AXIS OF EVIL: "MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY" YOUR LETTERS
Who is in your "Axis of Evil"?
Are you one of the protesters preparing to challenge what you
consider the evil empire? It is the World Economic Forum.
If you are part of the Forum in-group, you probably include the
protesters themselves. If you were on the air at Fox News in the six
am hour this morning, you spoke of the evil one as "the bad guys" in
the way that cops talk about perps.
And if you were a Fox viewer, and one of the few who got through on
the phones, you regurgitated what you had just heard on -- where
else? -- Fox News. "It's Iraq."
Why should we bring down SAD-DAMN? Because he kicked out the
inspectors, Caller Two, they kicked out the inspectors!
Caller Three: They kicked out the inspectors!
I felt like I was back in elementary school, responding in rote to
what the teacher demanded we recite: the Pledge of Allegiance.
The problem is that these viewers--and their numbers are growing
since FOX upped CNN in the ratings--are pledging allegiance to
Rupert Murdoch and the worldview he stands for--whether they know it
or not.
LETTING THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY
Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good crusade
in-the-making. A few minutes before I remote-controlled to FOX, I
watched a CNN report reminding viewers that the UN pulled the
inspectors out and that they were not, in fact, kicked out.
Why did the inspectors leave? Because the US and Britain were
planning to bomb Baghdad again, and they didn't want their people
hurt. So, no, kids, there was no kicking. In fact, Chief Inspector
Scott Ritter (I quoted him in this space last week) wrote a piece in
the Christian Science Monitor counseling against the growing frenzy
to kick some butt over there. Once a super-hawk, this former US
military man is far more contrite and informed all the blowhards who
have never been there to tangle with Iraqis.
Last night, Charlie Rose on "liberal" PBS presented yet another
advocator of attacks on Iraq, without representing an opposing point
of view. The Iraq-attack advocate was the author of an
anti-terrorist tract calling for Sadaam's liquidation as the ONLY
way to protect us from terrorism.
Charlie kept asking for evidence of Sadaam's responsibility for
9/11, and she kept alluding to conspiracies and speculation, with a
few-well grounded fears based on what came out through federal
prosecutions of terrorists.
This author's axis of evil revolves around convicted terrorist Ramzi
Yusef--if that is who he is, since no one is even sure of his name.
Charlie let drop that only one journalist got to interview him:
Raghida Dergham, a columnist for Al-Hayat, a Lebanese newspaper, who
is based in New York.
As it turns out, just before I tuned in, I was with Raghida, one of
the sharpest voices in the Arab media who turns up occasionally as a
sound byte or guest on a news show and complains about how poorly
the US media responds to the current crisis when it comes to any in
depth international news. More about that in a sec.
But first, back to that "AXIS OF EVIL."
"STOOODPID?"
Over in Iraq, an official, not the TOP banana, but a
military-looking dude, called our President's call to arms "Stupid."
(Doesn't he know them's fighting words in Texas?) Referring to some
countries like North Korea and Iran--with whom the United States has
publicly attempted a rapprochement--he said "Some of these regimes
have been pretty quiet since Sept. 11. But we know their true
nature."
In his speech, he warned he would not allow the "world's most
dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most dangerous
weapons" He argued that Iraq, Iran, North Korea and their "terrorist
allies constitute an axis of evil."
Most of the American media played up the axis of evil line,
cheerleading for the expansion of the terror war. Last night,
Nightline dropped in on the Philippines to measure the debate over
US troops there. Over in the non-Islamic non-Republic of Britain,
The Guardian, this morning, is not quite as concise in its appraisal
of the expanding war as was the one-word wielding Iraqi official,
but they were no less apoplectic.
