The 'Free' Press

What do you think of this?

The US “Free” Press And The Pentagon War Machine

In the rash of articles that spread across the front pages of virtually every major newspaper earlier this week detailing US plans for the invasion of Iraq, information was attributed to unnamed “military sources,” “senior administration officials” or “Pentagon analysts.”

An article appearing in the November 10 Washington Post, however, went further, providing its readers with a fleeting insight into the real relations that exist between the supposedly independent media and Washington’s war machine.

“This article was discussed extensively in recent days with several senior civilian and military Defense Department officials,” the Post reported. “At their request, several aspects of the plan are being withheld from publication. Those aspects include the timing of certain military actions, the trigger points for other moves, some of the tactics being contemplated and the units that would execute some of the tactics.”

The article went on to reveal that the officials saw a “strategic benefit” to the publication of the information contained in the article. It was meant to suggest to world opinion that the Pentagon was determined to avoid large-scale civilian casualties, while it amassed an overwhelming armed force capable of crushing any Iraqi resistance.

In short, military censors vet the article, and the newspaper unabashedly accepts its role as a conduit for war propaganda.

The only thing that set the Washington Post article apart from those appearing in the New York Times, USA Today and other publications was the frank acknowledgment of the Pentagon’s role in crafting the piece. This admission recalled the warning labels affixed to cigarette packages and liquor bottles—**“Caution: the article you are reading contains government disinformation that may be hazardous to the truth.”

The buildup to war in Iraq has once again exposed the media as a propaganda arm of the Bush administration and the Pentagon. The television networks, daily newspapers and other means of mass communication have all obediently lent themselves to what White House aides themselves have described as a campaign to “sell” the war to the American people.**

TV commentators and print journalists alike have, with rare exceptions, fallen into lockstep behind the administration’s campaign of lies. Virtually all of them present Iraq, a war-devastated country unable to feed its own people, as a grave threat to the US and the world. White House allegations that the Arab country is engaged in a massive effort to produce “weapons of mass destruction” are presented as fact, with no attempt to independently verify whether such weapons even exist. US imperialism’s long-standing strategic objective of dominating the oilfields of the Persian Gulf—widely recognized abroad as the driving force for war—is passed over with barely a mention.

Meanwhile, major news corporations manufacture opinion polls to meet government specifications, promoting an image of broad support for war, with the aim of making resistance to the plans of the administration, the Pentagon and the oil monopolies appear futile.

All of this is merely rehearsal for when the slaughter in Iraq begins. There were reports earlier this month that those who will cover the war are being put through a military “boot camp” in preparation for shipping out with US invasion forces. This marks the first time that the military and the media have participated in such a joint program, whose aim is to accustom journalists to military discipline. Those participating will be counted on to abide by the orders of the military censor, while not even hinting to the public that they are suppressing information that casts the US war in an unfavorable light.

The methods perfected in the last Persian Gulf war will no doubt be even more refined this time around. Pentagon authorities will enforce a “pool system” of reporting in which a few journalists out of the thousands present will be selected by military handlers each day and escorted to scenes that are deemed fit for the public. Their coverage will then be “pooled” with their colleagues held in the rear, so that the same controlled story will be reported by every major news outlet.

This system was devised based on lessons the military drew from the Vietnam War, when television coverage of atrocities against civilians and photographs of US soldiers being loaded into body bags contributed to the sharp turn by the American public against the war.

Now, the military can count on the networks’ millionaire anchormen and its well-heeled war correspondents to black out reports on the slaughter of Iraqi civilians, limiting their coverage to handouts from Pentagon press briefings and stories that blame any carnage on the Iraqis themselves. Should independent media sources, such as the Arab network Al Jazeera, fail to observe this self-censorship, their facilities may themselves be targeted with US precision-guided munitions.

You may want to refer to these discussions on the topic:

http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57812

http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56962

http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56812

http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56709

The situation with the media in USA is far worse than it ever was in the Soviet Union under the Communist regime - at least there everyone knew it was state controlled media - here they would like you to believe the media is “free”.

Too much 'Freedom'

Absolutely.

Military planners asked (not ordered) the Press not to publish certain things. “Those aspects include the timing of certain military actions, the trigger points for other moves, some of the tactics being contemplated and the units that would execute some of the tactics.”

Hmmm….. I guess the critics believe that the American press has the right and duty to tell the world when and where the US will attack, the tactics and strategies that will be employed and the troop strength that the defense department will deploy. Have some “journalists” just gone completely insane while I’ve been enjoying my Thanksgiving turkey or is it sufficient to point out that the article cited above came from the WORLD SOCIALIST WEB SITE? Now the Bagdad Morning News or Al Jazeera might feel the need to publish such detailed American military plans, but why in the world would an American journalist feel compelled to do something like that?

