The kidnappings/killing of Israeli soldiers were but pretexts for war in Lebanon, as everyone with a critical mind already knew. They were the pretext for unleashing a plan previously agreed upon by the US and Israel--something I suspect that those with a critical mind also already suspected.
Seymour Hersh fills in the details of how the US and Israel had agreed on the bombing of Lebanon well before the kidnappings/killings of Israeli soldiers here. Or see this interview with him by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!
Also see Hersh's piece on US preparations for a possible attack on Iran here.
Seymour Hersh, btw, is an American parallel to the British journalist Robert Fisk, about whom I have written on this blog here and here--but about whom I got something wrong. I wrote that Fisk broke the story of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam in 1969. Wrong. It was Hersh. Hersh also broke the story of Abu Ghraib, which you can read here.
And one other thing: a succinct letter of protest against this most recent bombing of Lebanon on Tariq Ali's website, with other signatures. (I wrote about Tariq Ali in the same two posts linked to above about Fisk).
And oh: Democracy Now! has been doing a great job of covering this most recent bombing of Lebanon, for anyone looking for one place to do a bit of reading on it.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
The Supposedly Liberal Media
The following is from a site called Third World Traveler:
Some of the points are a little dated (but they're relevant); read to the end for more general points. . .
15 Questions About the "Liberal Media"
from the book
Through the Media Looking Glass
Decoding Bias and Blather in the News
by Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon
Common Courage Press, 1995, paper
One of the most enduring myths about the mainstream news media is that they are "liberal." The myth flourishes to the extent that people don't ask pointed questions:
* If the news media are liberal, why have national dailies and newsweeklies regularly lauded those aspects of President Clinton's program that they view as "centrist" or "moderate," while questioning those viewed as liberal?
* If the news media are liberal, why is it that liberals are apt to be denigrated as ideologues, but status quo centrists or "moderates" are presented as free of ideological baggage?
* If the news media are liberal, why did most outlets praise Clinton's selection of David Gergen, who advocated Reagan policies, while pillorying civil rights lawyer Lani Guinier?
* If the news media are liberal, why did they applaud conservative White House appointees like Lloyd Bentsen and Les Aspin, while challenging liberals like Donna Shalala, Johnetta Cole and Roberta Achtenberg?
It also helps to look back at history and ask questions:
* If the news media are liberal, why have Clinton's meager tax hikes on the wealthy been referred to as "soaking the rich" or "class warfare," but President Reagan's giveaways to the wealthy were euphemized as "tax reform"?
* If the news media are liberal, why have national outlets been far tougher in scrutinizing Democratic presidents Carter and Clinton than Republicans Reagan and Bush?
* If the news media are liberal, why have they buried important facts, such as the shrinking of corporate income tax from 25 percent of federal expenditures in the 1960s to only about 8 percent today?
* If the news media are liberal, why have they given short shrift to reform proposals-tax-financed national health insurance, federally-supported child care, government jobs programs-that their own polls show are overwhelmingly popular with the public?
Pundits and commentators have gained increasing prominence in the media, often eclipsing the reporters:
* If the news media are liberal, why were the first two political pundits to appear on national TV every day of the week both conservatives: Patrick Buchanan and John McLaughlin? Was it their good looks?
* If the news media are liberal, why does the media spectrum typically extend from unabashed right-wingers to tepid centrists who go to great lengths-attacking progressive ideas and individuals-to prove they're not left-wing? Why do pundit debates on national TV have Wall Street Journal reporters representing "the left"?
* If the news media are liberal, why are TV pundit programs-even on "public television"-sponsored by conservative businesses like General Electric, Pepsico and Archer Daniels Midland?
* If the news media are liberal, why was Rush Limbaugh the first host in the history of American television to be allowed to use his national politics show to campaign day after day for a presidential candidate?
* If the news media are liberal, why do right-wing hosts usually dominate talk radio-even in liberal cities?
* If the news media are liberal, why are there dozens of widely syndicated columnists who champion corporate interests, but few who champion consumer or labor rights?
In analyzing the bias of any institution, it helps to look at who owns it. Which leads to a final question:
* If the news media are liberal, why are they owned and sponsored by big corporations that spend millions of dollars to lobby against liberal measures in Washington?
Some of the points are a little dated (but they're relevant); read to the end for more general points. . .
15 Questions About the "Liberal Media"
from the book
Through the Media Looking Glass
Decoding Bias and Blather in the News
by Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon
Common Courage Press, 1995, paper
One of the most enduring myths about the mainstream news media is that they are "liberal." The myth flourishes to the extent that people don't ask pointed questions:
* If the news media are liberal, why have national dailies and newsweeklies regularly lauded those aspects of President Clinton's program that they view as "centrist" or "moderate," while questioning those viewed as liberal?
* If the news media are liberal, why is it that liberals are apt to be denigrated as ideologues, but status quo centrists or "moderates" are presented as free of ideological baggage?
* If the news media are liberal, why did most outlets praise Clinton's selection of David Gergen, who advocated Reagan policies, while pillorying civil rights lawyer Lani Guinier?
