outright biased media in the U.S.
On May 12, I googled "MI6 and memo" and found loads of articles about the memo that had surfaced two weeks earlier (reported on in Counterpunch by Ray McGovern on May 5) proving that President Bush & Co. had planned to invade Iraq back in July 2002 and to "fix" the "intelligence and facts" to fit the policy. My search revealed articles all over the British press, the Sydney Morning Herald had it in Australia-even China Daily, the heavily censored party organ of the Chinese Communist Party, had I! Not the corporate U.S. media, though, where this explosive story was hard to find. ...
...
... Googling "John Conyers and Iraq" shows that even the dramatic news that Rep. John Conyers and 87 other House members have written a letter to the White House demanding answers from Bush about the British memo have failed to make it into the mainstream American media. ...
...
I also googled "real wages fall" and found a number of foreign articles, including a big one in the British Financial Times, detailing how U.S. wages in constant dollars have fallen by about 1 percent in 2005, and that since the fourth quarter of 2004, have fallen at the fastest rate in 15 years. Those statistics come from the US. Labor Department, but they've nonetheless gone largely unreported in the mainstream media here ...
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Agriculture Dept. paid journalist for favorable stories
Agriculture Dept. paid journalist for favorable stories - Yahoo! News: By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY Wed May 11, 6:28 AM ET
A third federal agency has admitted it paid a journalist to write favorable stories about its work.
Documents released by the Agriculture Department show it paid a freelance writer $9,375 in 2003 to "research and write articles for hunting and fishing magazines describing the benefits of NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) programs."
A third federal agency has admitted it paid a journalist to write favorable stories about its work.
Documents released by the Agriculture Department show it paid a freelance writer $9,375 in 2003 to "research and write articles for hunting and fishing magazines describing the benefits of NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) programs."
Ridge reveals clashes on alerts - he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange
Ridge reveals clashes on alerts - Yahoo! News: "By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY Wed May 11, 6:28 AM ET
The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.
...
... Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "
The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.
...
... Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Republicans Wednesday soundly rejected an effort by Democrats to ban the Department of Education from spending money on 'covert propaganda.'
The Connecticut Post Online - News: "05/05/2005 02:21:50 AM | 'Propaganda' bill nixed in House | PETER URBAN purban@ctpost.com
WASHINGTON — House Republicans Wednesday soundly rejected an effort by Democrats to ban the Department of Education from spending money on 'covert propaganda.'
The House voted 224 to 197 against a measure, championed by Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, and George Miller, D-Calif., aimed at blocking the department from creating sham news stories or hiring columnists to promote policies.
The lawmakers had hoped to attach the ban to legislation on vocational education that was debated Wednesday in the House.
They had previously sponsored a bill seeking a government-wide ban after it was revealed in a series of news reports that the Bush administration had used taxpayer dollars to finance covert propaganda campaigns."
WASHINGTON — House Republicans Wednesday soundly rejected an effort by Democrats to ban the Department of Education from spending money on 'covert propaganda.'
The House voted 224 to 197 against a measure, championed by Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, and George Miller, D-Calif., aimed at blocking the department from creating sham news stories or hiring columnists to promote policies.
The lawmakers had hoped to attach the ban to legislation on vocational education that was debated Wednesday in the House.
They had previously sponsored a bill seeking a government-wide ban after it was revealed in a series of news reports that the Bush administration had used taxpayer dollars to finance covert propaganda campaigns."
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Intelligence Whistleblower Fired After Speaking At Event: at least 24 NSA employees who are also in the same access denial status
Intelligence Whistleblower Fired After Speaking At Event: "May 4, 2005 | BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT |
News from Project On Government Oversight:
After speaking on Capitol Hill at an event for national security whistleblowers last week, Intelligence Analyst Russ Tice has been notified by the National Security Agency (NSA) that his security clearance is permanently being taken away and that he will be fired as of May 16, 2005. Tice is a member of the newly formed National Security Whistleblowers Coalition being led by Sibel Edmonds (see http://www.justacitizen.com for more about the Coalition)."
In the past two years, Tice has endured unusually abusive retaliation from his agency. In April, after being put on administrative leave for 14 months, Tice was assigned to unload furniture from trucks at a warehouse, an obvious attempt to force him to resign. That assignment led to a back injury. Tice has since been on administrative leave. Tice also did a tour of eight months duty in the motor pool, where he was assigned to maintain agency vehicles (for example, filling them with gas, checking fluids, vacuuming and cleaning) and to chauffeur NSA officials, along with five other employees who were also being punished.