Then, from this responsible self-censorship which otherwise would endanger the lives of American servicemen, we get the leap of logic that the American media will “black out reports on the slaughter of Iraqi civilians.” Sounds to me like the WORLD SOCIALIST WEB SITE already has a few stories of the US slaughter of Iraqi civilians in the computer ready for printing upon the first aerial bombardment. When no one else publishes such stories, they’ll just claim the silence is a product of censorship and their lies will, no doubt, find there way into many anti-American postings for years to come.

Pak Tiger: You didn’t say you agreed with the article and just asked for comments. Let me ask, do you personally think that any American journalist should publish the kinds of information apparently voluntarily withheld according to this article? Frankly, I find it hard to believe that any journalist would be provided that detail in the first place and would think that any person working for the Defense Department that leaked it to the press should be prosecuted for treason.

the name of this thread and the assertions made have nothing to do with each other. do you think we should publish attack plans on the newspaper?

have you heard of corporate press releases? would you call the papers that publish these PR releases in the pay of those companies?

this a stretch beyond.

"I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
--Robert McCloskey, State Department spokesman

More on the topic - good to see some US media (NOT mainstream) trying to provoke thinking in the American public (probably too much to ask for in the US regime). If the American people knew what is planned (has been going on) in their name most would probably be protesting loudly with their reps in Washington.

"Published on Friday, December 6, 2002 by FAIR’s Media Beat
Media Spin Can Separate War From Death
by Norman Solomon

It’s not unusual to hear journalists and politicians say that the Gulf War had few casualties. Considering the magnitude of media spin, that myth is hardly surprising. “When the air war began in January 1991,” recalls Patrick J. Sloyan, who covered the Gulf War as a Newsday correspondent, “the media was fed carefully selected footage by (Gen. Norman) Schwarzkopf in Saudi Arabia and (Gen. Colin) Powell in Washington, DC. Most of it was downright misleading.”

“In manipulating the first and often most lasting perception of Desert Storm,” wrote Sloyan, “the Bush administration produced not a single picture or video of anyone being killed. This sanitized, bloodless presentation by military briefers left the world presuming Desert Storm was a war without death.”

And here’s another conclusion from the report that major U.S. news outlets keep ignoring: “In all scenarios, the majority of casualties will be civilians.” "

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1206-01.htm

Remember the GulfWar? On TV everyday.

Bush and Ashcroft put a stop to that... Didn't they?

Guess we have so much freedom now...we can only imagine what happens.

More food for thought - old item but maybe many missed it.

“The spies who came in from the art sale
Some reporters have said what U.S. and Israeli officials don’t want to hear

In an era where CNN CEO Walter Issacson says it would be “perverse” to televise Afghan babies killed by U.S. bombs, it’s not surprising some stories go unnoticed by a press that embraces “patriotism” by ignoring sacred cows.
…”
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-13/fishwrapper.html

First it was Roger Ailes, the chairman of the Fox News Channel, who advised the US President to take the “harshest measures possible” against those who attacked America on 11 September, 2001.

Let us forget, for a moment, that Fox News’s Jerusalem bureau chief is Uri Dan, a friend of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the author of the preface of the new edition of Sharon’s autobiography, which includes a revolting account of the Sabra and Chatila massacre of 1,700 Palestinian civilians and Sharon’s innocence in this slaughter. Then Ted Koppel, one of America’s leading news anchormen, announced that it may be a journalist’s duty not to reveal events until the military want them revealed in a new war against Iraq.

Can we go any further in journalistic cowardice? Oh yes, we can. ABC television announced, a little while ago, that it knew all about the killing of four al-Qa’ida members by an unmanned “Predator” plane in Yemen but delayed broadcasting the news for four days “at the request of the Pentagon.” So now at least we know for whom ABC works.

The Pentagon said that the murdered men – and let’s not lose sight of the “murdered” bit, though that’s not the word ABC used – were between “two to 20” of the top ranks of al-Qa’ida. Really? So were they numbers two, three, four and five in al-Qa’ida? Or numbers 17,18,19 and 20? Who cares? The press are onside. Don’t ask who is resisting forthcoming US censorship of the Iraq war. Ask who is first to climb aboard the bandwagon.

In Canada, the situation is even worse. Canwest, owned by Israel Asper, owns over 130 newspapers in Canada, including 14 city dailies and one of the country’s largest papers, the National Post. His “journalists” have attacked colleagues who have deviated from Mr Asper’s pro-Israel editorials. As Index on Censorship reported, Bill Marsden, an investigative reporter for the Montreal Gazette has been monitoring Canwest’s interference with its own papers. “They do not want any criticism of Israel,” he wrote. “We do not run in our newspaper op-ed pieces that express criticism of Israel and what it is doing in the Middle East…”

But now, “Izzy” Asper has written a gutless and repulsive editorial in the Post in which he attacks his own journalists, falsely accusing reporters of “lazy, sloppy or stupid” journalism and being “biased or anti-Semitic”. These vile slanders are familiar to any reporter trying to do his work on the ground in the Middle East. They are made even more revolting by inaccuracies.

