Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNo sooner had Bush's ex-press secretary (now author) Scott McClellan accused President Bush and his former collaborators of misleading our country into Iraq than the squeals of protest turned into a mighty roar.
I'm not talking about the vitriol directed at him by former White House colleagues like Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer. I'm talking about McClellan's other war collaborators: the movers and shakers in corporate media. The people McClellan refers to in his book as "deferential, complicit enablers" of Bush administration war propaganda.
One after another, news stars defended themselves with the tired old myth that no one doubted the Iraq WMD claims at the time. The yarn about hindsight being 20/20 was served up more times than a Rev. Wright clip on Fox News.
Katie Couric, whose coverage on CBS of the Iraq troop surge has been almost fawning, was one of the few stars to be candid about pre-invasion coverage, saying days ago, "I think it's one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism." She spoke of "pressure" from corporate management, not just Team Bush, to "really squash any dissent." Then a co-host of NBC Today, she says network brass criticized her for challenging the administration.
NBC execs apparently didn't complain when -- two weeks into the invasion -- Couric thanked a Navy commander for coming on the show, adding, "And I just want you to know, I think Navy SEALs rock!"
This is a glorious moment for the American public. We can finally see those who abandoned reporting for cheerleading and flag-waving and cheap ratings having to squirm over their role in sending other parents' kids into Iraq. I say "other parents' kids" because I never met any bigwig among those I worked with in TV news who had kids in the armed forces.
Given how TV networks danced to the White House tune sung by the Roves and Fleischers and McClellans in the first years of W's reign, it's fitting that it took the words of a longtime Bush insider to force their self-examination over Iraq. Top media figures had shunned years of well-documented criticism of their Iraq failure as religiously as they shunned war critics in 2003.
Speaking of religious, it wasn't until two days ago that retired NBC warhorse Tom Brokaw was able to admit on-air that Bush's push toward invasion was "more theology than anything else." On day one of the war, it was anchor Brokaw who turned to an Admiral and declared, "One of the things that we don't want to do is destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, because in a few days we're going to own that country."
Asked this week about the charge that media transmitted war propaganda, Brokaw blamed the White House and its "unbelievable ability to control the flow of information at any time, but especially during the time that they're preparing to go to war." This is an old canard: The worst censors pre-war were not governments, but major outlets who chose to exclude and smear dissenting experts.
Wolf Blitzer, whose persona on CNN is that of a carnival barker, defended his network's coverage: "I think we were pretty strong. But certainly, with hindsight, we could have done an even better job." Coverage might have been better if CNN news chief Eason Jordan hadn't gotten a Pentagon "thumbs-up" on the retired generals they featured. Or if Jordan hadn't gone on the air to dismiss a dissenting WMD expert: "Scott Ritter's chameleon-like behavior has really bewildered a lot of people. . . . U.S. officials no longer give Scott Ritter much credibility."
ABC anchor Charlie Gibson, the closest thing to a Fox News anchor at a big three network, took offense at McClellan: "I think the media did a pretty good job." He claimed "there was a lot of skepticism raised" about Colin Powell's pre-war U.N. speech. Media critic Glenn Greenwald called Gibson's claim "one of the falsest statements ever uttered on TV" -- and made his point using Gibson's unskeptical Powell coverage at the time.
In February 2003, there was huge mainstream media skepticism about Powell's U.N. speech . . . overseas. But U.S. TV networks banished antiwar perspectives in the crucial two weeks surrounding that error-filled speech. FAIR studied all on-camera sources on the nightly ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS newscasts: Less than 1 percent -- 3 out of 393 sources -- were antiwar. Only 6 percent were skeptical sources. This at a time when 60 percent of Americans in polls wanted more time for diplomacy and inspections.
I worked 10-hour days inside MSNBC's newsroom during this period as senior producer of Phil Donahue's primetime show (cancelled three weeks before the war while the network's most-watched program). Trust me: too much skepticism over war claims was a punishable offense. I and all other Donahue producers were repeatedly ordered by top management to book panels that favored the pro-invasion side. I watched a fellow producer get chewed out for booking a 50-50 show.