Tice's treatment led the Pentagon Inspector General's Civil Reprisal Investigations unit to take up an investigation into his case. Depending on the result, the Inspector General can recommend to Secretary Rumsfeld that Tice's security clearance and position be reinstated.
...
Tice has identified at least 24 NSA employees who are also in the same access denial status, many of them for false or unsubstantiated charges. In August 2004, Tice sent a letter to Congress saying that others in the intelligence community were similarly being punished with security clearance revocations: "After talking to others that have suffered a similar fate, I believe that such cases are pervasive. I have encouraged others to contact their congressional representatives and file a complaint with the DOD IG [Department of Defense Inspector General], but fear keeps them from doing so."
Tice's story was first reported by investigative reporter Bill Gertz at the Washington Times (see http://www.washtimes.com/national/2004... and http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/2005...).
News from Project On Government Oversight:
After speaking on Capitol Hill at an event for national security whistleblowers last week, Intelligence Analyst Russ Tice has been notified by the National Security Agency (NSA) that his security clearance is permanently being taken away and that he will be fired as of May 16, 2005. Tice is a member of the newly formed National Security Whistleblowers Coalition being led by Sibel Edmonds (see http://www.justacitizen.com for more about the Coalition)."
In the past two years, Tice has endured unusually abusive retaliation from his agency. In April, after being put on administrative leave for 14 months, Tice was assigned to unload furniture from trucks at a warehouse, an obvious attempt to force him to resign. That assignment led to a back injury. Tice has since been on administrative leave. Tice also did a tour of eight months duty in the motor pool, where he was assigned to maintain agency vehicles (for example, filling them with gas, checking fluids, vacuuming and cleaning) and to chauffeur NSA officials, along with five other employees who were also being punished.
Tice's treatment led the Pentagon Inspector General's Civil Reprisal Investigations unit to take up an investigation into his case. Depending on the result, the Inspector General can recommend to Secretary Rumsfeld that Tice's security clearance and position be reinstated.
...
Tice has identified at least 24 NSA employees who are also in the same access denial status, many of them for false or unsubstantiated charges. In August 2004, Tice sent a letter to Congress saying that others in the intelligence community were similarly being punished with security clearance revocations: "After talking to others that have suffered a similar fate, I believe that such cases are pervasive. I have encouraged others to contact their congressional representatives and file a complaint with the DOD IG [Department of Defense Inspector General], but fear keeps them from doing so."
Tice's story was first reported by investigative reporter Bill Gertz at the Washington Times (see http://www.washtimes.com/national/2004... and http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/2005...).
Two of the major nuclear weapons manufacturers owned two of the major networks: Only 3 out of 400 interviews were anti-war!
The Seattle Times: Opinion: Why media ownership matters: "Why media ownership matters | Sunday, April 3, 2005 | Sunday, April 3, 2005 | By Amy Goodman and David Goodman | Special to The Times
George Bush must have been delighted to learn from a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll that 56 percent of Americans still think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the start of the war, while six in 10 said they believe Iraq provided direct support to the al-Qaida terrorist network — notions that have long since been thoroughly debunked by everyone from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee to both of Bush's handpicked weapons inspectors, Charles Duelfer and David Kay.
Americans believe these lies not because they are stupid, but because they are good media consumers. Our media have become an echo chamber for those in power. Rather than challenge the fraudulent claims of the Bush administration, we've had a media acting as a conveyor belt for the government's lies.
...
At the time of the first Persian Gulf War, CBS was owned by Westinghouse and NBC by General Electric. Two of the major nuclear weapons manufacturers owned two of the major networks. Westinghouse and GE made most of the parts for many of the weapons in the Persian Gulf War. It was no surprise, then, that much of the coverage on those networks looked like a military hardware show.
We see reporters in the cockpits of war planes, interviewing pilots about how it feels to be at the controls. We almost never see journalists at the target end, asking people huddled in their homes what it feels like not to know what the next moment will bring.
...
The media organizations in charge of vetting our images of war have become fewer and bigger — and the news more uniform and gung ho. Six huge corporations now control the major U.S. media: Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (FOX, HarperCollins, New York Post, Weekly Standard, TV Guide, DirecTV and 35 TV stations), General Electric (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Telemundo, Bravo, Universal Pictures and 28 TV stations), Time Warner (AOL, CNN, Warner Bros., Time and its 130-plus magazines), Disney (ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN, 10 TV and 72 radio stations), Viacom (CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures, Simon & Schuster and 183 U.S. radio stations), and Bertelsmann (Random House and its more than 120 imprints worldwide, and Gruner Jahr and its more than 110 magazines in 10 countries).
