Neuro Axis
10-20-2003, 02:28 PM
There seem to be many here that think that there are actually plenty of good things happening in Iraq as a result of the US-led occupation, and that a liberal-minded media is deceptively censoring the stories in order to further anti-Bush sentiment in the face of a rapidly-approaching election.
These statements could not be further from the truth. On October 17, 2003, the Washington Post reported that Commerce Secretary Don Evans reported gleefully back to Washington that economic progress was bng made in Iraq, and to prove this assesment he pointed out two Baghdad kids "selling soft drinks to Baghdad's parched drivers" by the side of the road. Meanwhile, Mowafaq H. Mahmood, the man who runs the Baghdad Bank, admitted to reporters that "no one's applying for credit." Needless to say, Evans did not include Mahmood's comment in his report, who was commissioned to deliver an objective report about economic conditions in Iraq. While numerous US Senators have returned to Iraq delighted about the conditions in Iraq, the Washington Post conceded in the same story that most, if not all of these tours are "closely guided by American occupation authorities."
While it is a timeless truism that bad news may move papers faster than good ('if it bleeds, it leads,' is the popular catch-phrase), the media cannot be expected to ignore the reporting of a car-bombing in Baghdad killing several while paying scrutiny to a school opening across town (Jon Stewart put it best: "are you gonna cover a truck not on fire?").
'Easy,' you say, 'the Washington Post is a liberal paper with anti-Bush sentiment.' Let's look at some more facts.
-On December 16, 1990, Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected president of Haiti, after years of bloody revolution and uprising. ght months later, soldiers led by Lieutenant-General Raoul C?dras and Colonel Micheal Francois szed Aristide and forced him into exile. The C?dras regime is said to have killed at l 4,000 people in Haiti. Dozens, sometimes hundreds, of Haitians would pack into small boats and try to make thr way to America during the duration of Aristide's exile. After the United States placed a trade embargo on Haiti in response to the atrocities, the Francios/C?dras regime hired several of the biggest PR firms in America to conduct a massive smear campaign against Aristide aimed at turning American opinions toward the regime. The regime probably spent at l seven figures on the long-lasting smear campaign, and gradually American opinion began to grow more hostile toward Aristide. Though the US government officially held a pro-Aristide stance, a growing movement was seen in the halls of the capitol: US Congressmen and women attacking Clinton for his support of the evil incarnate: Aristide. US Senator Jesse Helms organized a "classified briefing" between himself, several other senators, and Brian Latelle, the CIA's Intelligence Officer for Latin America. At the meeting, Latelle used a forged letter to convince the senators that Aristide suffered from psychological problems. A story about the meeting was leaked by a PR firm to Robert Novak, a syndicated columnist at the Washington Post, who ran the story the next day. Would a paper that supposedly holds stanuch anti-government stances in the faces of facts to the contrary do this?
- During the uprising of the Sandanistas in Nicaragua in the early 1980's, the US proceeded to organize, train, and fund the contra terrorists, an act which was officially condemned by the World Court as a terrorist action on June 27th, 1986. Journalists in the area attempted to report on major atrocities carried out by the contras, with little or no attention on the popular circuits. When Congress passed the Boland Amendment, which outlawed CIA involvement in domestic agendas and ended the Reagan administration's support of the contras, Reagan deployed CIA Director William Casey to set up a group to censor negative reports of contra activities and dispense domestic propaganda aimed at turning the American peoples' opinion in favor of the contras. Casey appointed Walter Raymond, Jr. as head of the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Carribean (OPD), "public diplomacy" acting as a synonym for "public relations." An internal OPD memo admitted to secretly setting up meetings between contra leader Alfonso Robelo and a handful of America's leading media outlets. Among them: the Washington Post. If the Washington Post were so hostile toward the government, why would they accept such blatantly recognizeable propaganda on behalf of the administration?