At MSNBC, I heard Scott Ritter smeared -- on-air and off -- as a paid mouthpiece of Saddam Hussein. After we had war skeptic and former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark on the show, we learned he was on some sort of network blacklist.
When MSNBC terminated Donahue, it was expected that we'd be replaced by a nightly show hosted by Jesse Ventura. But that show never really launched. Ventura says it was because he, like Donahue, opposed the Iraq invasion; he was paid millions for not appearing. Another MSNBC star, Ashleigh Banfield, was demoted and then lost her job after criticizing the first weeks of "very sanitized" war coverage. With every muzzling, self-censorship tended to proliferate.
I'm no defender of Scott McClellan. Some may say he has blood on his hands -- and that he hasn't earned any kind of redemption.
But as someone who still burns with anger over what I witnessed inside TV news during that crucial historical moment, I'm trying my best to enjoy this falling out among thieves and liars.
Jeff Cohen is a recovering TV pundit, founder of the media watch group FAIR, and associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College. His latest book is Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media.
46 Comments so far
Show AllYou almost lost me when you called Wolf Bitzer a "Carnival Barker".
He may be a full bore liar who helps death rule Iraq and other places where there is profit (Darfur,etc)- but a tawdry peddler of snake oil and dubious amusements- (that kill no one, destroy no one, attack no thinking people)- he is not...
There is a special place for him in Hell, and while he is still on the air, this will ensure those who pay him will join him there. Think of it, Hell will be FULL of Republicans and their enablers, they could run out of room!
Otherwise, a great article!
JOHN C MAY: It's a trick question. If I blind-fold someone and then ask them to describe the room I have handicapped their basis for response from the getgo. The blind-fold = our high paid propagandized media. I took the path less traveled by long ago and learned to live (freely!) on $10,000 a year, a sum I could always derive writing reports, freelance articles & tutoring. But the vast majority have been seduced by the American dream and have sought to own property overvalued, drive cars that get lousy gas mileage, and have filled their homes with all that their interior emptiness has called forth. The reason I paint this picture is it helps explains the two primary reasons why Americans (discounting most of us in this forum) are ILL-informed.
An opinion based on faulty planted evidence is not the same as one that's born from the SPIRIT of Truth. IF the public knew the truth I suspect about 10-20% would still not give a shit about the ruthless murder of innocents, part of this percentage might care as their gas prices go up... but the vast majority would be appalled by the horror being done by leaders who speak of democracy while eviscerating a nation and its people; or speak about patriotism while robbing the citizenry of its civil rights & liberties. The list goes one. I read CD so that informed journalists can apprise me of the sinister details of what's passing for policy (domestic & foreign) in this land of the hardly free, brave or awake.
Siouxrose,
"As to your question of why Americans have such low (?) support for this war, ----
Time will tell if and when we attack Iran and there is a call for Americans to stand tall and patriotic. We will see which way the wind blows."
I predict that it will follow the same pattern as Vietnam,and Iraq - We never learn a damn thing.
earthbound May 31st, 2008 says:
" Yes the young mind is very impressionable and it stays with you forever, sometimes. Yes, propaganda should be a mortal sin."
Well said!
"....if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it".----Joseph Goebbels
these words will live in infamy:
shock and awe
with God on our side
either you are with us or against us
i am the war president
i am the decider
support the troops
mission accomplished
the axis of evil
a mushroom cloud
WMD
the surge
love this country or leave it
treason
unpatriotic
liberal press
the constitution is nothing but a piece of paper
impeachment is not on the table
and to add for this government, and old quip: 'you scum sucking pigs'.
WE lick the blood from the infideals, n o wait, we find thems safe homes behind twenty foot walls of concreet,
barbed w2ire fence courtessyy
fo tthe god ol u s aof a
HAVE A NICE WAR5
by the way, i forgot to mention,
EVERYTHING IS A O K. GO BACK TO SLEEP, BRITTANY SPEARS HAD ANOTHER BABY, JESSICA SIMPSON JUST GOT MARRIED, THEN THE ACTOR FROM THE "NEW" MOVIE WAS GIVEN MAD PROPS FOR GETTING THE "NEW" ACTRESS FROM THE "NEW" MOVIE THAT COMES OUT THIS FRIDAY!! WOW, AMAZING, save your money after slaving away all week to go see the next entertainment distraction!!
