I've been asked several times why Americans don't see many of the things I point uot to them on the evening news. My typical response is generally points out the corporate nature of media and the general backing of the Republican party by big business, combined with the was that conservatives attack media outlets any time a view contrary to theirs is on the air.
Recently, I've been trying to point out the attempts by the Bush Administration to control acccess to information and to control the media more generally.
Today, I saw this Online Journal article that illustrates the government's control of the coverage of the most recent war in the desert.
Media cheerleaders
By Mike Hersh
Online Journal Contributing Writer
May 12, 2003—Thomas Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism," but the right-wing media joined the right-wing politicians attacking the patriotism of Bush's critics. This after a decade of lambasting President Clinton with endless groundless accusations.
When the BBC's director general and editor-in-chief, Greg Dyke, says "Personally, I was shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war," he is far too kind.
How Strictly Does the White House Control TV "News"?
Examine this shocking report from Walter Storch of TBRnews. A self-identified "mid-level executive with a major American television network" contacted TBRnews with proof the "corporate headquarters in New York City [directed] the head of the network's television news department" to suppress or play up news stories. This to aggrandize Bush and support right wing positions on the war, oil, corporate crimes, unemployment, and other issues.
According to TBRnews, "This individual claimed he was developing serious doubts about the strict control of media events and decided that he would pass this material along to someone who might make use of it. There was the question of his job security. If someone published his name, it would be certain he was not only fired but blackballed throughout his profession."
Examples of pro-right wing edicts predicted by this anonymous source which found their way onto the television "news" include:
(Jan 21, 2002) . . . in any article on Enron collapse, it is not considered advisable to discuss role of K. Lay. Charges against lesser Enron executives to be stressed. Lay's extensive gifts to President to be limited to "small campaign contributions" and shift emphasis to large gifts to Ashcroft for his presidential campaign. Mention A's recusal from Enron investigations. . . .
(Feb 10) . . . It is not permitted at this point to use or refer to any film clips, stills or articles emanating from any French source whatsoever.
(Feb 26) It is expected that coverage of the forthcoming Iraqi campaign will be identical with the coverage used during Desert Storm. Shots of GIs must show a mixed racial combination . . . any interviews must reflect the youthful and idealistic, not the cynical point of view . . .
(March 2) further references to the religious views of the President are to be deleted. . . .
(March 15) photo opportunities of the President and members of his cabinet, especially Secretary Rumsfeld, with enthusiastic GIs . . .
(March 10) . . . pro-Government rallies are to be given the fullest coverage . . . if anti-Government demonstrations are shown, it is desired to stress either a very small number of "eccentrics" or shots of social misfits; i.e., with beards, tattoos, physical deformities, etc. Pro-Government supporters should be seen as clean cut with as many well-groomed subjects as possible . . .
(March 30) Friction between Secretary Rumsfeld and senior military field commanders in Iraq are to be strictly minimalized and used only when impossible to avoid . . .
(April 4) . . . sharply rising unemployment numbers, this should be countered with official interviews stressing that the unemployment situation is now stabilizing and expected to fall soon.
(April 5) . . . comments appearing in the left-wing British Guardian about the occupation and administration of a conquered Iraq by American military personnel are to be ignored. Pacification, liberation, freedom and gratitude towards US forces, and the President are to be stressed.
(March 29) The President's goal, to achieve oil autarchy by the United States, is suggested as a future series. Congressional denial of drilling in various environmentally "sensitive" areas may be derided as foolish misunderstanding of America's vital oil needs. The interdiction of oil shipments to the United States from Venezuela and Nigeria are not to be commented upon. The attitude of Chavez towards the United States is also considered a non-topic. He was removed from power once and it can happen a second time. File footage of large crowds of distressed and unhappy Venezuelans should be prepared against the time he is removed from power again. . . .
(April 4) If possible, pictures of the President with a book or, better, actually reading, are suggested. Commentary about his extensive reading habits . . . stress important historical and economic works. . . .
(April 7) Please arrange for photo ops of President visiting wounded GIs. . . . Use photogenic subjects w/good racial mix. Also try for pix of First Lady handing wounded subject a gift . . .
(April 7) . . . no shots of GIs looting in Baghdad. Iraqi looters should be described as "joyful" at being liberated by US. Looting to be described as a "deprived people getting food for families" . . .
(April 4) Alliance casualties to be played down. The massive Iraqi civilian casualties also played down. Use the phrase, "most civilian casualties caused by vindictive Saddam supporters." Again, no pixs of dead women and children.
