Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiInvestigate This
"I think the questions were asked. I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the president. I think not only those of us in the White House press corps did that, but others in the rest of the landscape of the media did that. ... The right questions were asked. I think there's a lot of critics-and I guess we can count Scott McClellan as one-who think that, if we did not debate the president, debate the policy in our role as journalists, if we did not stand up and say, 'This is bogus,' and 'You're a liar,' and 'Why are you doing this?' that we didn't do our job. And I respectfully disagree. It's not our role."
That was NBC correspondent David Gregory, appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews." He was responding to former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception." McClellan has challenged the role of the U.S. media in investigating and reporting U.S. policy in times of conflict, especially when it comes to covering the government itself.
As a critic of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, especially when unsubstantiated allegations of weapons of mass destruction are used to sell a war, I am no stranger to the concept of questioning authority, especially in times of war. I am from the Teddy Roosevelt school of American citizenship, adhering to the principle that "to announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public."
Some may point out that Roosevelt made that statement in criticism of Woodrow Wilson's foot dragging when it came to getting America into World War I, and that it is odd for one opposed to American involvement in Iraq to quote a former president who so enthusiastically embraced military intervention. But principle can cut both ways on any given issue. The principle inherent in the concept of the moral responsibility of the American people to question their leadership at all times, but especially when matters of war are at stake, is as valid for the pro as it is the con.
The validity of this principle is not judged on the level of militancy of the presidential action in question, but rather its viability as judged by the values and ideals of the American people. While the diversity of the United States dictates that there will be a divergence of consensus when it comes to individual values and ideals, the collective ought to agree that the foundation upon which all American values and ideals should be judged is the U.S. Constitution, setting forth as it does a framework of law which unites us all. To hold the Constitution up as a basis upon which to criticize the actions of any given president is perhaps the most patriotic act an American can engage in. As Theodore Roosevelt himself noted, "No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it."
Now David Gregory, and others who populate that curious slice of Americana known as "the media," may hold that they, as journalists, operate on a different level than the average American citizen. As Mr. Gregory notes, it is not their "role" to question or debate policy set forth by the president. This is curious, coming from a leading member of a news team that prides itself on the "investigative" quality of its reporting. If we take Gregory at face value, it seems his only job (or "role") is to simply parrot the policy formulations put forward by administration officials, that the integrity of journalism precludes the reporter from taking sides, and that any aggressive questioning concerning the veracity, or morality, or legality of any given policy would, in its own right, constitute opposition to said policy, and as such would be "taking sides."
This, of course, is journalism in its most puritanical form, the ideal that the reporter simply reports, and keeps his or her personal opinion segregated from the "facts" as they are being presented. While it would be a farcical stretch for David Gregory, or any other mainstream reporter or correspondent, to realistically claim ownership of such a noble mantle, it appears that is exactly what Gregory did when he set forth the parameters of what his "role" was, and is, in reporting on stories such as the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the Bush administration's case for war. For this to be valid, however, the issue of journalistic integrity would need to apply not only to the individual reporter or correspondent, but also to the entire system to which the given reporter or correspondent belonged. In the case of Gregory, therefore, we must not only bring into the mix his own individual performance, but also that of NBC News and its parent organization, General Electric.
As a weapons inspector, I was very much driven by what the facts said, not what the rhetoric implied. I maintain this standard to this day in assessing and evaluating American policy in the Middle East. It was the core approach which governed my own personal questioning of the Bush administration's case for confronting Iraq in the lead-up to the war in 2002 and 2003. I am saddened at the vindication of my position in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not because of what I did, but rather what the transcripts of every media interview I conducted at the time demonstrates: The media were not interested in reporting the facts, but rather furthering a fiction. Time after time, I backed my opposition to the Bush administration's "case" for war on Iraq with hard facts, citing evidence that could be readily checked by these erstwhile journalists had they been so inclined. Instead, my integrity and character were impugned by these simple recorders of "fact", further enabling the fiction pushed by the administration into the mainstream, unchallenged and unquestioned, to be digested by the American public as truth.
Scott McClellan is correct to point out the complicity of the media in facilitating the rush to war. David Gregory is disingenuous in his denial that this was indeed the case. Jeff Cohen, a former producer at MSNBC, has written about the pressures placed on him and Phil Donahue leading to the cancellation of the latter's top-rated television show just before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Katie Couric, the former co-host of NBC's "Today Show" (and current news anchor for CBS News), has tacitly acknowledged "pressure" from above when it came to framing interviews in a manner that was detrimental to the Bush administration's case for war. Jessica Yellin, who before the war in Iraq worked for MSNBC, put it best: "I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning," she told CNN's Anderson Cooper. "When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings."
Now, one would think that a journalist with the self-proclaimed integrity of Gregory would jump at the opportunity to take the bull by the horns, so to speak, and focus on this story line, if for no other reason than to prove it wrong and thereby clear his name (guilty by association, at the very least) and the name of the organization he represents. The matter is simple, on the surface: NBC network executives either did, or didn't, pressure their producers and reporters when it came to covering and framing stories. Surely an investigative reporter of Gregory's talent can get to the bottom of this one?
While Gregory certainly does not need help from someone of such humble journalistic credentials as myself, perhaps my experience as a former weapons inspector in tracking down the lies and inconsistencies of the Iraqi government could be of some assistance. The first thing I would do is to frame the scope of the problem. The issue of Iraq as a target worthy of war really didn't hit the mainstream until the summer of 2002, so I would start there. I would be interested in defining the potential sources of "pressure" that could be placed on NBC as an organization when it came to reporting on Iraq.
We do know, courtesy of the Pentagon, that throughout the summer and fall of 2002, NBC News, via its Pentagon bureau chief and other contacts, worked closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs, on the issue of media access in any potential future conflict with Iraq. We also know that these meetings were an outgrowth of a meeting held on Sept. 28, 2001, when the Pentagon and bureau chiefs, including representatives from NBC News, discussed how to balance the needs of the media to do their job while protecting national security and the safety of military personnel. The issue of embedding media personnel with the military was raised, with the Pentagon emphasizing that "security at the source" was the principle means for which to ensure no security breach occurred. This meant that if journalists were so embedded, they would have to be responsible about what they reported.