THE WAR IS ALL IN GOOD FUN!!!
HAVE A NICE WAR! HURRAY FOR BOMBS AND BLOOD!
wee, like to see severed limbs on the sides of roads, esspessially so we can bathe in the blood of
'THE BAD PEOPLE"
everything you have seen on network television is a giant illusion
everything that you have seen on tv is the absolute
TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that pig, good for him, he might have had a shimmer of conscience that said "scotty, u did soooooo wrong", rush is having a field day with this, "TRAITOR"
ITS ALL A PART OF 'their' plan.
DIVERT, DISTRACT, THEN DEPLOY
WILLIAM, i know exactly what you are saying, (though i am not a fan of maher),
we NEED MORE MODERATE POINTS OF view in our media urgently!!!
i am so fucki n sick of hearing that the mainstream media is liberal, that is a dirty lie. the mainstream media hasnt been liberal since jimmy carter was president. and even then it was infiltrated by the "project for the new american century" folks
I am hoping that this "expose" will give the dimwits who blindly accepted, over and over again, the lies they were told by the bush administration, the opportunity to make a graceful change of mind. The weak minded have a hard time admitting they are wrong, or that their beliefs are mistaken. But, if they can now don the mantle of victim who was lied to, maybe they can foreswear their support of this evil administration and its illegal war. Maybe this will make it OK to demand and end to the war, and not require that it be a "victory."
we have to remember that this 'war' or whatever it is has been going on since at least 1991 . . .
and the 'shock doctrine' has been used since at least then too . . . by both Bush I and Clinton, as a build up to the 'shock and awe' display of 2003 . . .
i never watch tv (well, occasionally scrubs or house) but found myself at the car dealership waiting to get a check engine light reset in late march of 2003, the tv in the waiting room was tuned to FOX news and the entertainment was 'shock and awe over Bagdhad' . . . i was horrified, it was being presented like some kind of fireworks display, and that is exactly how the other people in the waiting room were reacting to it . . .
they don't care what we say or who we vote for as long as we vote with our wallets come April 15th . . .
NBC execs apparently didn't complain when — two weeks into the invasion — Couric thanked a Navy commander for coming on the show, adding, "And I just want you to know, I think Navy SEALs rock!"
Thank you Katie for fanning the flames of nationalism in many young people so that they could go and die and be maimed and come back mental wrecks for the rest of their lives.
Thank you for helping whip an angry country into a state of blind retribution and hatred which has led to world disorder and hatred of our country.
And thank you for helping start a war that has taken many lives, including that of my cousin, who's wife and three little girls will never have a life with him.
Thank you, Katie, but you don't rock.
I may be naive but I believe Cindy Sheehan to be way beyond the reach of corporate corruption. They'd have to give her a lobotomy and keep her overdosed on prozac. Come to think of it, maybe that's what actually happened to congress?
Cindy:
What will you do as a government employee when Big Money comes along and offers you big bucks, gifts and cushy jobs for doing their dirty work as opposed to being on the poor receiving end listening to the ungrateful mob's demands and you can't please everybody anyway or beg for public contributions to run your campaigns and get corporate media coverage? I know you would do the right thing, but you know what happens to honest pols in our plutocracy.
Politicians are powerless to fight the oligarchy. Only the people can do that. Mike Gravel has the solution.
RichM May 30th, 2008 12:41 pm
Yeah, that's all true, Jeff. But you forgot about the collaborators in the Democratic Party, who were no better than the ones in the media.
Yea, yea! My sentiments exactly. While Jeff is on the mark with his criticism of the fourth estate he fails to mention the other branch of government the constitution entrusts with not allowing this to happen in the first place- the Congress, now lead by the Democrats whose complicity is beyond being in question.
The Democrats have proven themselves incapable of being an opposition party as evidenced by "impeachment is off the table" and their continuing the funding of a discredited, illegal and immoral occupation. Why should Bush be untouchable? Why do the Democrats insist that Bush is above the law? They fail to even investigate. They abdicate their constitutional duties.
