Growing
up at the high-water marks of Cold War hysteria in the US led me to a
heightened skepticism of the independence and objectivity of the
media. We were made to believe myths that Communist government
ownership constituted a denial of freedom of the press while diverse
private ownership of the sources of information in the West
guaranteed access to the truth. Few of us reflected on the fact that
the UK government media monopoly, the BBC, seemed to present a more
nuanced, tolerant, even sane picture of current events than did our
US lap-dog “free” press. At the same time, the sharp move towards
theocracy in the US-- “In God we Trust” on currency and “Under
God” affixed to the Inquisition-like pledge of allegiance-- was met
by a docile, compliant media.
Any
doubts that were voiced-- and few were at the time-- about the biases
of the press and electronic media were radically amplified when the
Cold War began to recede, a measure of sanity returned, and
revelations exposed the corruption and opportunism of most of the
media's journalistic stars and watchdogs. Truly, it was one the most
embarrassing chapters in the fable of US press freedom. Of course the
myth remained intact thanks to the major media's concerted effort to
restrict the truth to the marginal footnotes of historical research
and the fringe media.
Some
liberal commentators concede the horrors of the past, but insist that
press freedom rebounded, especially after the end of the Cold War.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Today's media is as servile
to government and capital as at any time in US history. The
concentration of media corporations coupled with the centrality of
profitability and the narrow band of dissent offered by the two-party
system result in a uniformity and conformity in the media that would
be the envy of any banana republic.
We
can thank media critics like Extra!-- the magazine of Fairness
and Accuracy in Reporting-- for serious disclosure of the most
egregious abuses of independence and objectivity (At one time, the
same could be said for the Columbia Journalism Review-- not so
today). And, yes, there are numerous media critics on the internet
and with the small circulation media. But they often overlook the
commonplace banality of media's slavish conformity to the government
line and corporate dictate. While we all enjoy reading about the big
lies, it is the everyday boot-licking that holds the US myth
together.
Sleight
of Hand
■ On
May 29, the Los Angeles Times published a news story reporting
Edward Snowden's NBC News interview. The author, Richard
Serrano casually writes that “The disclosures have sparked outrage
in some countries...” Have they? Where? And why? Serrano
relies on the readers gullibility to slip in what appears to be a
reasonable assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. While the
reader will likely find the claim believable, no reason is
actually given to believe the claim. Could it be that Serrano
means that US officials are outraged?
In
the same article, Serrano reports accurately that Snowden claimed he
was a “spy” for US security agencies, using aliases and working
undercover. Serrano adds: “Those agencies routinely issue aliases
for Americans working overseas, and his work for them [CIA, NSA] was
previously known.” Serrano is dismissive of the revelations because
they were “previously known.” Once again, by whom? How is
the fact that someone unnamed knew about Snowden's previous
clandestine work relevant to reporting on the interview? Serrano's
claim about the “routine” use of aliases leaves the interesting,
newsworthy question of who works for the agencies and why and when
do they need aliases unanswered. There is not a hint of distrust
of US security agencies’ motives. He only injects the comment in
order to minimize the importance of Snowden's interview and not to
share any newsworthy information.
Serrano
cannot resist stirring antipathy towards Snowden. His editors can't
either.
■ In
an Associated Press dispatch the same day, Peter Leonard
writes dateline Donetsk, Ukraine that “While there is no immediate
indication that the Kremlin is enabling or supporting combatants from
Russia...Moscow may have to dispel suspicions that it is waging a
proxy war...” Why does Moscow need to dispel suspicions when there
is admittedly no evidence for those suspicions?
Following
good journalistic practices, Leonard seeks to locate the Ukrainian
crisis in a context, in recent events. Unfortunately, he slants that
context to coincide with the US/EU interpretation of those events. He
notes the “election” of a billionaire candy mogul to the
Ukraine's presidency without mentioning that Eastern Ukraine strongly
opposed the election and rejects Popochenko's legitimacy. Instead, he
innocuously states: “He replaced the pro-Moscow leader who was
driven from office in February.”
