Letters to the Editor

• Robotempire and Retired Military Patriot

  [Read the article: Our rotted press corps, a division of "Camp Victory"]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  give us some perspective from the military point of view, essentially: "I never lied, or tried not to when I was part of the military propaganda machine, and you really have to understand how the officers who provide the info for the press releases see things. Everyone makes mistakes. [Sheepish grin.]"

  But then there's this: Trakker Two @ 4:09pm 6/30

  The BBC, to it's credit investigated and published it's findings three days later. By that time the damage had been done. The real culprit here is the Military.

  As a matter of fact, when I contacted the POC on that press release and pointed out that the BBC article differed greatly from the info in press release, the reply I got read:

  "Sir,

  All indications are that we were correct in our assessment. We are still pressing forward with an investigation to dispel reports of killing civilians. Until our investigation is complete, we will not be able to provide any further information. However, we have and are still currently diligently investigating these claims." My highlights.

  In other words, the "investigation" is not to find out what happened but to "dispel reports of killing civilians."

  To find (or create, or invent or make up) evidence to support The Lie. In other words. They've done this over and over and over again, as has been shown by some of the information revealed in the few trials there have been involving massacres of Iraqis.

  So is it fair to assume that The Lie is policy? Robotempire will tell us, "no, it is not policy." And yet it seems that everything is done to cause The Lie to be created and to flourish, over and over and over again, and the Big Media falls for it every time. Uncritically. Without exception.

  If this isn't deliberate, then what is it?

  Post-Modernism? In which there is no "objective truth?" Thus anything that is stated about anything is acceptable as "truthiness" until something else comes along to replace it?

  Go do some compare and contrast with WWII reporting. Understand there was intense official censorship of the press and media during WWII; certain things could not be reported on at all, and everything that could be reported on had to be approved before it ever saw the light of day. And of course it took a while (could be weeks) for any dispatch to get from a warzone to the point where it could be broadcast or printed. And there was a robust propaganda machine churning out endless anti-Nazi and anti-Jap crap to keep the domestic rage at the Enemy at a fever pitch.

  Given conditions like that, you'd think there would be no skepticism about anything, and that every statement of the military would be uncritically accepted and passed on. Not so.

  In fact, most -- not all -- reports were prefaced with a statement about the conditions under which they were produced, and how they had to meet censorship standards and be approved. Most also carried the qualifier: Such and such military command says thus and so. Or "it is reported by" thus and so military public affairs office. Or, "this reporter saw and reports" thus and so, "but he is not permitted to say anything more..."

  Thus, the public knew, in practically every report, that they were getting the "official story", or one that was heavily modified to meet "official standards." And that meant that the public who read or saw these reports could -- and often did -- approach them with considerable skepticism. It meant that reporters could be openly skeptical of official reports, or at least could openly state what they were, and that they may not be accurate.

  Very different than today, when it now appears that The Lie is not "policy" in the military, or in the Media that uncritically repeats The Lies, but that the creation and dissemination of outright -- and often grotesque -- falsehoods is embedded at every level of the military and Big Media continuum, and protecting The Lie becomes the chief objective of all public affairs and media efforts.

  Even when The Lie is revealed (cf: Tillman, Pat; Lynch, Jessica -- as extremely high profile examples involving Americans) they will continue to insist it is not a Lie. And there was no deliberate effort to conceal or to dissemble. It is surreal. And I would say it is meant to be.

  During WWII, the People knew they weren't getting the whole truth about the War at any time, and they knew to be skeptical about the stories they were told.

  That changed in Vietnam, where the "Five O'Clock Follies" became a platform for the military commanders to issue the most flagrant and absurd lies every day. And call it Truth. And get it reported every day, too, but usually with a knowing snicker or outright contempt. Well, we saw how that turned out.

  Now the lies are continuous and they afflict the troops from bottom to top, and the flurry of reports repeat those lies endlessly, often with no followup, but if there is followup, the story may well change, but typically with little or no criticism of previous stories (that were lies), just a "replacement truth," that itself is often a lie.

  People catch on to this fraud eventually and come to dismiss everything. They see it for what it is, a con game, and the public refuses to listen any more.

  And I would remind our military readers, that's one reason why the Iraq mess is getting so little public support any more.

  Permalink Sunday, July 1, 2007 07:01 AM