...
The lack of diversity in ownership helps explain the lack of diversity in the news. When George W. Bush first came to power, the media watchers Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) looked at who appeared on the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC. Ninety-two percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male, and where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.
In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, there was even less diversity of opinion on the airwaves. During the critical two weeks before and after Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations where he made his case for war, FAIR found that just three out of 393 sources — fewer than 1 percent — were affiliated with anti-war activism.
Three out of almost 400 interviews. And that was on the "respectable" evening news shows of CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS.
...
George Bush must have been delighted to learn from a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll that 56 percent of Americans still think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the start of the war, while six in 10 said they believe Iraq provided direct support to the al-Qaida terrorist network — notions that have long since been thoroughly debunked by everyone from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee to both of Bush's handpicked weapons inspectors, Charles Duelfer and David Kay.
Americans believe these lies not because they are stupid, but because they are good media consumers. Our media have become an echo chamber for those in power. Rather than challenge the fraudulent claims of the Bush administration, we've had a media acting as a conveyor belt for the government's lies.
...
At the time of the first Persian Gulf War, CBS was owned by Westinghouse and NBC by General Electric. Two of the major nuclear weapons manufacturers owned two of the major networks. Westinghouse and GE made most of the parts for many of the weapons in the Persian Gulf War. It was no surprise, then, that much of the coverage on those networks looked like a military hardware show.
We see reporters in the cockpits of war planes, interviewing pilots about how it feels to be at the controls. We almost never see journalists at the target end, asking people huddled in their homes what it feels like not to know what the next moment will bring.
...
The media organizations in charge of vetting our images of war have become fewer and bigger — and the news more uniform and gung ho. Six huge corporations now control the major U.S. media: Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (FOX, HarperCollins, New York Post, Weekly Standard, TV Guide, DirecTV and 35 TV stations), General Electric (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Telemundo, Bravo, Universal Pictures and 28 TV stations), Time Warner (AOL, CNN, Warner Bros., Time and its 130-plus magazines), Disney (ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN, 10 TV and 72 radio stations), Viacom (CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures, Simon & Schuster and 183 U.S. radio stations), and Bertelsmann (Random House and its more than 120 imprints worldwide, and Gruner Jahr and its more than 110 magazines in 10 countries).
...
The lack of diversity in ownership helps explain the lack of diversity in the news. When George W. Bush first came to power, the media watchers Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) looked at who appeared on the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC. Ninety-two percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male, and where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.
In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, there was even less diversity of opinion on the airwaves. During the critical two weeks before and after Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations where he made his case for war, FAIR found that just three out of 393 sources — fewer than 1 percent — were affiliated with anti-war activism.
Three out of almost 400 interviews. And that was on the "respectable" evening news shows of CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS.
...
Army Withheld Details About Tillman's Death
Army Withheld Details About Tillman's Death: "Investigator Quickly Learned 'Friendly Fire' Killed Athlete | By Josh White | Washington Post Staff Writer | Wednesday, May 4, 2005; Page A03
The first Army investigator who looked into the death of former NFL player Pat Tillman in Afghanistan last year found within days that he was killed by his fellow Rangers in an act of 'gross negligence,' but Army officials decided not to inform Tillman's family or the public until weeks after a nationally televised memorial service."
A new Army report on the death shows that top Army officials, including the theater commander, Gen. John P. Abizaid, were told that Tillman's death was fratricide days before the service.
...
The documents also show that officers made erroneous initial reports that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, destroyed critical evidence and initially concealed the truth from Tillman's brother, also an Army Ranger, who was near the attack on April 22, 2004, but did not witness it.
The first Army investigator who looked into the death of former NFL player Pat Tillman in Afghanistan last year found within days that he was killed by his fellow Rangers in an act of 'gross negligence,' but Army officials decided not to inform Tillman's family or the public until weeks after a nationally televised memorial service."
A new Army report on the death shows that top Army officials, including the theater commander, Gen. John P. Abizaid, were told that Tillman's death was fratricide days before the service.
...
The documents also show that officers made erroneous initial reports that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, destroyed critical evidence and initially concealed the truth from Tillman's brother, also an Army Ranger, who was near the attack on April 22, 2004, but did not witness it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)