Mr Asper, for example, claims that my colleague Phil Reeves compared the Israeli killings in Jenin earlier this year – which included a goodly few war crimes (the crushing to death of a man in a wheelchair, for example) – to the “killing fields of Pol Pot”. Now Mr Reeves has never mentioned Pol Pot. But Mr Asper wrongly claims that he did.

It gets worse. Mr Asper, whose “lazy, sloppy or stupid” allegations against journalists in reality apply to himself, states – in the address to an Israel Bonds Gala Dinner in Montreal, which formed the basis of his preposterous article – that “in 1917, Britain and the League of Nations declared, with world approval, that a Jewish state would be established in Palestine”. Now hold on a moment. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 did not say that a Jewish state would be established. It said that the British government would “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” The British refused to use the words “Jewish state”.

This may not matter much to lazy writers like Mr Aspen. But when it comes to the League of Nations being involved, we really are into mythology. The League of Nations was created after the First World War – had it existed in 1917, it might have stopped the whole war – and Mr Asper is simply wrong (or, as he might have put it, “lazy, sloppy or stupid”) to suggest it existed in 1917.

At no point, of course, does Mr Asper tell us about Israeli occupation or the building of Jewish settlements, for Jews and Jews only, upon Arab land. He talks about “alleged Palestinian refugees” – about as wrongheaded a remark as you can get – and then claims that the corrupt and foolish Yasser Arafat is “one of the world’s cruel and most vicious terrorists for the past 30 years”. He concluded his speech to Israel’s supporters in Montreal with the dangerous request that “you, the public, must take action against the media wrongdoers”.

Wrongdoers? Is this far from President Bush’s “evildoers”? What in the hell is going on here?

I will tell you. Journalists are being attacked for telling the truth, for trying to tell it how it is. American journalists especially. I urge them to read a remarkable new book published by the New York University Press and edited by John Collins and Ross Glover. It’s called Collateral Language and is, in its own words, intended to expose “the tyranny of political rhetoric”. Its chapter titles – “Anthrax”, “Cowardice”, “Evil”, “Freedom”, Fundamentalism", “Justice”, “Terrorism”, Vital Interests" and – my favourite – “The War on…” (fill in the missing country) tell it all.

Meanwhile, rest assured, the journalists are getting onside, to tell you the story the government wants you to hear.
Source: Journalists are under fire for telling the truth, Robert Fisk
The Independent, 18 December 2002

N.

You can actually even view the cowardice in motion. almost.

Search Google News.

Seems controversial statements and actions lately only end up on News sites that have few subscribers/readers. Or small budget.

and oh yeah... I forgot.. Ashcroft and Bush decided that the war on terror wouldn't have much publication. Warned us earlier...remember? A statement with the essence of.. war might last a long time... could be casualties...and that it wouldn't be televised like the Gulf War..

Anyone remember seeing/hearing something on the order of that?

This article could be included in several different areas of discussion. Since it highlights the pressure on journalists (and politicians) concerning how to write reports, I have posted it here.
Note :
"…
Many people in the US speak about this bizarre relation between the US and Israel privately because of fear of being accused of anti-Semitism, or self-hating Jews.

It is the power of the American Jewish lobby, or to be more precise, the US pro-Israel pressure groups, which certainly includes non-Jews.

Pearlstein, who is currently columnist for the Post on economic affairs, wrote: “American Jews could be counted on to give Israel everything it wanted: Time. Money. Encouragement. Understanding. And most of all, help in gaining the unwavering support of the greatest military and economic power on earth.”

As a former congressional aide in Washington, DC and a television reporter and magazine editor in Boston, Pearlstein understands very well how the system works, and how risky it was to debate the relations with Israel.

He talked at length about the “indisputably heavy-handed quality” of the Israeli lobby activities. “In recent years,” he explained, “its strategy has been not only to answer Israel’s critics but to silence and delegitimise them.”

Please read on: “I have this chilling effect on public debate firsthand. As an aide to a US senator and congressman in Washington a decade ago (1970s), I heard otherwise courageous members of Congress sharply criticise Israel in private conversations, then in public (they) support every major aspect of Israeli policy.”

In deciding whether to speak their mind, both politicians and journalists found that they were asking themselves not only ‘Is it truthful?’ or ‘Is it right?’, but also ‘Is it worth the hassles?’- the letters, the threats, the questioning of motives and integrity," he said.

Of course the situation has got worse since then, particularly in post-September 11 attacks in New York and Washington, DC. Now, journalists and politicians are not only silenced, but in some cases, they have been blacklisted or fired. We all remember how some politicians and diplomats physically thrown out of Fox News studios because they were critical against the war in Iraq.