This concept of self-censorship is not a new one, nor is it particularly controversial. Ernie Pyle and Joe Rosenthal, two famous journalists from World War II, were able to establish stellar reputations while operating under the conditions of wartime censorship. So were thousands of other journalists, in several wars. In this manner, journalists covering D-Day knew of the invasion long before the American public, or even members of Congress. Were they bad journalists for not reporting what they knew beforehand? Were their parent organizations corrupted by agreeing to censorship as a prerequisite for access? The answer in both cases is clearly "no."
However, in the interest of establishing a foundation of fact upon which to further any investigation into the possibility of pressure being exerted on NBC reporters and/or correspondents covering a war between the United States and Iraq, an intrepid investigator would want access to documents and records from those early meetings between the Pentagon and NBC News. What were the specific terms spelled out in those meetings? What derivative internal documents were generated inside NBC News, and its corporate master, General Electric, based upon those meetings, and what did those documents discuss? Unlike the situation faced by journalists during World War II, America and Iraq were not yet at war, so did NBC News establish policies on how to balance the operational security needs of the military while reporting on a war which, in the summer and fall of 2002, the Bush administration said wasn't being planned?
Formal planning for "Operation Iraqi Liberation" (only later renamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom") commenced early on in 2002. The U.S. Army began working on a public affairs plan early in 2002 and, in June of that year, briefed U.S. Central Command on a concept for large-scale media embedding for ground forces. U.S. Central Command expanded the Army's plan to include the other services, and by September 2002 had prepared a draft public affairs annex to the overall war plan. Formal public affairs planning for U.S. Central Command was initiated in October 2002, when a planning cell was established. In its first meeting, from Oct. 2-7, the Pentagon reviewed past media operations in time of war, and recommended a break with the past practice of a media pool, and instead suggested a formal embedded media program. These and other media-related issues were consolidated into Annex F (Public Affairs) of the formal "Operation Iraqi Liberation" war plan. It is curious that the Pentagon acknowledges a formal war plan in existence at a time when senior Bush administration officials were telling members of Congress that there were no plans to attack Iraq and that the Bush administration was focusing its efforts on diplomacy.
The embedded media program was formally endorsed by the Pentagon in November 2002. On Nov. 14, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, together with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent a message to all military commanders discussing public affairs, and in particular the embedded media program. In it, Rumsfeld addressed how potential future operations [i.e., war with Iraq] could shape public perception of the national security environment, and recognized the need to facilitate access to national and international media to "tell the factual story-good or bad-before others seed the media with disinformation and distortions as they most certainly will continue to do. Our people in the field need to tell the story."
When did NBC News become aware of this Rumsfeld memo? Were there any reactions to the concept of embedded journalists being targeted by the military as being facilitators for disseminating a pro-Pentagon point of view? The Pentagon states that while no formal meetings about draft public affairs annex content were conducted with bureau chiefs, "informal discussions were held with some key individuals in the media, who provided input for consideration." The Pentagon also acknowledges that changes to the public affairs annex were made "based on a bureau chief's recommendation." Was NBC News part of the "informal discussions" with the Pentagon? Did NBC News provide any recommendations to the Pentagon's public affairs office based on such meetings? If so, what were the recommendations, who made them, and how was this staffed within the NBC/GE corporate structure?
These are important questions, since balancing the need to maintain secrecy of potential military operations would appear to conflict with any effort undertaken by NBC News to probe Bush administration claims on not only the justification for confronting Iraq, but whether or not there was any plan to attack Iraq to begin with. How did NBC News compartmentalize its knowledge of the Bush administration's plans to attack Iraq? Was there any crossover in terms of management? Did the same personnel who managed Pentagon relations also manage the reporters whose task it was to press the Bush administration on the veracity of its case for war against Iraq? Did such crossover ever manifest itself in a case of conflict of interest? What is the documentary record of internal discussions within NBC in this regard? Were any policies established on the control of information that touched upon sensitive military activities?
It might appear as if I am on a fishing expedition, so to speak, probing for documents for which there is no evidence that they even exist. Again, I'll do my best to help focus David Gregory on his investigation. Much has been made of the fact that parent company GE makes a great deal of money from the machinery of war. It is useful, however, to examine a specific case, an instance where the news operation, the corporate parent and the military were all too intertwined.
In November 2002, the Pentagon established formal rules that specifically forbade any journalist to "self-embed" with a given military unit, noting that all requests for embedding would be handled via the Pentagon's public affairs office. At the same time, in Kuwait, the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division brigade and battalion commanders were experimenting with embedding journalists during short (three to five days) training exercises. The 2nd Brigade Combat Team in particular pushed the embedding concept, getting journalists embedded at the battalion level. From this experience, the 2nd Brigade was able to establish embedding tactics, techniques and procedures that worked for both the media and the commanders. According to the U.S. Army, "The embeds realized they needed to work with their equipment and develop procedures for filing reports. They identified problems with the durability of their equipment and its ability to withstand the elements and a need for power sources for extended periods."
One of these embeds was NBC News correspondent David Bloom. It should be noted that Bloom tragically died while covering the Iraq war. Bloom was a rising star at NBC, with an eye for a developing story. "Early on," NBC News President Neal Shapiro said shortly after Bloom's death, "he said, 'I want a piece of this war.' " Shapiro isn't specific about the date Bloom made that statement, but since Bloom was dispatched to Kuwait in November 2002, we can assume it was on or about that time. Bloom was one of the embeds who worked closely with the U.S. Army during that time, developing the "tactics, techniques and procedures" for embedded media. In December 2002, Bloom called NBC News from Kuwait, where he had just covered the largest U.S. military live-fire exercise since the first Gulf War. Bloom told his NBC News bosses that he had been given permission to embed with the 3rd Infantry Division, even though official Pentagon policy in place at the time specifically forbade any such action. Bloom already exhibited a familiarity with the war plans of the 3rd Infantry Division, bragging that they were the "tip of the spear." Not only would Bloom and his cameraman be able to ride with the 3rd Infantry Division, they would be able to broadcast live while doing so. Clearly, Bloom and his 3rd Infantry Division colleagues had perfected their embed "tactics, techniques and procedures."
The 2nd Brigade Combat Team had offered Bloom the use of a large M-88A1 tank recovery vehicle. Bloom had worked with the Army to mount a camera and a mobile satellite transmission unit on the M-88. The images taken from the camera would be sent back, while the M-88 was traveling at speeds of up to 50 miles per hour, to a radically modified Ford F-450 SuperDuty truck that carried specialized satellite communication equipment built by Maritime Telecommunications Network, and a gyro-stabilizing transmission dish mounted underneath a protective dome on the rear body. This truck would trail the leading elements of the 3rd Infantry's spearhead at distances of up to two miles. The M-88 carrying Bloom broadcast microwave signals back to the Ford F-450 truck, which in turn transmitted these signals via satellite uplink back to NBC News headquarters.
