Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSilence: Post-9/11 Censorship in the Press
The dumbest question on earth turned out to be the only pertinent one.
I was sitting at the anchor desk in San Francisco when President Bush delivered the State of the Union of 2003. We all expected an update on Afghanistan and instead the president pulled the now famous bait and switch. Magically, with no Democratic consensus, Osama became Saddam, and Afghanistan became Iraq. As the president was speaking, I called out to the camera people and the floor director in the studio. "I don't believe this, are you guys listening to this? Bush is preparing to go to war on another front without congressional approval." The president likened Saddam to Hitler and said Iraq had nuclear (Nuke-you-lure) weapons, biological weapons and chemical weapons. He used his 86 percent approval rating at the time to buy silence from the press and here's how that occurred in my life.
A camera person laughed and said, "Les, Bubba is about to rally the nation to another war. Wasn't Saddam Bubba Sr.'s nemesis?" The lights are bright, but I looked out into the dark studio and said, "Jesus, we have to say something. We can't just blithely sit here and pretend this is not worth discussing. The president is using 9/11 fear to start another war." The member of the Texas-Oil- Silver- Sperm- society is about to connect 9/11 to getting the oil fields and the enemy his father couldn't."
I waited, fearful that reporters from Washington would not speak up. I was fearful I would have to be the one to bring it up. Fearful that the new administration in our Fox affiliate would expect us to shut up and pretend we did not hear. I would later find out that's exactly what was expected of me. It was a new role for a loud-mouth girl from Texas, and one I did not know how to play.
Just a few years earlier, questioning power and asking fearless questions had earned our newscast the award of "Best Broadcast in the Nation," by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. PBS announced how rare we were and showed my picture. But, the good ole' boys in charge now did not really understand any of that. Now, in this fearful post 9/11 world, the new managers talked about Christianity, stared down those who cursed in the newsroom, and fired people so heartlessly they made them attend their own "goodbye parties" to save face. The other reporters had to watch this deceitful dance and were stricken with fear and loathed to speak up. I suppose that was the point. The world felt as if it was upside down, and I was now working for the "flat earth society."
When the president finally ended his speech, there was a recap by the reporters. It was stenographic in nature. There was no analysis, and no indication that another illegal war had been declared. I then opened my mouth. What I said next began the unraveling of a spotless 25 years of reporting.
"I did not hear any mention of the current war in Afghanistan or Osama Bin Laden." I said, hoping to prompt the seasoned reporter to point out the obvious and open discussion. Instead, he simply said, "That's right Leslie, the president did not mention Osama or Afghanistan." I sat there stunned.
As I left the studio, I was relieved to see that CNN was discussing the bait and switch that had just occurred. I left feeling a sense of dread. I found out the next day when I got to work, the feeling was justified.
As soon as I sat down at my desk the phone rang. The boss wanted to see me. This was the same boss who told me earlier not to make comments about global warming because he and the other bosses did not believe in it. I replied "As soon as the corporation figures a way to make money from global warming, they'll lead the charge against it." I am nothing if not a smart ass. I have since learned to suffer fools and pick my battles more carefully. But until then, I had never been censored in any way. Not on the air, and certainly not in the newsroom.
I walked toward the boss' office knowing the new ultra-conservative regime did not know my history as a reporter, and they did not care. I doubt any of them had read my resume. Controversy is the essence of news and they wanted no controversy. It cost them commercials.
"Hello, boss," I said. He got right to the point. "Never ask a question like that again. I've been fielding phone calls all day about it. Viewers felt it was unpatriotic."
So now, after 25 years of reporting from around the world, I was expected to be a stenographer. Again, I was a smart ass. "So, I said, perhaps we should change our promos from in-depth-coverage to See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil." He was pissed. He rose from his chair to dismiss me. I walked back to my desk as the newsroom watched. My crime was to ask a reporter's question following the State of the Union. I did not know the rules had changed and all questions following 9/11 were seen as unpatriotic. This same corporation had just banned The Dixie Chicks country band from their radio stations for making an anti-Bush statement.