I know a number of American colleagues operating from London, who are highly intelligent and in full grasp of ME politics and history with personal experience of the region. But sadly their knowledge is rarely reflected in their writing.

Why? An American colleague explained how frustrated they have become since September 11. Their editors interference in the choice of stories or the use of terminologies has reached its peak since the preparation for war in Iraq started.

“We are not only restrictive in our movements,” my colleague said, “but we have been forcibly subjected to two forms of censorship: The built-in self-censorship we have acquired on the job when it comes to Israel, and duty editor’s overall control of the copy.”
…"
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=101416

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *
Remember the GulfWar? On TV everyday.

Bush and Ashcroft put a stop to that... Didn't they?

Guess we have so much freedom now...we can only imagine what happens.
[/QUOTE]

Did they really? They covered the action as long as Bush did not declare victory.

More of the same and to the point:
“Just Shut Up”. As usual a Fisk article with facts and figures. This “don’t say things we don’t like” attitude is nothing new in “democracies”. Of course the “shut up” is very selective as the article points out.

"War Lords to Their Critics: “Just Shut Up”

Just shut up. That’s the new foreign policy line of our masters. When Senator Edward Kennedy dubbed Iraq “George Bush’s Vietnam”, US Secretary of State Colin Powell told him to be “a little more restrained and careful” in his comments. I recall that when the US commenced its bombing of Afghanistan, the White House spokesman claimed that some journalists were “asking questions that the American people wouldn’t want asked”. Back in the early 1980s, when I reported on the Iranian soldiers on a troop train to Tehran who were coughing Saddam’s mustard gas out of their lungs in blood and mucus, a Foreign Office official told my then editor on The Times that my dispatch was “not helpful”. In other words, stop criticising our ally, Saddam.

A whole team of “Coalition Provisional Authority” lawyers was set up to see how they could legalise the closure and censorship of Iraqi newspapers that “incited violence”.

Now I’m all against incitement to violence. Just like I’m against incitement to war by the use of fraudulent claims of weapons of mass destruction and secret links to al-Qa’ida. Just like I’m against the use of Saddam’s army against Iraqi cities and the use of America’s army against Iraqi cities. For let’s remember that some of Muqtada Sadr’s dangerous militiamen fought Saddam in the 1991 insurgency–the one we supported and then betrayed. Saddam, of course, knew how to deal with resistance. “We will not tolerate…,” he told his commanders. And we all know what that meant. No, the Americans are not Saddam’s army. But the siege of Fallujah is likely to give that city the heroic status among future generations of Iraqi Sunnis as Basra–surrounded by Saddam’s hordes in 1991–holds among Iraqi Shias today.

But still, we must shut up.

Of course, the “shut-up” principle works both ways. Back on 16 March 2003, when the world was obsessed with the war that would break out in Iraq three days later, a tragedy occurred on another battlefield 500 miles west of Baghdad. On that day, an Israeli soldier and his commander drove a nine-ton Caterpillar bulldozer over a young American peace activist called Rachel Corrie who was unarmed, clearly visible in a fluorescent jacket and trying to protect a Palestinian home that the Israelis intended to destroy. The Caterpillar was part of the regular US aid to Israel. Israel acquitted its own army of responsibility for Rachel’s death–which was taped on video by her appalled friends–and the Bush administration remained gutlessly silent.

Rachel’s grieving mother Cindi has been a picture of dignity. US citizens, she wrote, “should ask themselves how it is that an unarmed US citizen can be killed with impunity by a soldier from an allied nation receiving massive US aid… When three Americans were killed, presumably by Palestinians, in an explosion on October 15th, 2003 … the FBI came within 24 hours to investigate the deaths. After one year, neither the FBI nor any other US-led team has done anything to investigate the death of an American killed by an Israeli.”

Well, the answer is that Bush and his administration know how to shut themselves up when it pays them to do so.

It seems that as long as you say “war on terror”, you are safe from all criticism. For not a single American journalist has investigated the links between the Israeli army’s “rules of engagement”–so blithely handed over to US forces on Sharon’s orders–and the behaviour of the US military in Iraq. The destruction of houses of “suspects”, the wholesale detention of thousands of Iraqis without trial, the cordoning off of “hostile” villages with razor wire, the bombardment of civilian areas by Apache helicopter gunships and tanks on the hunt for “terrorists” are all part of the Israeli military lexicon.

In besieging cities–when they were taking casualties or the number of civilians killed was becoming too shameful to sustain–the Israeli army would call a “unilateral suspension of offensive operations”. They did this 11 times after they surrounded Beirut in 1982. And yesterday, the American army declared a “unilateral suspension of offensive operations” around Fallujah.
…"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6027.htm