In the Name of Objectivity, Media Clouds the Reality of Terror Report
Here we go again. Another devastating report being spun as a mixed bag — with the spin dutifully echoed by the media. Another administration brain tumor being “offset” by shiny hair.
This time it’s the new National Intelligence Estimate report on the threat of terrorist violence against America that is being given the utterly ludicrous “on the one hand… and on the other hand” treatment.
A prime example of this came on AC 360, where Anderson Cooper reported that “both sides in the Iraq debate are spinning [the NIE] to support their case.” To prove his point, he rolled a video clip of Bush making the case for staying the course in Iraq. Back on camera, he said, “The Democrats, of course, see it differently.”
“Of course” they do. Not because there are always two sides to every issue, but because the facts are different than Bush claims they are.
Cooper then turned to a trio of experts whose goal was “Keeping Them Honest.”
Up first was the always bracing Michael Ware, beamed in via satellite from Iraq, where he has spent most of the war. Ware took a cudgel to the White House spin machine, beating down the administration’s attempt to portray the war as a fight between America and al-Qaeda by reporting that “al-Qaeda would be lucky to make up 3 percent of the insurgency.” Ware’s verdict on the White House: “They’re trying to play the American public.”
Next up was CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen who agreed with Ware that al-Qaeda in Iraq is a “relatively small group” but was quick to add: “On the other hand, the largest number of suicide attackers in Iraq are foreigners… few Iraqis are involved in the suicide attacks. And it’s the suicide attacks, of course, that sparked the civil war, that got the United Nations to withdraw, and that made Iraq a much more dangerous place. So, despite their small number, they have had a disproportionate strategic effect on the ground.”
So for those keeping score, that’s one “the administration is not being honest” and one “the administration is partially honest and partially dishonest.” Hmm… I wonder what could be next? Perhaps someone to defend the administration as “totally honest”?
Enter CNN military analyst, retired U.S. General David Grange. Like the White House, Grange sees a silver lining in the fact that the war in Iraq has “multiplied” the number of terrorists: “I kind of like the idea [terrorists] assemble in Iraq, because there’s more of them there to take down, instead of hunting them around the world of global operations, which are very difficult. Here, we have a license to kill or capture. Many other places, we do not. And, so, I don’t think it’s a bad thing that they’re assembling in Iraq.”
As usual, Ware refused to let the spin go unchallenged: “The whole notion of ‘better to fight them over there than over here,’ let’s bring them in like a honey pot and draw them to Iraq and kill them, is absolutely ludicrous. In fact, it’s so ludicrous, it’s downright dangerous, because what they’re doing is, they’re creating entire generation of jihadis that did not exist… Iraq has been a total disaster, in terms of limiting the number of jihadis on the planet.”
So there you had it — a typical media sampler. One saying “it’s A”, one saying “it’s B,” and one saying “it’s a little of each”.
Fair, balanced, objective. And utterly confusing for the very public they are trying to inform.
There are such things as facts. There is such a thing as reality. And refusing to see those facts and report that reality — undiluted by an “on the other hand” mixer — isn’t a sign of objectivity, it’s a sign of intellectual laziness and journalistic muddled thinking.
The NIE report represents the consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and is a stark and unambiguous repudiation of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism strategy and its contention that the war in Iraq has made us safer.
Indeed, the report suggests that it’s just the opposite — that the war in Iraq has fueled a growing hatred of America, spread Islamic extremism, and spawned an expanding crop of newly inspired jihadists around the globe. And it eviscerates the Bushies’ bedrock notion that we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. It turns out that the odds of us having to fight them over here have greatly increased precisely because we are fighting them over there.
The report also highlights the “regenerated” strength of al-Qaeda. So not only have we failed to capture bin Laden and destroy those that attacked us on 9/11 — we have, thanks to Bush’s tragic actions, actually helped keep al-Qaeda strong and deadly.
If this NIE assessment was a Keeping Us Safe report card, Bush would get an F.
There are times when there aren’t two sides to an issue — when there is no “other hand.” This is one of those times.
The president vowed to keep us safer and, according to 16 intelligence agencies, he has failed. Period. End of story.
Arianna Huffington is the editor of The Huffington Post and the author of many books, including her most recent, On ‘Becoming Fearless….in Love, Work and Life‘.
© 2007 The Huffington Post
I can’t understand why the administration keeps insisting Iran wants to eliminate a Shi’a dominated government when for years they fought a war with Saddam Hussein to establish just such a government. It seems to me that Iran would favor al Maliki’s government, and not try to disrupt it.
After 9/11 the United States sought to disrupt funding to Al Qaeda, not by targeting Iranians, but by targeting Saudis. According to the Los Angeles Times, of the handful of foreigners captured in Iraq (135 out of 19,000 prisoners), nearly half are Saudis. And that makes convoluted sense, given a prosperous democracy in the Middle East might encourage the Saudi public to throw off rule by the Saudi princes.
Oddly, other than in the LA Times, I’ve barely heard a whisper from the rest of the media concerning either the minor number of foreign fighters in Iraq or the predominance of Saudis among those captured.
Mass Media does not deal in facts. As stated, they put on 3 people to give their opinions, all getting paid off by someone and all with less knowledge than the average person (me). Watching these shows, a waste of time except to see what they are “up to”. Unfortunately, that seems to be where the majority of Americans get their daily dose of propaganda. More war, more dead, another billion literally blown up.