-November 2000 was the tenth anniversary of the murder of six prominent Jesuit intellectuals, thr housekeeper, and her 15 year-old daughter in Latin America by El Salvadoran forces armed, trained, and equipped by the US. The media turned a blind eye to the whole thing, and as Chomsky points out, "If, say, V?clav Havel and half a dozen other Czech intellectuals had thr brains blown out by Russian-run forces ten years ago, the anniversary would have been noted and people would know thr names," in much the same way that most educated people "know the names of the European dissidents and read thr books and praise them." But when V?clav Havel came to the US and adressed Congress, praising the "defenders of freedom" (the US) who had just murdered several of his close companions, the media suddenly became much more attentive. The Washington Post ran an editorial wondering why we can't have more intellectuals like Havel to praise the US. Would this be reasonable behavior from a paper that supposedly will run whatever story they can to damage the reputation of a current administration?
And mind you, these are examples from a paper that periodically shows unusual hostility toward the public relations industry, giant transnational corporations, and US forgn policy.
This is just one example, and others can be provided, of the rediculousness of the idea that the US news media is fabricating, or focusing unfairly on, negative reports coming out of Iraq.
Sources: US Starts Iraq 'Good News' Offensive, Washington Post, October 17th, 2003; Haiti regime civilian death figure: Haiti: A Look at the Reality (1993); Haitian regime PR campaign: "Haitian Headache;" Dick Kirschten, National Journal, March 1993, "Ex-Dade Politico Helps Haiti's Army," Palm Beach Post, September 3rd, 1993, "Family Business: Haiti's Behind-the-Scenes Warriors Come Out in the Open," Village Voice, October 26, 1993; "Allegations About Aristide," Robert Novak, Washington Post, October 28, 1993; OPD and Propaganda Practices: "Iran/Contra's Untold Story," Forgn Policy, Fall 1988; OPD sets up secret meetings: "Alleged 'White Propaganda' of S/LPD Criticized by Comptroller General," O'Dwyer's PR , January 1989; Chomsky quote: Propaganda and the Public Mind, Noam Chomsky, South End Press 2001; Havel quote: "Upheaval in the ," New York Times, February 22, 1990; Toxic Sludge is Good For You, Sheldon Rampton & John Stauber, Common Courage Press 1995; prwatch.org
________
ASS SMALL (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/164/small/videos/1)
These statements could not be further from the truth. On October 17, 2003, the Washington Post reported that Commerce Secretary Don Evans reported gleefully back to Washington that economic progress was bng made in Iraq, and to prove this assesment he pointed out two Baghdad kids "selling soft drinks to Baghdad's parched drivers" by the side of the road. Meanwhile, Mowafaq H. Mahmood, the man who runs the Baghdad Bank, admitted to reporters that "no one's applying for credit." Needless to say, Evans did not include Mahmood's comment in his report, who was commissioned to deliver an objective report about economic conditions in Iraq. While numerous US Senators have returned to Iraq delighted about the conditions in Iraq, the Washington Post conceded in the same story that most, if not all of these tours are "closely guided by American occupation authorities."
While it is a timeless truism that bad news may move papers faster than good ('if it bleeds, it leads,' is the popular catch-phrase), the media cannot be expected to ignore the reporting of a car-bombing in Baghdad killing several while paying scrutiny to a school opening across town (Jon Stewart put it best: "are you gonna cover a truck not on fire?").
'Easy,' you say, 'the Washington Post is a liberal paper with anti-Bush sentiment.' Let's look at some more facts.
-On December 16, 1990, Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected president of Haiti, after years of bloody revolution and uprising. ght months later, soldiers led by Lieutenant-General Raoul C?dras and Colonel Micheal Francois szed Aristide and forced him into exile. The C?dras regime is said to have killed at l 4,000 people in Haiti. Dozens, sometimes hundreds, of Haitians would pack into small boats and try to make thr way to America during the duration of Aristide's exile. After the United States placed a trade embargo on Haiti in response to the atrocities, the Francios/C?dras regime hired several of the biggest PR firms in America to conduct a massive smear campaign against Aristide aimed at turning American opinions toward the regime. The regime probably spent at l seven figures on the long-lasting smear campaign, and gradually American opinion began to grow more hostile toward Aristide. Though the US government officially held a pro-Aristide stance, a growing movement was seen in the halls of the capitol: US Congressmen and women attacking Clinton for his support of the evil incarnate: Aristide. US Senator Jesse Helms organized a "classified briefing" between himself, several other senators, and Brian Latelle, the CIA's Intelligence Officer for Latin America. At the meeting, Latelle used a forged letter to convince the senators that Aristide suffered from psychological problems. A story about the meeting was leaked by a PR firm to Robert Novak, a syndicated columnist at the Washington Post, who ran the story the next day. Would a paper that supposedly holds stanuch anti-government stances in the faces of facts to the contrary do this?