This is Western criticism--the type that seems to be an endangered
species in most of US medialand--looks like:
"EXPLOITING" SEPTEMBER 11
"A tendency among politicians to exploit the September 11 tragedy
has been apparent from the very first. In Israel, Russia and China,
governments were quick to use America's agony to justify the
unjustifiable in Palestine, Chechnya and in Xinjiang. Pakistan's
ostracized regime found in September 11 a return route to
international acceptance. Its archrival India, in its turn, used one
crisis to dramatize another, in Kashmir. From Tehran to Khartoum to
Harare, political leaders climbed aboard the anti-terrorism
bandwagon with a view to domestic advantage as well as Washington's
aid and approbation. Even Tony Blair's post-September 11 empathy-
offensive was not totally devoid of similar calculations. Such is
the inevitable way, perhaps, of a hard-hearted, cynical world. But
when George Bush, president of the very nation that was targeted,
follows suit and begins to exploit and manipulate the September 11
tragedy for political advantage, alarm bells must ring out loud. Yet
this is exactly what Mr. Bush's first State of the Union address
unabashedly set out to do. All US policy, both international and
domestic, is now framed in terms of last autumn's emergency; all
measures, however partisan and divisive, are justified in the name
of patriotic unity and solidarity; all misgiving and dissent must be
overridden for the sake of America's "just cause."
Mr. Bush, in his black-and-white way, has clearly convinced himself
that in what he calls the "decisive decade in the history of
liberty," his duty, mission and calling is to direct the triumph of
good over evil at home and abroad. "America will lead by defending
liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging
for all people everywhere," he declared. This is a premise fortified
by falsehoods and underpinned by a delusion. "http://www.guardian.co.uk/
DEADLINE FOR DANIEL PEARL?
Today is a deadline of sorts for Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street
Journal reporter who has been kidnapped and humiliated by crazies in
Pakistan. His wife, 6 months pregnant, has placed faith in a
"dialogue" with those who hold them, praying that conversation and
negotiation might work. The kidnappers are demanding that all US
journalists leave Pakistan. They say Pearl was working for
Israel--which is nonsense. One of the deeper reasons for all of this
has been the lack of dialogue between cultures and peoples over many
years. Dialogue, as a matter of fact, goes contrary to US policy--
which prefers hard line confrontation. Let us hope he is freed.
AN INDIAN VIEW: AL QAEDA STILL AT IT
Writing for India's Telka.com (via the new Globalvision News Network
(gvnews.net)) Zafar Agha writes "Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar may
be running for their lives, but their supporters in Pakistan are
still active and working against the Americans. If there ever was
any doubt about the Al Qaeda still being active, the National
Movement for Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty (NMRPS) has put to
rest all such doubts. Allegedly, it is this unknown organization,
with obvious links to Al Qaeda, that has captured Pakistan-based
American journalist Daniel Pearl.
"...The Taliban story may have come to an end. But the anti-US wave
sweeping across the Muslim countries still survives. The American
journalist's mysterious disappearance from Pakistan leaves little
doubt that the threat of terrorism is far from over and that
Americans remain a soft target for Islamic terrorists all over the
world. The only difference, in the aftermath of September 11, is
that they have lost state support."
'PIECE' IN AFGHANISTAN
As Afghanistan's President Karzai shows off his couture in
Washington, New York and London, thanking and begging for aid at
every stop, back in his homeland, security is, shall we say, shaky
with 30 plus new deaths and counting. The warlords are warring again
in Gardez as they have for many many years. Today's chilling New
York Times quote of the day shows that peace in that country is
spelled piece or pieces.
"I'll send in heavy armor. I'll send in multiple rockets launchers,
I'll fire and fire and fire, all night and all day, until I bring
this to a finish."
PADSHA KHAN ZADRAN, is one of two warlords whose forces clashed on
Wednesday in Gardez, Afghanist
SUSTAINABILITY REPORT: Here in New York yesterday, I was hop scotching
to media related events. For lunch, I was over at Ted Kheel and
Leslie Hoffman's Carriage House for the release of a new report by
Sustainability (with offices in NY and London on the role of the
media in Corporate Social Responsibility.)
The Media channel's help was solicited for this report which we
highlight this week. Among its conclusions--get this: "Key media
institutions are amongst the least transparent and accountable
organizations in the world."
WOW! Please read their findings, showing how coverage of important
issues like climate and the ozone layer peak when there are summits
or controversies but then go uncovered for years. The hole in the
ozone layer, for example, has expanded six times, while the coverage
has shrunk by roughly the same amount.