Honestly, how can you vote for them? What have they done in the last eight years? Please make me a list of their accomplishments so I may see my error if you think I'm wrong. Give me reasons to vote for Democrats that aren't reasons to not vote for Republicans. What have they done?
I believe the Democrats should be punished for not stopping the war when they have the power to do so and not impeaching Dick Bush.. I am voting for Cynthia McKinney of the Greens. Let the chips fall were they may. For those that say this is a vote for George McSame III I repeat, let the chips fall. This may be what the country needs. If George McSame wins he will finish off this country which may be what it would take for people to wake up. When enough people wake up we can throw the bums out! All progressives should abandon the Democratic Party and build up a third party. The sooner the better.
A couple of things. As far as I can see the purpose of advertising or propaganda (the same thing) is not to make you believe the message, they don't care. What they want you to think is that everyone else believes this crap. That is all they desire. That is how they control group psychology. It hurts anyone to some degree to face social ostracization. The old conflict between personal integrity and group integrity bites everyone but sociopaths in the butt at one time or another. I'm 71 years old and hope my epitaph will be 'Never graduated from college, never kissed anyone's ass and never went to Disneyland'. This is more a result of good luck than absolute fearlessness and integrity, but if you take moral stances in life you must be able to take the heat. I therefore find it rather easy to applaud someone who overcomes a bad environment and does something on principle, although like the Bush administration I don't know why Scott did this. A press secretary or press officer's job is to lie (whenever necessary) for the organization. If there were no need insulate management from lies and misinformation there would be no need for press officers. Dana Perino said it, 'this is not the scott we thought we knew, or something like that." What is bothering them is that as far as they knew Scott, like all press agents, would fornicate with a rat if that's what the boss wanted, and never have a second thought. I mean, that's part of the deal. You have to have someone who is totally loyal and has no scruples. So what went wrong? Was there something wrong with the vetting process? Has Scott been taking drugs? He couldn't have had a Christian vision because Bush owns all of those. I mean, he's been with the boss for years and we had no inkling. Something like this has never happened before unless the person was under threat of bodily harm or major indictment. MSM 'journalists' are merely press agents for Corporate America. If they become fully aware of this I don't know what they will do. It is (probably, I don't know for sure) very difficult to give up gobs of money, prestige and probably family to go against the flow. Go Scott.
The truth of matter is the whole damn system is a lie. And what the powerful fear most is that the lie will be exposed..
So, when someone like McClellan threatens the system by revealing a little bit of truth, they all circle the wagons and come out firing.
Corporate America may compete in the market place, but when their system of profits is threatened, they are all on the same team.
They is coporate America and then the rest of us.
Edward Bernays, one of the founders of the field of public relations said,"that the choices available in the polling booth are akin to those at the department store; both should consist of a limited set of offerings that are carefully determined by what Bernays called an "invisible government" of public-relations experts and advertisers working on behalf of business leaders. Bernays claimed that in a "democratic society" we are and should be "governed, our minds . . . molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of."
I believe the term is "brainwashing".
abramawicz--To answer your question, no, the NPR interviewer did NOT challenge the response in the least. She was actually a "journalist" herself, I believe from USA Today. They all cover for each other, as if they did as good a job as could be expected in the "post 9-11 climate." They don't even seem to realize what they did, or else they just don't care. They're pretty much doing the same thing now in regards to Iran. More war! More profits!
blessthebeasts May 30th, 2008 6:06 pm
"some asshole on NPR laughed out loud at the suggestion that the media was complicit in the selling of the war. "That's hilarious," he said."
Loud ridicule is 'standard operating procedure' for your American right.
What did the NPR interiewer do? Did he or she present facts to challenge this entirely predictable right wing response? If not, that would count as evidence that - as the above article says - the media is now complicit in after-the-fact rationalization of the invasion.
Almost no news was antiwar when 60% of Americans wanted more inspections?
This is of interest:
first, it indicates that the electorate was more progressive than either the news or the administration;
second, it indicates that, in this matter, the electorate did not merely follow administration lies and media lackeys, but held dissenting views (variably dissenting, no doubt) - skeptical ('We are being 'snowed') or pragmatic ('Let us see what inspections reveal') DESPITE the political and 'media blitz.'