- During the uprising of the Sandanistas in Nicaragua in the early 1980's, the US proceeded to organize, train, and fund the contra terrorists, an act which was officially condemned by the World Court as a terrorist action on June 27th, 1986. Journalists in the area attempted to report on major atrocities carried out by the contras, with little or no attention on the popular circuits. When Congress passed the Boland Amendment, which outlawed CIA involvement in domestic agendas and ended the Reagan administration's support of the contras, Reagan deployed CIA Director William Casey to set up a group to censor negative reports of contra activities and dispense domestic propaganda aimed at turning the American peoples' opinion in favor of the contras. Casey appointed Walter Raymond, Jr. as head of the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Carribean (OPD), "public diplomacy" acting as a synonym for "public relations." An internal OPD memo admitted to secretly setting up meetings between contra leader Alfonso Robelo and a handful of America's leading media outlets. Among them: the Washington Post. If the Washington Post were so hostile toward the government, why would they accept such blatantly recognizeable propaganda on behalf of the administration?
-November 2000 was the tenth anniversary of the murder of six prominent Jesuit intellectuals, thr housekeeper, and her 15 year-old daughter in Latin America by El Salvadoran forces armed, trained, and equipped by the US. The media turned a blind eye to the whole thing, and as Chomsky points out, "If, say, V?clav Havel and half a dozen other Czech intellectuals had thr brains blown out by Russian-run forces ten years ago, the anniversary would have been noted and people would know thr names," in much the same way that most educated people "know the names of the European dissidents and read thr books and praise them." But when V?clav Havel came to the US and adressed Congress, praising the "defenders of freedom" (the US) who had just murdered several of his close companions, the media suddenly became much more attentive. The Washington Post ran an editorial wondering why we can't have more intellectuals like Havel to praise the US. Would this be reasonable behavior from a paper that supposedly will run whatever story they can to damage the reputation of a current administration?
And mind you, these are examples from a paper that periodically shows unusual hostility toward the public relations industry, giant transnational corporations, and US forgn policy.
This is just one example, and others can be provided, of the rediculousness of the idea that the US news media is fabricating, or focusing unfairly on, negative reports coming out of Iraq.
Sources: US Starts Iraq 'Good News' Offensive, Washington Post, October 17th, 2003; Haiti regime civilian death figure: Haiti: A Look at the Reality (1993); Haitian regime PR campaign: "Haitian Headache;" Dick Kirschten, National Journal, March 1993, "Ex-Dade Politico Helps Haiti's Army," Palm Beach Post, September 3rd, 1993, "Family Business: Haiti's Behind-the-Scenes Warriors Come Out in the Open," Village Voice, October 26, 1993; "Allegations About Aristide," Robert Novak, Washington Post, October 28, 1993; OPD and Propaganda Practices: "Iran/Contra's Untold Story," Forgn Policy, Fall 1988; OPD sets up secret meetings: "Alleged 'White Propaganda' of S/LPD Criticized by Comptroller General," O'Dwyer's PR , January 1989; Chomsky quote: Propaganda and the Public Mind, Noam Chomsky, South End Press 2001; Havel quote: "Upheaval in the ," New York Times, February 22, 1990; Toxic Sludge is Good For You, Sheldon Rampton & John Stauber, Common Courage Press 1995; prwatch.org
________
ASS SMALL (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/164/small/videos/1)