Bloom was able to provide the specifications of his idea to his NBC bosses, and in just 40 days, engineers from Maritime Telecommunications Network and NBC were able to modify a Ford F-450 to not only withstand the rigors of the Iraqi desert, but also to accommodate the electronics and satellite dish. Four weeks before the start of the war, the vehicle was tested, only to have the signal drop every time the vehicle turned. The engineers worked frantically to fix the problem, and the modified F-450, nicknamed the "Bloommobile," was airlifted to Kuwait, arriving just days before the start of the invasion.
The cost of the Bloommobile has not been formally revealed, but is thought to run into seven figures. This vehicle would never have been made without the support of GE, which underwrote the cost of its construction. GE also fronted for NBC in negotiating special clearances with the Pentagon and State Department on exceptions to policy and import-export control. The Pentagon's official policy while the Bloommobile was being built was for embeds to ride in vehicles provided by their respective unit, and that the media were not to provide their own transportation. Clearly, the Bloommobile represented a stark exception to that rule.
Keep in mind that the entire time GE/NBC was investing millions of dollars into building the Bloommobile so they could get crystal-clear live video transmitted from the "tip of the spear," the Bush administration was playing coy on the subject of war with Iraq. With GE/NBC News so heavily invested in exploiting a war, was there any pressure placed on NBC reporters/correspondents concerning how they dealt with the Bush administration's case for war? It is a fair question, and one that could best be dealt with through an examination of the internal GE/NBC documents concerning the Bloommobile. Who in GE/NBC served as the project manager for the Bloommobile? Certainly Bloom, the brain trust, was away in Kuwait. Who oversaw the project back in the United States? What did the Bloommobile cost? What was the internal debate within GE/NBC concerning the merits/faults of the Bloommobile? An organization like GE/NBC does not allocate millions of dollars on a whim. There had to be some sort of oversight that was documented. Who in GE/NBC fronted for the Bloommobile with the U.S. government? What is the record of communication between GE/NBC and the U.S. government concerning the vehicle? Did GE/NBC have to provide the U.S. government with any guarantees concerning the use of the Bloommobile?
In investing in the vehicle, GE/NBC News was investing in the war. There are quid pro quo arrangements made every day, and the link between the U.S. government granting NBC News so many exceptions in the creation and fielding of the Bloommobile, and the crackdown within the GE-controlled NBC/MSNBC family on anti-war and anti-administration sentiment, cannot be dismissed as simply circumstantial. But a review of the available documents would clarify this issue.
David Gregory has vociferously defended the role he and NBC News played in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Scott McClellan's new book, combined with testimony from other sources, including those from within the NBC News family, has called into question the integrity of the operation Gregory serves. An allegation from a credible source has been made, and any denial must therefore be backed with verifiable, documented information. To paraphrase former Secretary of State Colin Powell when talking about Iraq before the invasion, the burden is on NBC to prove that it wasn't complicit with the Bush administration concerning its reporting on Iraq and administration policies, and not on NBC's critics to prove that it was.
The old proverb notes that "a fish stinks from its head," something that aptly describes the GE/NBC News team when discussing the issue of Iraq. I challenge David Gregory to demonstrate otherwise.
Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including "Iraq Confidential" (Nation Books, 2005) , "Target Iran" (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, "Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement" (Nation Books, April 2007).
© 2008 TruthDig.com
71 Comments so far
Show AllScott Ritter is a Humanity Patriot.........He has always spoken out against the lies of the Cheney/Bush Gang.
None of the politicians in Washington D.C should ever be considered patriots. They have concealed the "Truth" from the American People. Thay have failed to Preserve and Protect the Constitution of the United States.
They have failed to demand explanations for the alleged Demolition of World Trade Center #7 with explosives and they enabled Cheney/Bush to Invade two countries that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11.
Kidnapping authorized by the President and U.S. Congresses. Torture authorized by the President and U.S. Congresses. Murder authorized by the President and U.S. Congresses. Theft authorized by the President and U.S. Congresses.
What is next? Iran !
Madtrapper: Your point is perfect. With all the scandals and screwups and crimes of this admin, what will it take to get impeachment? Semen on a blue dress?
Redwriterman: The internet as a tool of true democracy will eventually be shut down or severely limited under the umbrella of national security. Our last true open dialogue will be silenced.
Scott Ritter was vilified and made persona non grata back when it mattered, if any one recalls even hearing about him at all then.
I think it is best to get our recitation of the facts right, even in small matters, so Kent shaw, when you said, "My college room-mate (early 70's) had a subscription to I.F. Stone's Weekly. What a great newsletter that was." I just have to correct that to -I.F. Stone's Bi-Weekly- which is what it was by that time.
I too had a subscription back then, (but I don't think I was your college roommate.)
David Gregory dances with Karl Rove, each with his head up the other's ass.
ColdWarBaby47 - I checked out your website linked from your post above and found it pretty damn amazing. I kept feeling/thinking: THIS is what a mainstream humanist news medium can/should be like. An integration of simplicity and complexity and profoundity and lightness, all within beautiful brain-penetrating art and graphics that shock, inform, clarify, and finally uplift. Imagine if mainstream news/thought fonts like yours became the regular morning newspapers, or could easily appear in their cyberspace form on people's regular TV programming.
Anyway, you're a noble genius. Keep your inspired energy flowing/deepening.
jclientelle, Grasshopper, Lucitanian: Your posts always go deeper too. I love that in you.
fakedemocracy June 11th, 2008 2:15 pm
what fakedemocracy said!
kent shaw
Thank you Scott Ritter for that very articulate explanation of the GE/NBC ownership bias brainwash.
Anybody who thinks that the media isn't doing it's job, obviously doesn't understand who the media works for. The media is owned by the military industrial conglomerates- and they ARE doing their job of selling the war to the public.
Have a look at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's findings on the two weeks leading up to the war; out of the 400 stories during those two weeks preceding the invasion, 397 where pro-war, and 3 were anti-war.
These days- whenever you are looking at a news item, if you want to understand anything at all- you must always ask the question "Who owns this source?".