You can be pessimistic - 'corporate and right wing interests rule' and 'some of these skeptics voted for the right and will vote for the right in the next election, regardless of what they thought'; or you can be hopeful - 'skepticism of right wing interests continues, in spite of their control, pointing to people 'up for grabs' by progressives.'
"FAIR studied all on-camera sources on the nightly ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS newscasts: Less than 1 percent — 3 out of 393 sources — were antiwar. Only 6 percent were skeptical sources. This at a time when 60 percent of Americans in polls wanted more time for diplomacy and inspections."
This morning some asshole on NPR laughed out loud at the suggestion that the media was complicit in the selling of the war. "That's hilarious," he said. I guess from his point of view, it is. How do these people sleep at night?
Isn't it time we started to take action? It doesn't matter how well informed we are on the left. The problem is that the mass public isn't on the left. They get their news, if they even bother, from corporations; corporations that are protected by the First Amendment. Further, tv networks use our property---the public airwaves---for free to spin their disinformation, convincing tens millions of Americans to believe false ideas.
The next demonstration shouldn't be directed at the government. It's time to press the press. Danny Schecter has already led some efforts on this front. Lydia Sargent explains the concept here:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_Reform/Press_the_Press.html
Scott McClellan would be a tad more believable in this profit driven 'mea culpa' if it were to be coming from the prisoner's dock at the International Criminal Court in the Hague, where he would be subject to cross examination and penalties for perjury, while testifying about US war crimes and crimes against humanity.
But as we all know the Bush junta, the US Government and M.I.C. in general will subject themselves to trial and possible justice at the ICC, and would never turn ANY of the Bush junta over for prosecution, short of a Mossad style abduction...
Kittyc,
I'm 57 yrs old and have been an anti-war activist since I was 16. I consider myself to be pretty well informed about what is "really" going on in the world. I do this by going out of my way to avoid anything that has to do with the MSM. I just finished reading "Shock Doctrine" and I really have to say I learned an awful lot. I totally agree with you that this war has been very successful from the standpoint of Bushco.
Always great to hear from you Cindy.
You've been right in Crawford, TX and everywhere since, Cindy. Your comment this time is no exception! America bleeds.
As a person who has been thoroughly vilified by the corporate media, I can relate.
Early in Crawford, I was being interviewed by Andeson Cooper and I accused the media of doing a poor job in the run up to war...he said: "we can only ask the same question so many times, Cindy." Then he came to Crawford to do a hit piece on me and it was down hill since then. The mom who wouldn't go away.
The media did not even ask any questions...and the members of the 4th estate have a lot of blood to wash off of their hands...my son's included.
But to wash the blood, they need to reform and start calling for immediate withdrawal of the troops and impeachment and trials for war crimes.
Love
Cindy
One would assume that this book was run by the White House prior to publishing. I just can't imagine that it could have crept through under the radar. Not with the web of secrecy cast over this administration.
mairs:
You ask about "We all knew what would happen if Bush destroyed Iraq", I think the destruction was all part of the plan to institute privatization of the whole country. I'm reading Shock Doctrine, and the destruction of the country fits in very well with the doctrine, initial shock and destruction (shock and awe)and rapid privatization of Iraqi industry, mainly oil. Paul Bremer's main task when he was there was to sign contracts for the multinational corporations who were actually the real invaders of the country. Rumsfeld was a close adherent to the Chicago School of Economics where the doctrine was developed 40 years ago. The Bush war-occupation is actually going very well for them in that regard.
Jeff Cohen's insider's tale is both timely and enlightening. I remember the purge of Phil Donahue and Bill Maher, and the villification of Scott Ritter as a credible source available for some semblance of fair and balanced reporting if such a style of coverage had been desired, but I'd never heard the Jessie Ventura anecdote before.
Mairs and Whitebeard -
You, me, and millions of other folks all knew exactly what was likely to happen if the Bushies plowed ahead with shock and awe and the great race up the freeway to Baghdad. But our nonexpert opinions in the run up to the invasion of Iraq were more than counter balanced on the tube with pundits predicting a cakewalk, dancing in the streets, and a quick regime change that would pay for itself, setting up more Big Mo for the real men to march right on down the old Axis of Evil to take Tehran next.