* If the news media are liberal, why did they applaud conservative White House appointees like Lloyd Bentsen and Les Aspin, while challenging liberals like Donna Shalala, Johnetta Cole and Roberta Achtenberg?
It also helps to look back at history and ask questions:
* If the news media are liberal, why have Clinton's meager tax hikes on the wealthy been referred to as "soaking the rich" or "class warfare," but President Reagan's giveaways to the wealthy were euphemized as "tax reform"?
* If the news media are liberal, why have national outlets been far tougher in scrutinizing Democratic presidents Carter and Clinton than Republicans Reagan and Bush?
* If the news media are liberal, why have they buried important facts, such as the shrinking of corporate income tax from 25 percent of federal expenditures in the 1960s to only about 8 percent today?
* If the news media are liberal, why have they given short shrift to reform proposals-tax-financed national health insurance, federally-supported child care, government jobs programs-that their own polls show are overwhelmingly popular with the public?
Pundits and commentators have gained increasing prominence in the media, often eclipsing the reporters:
* If the news media are liberal, why were the first two political pundits to appear on national TV every day of the week both conservatives: Patrick Buchanan and John McLaughlin? Was it their good looks?
* If the news media are liberal, why does the media spectrum typically extend from unabashed right-wingers to tepid centrists who go to great lengths-attacking progressive ideas and individuals-to prove they're not left-wing? Why do pundit debates on national TV have Wall Street Journal reporters representing "the left"?
* If the news media are liberal, why are TV pundit programs-even on "public television"-sponsored by conservative businesses like General Electric, Pepsico and Archer Daniels Midland?
* If the news media are liberal, why was Rush Limbaugh the first host in the history of American television to be allowed to use his national politics show to campaign day after day for a presidential candidate?
* If the news media are liberal, why do right-wing hosts usually dominate talk radio-even in liberal cities?
* If the news media are liberal, why are there dozens of widely syndicated columnists who champion corporate interests, but few who champion consumer or labor rights?
In analyzing the bias of any institution, it helps to look at who owns it. Which leads to a final question:
* If the news media are liberal, why are they owned and sponsored by big corporations that spend millions of dollars to lobby against liberal measures in Washington?
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Bastard
Israeli PM Ehud Olmert responding to European criticism of Israel's war in Lebanon:
"Please, don't preach to us about the treatment of civilians."
Update: Olmert made this statement while bitterly complaining that the European powers participated in the bombing of Kosovo (which took a heavy civilian toll) while, at the same time , never came under attack themselves.
As usual, no one can appreciate the plight of the Israelis.
The bombing of Yugoslavia was a horrendous act and the Europeans (and the Bush administration) are indeed hypocrites, but any attempt to justify your own participation in a slaughter is reprehensible. Olmert is a State Terrorist. War is Terror and Terror one way of fighting a War. Israel's bombs have already killed more CIVILIANS in Lebanon than all the suicide bombs of the recent Intifada. War is Terror and Terror is War. It's just that War is the usual label for what States do while Terror is what those resisting the actions of States are labelled by States. Those on the ground who are victim of State Terrorism often have a very different view of what States say and do. . .
Olmert's to my mind is a
We-are-under-permanent-attack, we've-done-nothing-to-provoke-these-attacks, we-must-defend-our-nation-at-any-and-all-cost-while-refusing-to-admit-our-complicity/duplicity in-the-making-of-our-own-screwed-up-situation kind of fundamentalism that is equally as dangerous and actually far more stupid than Islamic fundamentalism.
This is also the ridiculous and self-destructive kind of fundamentalism that, alongside market fundamentalism, has motivated everything the Bush administration has done since 911.
We can thank Bush and friends for letting this evil genie out of the bottle. See this here. And this for good measure.
"Please, don't preach to us about the treatment of civilians."
Update: Olmert made this statement while bitterly complaining that the European powers participated in the bombing of Kosovo (which took a heavy civilian toll) while, at the same time , never came under attack themselves.
As usual, no one can appreciate the plight of the Israelis.
The bombing of Yugoslavia was a horrendous act and the Europeans (and the Bush administration) are indeed hypocrites, but any attempt to justify your own participation in a slaughter is reprehensible. Olmert is a State Terrorist. War is Terror and Terror one way of fighting a War. Israel's bombs have already killed more CIVILIANS in Lebanon than all the suicide bombs of the recent Intifada. War is Terror and Terror is War. It's just that War is the usual label for what States do while Terror is what those resisting the actions of States are labelled by States. Those on the ground who are victim of State Terrorism often have a very different view of what States say and do. . .
Olmert's to my mind is a
We-are-under-permanent-attack, we've-done-nothing-to-provoke-these-attacks, we-must-defend-our-nation-at-any-and-all-cost-while-refusing-to-admit-our-complicity/duplicity in-the-making-of-our-own-screwed-up-situation kind of fundamentalism that is equally as dangerous and actually far more stupid than Islamic fundamentalism.
This is also the ridiculous and self-destructive kind of fundamentalism that, alongside market fundamentalism, has motivated everything the Bush administration has done since 911.
We can thank Bush and friends for letting this evil genie out of the bottle. See this here. And this for good measure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