CD Moderators (if any), or other knowledgeable folks: Am I allowed to post URL's here? I know its illegal to quote entire articles. Anyway, I won't do either, but recommend people browse Senator Byron Dorgan's website. Democrat, North Dakota. Makes me almost have respect for a politician, but almost. Show me.
kent shaw
amitola June 11th, 2008 10:25 am
Concur totally with your first paragraph.
"Unfortunately, the economy of the US is now kaput - the debt and trade deficits are astronomical, infrastructure is being sold to foreign investors, the supply of energy is being manipulated in order to enrich the sociopaths and strangle the common folk."
Infrastructure that isn't crumbling is being sold, and there is no money for repairs because we spend it all, borrowed at that, on war. The governor of PA wants to sell or lease for 75 years the PA Turnpike to a Spanish globalist infrastructure conglomerate.
According to Senator Byron Dorgan (D, ND), hedge funds and investment banks are "investing" in the commodities markets. These entities, especially the hedge funds, are virtually unregulated by any federal agency, but when they fail the taxpayers are expected to bail them out as they have been declared "too large to be allowed to fail". According to the senator, they are not only buying and selling contracts and options in efforts to produce a profit, but they have recently been purchasing storage facilities and actually taking delivery on the oil. NO ONE in the oil futures market take delivery of the physical oil except refiners. And why would they since they can make the same profit buying or selling contracts on margin as they can by paying FULL PRICE for the actual commodity, paying for storage and ultimately selling at a profit or loss. There is only one possible reason they are doing this. They are holding oil off the market in order to drive up the price. IMHO. (Any commodities or other types of securities brokers in the crowd, please comment.)
Fully concur with your third paragraph.
Persist!
Kent Shaw
Even when insightful questions were asked, they regularly weren't answered, which in my mind was even worse than not asking, because it made it look as if actual reporting was being done. Taking the lead, and dropping the ball every time. Reporter after reporter accepted non-answers, and fed them to the rest of us as if even THEY didn't notice. Speaking to us as if the American public was too stupid to notice either.
Isn't it amazing how many educated people complied with dumbed-down reporting and lies? So many people, how many thousands of Americans could it be? Do you wonder if they wonder how much they've perverted their trade, abandoned it to the point they are no longer skilled? Do you wonder if they realize how little they've learned over the past 8 years, about reporting and journalism? Do they feel how much they've stagnated? No real reporting, no real independent thought, not much of a job being done overall. Grade C for average, writ large, yes? I think they've become pretty dim, I think they must have dumbed themselves down while trying to dumb down America. It shows in their limited vocabulary and poor grammar, along with the lack of investigation. Barely able to ask an intelligent question, they just used the talking points for interviews.
Being simple and vague is all they know, now. All I wonder is, do they notice? Do they notice how little they matter now, now that they do so little that literally anybody could do it?
They did and said anything, just to keep their jobs, and I wonder too if they feel it was worth it. Selling out their nation as well as their profession. Was it worth it? Was it worth it, oh deaf-dumb workers in the MSM machine, was it worth it???
David Gregory is Karl Rove's dance partner.
What else needs to be said?
Grasshopper and JJ Peters ,
Before you can seed the minds with truth, you'll have to clear a lot of weeds, and cut some straight furrows. The fertile mind starts with questions, but the ones you need to change carry guns and bibles and for them any other answers are on a "need to know" basis. They don't even need to know, because they take it all on faith.
But you are both right in as much as democracy is based on the principle that even the dumbest redneck knows what is best for himself. But, as he exercises his rightful freedom, does he also fight for his responsibility to be informed?
Kucinich is being ridiculed, yet he is asking the United States to impeach its highest executive for lying in order to cause a war, that today the president said "he does not regret". Who can not regret a war?
There I go, preaching to the choir!
The American public has not heard much truth from the government or the media for many decades. The fascist cabal of international banking and now global corporations (including those which purport to disseminate news and information) have been manipulating our lives for just as long. Eisenhower tried to warn us, Kennedy was killed for doing the same.
Unfortunately, the economy of the US is now kaput - the debt and trade deficits are astronomical, infrastructure is being sold to foreign investors, the supply of energy is being manipulated in order to enrich the sociopaths and strangle the common folk.
Even if we had a new regime of honest, law abiding people in all of the high offices of this land - I doubt they could turn the ship of state around at this point.
Lucitanian June 11th, 2008 8:04 am:
"D. Eisenhower's description of the "military industrial complex" better be broadened to military industrial media complex."
His first draft called it the military-industrial-congressional complex but at the urging of "advisors" dropped "congressional". So now it should be military-industrial-congressional-media complex.
"The United States has become a fascist regime in every last sense with the sociopaths completely manipulating the populace who have been intentionally blinded and dumbed-down over years of managed propaganda."
Precisely.
"Soaring energy and commodity prices continue to fuel the speculative lust from gains already realized through dubious financial markets. And it goes on and on insure the beast goes on feeding these vampires till the very last drop."
According to Senator Byron Dorgan (D, ND), on the Bill Press Radio Show this morning large hedge funds and investment banks are now speculating in oil commodities, but its not just speculation -- buying and selling contracts and options in an effort to make a profit, but without ultimately taking possession of the oil like most speculators large and small. They have been purchasing storage capacity and taking possession of the oil and storing it, keeping it off the market, and driving the price up.
Dubious financial market vampires indeed.
Scott, where have you been? What is new?
"Reality Based Community" : The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Such arrogance and self delusion is the clearest evidence of the intent to delude and can only be supported by the willing complicity of the media. It also implies contempt for the intelligence and rationality of the citizenry.
D. Eisenhower's description of the "military industrial complex" better be broadened to military industrial media complex. Fascism does not suddenly appear one day. It is a corruption that creeps in as, drop by drop the drug of self delusion is fed to the masses. Why Obama and McCain cannot tell the truth and win, is because the American people need the lies and the flag pins. What, did you think it wore jack-boots and a toothbrush mustache so that you can recognize it? The United States has become a fascist regime in every last sense with the sociopaths completely manipulating the populace who have been intentionally blinded and dumbed-down over years of managed propaganda. The people need the spin and lies, the absence of meaningful investigation, while they grope in their darkness, reaching out to suck on the wilted and dry nipple of that corps of the American dream. Democracy is dead, yet they continue to expect opportunity, material reward, and above all "escape" But what they find is debt, drugs, war, crime, decay, sickness and death while those few that benefited from massive corruption, abuse and the orchestrated tax breaks to the privileged have long been written up in Fortune 500 and left the room. Soaring energy and commodity prices continue to fuel the speculative lust from gains already realized through dubious financial markets. And it goes on and on insure the beast goes on feeding these vampires till the very last drop.