I suspect there's considerable truth in Tom Brokaw's assessment. Team Bush was substituting faith for facts, their arrogant belief in the exceptionalism of hi tech American military power trumping everything that was common knowledge - both in the street and in highest academe - about what happens to western invaders who think they can impose some new, stable political order in regions like Afghanistan and the Middle East.
Because a mindset of quasi-religious zealotry predominated the White House inner circle, critics of the war who sought to speak out were savagely reviled not just as misinformed or cowardly, but outright as heretics.
The mainstream American media either directly aided and magnified that villification, or else mostly stood passively by, making little or no effort to report on that tragic dynamic, critically or uncritically.
Bill from Saginaw
Mr. Mclellan,
DONATE 90% OF YOUR PROFIT FROM THE BOOK TO HELP FAMILIES (AMERICAN AND/OR IRAQI) WHO HAVE SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF THIS DEBACLE.
It's the right thing to do, no?, plus you're able to earn $plenty in other arenas, no?
We can blame the system! What a beautiful job they did and what patience they showed. Brick by Brick the project was put together.
Jefferson, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Eisenhower all warned about the building of the corporate world, but capitalism prevailed.
Our government is so corrupt and we are now on the greased slide, it will take generations to clean up the mess.
But it can be done! It can be done! We can't sit on our asses and expect the heavens to open and save us. We must educate the younger generation and get them to join in an effort to save this country. AMEN
I don't know what McClellan's underlying motives were for writing this "confession", but it's certain that he and his publisher will make a fortune on it. That's fine. But what will be the ultimate fallout of it? My guess is business as usual.
I wrote Bush a letter in the late summer of '02 and urged him as a Marine veteran of the Vietnam fiasco to be wary of any decision to invade Iraq, that I feared he would be leading the country down a dark and regrettable path. There were so many of us who knew the Saddam-al Quaida connection was pure myth and the "threat" of Iraq to the U.S. was laughable...let alone the fact that our forces had not yet captured Bin Laden in Afghanastan. The following spring I attended my first and only protests in PA, and in D.C.. And with all the protests of millions around the planet against the invasion, I was hopeful that the Bush regime would back off. Of course that turned out to be a vain hope. Then when "shock and awe" began I couldn't believe the way the media presented it all as a freakin' show for the masses to watch between trips to the mall, etc.. The first command of the ground troops was to secure an oil field which rendered the first American casualty, a young soldier shot in the stomach and killed...at least so I gathered according to the "coverage". Of course my story here is the story of many in our country, isn't it? We knew. The world knew. The media cheered it all on and obviously had a damn good time doing it.
I do hope Mr. McClellan somehow finds some peace of mind and soul. If money was his motive, then his karma will be even worse than that of the rest of Bushco. If not, then his writing this book will be a first step for him to regain his humanity. I would not wish otherwise for anyone.
If you think the book and this article are gonna straighten out the crooks in the mainstream media, aka, Bush's Ministry of Information, think again.
The media is still doing exactly the same thing right now. For instance, look at NYT's coverage regarding IAEA's report on Iran's nuclear case. The paper never mentions that IAEA has clearly stated that the agency has found no evidence that Iran is engaging in making nuclear bombs. Instead, NYT scrutinizes the report to find something, anything to make a mountain out of a molehill. Once a corporate media whore, always a corporate media whore.
The media did a horrible job, and we knew it at the time. Why was it that the people who bothered to investigate the reports of those who actually had first-hand knowledge of what was going on in Iraq, knew the truth when the entire MSM, most of Congress, and the Administration were all singing a different tune? We all knew what would happen if Bush destroyed Iraq, what alliances would spring up that were wholly unintended and unwanted by the Administration. How could they all have been so stupid and ill-informed? There is no excuse for any of it. Everything that has happened was predicted by those who knew the truth about the region, about Sadaam.
And Wolf Blitzer thinking they did a good job? I've never seen such a leaden, uninformed man with no intuitive sense of being able to connect events in more than a shallowly rudimentary way, no ability to place issues in their correct context, droning on and on with the script his corporate masters give him. Bleh!