Four years later, the nation wants to know where reporters were when it needed them most. I have heard a hundred times that the press has failed them. I, for one, was getting my ass kicked for merely pointing out the obvious.
Leslie Griffith is an award winning journalist whos has worked in newspaper, radio and television for 25 years. Griffith is currently working on a book about corporate censorship of the media called Shut-up and Read. To reach Griffith, go to Lesliegriffithproductions.com.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
19 Comments so far
Show AllIt is interesting to get a former insider's perspective on what happens in the corporate media. For someone who reads websites like Common Dreams often, it is clear that REAL news IS censored, on a regular basis, by the controllers of television and radio media - and print media as well.
I frankly don't consider TV news to be "journalism" so much as infotainment. It doesn't meet the smell test. The more people like Griffith withdraw from the corporate media and then tell the truth of what goes on behind the scenes, the more Americans will wake up to the essentially fake, scripted nature of what passes for broadcast "journalism" nowadays.
I would really recomend the book "No Questions Asked : News Coverage Since 9/11 that came out Nov. 2006.
Check her web site http://www.noquestionsasked.org/ or the book on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0275993353
Here are the reviews of the book:
Editorial Reviews
From Booklist
With the passage of time, it has become more and more apparent how the American press failed to question the Bush administration response to the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., according to independent journalist Finnegan, who explores those failures and what they may have cost the nation. Fear of being perceived as unpatriotic and willingness to accept information doled out by the administration led many journalists to retreat from their responsibility to question policies on the war on terror. The administration was not adequately probed on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the need to topple Saddam Hussein, and the Patriot Act and a host of other policies that have been set in place since 9/11. Finnegan describes the buildup to war and the psychological manipulation the administration used on the public and the press. Finnegan also compares U.S. coverage of 9/11 and the war on terror and coverage by the press abroad. This is a penetrating look at American news coverage at a critical time in U.S. history. Vanessa Bush
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
Review
Finnegan's convincing, readable, and meticulously researched book concerns the failure of the US press to adequately cover "real" news since the 9/11 attacks. Conservatives will probably accuse Finnegan (an award-winning journalist and a scholar of the psychology of terrorism and the media) of a liberal bias in maintaining that the Bush administration and Fox News bullied a compliant media into censoring key news stories and printing pro-administration propaganda pieces. But no one can deny that the alarming evidence Finnegan presents in support of that contention is well documented and raises questions that need to be asked. This book is more substantive than some other books on the subject (Bernard Goldberg's work comes to mind), many of which are underresearched and rancorous in their attempts to expose the media as liberal, and it is easier to read than David Barker's heavily footnoted, statistic-laden Rushed to Judgment (2002), which argues that the media are 6rnservative. Although the debate over whether the media is fundamentally left- or right-wing may never be settled, Finnegan addresses the controversy with a minimum of snarkiness and moral outrage and a preponderance of facts and intelligent analysis. Essential. All readers; all levels.Choice
No Questions Asked: News Coverage Since 9/11 is a clear-headed, methodical exposition on the medias failings since that fateful day....Finnegans unique perspective is that she approaches her subject matter as a journalist who earned a masters degree in educational psychology after the events of Sept. 11. But while the blending of these perspectives provides an academic frame for her understanding of the psychology of terrorism and how it affects the media, its Finnegans working knowledge of journalists and their group-think tendencies that enables her to connect the dots in so devastating a fashion. Reading No Questions Asked is a sobering task, and one that should be required of any aspiring journalist before he or she takes on the mantle.The Newspaper Guild
Many others have documented the press' letdown in fulfilling its adversarial role after 9/11. Seeing the problem is easy. Explaining it is harder. So Finnegan's rather studious approach, drawing on individual and group psychology, holds promise for not only understanding the failures but pointing toward reforms....Her suggestions boil down to detachment and determination: Ask hard questions, pursue documentation, seek comments outside the party line and follow up on loose ends and claims. It seems like pretty good psychology: Just use your head.American Journalism Review