Scott, don't forget to turn off the light when you leave.
The prime directive of all news organizations, print or broadcast is to make money--the more money the better. In other words these "news" organizationsw exist not to report on what is really going on but, rather, to deliver as large an audience as possible to a platform used by advertisers to hawk their products.
By the above standards both the war and its reporting was/is a tremendous success because the media and its patron advertisers have and continue to make lotsa, lotsa money. Do you honestly think that any of the pretty boys and girls who are "anchors" or "correspondents" make less than 7 figure annual salaries? Now who is going to screw up such a good thing by doing something as inconvienient as challenging "official truth" or telling the actual truth? Not any of the major TV networks or PBS or NPR either (note who their "corporate donors" are!).
Refuse to give MSNBC and other corporate stenographers to corruption and power your brainshare. Refuse to let them sell your brain to their advertisers. Your brainshare is after all the reason why they exist. YOU are the commodity they sell to Madison Avenue advertisers and viewer ratings are nothing but an in-industry metric by which they measure their brainshare capture success. Stop watching the corporate propagandists. Instead watch the alternative media and educate yourself about Free To Air (FTA) television when unscrambled TV sat signals can be legally and easily viewed. Thousands of them. From all over the world. Chuck Harder wrote about this years ago. Goodle: "What is free to air TV" and kiss the corporate M$M, folk like David Gregory, good bye.
JJ Peters has a good point. I find that Common Dreams articles and comments alert me to issues and ideas I cannot find elsewhere. It is a great place for exchange, development and thrashing out difficult issues. But we are all fairly close in the political spectrum.
I hope / trust that CD members are also doing things in earth space as well as cyber space. Do you have any idea how easy it would be for the govt. to shut down cyber space, or the parts that are not essential to selling products?
Participating in organized activist groups is one good way for some. It is also important to know your close neighbors. It is somehow uncomfortable to raise issues with neighbors, colleagues and family members. It is even harder to inspire them to do something. It takes empathy, good listening and tact.
Plain and simple they were cheerleaders for the war and they have blood on their hands of almost 4100 young Americans and 100's of thousands of "innocent Iraqis"..
How can they possibly atone for that.They as quilty of murder as the planners themselves.
You cannot have a corrupted government without having a corrupted media.
You cannot have peace and justice if it is based on lies.
By the way, the war is not a failure for those who created it and supported it. Just ask Halliburton, Exxon, Blackwater etc who are making billions of dollars from our tax money.
Ralph Nader for President, Cindy Sheehan for Congress
I think the MSM should lose their news license. All of them. Just totally discredit them and yank their license, a license granted by the people they should have been serving, the American People. They obviously have no respect for the licenses they purchased.
Perhaps "JJ Peters" is suggesting that we are often speaking to the least important audience? Our peers.
I agree, perhaps participating in our most adverse audiences will yield the greatest results?
I point to the biggest fault that many find with the MSM, the lack of diversity. So rather than preaching to our own choir, we should inject our viewpoints in somewhat less hospitable forums? I know, I know, I am suggesting that we become trolls. Sorry!
Still, I suspect that our audience penetration will be more significant despite the inhospitable circumstances, over what we may achieve by engaging our neighbors. I say do both.
After all, the larger the megaphone the greater the influence. Just ask the MSM.
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of
speech."
Benjamin Franklin
1722
Benjamin Franklin said this when he was 16 years old? When I was 16 all I was concerned about was looking up Roxanne Honeywell's dress.
JJ Peters June 10th, 2008 6:59 pm
"This untangleably corrupt knot is why our country is dying. It is also, by some analyses, why it now MUST die."
Correct! United Nations Sanctions Against America. A world united against the U.S. is the only possible way to stop the monster we have become.
See my link above.
To David Gregory;
Just to let you know, there are several job openings for 'reporters' in Beijing.
I hope something good will come out of the wars we are in now in the USA. I want more people to wake up and smell the coffee. I have a saying- common to all- If it looks like a chicken, acts like a chicken, and smells like a chicken- then it must be a chicken! If you think the press is lying, and you think you have good reason, then realize that the press has a problem!!
I think the days of the internet will be over before 2012. 2010!!
As to the power of the posters, it's hard to discern any effect, for the power is diffused among thousands worldwide (last I looked at Alexa, CD had 420,000 separate-site hits per month).
As a practical test, start/invent something and sees if it shows up in mainstream America. I suggest the following...
---
It's time to sweep the House.
Don't re-elect yet again.
---
Propagate this and we'll see. After all, Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush, so the antipathy is out there.
redwriteman -
2012: The Year The Internet Ends
a youTube video, found on Prof. Juan Cole's 'Informed Comment' today
http://www.juancole.com/
The ISP's will enact a two-tier system. Big sites will be accessible to all. Lesser sites will have to pay more to be accessed, and if they can't then they won't be accessed and will die from non-exposure.
I forgot they've been rereading back Dennis's Resolution for a few hours now. If the jerks didn't have to go to the Congresspersons watering hole by 7:45 pm so as not to start having the DT's they may have heard it first hand.
lizard June 10th, 2008 6:40 pm
Americans are murderous thieves who believe they are angels
Just where the fuck are you from, you are from America dumbshit, murdered anyone lately???
I am so sick of ?Journalists? making excuse after the reason was after I thought but after hindsight is..Screw them and everybody that looks like them, they're liars, simple. There is no consequences anymore for jerking off. You make a miserable, rotten, stupid mistake, fess up take your due. Except they did this for HOW MANY YEARS?? Inexcusable.
Interesting that for the first time in ages the Democrats seem to be trending even slightly leftwards. And that lefty causes like ending the war in Iraq have unprecedented support. I'm not an Obama fan, but its obvious that progressives have more impact in the Democratic party today that at anytime in the last 20 years.
So, the attacks on 'cyber-progressives' are interesting. I'd say that the rise of the internet as a tool for communicating is directly related to the increase in power of progressives in the political arena. So, its interesting to see people being attacked for participating in that drive.
One common flaw I see is that everyone wants a magic bullet. There's little appreciation for long-term movements and building them. Everyone wants instant gratification, so they don't see the long-term success that is occurring.