[D]riven
from office? By referendum? By the Supreme Court? By Parliament?
Or,
as the historical record would confirm, by violent street actions
that physically threatened the former president. Demonstrations
richly endowed with Western funding. Actions encouraged by the West
and betraying a recent agreement brokered with the EU. But to cast
doubt on the legitimacy of what could justifiably be called a coup
would cast the so-called “pro-Moscow insurgency” in a different
light.
Leonard
goes on to explain the sequence of events: “That ouster led to
Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in southern Ukraine,
which triggered the sanctions, and a violent pro-Moscow insurgency in
the east.” Describing Ukrainian events in this deceptive way is
akin to describing the US Revolutionary War as a violent pro-French
insurgency spawned by the defiance of Parliament's trade policies.
Interpretation is posing as reportage.
Surely
it is notable that the previous violence in Kiev's Maidan Square--
Molotov cocktails, street fighting, baiting security forces-- are
characterized blandly (“driven from office,” “ousted”) while
defensive acts on the part of anti-Kiev activists resisting the
military and police in Eastern Ukraine are characterized as
participating in a “violent...insurgency.”
Like
the entire Western media, Leonard characterizes the opposition in
Eastern Ukraine as “pro-Russian” (a recent picture in the Wall
Street Journal characterized two armed men in fatigues pausing
for a smoke as “pro-Russian,” as though the caption writer could
read that allegiance from their faces). The truth is that the May 11
referendum, which, whether the West likes it or not, appeared to
express a strong sentiment for the establishment of independent,
peoples' republics, counts as the best available indicator of the
most current views of the Eastern populace. Without contrary
evidence, responsible journalism would designate the opposition as
“anti-Kiev” or “pro-independence” rather than in the fashion
of US State Department handouts. Not surprisingly, Western
journalists have resisted the tendency of consistently calling the
actions and actors on the other side as “pro-US.” To do so would
betray their sanctimonious posture as serving only the interests of
the Ukrainian people.
Leonard
paints a lurid picture of the leader of the Chechen region of Russia.
Amid reports that some wounded fighters in the Eastern Ukraine were
from Chechnya, Leonard describes the Chechen leader as “ruthless”
and linked to “extrajudicial killings, torture and other abuses.”
While some may find this an appropriate description for Bush and
Obama, we would be surprised and shocked to find these charges in a
news article with no evidence proffered.
Wounded
Chechen nationals do not make a conspiracy... except in the writing
of Mr. Leonard: “Mr. Kadyrov [the leader in Chechnya] has derided
allegations that he dispatched militias to Ukraine, but undermined
his claim with veiled threats.” So we are to understand that an
agent’s implied threat subverts a claim of innocence. With this
twisted logic, a threat of self-defense would be tantamount to an
admission of aggression. Of course if a media slavishly subservient
to the official line of the US State Department leaves readers
disposed to mistrust any and every statement emanating from the East,
then such a leap would appear warranted.
■ By
the profoundly low standards of US journalism, a Washington Post
article datelined May 29 from Yarze, Lebanon established a new
low. The aptly named Liz Sly twists events prior to the Syrian
election beyond recognition. The reigning assumption held by Western
reporters portrayed Syrian refugees as fleeing the evil Bashar Assad.
Thus, it came as a shock when refugees in Lebanon flocked in
overwhelming numbers and with enthusiastic Assad partisanship to the
Syrian embassies in order to vote ahead of the domestic elections.
Despite police thuggery and long lines, Syrians spent long hours to
cast votes. Most observers conceded that it took on the appearance of
an Assad election rally. As Sly affirms: “...desperate people
fought to gain admission to the embassy grounds... Roads were clogged
for miles by people arriving in buses, in cars and on foot... Many
voters were diehard Assad supporters who showed up in convoys,
honking horns, waving the president's picture and shouting slogans.”