No Questions Asked: News Coverage since 9/11 surveys the American media and its manipulation post-9/11, considering how the facts were misunderstood by the American public due to the lack of the right questions from reporters, and pinpointing mistruths about the war in Iraq and the nature of the threat of world terrorism. An eye-opening survey of democratic process and news reporting emerges which holds particular impact and importance for any college-level library strong in media studies.Midwest Book Review - California Bookwatch
With the passage of time, it has become more and more apparent how the American press failed to question the Bush administration response to 9/11 attacks on the U.S., according to independent journalist Finnegan, who explores those failures and what they may have cost the nation. Fear of being perceived as unpatriotic and willingness to accept information doled out by the administration led many journalists to retreat from their responsibility to question policies on the war on terror. The administration was not adequately probed on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the need to topple Saddam Hussein, and the Patriot Act and a host of other policies that have been set in place since 9/11. Finnegan describes the build-up to war and the psychological manipulation the administration used on the public and the press....This is a penetrating look at American news coverage at a critical time in U.S. history.Booklist
While many commentators have drawn connections between the miserably uncritical treatment of the Bush administration by the media following the September 11th attacks and the ability of the administration to initiate the invasion and occupation of Iraq based on nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" and equally nonexistent ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, fewer have sought to map out the entire American media landscape in the era of the "War on Terror," as independent journalist Finnegan does here. The picture that emerges is, if anything, worse, with even the self-bestowed accolades for the media's coverage of Hurricane Katrina withering under scrutiny. Beyond criticizing the structural and cultural factors that preclude media skepticism towards the powerful, she also documents the many ways that the American media has come to serve essentially as a propaganda organ for government.Reference & Research Book News
My local paper edited out my words that detailed president Bush's alleged war crimes. They won't even entertain an honest debate.
They say it's too controversial. Sadly, the truth in American media has degenerated into a business for hire.
America's press is very free, if you happen to own a press.
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
"The Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills passed in 1798 by the Federalists in the United States Congress—which was waging an undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War—and signed into law by President John Adams. Proponents claimed the acts were designed to protect the United States from alien citizens of enemy powers and to stop seditious attacks from weakening the government. The Democratic-Republicans, like later historians, attacked them as being both unconstitutional and designed to stifle criticism of the administration...
Twenty-five people, primarily prominent newspaper editors but also Congressman Matthew Lyon, were arrested. Of them, eleven were tried (one died while awaiting trial), and ten were convicted of sedition, often in trials before openly partisan Federalist judges."
The article goes on to explain that Thomas Jefferson led the political overthrow of this tyranny and pardoned those who had been convicted.
That was over 200 years ago. Today, as Ms. Griffith explains, corporate tyrants have eliminated any significant possibility of opposition (let alone sedition) from mass media. Therefore, the MSM is now a vast oil slick, 3000 miles wide and 1/8th inch deep, seldom perturbed by any ripple of truth or common sense.
Ominous as that is, the corporate media megalith is not invulnerable. They may have cut Ms. Griffith off the channel they dominate, but she has found me waiting for her on a medium which is, so far, beyond their control.
Thank you, M'am.
Kudos to you, Leslie....The day will come where no on will be able to pretend anymore, I fear. That's gonna be one hellish day. I still find it amazing that so many people can still be ignorant of the facts in a country like ours-and then again, I'm not so surprised.
once again.........i'll mention the "fairness doctrine"
what has happened to news is a direct result of its' demise.......fox, cbs, nbc, abc could not deny opposing views with its reinstatement.
i mean really.......self-regulation by the networks?....whose joke is that?
we all know the answer.........
"Viewers felt it was unpatriotic." Yes, it is the job of the newsroom to give in to war fever and hysteria, not ask hard questions. Or even easy questions.
Lesliegriffithproductions.com does not work, yet. Shows it as "parked" on godaddy.com. Is there another way to reach her? Huffington Post?