(April 6) Artillery targeting of several mosques to be deleted. . . .
(April 8) . . . develop possible linkage between Iraqi mobs and US need to police the country for a "brief time" to prevent any attempt to stifle emerging democracy. Do not mention probability of continued large US military presence. Stress the words "restoring law and order" and "helping to make the transition to true democracy."
(April 9) . . . in coverage of rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure, mention that American firms have expressed willingness to "assist Iraq people to build a new, democratic nation." No mention, by name, of Halliburton or Bechtel.
There are dozens of similar examples of strict control, verified by TBRnews. As Storch explained: "It was both shocking and gratifying to note that this proved to be the case in a preponderance of cases and so we began to put these up, either in toto or, more often, in excerpt and watch as ordained news was created before our eyes."
So what happened when "TBRnews put up the first two pages?" Storch noted, "there were two basic forms of public response. One was to thank us for exposing something many people believed; that the American media was controlled and not free."
We knew that already, as Storch explains: "That much can easily be ascertained by reading the websites of various reputable foreign publications such as the Swiss NZZ, the British Guardian, the Canadian Toronto Globe and Mail, Reuters News Service and the Jerusalem Post. What any viewer can see on these sites is certainly not reflected in the American media."
Storch concludes, "The establishment does not worry about the lone man with a website that, as in our case, reaches perhaps 100,000 people at a time when they have control over NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN that can, and do, reach millions a day."
Verifying the thesis of this media bias series, Storch reports, "It is fairly obvious that the average Americans get their news either from TV, mostly, or from the print media. If someone in East Peoria, Illinois sees something on CNN, the Voice of the White House, they have no reason to question it. And don't." (See Controlling the News, Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4, In-House Memos on Television News Presentations)
Coverage of Bush's Iraq War
The media coverage of Bush's Iraq war reminds any objective observer of a pom-pom squad cheering for their team. The corporate media claim—and therefore many Americans think—this war was not about oil or revenge or geopolitical power games.
At various times, Bush and his hired liars told us, and the media parroted to us that this was about protecting us from al Qaeda, although there are no 9/11 links to Iraq. This was about weapons of mass destruction, although none were found. This was about freedom and democracy in Iraq, although Bush hates both here.
These and various other excuses to attack a weak and helpless nation came and went without the slightest critical corporate media examination. The most clever of all the rationales seems to be: This was about removing a brutal dictator who killed and tortured people. If so, then why this dictator and why this destructive, violent way? And why now?
There are many such dictators. Why depose this one by invasion when sanctions had already crushed Saddam's military capacity? Why when the inspections were working to mop up the rest of Iraq's degraded weaponry? Why after Reagan, Bush I, and Rumsfeld sent American weapons and billions of tax dollars to Iraq? Why after Cheney did business with this "brutal dictator" as recently as 1999?
Why war? Why after the top Republicans supported this "brutal dictator?" We should demand Bush's pom-pom squad answer those questions before letting them cheer.
Against this mindless support for Bush, the media continue their baseless, mean-spirited attacks against Democrats. The biased note by ABC's "The Note" claimed, "In any event, it's pretty clear that a Democratic Party, which still is trying to figure out what it does well with its current array of personnel, is exercising the same muscles that allowed it to score point after point in driving Trent Lott from the leadership."
By reducing Democratic defense of equal and civil rights against Republican hate and bigotry to a game, the Note's writers expose their own right-wing bias. This bias pervades the "Simonized" media.
Encouraged by the right-wing media, and specifically citing "The Note," a right-wing emailer crowed to our editors: "The Democratic Party doesn't have a prayer unless things go to hell in this country and people turn to them, simply because there's nowhere else to go. They do not have one person or one idea that will make people turn to them for positive reasons."
I could not disagree more. Democrats won nationwide in 1992, 1996, and 2000 because most Americans know Democrats are better on the issues
So why don't we read or hear much about Republican foreign policy failures and economic catastrophes? Because William Simon made his vision reality. The media is under the thumb of the corporations.
We cannot rely on the corporate media for anything other than right-wing cheerleading. On matters as grave as war and peace, life and death, jobs and health they repeat the right-wing press releases and turn to right-wing "think tanks" for perspective. Sound and balanced reporting is extinct.
What can we do about it? As Ted Turner explained, a few corporations—mostly run by right-wingers - dominate everything you see and hear. The corporate media won't do their job, so we must do it for them. MikeHersh.com and its partners are raising funds to buy ads exposing Bush's failures and crimes.
Copyright © 2002–2003 by MikeHersh.com