I'd say lets give a medal to the 'cyber-progressives' who come out here, or who work and write and post on so many other sites today. When you see the DLC-Clinton camp lose control of the Democratic Party for the first time in 20 years, you are seeing their success.
Of course, the general rule of the left always seems to be to aim at your allies and open fire. So I shouldn't be surprised.
The answer is of course to turn them off. They are deliberately lying and misleading. Turn them off. Get your friends and family to turn them off.
And never vote for a candidate that appears often on corporate TV. They ain't on our side. The candidate that is on our side will appear only rarely on corporate TV, and will be attacked and ridiculed by corporate TV.
Redwriteman- You are so right about the internet- that window will be closed asap! I find it bizarre that I have to go to foreign press to get to the truth of what is happening in the USA. I find US stations put spin on the news to make it fit their own ends. When will Americans awake to the propaganda they take for all the truth, nothing but the truth- all on the cable news? How are we going to find out what the news is after the internet is sugar-coated too?
I would like to hear from everyone about this.
Another dot to connect.
Before the war, MSNBC (jointly owned by GE and Microsoft) had Phil Donahue on the air. They cancelled that show just before the war.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0303-06.htm
"Continuing, the study said that Donahue is "a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war...he seems to delight in presenting guests who are antiwar, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives.""
Connect the dots above to this dot where GE and MS deliberately silenced one of the few anti-war voices on the air. This ain't no accident. Its not just 'we were fooled'. It's a deliberate policy designed to increase the profits of the owning corp which also just happens to be one of the world's largest merchants of death and that has made big bucks from the wars.
Like "Lizard" I thought the same back then. How come I, Joe sixpack,(twelve pack since the Repugs came to power) can see this is all bulls#^! and the MSM can't. At least dig a little, maybe just a little effort on their part and we wouldn't be in this mess. There were so many lies to discover only morons could have missed them. Don't come and cry about it now Gregory you putz.
"Nothing could be more irrational than to give the people power, and to withhold from them
information without which power is abused. A people who mean to be their own governors must
arm themselves with power which knowledge gives. A popular government without popular
information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps
both."
James Madison
[1751-1836]
(These are from this page that a google found ... http://www.naafoundation.org/pdf/Speaking_of_a_Free_Press.pdf )
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of
speech."
Benjamin Franklin
1722
redwriteman-
no doubt, what you predict will be attempted by the goons who rule -- but only if and when internet 'alternative' news sources present a realistic challenge to the oligarchy/plutocracy.
I suspect that most Common Dreams and other prog-site posters spend vastly more time in commiserating with each other here in cyber space, than in real time political engagement - including talking to their neighbors -- and so are therefore badly out of touch with average day to day political constipation reality of their fellow citizens.
The politicized internet might theoretically have the power to create a new base of governance power, but so far all its really done is raise money for refromers who are either frauds or are easily sidelined by the still dominant power of the MSM.
I think the power problems of us activist progressives (and even passive, normal, discontended average internet using citizens) are deeper and more challenging than we like to admit, espcially among those of us more active dissenters who expend most our political energy on websites. I think The System's power brokers are fully aware of this fact, and are clever enough to not take needless, provacative actions against what so far remains a largely impotent slice of Virtual Reality Opposition to their ultimate control.
The politicized internet has been highly active and growing for at least five years now. But as I see it: not only has it made no political difference, it has actually yielded something much worse: the illusion of making a difference. And look at the world: Isn't proof of this in the globally worsening pudding?
We cyber progressive habitues tend to believe that because a niche has been created for so-far, for mostly unexpurgated political dissent and exchange, some real power is therefore arising in the realer world to strike down elitist human governance.
I come here, too, into the same hope filled font about which I nevertheless have agonized doubts.
But it won't do to pretend that such a thing as People Power is in any way manifestly happening; because thus far, it is manifestly NOT happening.
And this suggests (to me, at least) that the cause of commonly decent Human Rule doesn't ground in, can never ground in, 'New Technologies' alone or even largely.
"As Mr. Gregory notes, it is not their "role" to question or debate policy set forth by the president."
Really? Is it their "role" to question or debate policy set forth by White House lawyers? The V.P.? Sec of Def or State? The Supreme Court? The A.G.? Congresspersons and Senators? Governors? Mayors? Police Chiefs? City Councils? State legislatures? School Superintendents? Corporate CEOs?
Why have "journalists" and "reporters" at all? Why not just playback the video/audio/whatever of what was said and move on? Then Big Corp Media could shut down their "news" divisions completely, which would free up a ton of air time for the really, really important stuff, like Tori's and Jessica's babies and who Jennifer Aniston if f**king this week...
My college room-mate (early 70's) had a subscription to I.F. Stone's Weekly. What a great newsletter that was.
I. F. Stone: "...he "rejected the idea of the reporter as a robot with no political passion or insight. 'Without forgoing accuracy and documentation,' Stone argued, reporters did not need to be 'neutral.' … 'A newspaperman ought to use his power on behalf of those who were getting the dirty end of the deal…. And when he has something to say, he ought not to be afraid to raise his voice above a decorous mumble, and to use forty- eight-point bold.'"
"...He adored burrowing into original documents. He didn't hesitate to call a lie a lie. And he was relentless."
"... publisher of 'I. F. Stone's Weekly' - "easily the scrappiest and most influential four-page newsletter ever sent through the U.S. mail, it had 70,000 subscribers, a community of loyal readers centered on his voice — an informed voice, full of outrage and born of an unconcealed devotion to decency and fair play, civil liberty, free speech, peace in the world, truth in government, and a humane society."
OH YES!
"Does anyone here disagree with me about the comming assault on the internet and the bitter fight that will come to preserve net neutrality?"
Wish I could, but you are probably right.
lizard June 10th, 2008 6:40 pm
You need to find a more receptive place I believe. We are Americans here. So why are you here?
Mad Trapper June 10th, 2008 6:51 pm
I do think Powell regrets his UN testimony.....I think he got used as the rest of us did.
We have become victims of beancounter journalism. These outlets, for fear of upsetting advertisers or possibly missing out on contracts themselves, are trying to manage the way the news is presented. Others, like Zell from The Tribune Company and Pinch Sulzberger of the NY Times don't have a clue on how to run a news organization. Both have made horrific blunders that would have sent others to prison. We need to take the responsibility for honest journalism out of their hands.