Kucinich 2008
HR 333 Impeach Now
I cant resist this but it seems someone is gonna stick something really deep where it belongs:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_colonoscopy
Priceless.
Maybe Dr. Tubb will find Nancy Pelosi’s head while he’s in there?
Ha !!!!!!!!
Loveya Arianna.
So all of us true believers agree that everything Bush or his buddies in the media and elsewhere say about the war is bull biscuits. So what? All of the true believers on the other side think everything we say about the war is the same. And the problem is, there is no way, other than our own intuition, to absolutely discern the truth. As much as I hate the war, I hate the fact that there is no objective source in the media that is trusted by the majority of the people to tell us what the hell is really going on. All we get are bits of information, opinions and spin. Even now, I cannot form an intelligent opinion of my own as to what we should be doing going forward in Iraq. The issues are complex, real information murky, and opinions aplenty. The only thing I know for sure is that we never should have gone in the first place. But there we are! Now what? And don’t just tell me we should get out. I want to know how we should get out, and to a high degree of probability, what will happen if we do, with facts and logic to back it up. Something I can believe in. Good luck with that.
Gyptian:
Yes, they’re going to stick something where it belongs, but- - - - -
how can you tell, in Dumbya, where it belongs?
“And it eviscerates the Bushies’ bedrock notion that we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. It turns out that the odds of us having to fight them over here have greatly increased precisely because we are fighting them over there.”
Thanks for putting this talking point to shame with commentary based on facts & reality, rather than ’spin’ & delusion. I’m so sick of hearing all these expert & neo-CON stumblebums chant this absurd mantra I could puke.
At least since early 2002, the occurrence of “terror alerts” has been almost predictable: whenever the Bush regime receives criticism that is recognized even by the mainstream media, within approximately two weeks an alert is issued. Americans who are subdued by terror alerts and other Bush-regime threats (such as NSA surveillance) should understand that it does not matter whether civil liberties are destroyed “de jurae” by a Bush executive order or “de facto” by our own fearful behavior: the end result of a silent, fearful public is the same.
Sounds like the best opportunity the neocons will ever have to find Osama or those ellusive WMDs.
Now, they are making claims that Iraqization (remember Vietnamization) of the war will work within a few years. The distortions and series of inaccurate predictions have been deadly, except for the war industry itself whose stock has gone way up. But, the Bushes just reflect the character, methods and goals of the U.S. ruling class; W was inserted into the presidency by an orchestrated series of campaign pseudo events highlighted by manipulable polling, pulling strings, powerful press and smoke and mirrors. Our narrowing rights to huff and puff still helps us neutralize the fact of our short term and long term powerlessness.
capt. “And don’t just tell me we should get out”
So youve already framed an opinion but you claim you have no sources to back it up ! And based on the opinion you have already formed we should just stay there … right ? So dont be confused. You are doing great.
This is very old news, and for some strange reason, the story never progresses. Did I miss the part where Ms. Huffington proposes to break up the media conglomerates?
It isn’t a law of nature that multi-national corporations have a right to own multiple TV stations and newspapers. It isn’t a law of nature that broadcast licenses are automatically renewed.
You want independent media? It’s a simple matter to break the media up into small, independent pieces. For most of the 20th Century, that’s how it was.
Now Rupert Murdoch has somehow acquired a “right” to buy the Wall Street Journal. Is there anyone anywhere who thinks this is in the public interest? The Chicago Tribune owns the LA Times, and the ultra-right Sinclair Media owns dozens of TV stations. All this bullshit should be illegal, and it was illegal, for most of the 20th Century.
No TV or radio station, network, or newspaper should belong to a larger corporation. Ms. Huffington’s post is a pure tautology: tiny components of large corporations behave like tiny components of large corporations. Offend no one. Everything is for sale.
Come back next week for exactly the same story, and exactly the same expressions of shock and indignation.
“Come back next week for exactly the same story, and exactly the same expressions of shock and indignation”
Well a single story submerged in a blog is not going to change everyones mind or change the world. If we need radical changes to corporate media ownership, which is responsible for most of our problems, we need to scream from the rooftops repeatedly every day if possible.
Ms. Huffington does not advocate media diversification in her article. She’s just complaining because her side is losing in the MSM. On her own site, she’s just as one-sided as the big media corporations.
For example, I wrote exactly the same post you see above this one as a comment when the same article appeared on Huffington Post, and the moderator censored it. Common Dreams is a lot more inclusive.
Ms. Huffington isn’t against concentration of media power. She just wants it for herself.
That doesnt make sense … how can you compare a blog with Fox/CNN …. if Ms.Huffington was making millions of dollars in profit from her blog then maybe you have a point … but she isnt !!
capt. clevariant said: “As much as I hate the war, I hate the fact that there is no objective source in the media that is trusted by the majority of the people to tell us what the hell is really going on. All we get are bits of information, opinions and spin. Even now, I cannot form an intelligent opinion of my own as to what we should be doing going forward in Iraq.”
There is no such thing as objective media. Anyone who claims to be objective is simply lying and should be trusted less than a source with an obvious bias. What you should do is read sources with obviously different biases and compare the viewpoints to see which one makes more sense. This can occur better when there is some media diversity. Right now outside of the internet, every viewpoint is owned by big money and has a highly uniform bias.