Speaking at the event, Sustainability's John Elkington called the
media a "carrier and a barrier" when it comes to coverage and urged
more scrutiny of the media. Robert Thompson of London's Financial
Times, a paper that--to its credit--covers these issues, told the
audience, "You need to push the media" to get more coverage of
complex issues. "It rides on momentum," he acknowledged.
Sustainability's work, new to the US, needs more exposure and
support. The fact that a big PR firm like Ketchum is behind it, or
at least getting it out, will help it get attention--but I didn't
see too many reporters on hand to cover their findings. No TV
cameras. No radio outlets. No surprise there.
JIHAD AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Later in the day, there was a late start up at Columbia for the
Reuters Forum. They featured a debate on "Jihad Vs. McWorld: The
clash between Fundamentalism and the Secular World." Unfortunately,
there were no fundamentalists on the panel--which included the
aforementioned Raghida Dergham, an Arab. The only Fundamentalists
there were those who demand that, fundamentally, journalists on all
sides must be more accurate than ideological. Stephen Jukes, a very
smart editor of Reuters America, Ambassador Edward S. Walker of the
Middle East Institute were panelists, and, in the moderator's chair,
sat Author-professor Benjamin Barber who, thank you, plugged the
Mediachannel as a source of missing info.
I don't have time right now to get into all the issues, Israel being
the most emotional for this Upper West Side crowd. When he was on
the record, journalist Jukes, whose org funded the forum, did
criticize many American journalists for "loosing their way" after
September 11--although he did also say he respects the US press more
than the outlets he grew up with in the UK. He is disgusted by the
entertainment orientation of US TV news, and was caustic in his
comments on much of the US coverage. He acknowledged, in a response
to questions, that it is very hard to remain balanced in Middle East
coverage, pointing out, for example that any journalist who covered
an Israeli settlers funeral would be killed and hence when you see
one side mourning, and not the other, it is because the media is
barred by settlers and threatened as well.
Raghida Dergham took on the Arafat-baiters in the room with one
rather interesting fact that I hadn't heard before. First, despite
the press saying, over and over that Arafat turned down an Israeli
offer at Camp David, no one has yet produced one piece of paper
which defined what that offer is. According her, even president
Clinton says that the key turn down occurred NOT at Camp David but
later at Taba in Egypt, where both sides were putting some flesh on
the bones of an agreement.
But by then, she explained, Sharon had been elected by the Israelis
and the moment for peace had passed. The larger point to me is that,
if true, her account shows how simplification can be misleading.
Clearly we need better reporting here, not a constant recycling of
half-truths by any side.
JOURNALISTS "OFF THE RECORD"
After the Forum, the participants tagging along with me, schnorrer
that I am, sent for a dinner at the Faculty Club with Knight Bagheot
Fellows, journalists with fellowships for intellectually retooling
and well- funded R&R for a year on Morningside Heights.
One of the participants insisted that this be off the record, so I
can't tell you who was there and who said what without ruffling some
feathers.
(It is funny how journalists always want to go off the record when
they talk about what is really going on in the business. Fear and
loathing, as the good Gonzo Dr Thompson put it, still reigns in the
newsroom and no one wants to be quoted out of school. I disagree
with this survival impulse, but hey, maybe that's why they are
making the big bucks and I am sniping from my foxhole.)
Mea Culpa, aside, the anonymous back and forth was very enlightening
because it went after all sides, Arab and American for checkbook
journalism (Al Jazeera sold its Osama videos to broadcasters) and
rumor-mongering.
No one in the room knew, for example, just where the frequently
cited rumor that 4000 Jews were warned to stay away from the World
Trade Center on September 11 originated. No one could cite the
source! Overall, the evening was a tasty and filling bull session of
the type I used to have as a Nieman Fellow at Harvard, and one I
expect to be part of for the next few days at the World Eco Forum
that starts today.
It just reaffirmed for me the importance of being as detailed as we
can be in our reporting and critiques. Also, it underscored how
important it is for journalists to challenge and be challenged.
Thank you Ben and Raghida for letting me tag along, and thank you
Reuters for making it happen.
IN THE MAIL: ON AIDS....