I started in newspapers as an apprentice in '56 and have witnessed the decline of quality in content over the years. As these news outlet merge together under a smaller and smaller group of owners, they become less and less a voice for their community.
I don't know how we turn this around. The internet will make a difference, but I'm not sure how just yet.
redwriteman June 10th, 2008 7:14 pm -- 'Does anyone here disagree with me about the comming assault on the internet and the bitter fight that will come to preserve net neutrality?'
Only to the extent that the conspirators will make every effort to accomplish their goals in ways that avoid public awareness as much as possible. There's plenty of technology available to assist.
Add one more name to the list of those who should be subjected to war crimes prosecution for aiding and abetting. Its getting to be a long list from MSM, Congress, not to mention the Executive Branch.
Impeachment is a red herring. Like asking a criminal to investigate and judge a fellow criminal. Kucinich is ok, but he would not be the leader of any impeachment hearings, and it's way too late for this.
The internet is the only democratic medium left. Thank god the MSM is losing more credibility by the day because serious news consumers finally have a place to go to ferret out the truth.
I am waiting for a piecemeal assault on the internet by both the government AND the owners of the internet pipeline (Quest, Verizon, Comcast, etc). They will undoubtedly be supported by the MSM because the MSM can't stand the fact that they don't have the final say on easily accessable news fed to the masses.
The assault will come disguised as "internet deregulation" or "internet freedom" by way of the FCC and/or Congress, the effect of which will allow the owners of the pipeline to block or impede websites of their choosing. All in the name of the free market of course.
Another assault will come from the direction of the government. It is only a matter of time that the government will announce that some terrorist got info on how to build a dirty bomb on the internet AND was inspired in his terrorism by "leftist" websites.
What they (the government and the corporations) have to do is find a way to get us to roll over by whipping up fear of "dangerous" information that can be obtained online.
Does anyone here disagree with me about the comming assault on the internet and the bitter fight that will come to preserve net neutrality?
Wrapping bullshit in reasonable-sounding cover statements is an old trick, but it won't work here.
David Gregory purposely blurs arguably reasonable points and clearly invalid points into one fuzzy generalization -- all so he can hide his conscience from himself -- and (he hopes) befuddle us in the verbal ledgermain.
One could grant the journalistic point: reporters of fact aren't supposed to personally challenge the president about 'the morality' of government policies, per se (since this is the job of congress and the people, assuming both have accurate facts.)
But one can NOT grant the point: reporters are [therefore] supposed to accept without challenge, presidentially-alleged facts which defy common verification.
This latter point is invalid, and is exactly where David Gregory and his power-intimidated fellow MSM journalists trounced the ethics of their own profession.
Now Gregory wants us to believe that the first arguably valid point, automatically supervenes the second point -- when we all know It Doesn't.
Gregory doesn't come right out and say that the first point supervenes the second, since he knows no one would accept that obvious sleight of hand. Instead, he proceeds to subsequently make and repeat a confabulating generalization about the two statements, roughly to wit: 'It's not the job of the press to challenge the president.'
Even using Gregory's full protocol argument as valid, his private admission that the press in general DID have serious doubts about Bush's veracity, raises the most damning point of all: Why then, if that were so, didn't the MSM press give equal media time to all those well-informed, vetted Iraq pre-invasion critics who WERE willing to challenge Bush's 'facts?'
Well, behold America's fatally rotten core: A government dominated by a money-mad military/industrial power font, and a Fourth Estate loyal always in the end, to licking the boots of that font for its slice of the profit/power pie.
This untangleably corrupt knot is why our country is dying. It is also, by some analyses, why it now MUST die.
After all the lies-like "Mai Lai" Powell at the UN, missing WMD, Saddam- Hussein link, "shock and awe", unanswered questions surrounding 911, torture, domestic spying, the anthrax killer, 6 nuclear bombs misplaced, outing Valerie Plame, ongoing deceit, stop loss, bullying, war crimes of collective punishment (i.e. the leveling Fallujah), hundreds of thousands of dead, displaced Iraqis and Afghans, friendly fire, cluster bombs, the abysmal army hospital scandal, voter fraud, Maher Arrar, rendition to gulags, the Tillman cover-up, the Private Jessica propoganda, the slaughter at Quali Janghi, the mounting coalition/US dead and wounded, ... never mind outrageous, no bid Korporate contract$, Blackwater, the suspension of Habeus Corpus, the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act..... New Orleans .... terror ships.... or the free falling US Economy and spiraling debt ... or flaunting international law and conventions!
..... what exactly does it take for the USSC, or Congress or some hot shot lawyer or a 'responsible' Senator/congress or mass of citizenry to just impeach that lying, AWOL, cowardly squatter -presently staining the W.H. toilet floor? Him and his "shot gun in the face" #2 psychopath, and the rest of the disasterous and inept Bushworld cabinet?
What could possibly initiate sufficient outrage? -for the vast majority of American citizens over the past 8 years?
Is it just Janet's right breast? or Terry Schavio?
Americans are murderous thieves who believe they are angels.
I don't know who Gregory is and I don't watch NBC news. If I could tell that this government was lying and that the news people were collaborators why didn't everyone else? After everything that has happened shouldn't NBC news and Fox and CNN be running out of viewers? But of course they are not. Aren't these news people Americans? Aren't they acting like most Americans do? Aren't Americans the people who committed genocide on native americans and used slaves for 100 years? Aren't these the people who are always ready to go to war? Aren't these the people who think the purpose of life is to consume until they are the fattest people on earth, a goal that has been achieved? Are the news people not faithfully supporting the American mentality? Isn't that the way to make more money? Isn't that the purpose of life in the US?
Mordechai, couldn't agree more. Judith Miller should have been put up against a wall and shot. But the problem is, the NYT is a Zionist front posing as a liberal newspaper, and Miller's anti-Arab, pro-Israel propaganda is exactly what they have always wanted and always printed. Which is why they also employ uber-Zionists like Friedman, Brooks, Kristol to give us their slant on the ME.
Can someone put up a web site to vote / rate these journalists please?
I was shocked to hear David Gregoy say that too
MSM is clearly not meeting the needs of the people and needs to be changed (under statement).
I hope we get good input on this topic on how an individual can help drive productive change.
Is it a conscious effort to boycott the MSM?
some struggling large companies started using BLOGS for customer feedback to help them figure out how to drive product innovations. Is there any indication of this making a big impact on MSM given some success with CD, Daily Show, etc?
