Letters to the Editor
-
We "worship at the shrine of the Guardian and BBC"
Because they actually offer us news which is unbiassed and not kissing Bush's ass. Duh. Remember the hundreds of thousands of British demonstrators against the imminent war in 2003? Remember the millions across the globe also marching and demonstrating, along with a few of us over here who did our own research and read (horrors) the Guardian and BBC websites?
That's why we "worship at the shrine of the Guardian and BBC"
-
Emperors with no clothes
The Iraq debacle began in 2000 when the media actively promoted the twin myths that Gore was a "big, fat liar" and that Bush was a "uniter, not a divider."
When the press allowed Bush's lies to go unchallenged and Gore's truth's to be falsely labeled as lies, they set the stage for the disaster we're now in. Invading Iraq was on the agenda for the first meeting of Bush's National Security Council.
Our national media is still -- to this day -- indistinguishable from the old Soviet state-controlled press.
-
Iraq: Why the media failed
Thank you for noting that Walter Pincus was heroic in his reporting. He saved my sanity and, if listened to, would have saved lives, and countries.
-
The Real Reason America Went to War in Iraq
Almost everyone who has followed the build-up to the war -at least those within the beltway- knows that America went to war becuse of the incredible spin and false intelligence of the Neocons (who are closely allied with the Israeli right wing which for years has been trying to get America to fight Israel's wars in the Middle East).
The problem is that no politician or media person will say this in public due to their fear of the career-ending smear of anti-Semitism. Also, as Jimmy Carter and many others noted, the Israel Lobby uses intimidation to silence the media and stifle debate about the Middle East.
-
Oldandintheway
So they are untainted by the filthy luchre or do they just reflect what you want to hear?
BTW the Guardian really doesn't make any bones about being a news organ. It sees itself as a vast op ed column with a very sharp editorial direction. It has a history of going back more than a hundred years as a socialist workers pamphleteer, not that that's bad, but it's not exactly news. And the BBC is involved in two lawsuits now - one for buying 'news' from local sources in the mideast,e.g. paying people to give them stories and another for spending 300,000 pounds to cover it up.
Hmm, unbiased? No. Lazy? Probably yes.
-
Ah the secret lobby that silenced.....who again?
Jimmy Carter? Hmm, kind of big hole in that conspiracy.
-
Oh I see Herr Gordon has weighed in.
Now I know the Jews run the media because everyone knows Gordon is a zionist plant.
-
Huh?
'And from the beginning of the war, the media's reporting from the field in Iraq has been far better than its analysis'
How better?
Fact is most reporters in Iraq were embedded in the military and were thus castrated by the pool system which monitered what they got to see. Also although the media has improved real authentic reporting is nonexistant today because most journalists will freely admit that they cannot go out of thier hotels in Iraq nevermind put thier own trained eye on what is happening in Iraq- most often depending on Iraqi camermen to do it for them- thus making the reporter ineffectual. This means that effective well reported on peices even on the biggest stories- a huge car bomb in Baghdad say are not reported for thier full impact. As for the mainstream media and journalists the only media type people that seem to be really reporting from Iraq are the independent documentary film makers who stay with Iraqi families and go out into the wider Iraq rarely seen even on the BBC. However I feel that documentaries are not as powerful as timely truthful reporting can be and in this respect I can say that media reportage on the Iraq Crime has been insufficient. And as for blogs to me they seem to be a largely irrelevant proustian diversion- a waste of time, even if some of them do come from the heart of the action.
-
Moral Failure
Kamiya's analysis of media failure is profound and eye-opening. BUt it leaves off one important failure, perhaps the most important one: moral failure. Launching unprovoked wars is immoral. Lying is immoral. Grabbing power through fearmongering is immoral. It is immoral to turn a blind eye to these crimes when you are charged with watching for them and alerting people about them. It is even more immoral to participate in perpetrating the crimes, which is what our media has done.
In Rwanda, radio announcers were found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity because they encouraged people to commit mass murder. The U.S. media owners, journalists and pundits who perpetrated unprovoked aggression against another country (resulting in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths) should be put on trial for crimes against humanity, if not for genocide. Their crimes are hardly different from those of the radio announcers in Rwanda who were found guilty for their crimes.
-
Realname - Stop Trying to Stifle the Debate about the Causes of the Iraq War
Realname, since you did not respond to the direct questions I asked in a previous post, here it is again.
I am no longer impressed by the tired charges of anti-Semitism. The straw for me was when Jimmy Carter, a great American and one of the most decent human beings in this country and perhaps the world, was labeled an anti-Semite and viciously smeared by the Israel Lobby simply for documenting the apartheid policies of Israel (implemented using American tax money mind you!) and for exposing that the Israel Lobby stifled debate on foreign policy issues critical to human rights, American interests and security through intimidation of the media and politicians (using the same tactic you are using to silence me by throwing around the anti-Semitism charge at any criticism of Israeli apartheid, the Israel Lobby or the neocons).
As more and more people, inspired by Carter's courage, start to speak out, you will find that using the anti-Semitism charge to protect the neocons will no longer work.
So, please stop playing the vicitim and help me understand with which of the following statements you disagree and why (I doubt though that you will want to discuss facts):
1) Did the neocons play a major role in promoting the Iraq war through spin and false intelligence?
2) Are the neocons closely linked to the Israeli right wing and particularly the Likud party (before answering, please read the Clean Break study AUTHORED by the leading neocons in 2000, which I referred to in my earlier message)?
3) Are the neocons, the Israel Lobby and the Israeli government continuing to promote war in the Middle East (on Iran and Syria)?
Again please stop the BS. The neocons ARE NOT the vicitms (nor are the Jews in general many of whom oppose the war). Young American men and women (and countless Iraqis) are!