From Geneva re: my News Dissector column on media coverage of AIDS
on the Mediachannel home page. "I spend days in and out trying to
figure out how we can get the media interested in covering the AIDS
situation in Africa. How do we get the President of the United
States to include the children in Africa in his plea for every child
in America to give one dollar to help the children of Afghanistan? I
have concluded that the only way that we can do this is to pay for
the airtime because they are not going to cover it otherwise. So,
these young people should be helped. We will keep them in our
prayers. Thank you for thought provoking commentary. Mia
AND THE DEBATE ON ARAFAT CONTINUES
Writes Lawrence Houghteling: "I hope at least the canapés are good at
the Waldorf -I fear for your sanity if you have to listen to too
many hours of Davos-speak. Thanks for your remarks on Monday about
Arafat. I'm writing in case you're taking a poll - I want to be sure
to be counted. I'm with you. Arafat IS a disappointment, of course.
Basically a piece of shit. Tom Friedman is at least right about that
(though I think he was way wrong 18 months ago when he told us that
Barak was ready to make real peace and Arafat was what was keeping
the New Jerusalem from coming to pass.)
Both the Israelis and the Palestinians (or, rather -let's be fair
about this - too many Israelis and Palestinians) are reacting out of
tribal, primitive emotions.
"Barak went farther than he'd expected to at Camp David, but he was
still offering (and gracelessly - he wouldn't even face Arafat and
treat him like a man, from what I hear) a series of tiny Bantustans
separated by Israeli checkpoints and highways on which the settlers
can whiz into their jobs in the big city while the Palestinians on
the other side of the barbed wire wait in endless roadblocks.
"Also, anyone who blames Arafat for failing to make the Palestinian
Authority into a modern, economically robust, politically
sophisticated, viable semi-state should have his or her head
examined right away. Also, anyone who imagines that Sharon would be
willing to make a peace that any real Palestinian leader, even if he
were of the caliber of Nelson Mandela or Mohandas Gandhi, could sell
to his people, should buy that classy inter-borough bridge I was
telling you about a while ago.
"The tragic thing is that on both sides there are those who could
make a peace, but we are watching the hardliners foreclose that
option.
"I wish that someone - you could do it, I know - would write the
future history of Israel/Palestine as it is being created by the
terror bombers of Hamas and the superioristic cynics of the Israeli
army and government.
" Write it all. Year by year, the increasing nastiness, the
dehumanizing of The Enemy insisted upon by the crapagandists on both
sides and [sic] acceded to by craven Peace Lovers on both sides. The
bombings and evictions and assassinations and (best of all, I
chortle to think of it) the everlasting humiliation of the weak and
innocent. And you would end it, of course, with the inevitable
nuclear conflagration and the annihilation of both peoples - as well
as a few million of their neighbors."
AND AN ARAB VIEW
Meanwhile on the Arab-Jewish Peace Group List Serve, Fadil Adeeb
also comments on the get- Arafat line being echoed by, among others,
NY TIMES op-ed columnist Thomas Friedman: "By the way, I saw little
in Friedman's piece this morning to commend it, just the same old
blame-Arafat-for-the-failure-of-peace-negotiations stuff that's been
mouthed so much in the mainstream press in this country that it
passes for gospel, but just doesn't add up. There's a lot that of
legitimate criticism that can be leveled at Arafat, ...that
Palestinians across the spectrum harbor for many different reasons.
But that Arafat's been unprepared and unwilling to make peace with
Israel on reasonable terms just doesn't ring true. If anything, in
retrospect it would seem that he was too ready to rely on the good
faith of the Israeli government to arrive at a decent agreement and
was therefore persuaded to sign onto Oslo, against the prophetic
advice of others who believed it was too prone to exploitation by
the more powerful party."
This debate continues. Please remember, our focus must be on the
media coverage, not on the issues or we will be here all day and I
am already getting criticized, not unfairly, for going on too long
about just about everything. Set an example for me: keep your
letters short but keep them coming. Write dissector@mediacannel.org.
As chance would have it, yesterday I bumped into a columnist for the
Istanbul newspaper Milliyet and told him about my report earlier
this week on the upcoming trial of Noam Chomsky's publisher in that
country. He knew all about it, and had written about it himself. I
am sending him my piece in hopes that the people of Turkey to get to
read about our concerns.