Of course Scott Ritter could easily have postponed the invasion of Iraq had he simply lied, and said yes there were WMD. Do you think the chickenhawks would have risked going near the place?
Of course it would have been a difficult lie to support, particularly since Hussein couldn't get a Scud missile even to Israel.
Horse's ass David Gregory is and always has been a stenographer for whatever meretricious nonsense the Bush administration was spewing. To top it all off, this so-called "journalist" is proud to defend his right to believe everything he hears from a man who has amply demonstrated that every word out of his mouth is a lie including "and" and "the".
Arvy June 10th, 2008 4:29 pm ...I believe this to be a valuable figure..much more so than the polls that by now I am sure are rigged by the same MSM powers that propagandizes this entire nation. Let's see what Keith says tonight.
Here's another link to sign for impeachment.....
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/1027/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=24900
Of course, Scott Ritter was right all along. And, to be fair to all those faithful Republicans, who jumped on board with Bush - knowing full well there was little evidence that Iraq had WMDs - Democrat politicians such as John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton - you know, just about all of them - went along as well. In fact, before the invasion, John Edwards sat on the special intelligence committee that was given top secret information on Iraq's capabilities, information that prompted Bob Barr, who sat on the very same committee, to vote against going to war. Edwards, knowing full well what Barr knew, voted pro-war. Only later did he change his opinion - his job was to give the anti-war crowd a reason to stick with Democrats. Job well done, eh? Edwards must have known, once an invasion is set loose, there's no turning back. Changing your mind doesn't help much.
When can we say this nonsense is over? When can we stop cheerleading for politicians who will kill innocents in order to advance their careers?
Where do you draw the line?
Most of the MSM anchors proved without a doubt that their 'so-called=questions' for the candidates during the 'so-called=debates' were totally useless in any worth while discussion on the issues of the American people. It was a full blown disaster for all involved. With the follow up of networks denying candidates access to debates was not only unfair. it was disgusting. Scott is one to watch and read, as he is an old-school journalist with his values intact. A dying breed, but the few left need all of the encouragement we can cough up. Thanks,
Scott Ritter!
willybill June 10th, 2008 3:18 pm -- IMPEACHMENT! HAVE YOUR VOTE COUNT ON THE MSM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
If the popular will still counts for anything at all, it's getting quite heavy. 597006 responses with 89% in favor of impeachment despite three other poll options.
Someone otta just ask David Gregory and his colleagues across the US MSM why they weren't reading the Canadian and European newspapers in the run-up to the war. The US media and the rest of the world's media were living on two different planets back then. Wasn't anyone in the US asking WHY Bush had to bribe and threaten to get countries into his "coalition of the willing"? Why was the rest of the world's media taking Blix's reports seriously? In my view, it was a case of, well, the US is the greatest, the smartest, the best, so it doesn't have to pay attention to what the rest of the world is saying. Stupid reporters you've got down there . . .
With "journalists" like David Gregory, govenment doesn't need stenographers or propaganda chiefs. I guess this is why I don't watch the M$M. The M$M hires people like Gregory. I guess expecting to hear the truth is setting the bar too high for the M$M.
What is really sad is the fact that there are probably many good, would tell the truth journalists out there that can't get jobs.
The Tale of Judith Miller is the defining story of the contemporary MSM. A fawning, boot licking, brown nosing, ass sniffing courtesan in the Court of Lies and Death known as the Bush regime, she gleefully took Cheney's boilerplate, his library of lies, at face value, fed it to the New York Tombs and dropped the dime on the lives of countless thousands of Iraqis, Americans and others. This is not journalism; this is acting as a hustler and an accomplice to treason. Tell David Gregory to go hang himself with his own red, white and blue necktie. He is utterly worthless!
IMPEACHMENT! HAVE YOUR VOTE COUNT ON THE MSM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
I heard David Gregory utter those words on Hardball and was aghast.
Scott Ritter lays out a clear and cogent plan for investigation. If David Gregory would like to be believed -- he should pursue Ritter's investigative sketch.
But no, it'll never happen.
If Gregory has a problem figuring out how to perform his job, aside from what I presumed he was taught in journalism school, he could just observe how Helen Thomas operates, or at least expound on her questions.
If a media entity fails to investigate and report news accurately, then they are no longer in the interest of the citizenry. They must have some other agenda. In a functional society, should not the purpose of news media be to inform the People? News media entities that show a consistent pattern of doing otherwise should be dismantled.
Obviously, the US of A is not a "functional society" at least when it comes to the People.
Again, another solid article by Scott Ritter. These points echo the already obvious and well documented theme of the irresponsibility of the media in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Certainly all of the actions taken by those in power were to meet a specific goal: that of controlling public opinion and oppressing dissent. This can be shown in the actions of the Generals who were paraded before the public to give their "independent" analysis, as well as the very concept of embedding troops.
The focus needs to be on reforming the media and fighting against further consolodation as well as continuing to help build more independent media. This is not a problem that was isolated to the period of time in the run-up to the invasion, but a continuing plague that stems from the very foundation of corporate control of the media.
The corporate media now believe that their role is simply to invite "experts" to give their opinions about the issues of the day. The days when journalists called these experts to task for inaccurate statements or outright lies have long past. What arrogance the likes of David Gregory displays! We need to tell these pompous twerps to get out of their airconditioned offices and dig up real stories about how corrupt the corporations and their lackey politicians have become.
Scott Ritter is of course the prime counterexample to the media's professions of innocence in simply reporting the information given to them by the Bush gang and its minions, since in the immediate pre-invasion period Ritter was the single most articulate, informed and credible voice against the war rationales, had been in the media before, and was marginalized and silenced when it mattered, along with all other voices saying the same things.
Now he delivers a brilliant case for investigation of the role played by corporate management in engineering and implementing the Pentagon's "information warfare."
The documentary trail Ritter writes of must exist. GE/NBC executives knew they were working with the Pentagon on the buildup for a war while at the same time they were failing to press the Bush gang on its denials of intent to go to war, and silencing critics while dutifully carrying the Bush gang's propaganda for war and the military's boosterism.
Too bad there is nobody but wacky old Scott Ritter to demand answers from the corporate complex.
http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf
If the 'role' of the 'news media' is mere stenography, how does one account for their selection of strangely opinionated pundits to tell us what it all means?