I am wondering what ever happened to Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS? Is it still going forward, or has he been "necklaced" once again. Too bad he did not fight it in the beginning. I guess it is tough to give up one's millions for a principle. Probably life threatening, also. Anyone know anything?
peace,
st john
Leslie - Before I stopped watching corporate news, I really enjoyed your work, with Dennis Richmond. Thanks for letting us know what happened to you. Keep fighting the good fight.
Thank you Leslie for all your years of integrity!!! My family and I watched you all those years because of the honesty and integrity you brought to the air.
When you disappeared with nary a murmur from the screen, we guessed that the crazies had managed to take charge of the asylum.
Sadly, that feeling turned out to be an understatement of magnitude where the MSM has gone.
I was at a media training conference in early 2002 where 2 session leaders - 1 from the SF Chronicle and 1 from another local SF station held forth at length about US government representatives attending editorial board meetings and telling the media what and how to report the news. They also pointed out the calls from corporate advertisers threatening to pull ads when the US imposed rules were not followed.
These individuals implored us to support any un-biased news with calls and letters or the official lines would be all we would hear in the future.
I guess we did not do a good enough job.
Again, thank you Leslie, for sharing your experience. For those of us who listened to you for years, this is 'Suspicions confirmed'.
We wish you well.
Thank you, Leslie.
What makes me sad is that the American people are afraid of the truth. They would rather pretend this is a democracy than fight for one.
kathyodat
Well, this explains why CBS and ABC are now parroting the Bush lie about how Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors so "we had to go in" even though the whole country heard Bush tell the inspectors three days before the bombing started to get out or get bombed. The inspectors pleaded for just a few more weeks and Bush said "No". Reason being, the hot season was coming and he wanted to get his invasion rolling.
I have been accusing the media of being complicit, and perhaps the corporate masters are, but what we see here where the boots are on the ground is a cowed media. I believe this actually goes back to the Kennedy assassination when over the next two years, 42 witnesses and journalists died under mysterious circumstances and everyone else shut up. The History Channel ran a series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", and 25 years after the event, Dallas ER doctors and witnesses spoke up, saying they had feared for their lives if they said anything. Some of them had testified before the Warren Commission, and said the Commission would not allow them to say anything that contradicted the single assassin theory. That documentary is well worth watching. It was made in 1988, and includes scientific proof that the fatal shot was fired from a storm drain below the grassy knoll.
Our whole country is based on a lying cover up, from beginning to end.
kathyodat
And thank you Leslie Griffith, for taking the steps to speak out in this way.
Post 9/11 censorship indeed. For an excellent legal summary of court cases from 2001-2005 which violated human rights, put together by a team of civil rights activists, take a look at:
"Challenging U.S. Human Rights Violations Since 9/11"
By Ann Fagan Ginger, Editor
Prometheus Books April 2005
As a result of the actions by the U.S. Government after 9/11, what is the reality in the "war against terrorism" three years later?
http://mcli.org/challenging/index.html
Table of Contents are here:
http://mcli.org/challenging/toc.html
One a case by case basis, the violations are documented and on the record, and have been submitted to the Commissioner on Human Rights in the UN. This is the real trail of evidence.
It's too bad that we have to pick our battles, because we should be fighting every one of them.
Check out this video, "The Video Liberation Movement"
http://liberationvideo.com/videolinks.html
Alternative media is the only journalism left.
The WhiteWash commission spoiled any chance to get to the truth.
the fake science in that report is the real joke.
See the numerous NYFD members on 9/11 truth...
REICHSTAG #2 IS HOW TRUTH SEEKERS MUST REFER TO IT. See facists DESTROYED PROPERTY in 1933 AND BLAMED IT ON THE 'BAD GUYS'. in 1930 bad guy's where Communists...
71 years later Communists had gone bankrupt.
so these new facistas destroyed PROPERTY AND
these new facistas picked the new 'bad guy'
Leslie Griffith -- You are a true journalist. It's nice to read from journalists who refused to be threatened into submission.
The brand of so-called "patriotism" (aka FASCISM)in this country lately stinks to high heaven. Paraphrasing from Gandhi, "Down with patriotism that does not include the well-being of all nations..."