You play along to get along... or else.
Pogo says, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
What the United States has done, is to become the Empire that we called "evil." The TV and newspapers are propaganda arms of the government and the corporate world.
We get to choose between Pravda On the Hudson and Ivestia On the Potomac.
Yeah, that's all true, Jeff. But you forgot about the collaborators in the Democratic Party, who were no better than the ones in the media.
'It has become deeply engrained in our American psyche - with constant daily reminders - both subtle and blatant - starting from kindergarten'
Yes John C
I still can place myself in those early classrooms and hear the rants of how the Communists were going to bury us and 'better dead than red'. Then I would go home to play cowboys and indians, and you know which side I would always want to be on. Yes the young mind is very impressionable and it stays with you forever, sometimes. Now look at all the violence in our media and the insane violent war video games. Just prepping our sons for the day when they can sit in some room and control some military weapon and blow some islamofascists or innocents to smithereens. No more mano a mano. Yes, propaganda should be a mortal sin.
SAILA: You're so right about the media, but perhaps now that some citizens have seen the truth, there will be less capacity to pull the wool over their eyes.
JOHN C: While it's quite true the jingoistic band has been playing Americans to its own tune for decades, how do you account for such low support (%) for this war and congress, etc?
WHITEBEARD: You are a very merciful man... I am not so lenient with those who blithely let others move through agonizing deaths to fulfill their high paid contracts.
RICK: You definitely nailed it! A threat to THEIR system of privilege brings on the circling wagons. And how. This type of behavior that is so criminally disposed towards the suffering it brings to others, well, that calls in the Lords of Karma to do a fair accounting.
I AM MYSELF: I totally concur on the dear overpaid Ms. Katie.
I remember watching a reputable Sunday "Washington Week in Review" talk show a couple of years ago.
When they summed up, they all agreed that in no way was the invasion based on the Bush regime's desire to control Iraq's oil.
In fact, oil had nothing to do with it.
That theory was "off the table."
...like so much else.
formernadervoter May 30th,says:
"The problem is that the mass public isn't on the left."
Yes! You are spot on! The American public is unfortunately the product of centuries of jingoistic propaganda, mindless flag waving, and unthinking military idolatry - so much so that we will rush into war every time we are offered the slightest excuse.
It has become deeply engrained in our American psyche - with constant daily reminders - both subtle and blatant - starting from kindergarten.
Such a mind-set will only be changed when America experiences enough humiliation and defeat - (as have ALL the other major nations) - and who now view war in a much different light from us.
Vietnam was our first lesson and Iraq is now our second. Let's hope that we do not insist on a third lesson in Iran.
Don't call it news--it's propaganda, government propaganda at that. Follow pentagon-loving, corporate fawning, main stream media and you'll become a non-person.
We live in a stupocracy-rule by the selfish,dim, rich.
What's it like being an MSM "journalist" in Hell? Do you bend over, grab your ankles and interview your anus every day . . . and have it tell you what an ass you always were and still are?
Scott Ritter has written a book: "Waging Peace".
I'm about half thru it and recommend it.
The MSM has to blow hard to convince everyone that its version of the elite staus quo is what is going on--the only show in town. when in reality the show is what Paul Hawken describes in his book, "Blessed Unrest". Keep reading, folks.
Cheers
Siouxrose,
always enjoy your commentaries.
As to you question of why Americans have such low support for this war, it is more to the effect that it has now become inconvenient in many ways to their lives and or lifestyles, or they hate to lose. It probably has nothing to do with the fact that they hate war or the propaganda isn't effective. Time will tell if and when we attack Iran and there is a call for Americans to stand tall and patriotic. We will see which way the wind blows. I wish I could be more optimistic. Peace.
JOHN C: While it's quite true the jingoistic band has been playing Americans to its own tune for decades, how do you account for such low support (%) for this war and congress, etc?
"Low support for this war"? How can you say that?
Support for this war was high at the start, and remained high for a long time. It only began to diminish as the war news began to deteriorate - just as in Vietnam, where Americans supported the war for about eight of the ten years.