Undeterred
by what appeared to contradict the State Department line on the
sentiments of Syrian refugees, Ms. Sly wrote: “Syrians thronged
their embassy in Lebanon on Wednesday to cast ballots for President
Bashar Assad, offering a forceful affirmation of his tightening grip
on power after three years of conflict.” Never mind that Sly
never explains how she determined the refugees' vote prior to the
vote tally. But how does the refugees' enthusiasm for Assad --while
presumably residing safely in a separate country-- affirm “his
tightening grip on power”? What power does he have over them in
Lebanon?
But
there is more... a “rumor” serves to address the question: “The
large turnout was spurred in part by a widespread rumor that those
who do not vote will not be allowed to return home...” So we must
believe that those who do not show up will not be able to return to
Syria, but those who do and choose to vote for one of the two
other candidates will not be similarly punished by Assad. This is
indeed a strange twist. Moreover, if the refugees are really
anti-Assad, but intimidated by his “tightening grip,”
why would they want to improve his electoral fortunes by voting for
him?
Sly
concedes that “Syrians did not say this would be the case, but with
all voters having to submit their identity papers to the embassy for
registration, it is feasible that the government will know who voted
and who did not.” But this is absurd. Certainly the government
could know who voted if they simply record the names that are
on identity documents, but how could they possibly know who didn't
vote from an amorphous community of refugees? And surely it makes
sense to ask for identity papers to keep Lebanese citizens (and US
and Israeli agents!) from voting in a Syrian election. Sly witnessed
a common sense procedure and not a conspiracy.
Astoundingly,
Sly contradicts herself twelve paragraphs further: “The rules for
voting were lax, with many people casting multiple ballots.”
Casting multiple ballots? Lax rules? Would that not make it
impossible for Syrian officials to determine who will be allowed to
repatriate and who will not? Does consistency matter to Liz Sly?
Should
we be surprised at Liz Sly's sly attempt to swap a demonization of
Syria's Assad for an inconvenient truth?
Not
really. Liz Sly was the Washington
Post
writer who brought to world attention the plight of the unfortunate
gay woman in Damascus who was supposedly brutally oppressed by the
Assad regime. On June 7, 2011 she wrote 'Gay
Girl in Damascus' Blogger Detained,
a news article that merged claims from a blog post with what appeared
to be independently gathered facts in a way that suggested that
youthful, attractive Syrian-American, Amina Arraf, was grabbed off
the street along with 10,000 other Damascus citizens by the evil
Assad forces. On
June 8, the Washington Post retracted the story and on June 10, a
40-year-old
US citizen confessed that the person, the story, and the blog were a
hoax that he concocted. The
damage had been done-- liberals recoiled from Assad's brutality-- few
saw the retraction.
One
might think that such an egregious flouting of journalistic ethics
would cost her credibility dearly, but not while she serves US
officialdom so loyally.
Just
Another Day of US Journalism
May
29 was little different from any other day in the hustle of news in
the Western media-- no better, no worse. It is important that we do
not minimize these sins by laying them only at the authors'
doorsteps. Editors and management accept and encourage this servility
to the US government line, endorsing biased articles that belong on
the op-ed pages and not in the news section. It is the institutional
acquiescence that makes a mockery of a free, independent, and
objective media.
It
is the nuances-- the word play-- that infect nearly every news
article in our press: the lost subjects (“It is believed that...”
It is thought that...” By whom?), the anonymous sources
(“Many believe...”, “Some say...”), the stealth use of the
passive voice (“hundreds were killed in the confrontation” Who
killed them?), the simple, slanted labels (“pro-Russian,”
“anti-American,” “insurgents,” “militants,”
“opposition”), the speculative leaps, and the tortured logic.
Mindful
that these sins are castigated in high school journalism classes,
their ubiquitous commission in the monopoly mass media signals an
unprincipled, opportunistic obedience to power and wealth, a
calculated fealty to the seats of power matching the worst days of
the Cold War.
Zoltan
Zigedy
Good post!
ReplyDelete