Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
This War Report Has Been Approved by Your Government
We Americans got a graphic illustration of the demise of any independent American corporate news media these past few days as the coverage on TV and in print was saturated with reports about John Edwards' infidelity and, equally important, Russia's invasion of Georgia.
In the first case, we had the completely pointless if prurient airing of Edwards' sordid extra-marital affair. Pointless because Edwards at this time is a has-been politician. If there were any point to the coverage it should have been, as Alex Cockburn pointed out in his journal Counterpunch, the abject failure of those same reporters and "news" organizations to cover the story back last fall, when it might have mattered. Back then, when the only paper covering the story was the National Enquirer, Edwards was still a viable candidate for the presidency, or a possible contender for vice president again. It's not that his personal sex-life has any news value in and of itself. The point is that had he won the nomination, or been picked as a vice presidential running mate, its inevitable exposure later during the general election would have destroyed any Democratic presidential chances. And the corporate media knew back then all about this story. They just weren't pursuing it (and the current blitz of stories proves that they weren't holding back out of principle!).
Then there's the Georgia war. I was stunned by the graphic depictions of Russian brutality in Gori and other cities that were massively bombed and shelled, with apartment buildings collapsed into rubble, children killed, and civilians targeted. The New York Times, in particular, had photographic images of dead Georgian soldiers, of charred bodies, of hysterical mothers. On NBC News, Russian planes were shown dropping their loads of bombs on apartments.
We read that President Bush condemned the Russian invasion of another nation and called for an immediate ceasefire. Yet there was not one word of astonishment or challenge from reporters or commentators or editorial writers at this stunningly cynical statement coming from a leader who himself is responsible for the blatantly illegal and much more destructive invasion of another nation. And remember, while Georgia is on Russia's border, and was at least possibly guilty of oppressing and attacking and perhaps even killing members of the Russian minority in two of its provinces (Georgia bombed the biggest town in the secessionist province of Ossetia, killing perhaps 1000 civilians, before Russia invaded), Iraq is half a world away from America and was minding its own business, not threatening Americans in any way. Russia, thus far, has at most killed a few thousand Georgians. America has, by most accounts killed hundreds of thousands and perhaps as many as 1.2 million Iraqis, very few of them combatants.
We watch and read voluminous reports on this relatively small Russian war against its neighbor and former domestic province (Georgia was one of the SSRs in the old USSR), and meanwhile there is almost nothing being reported about the continuing five-year-old war launched by Bush and Cheney against Iraq. And certainly, over the course of five years we have gotten no visual depiction of that war even approaching the scenes that were on display from the front in Georgia.
Apparently, in the view of our corporate news editors and managers, it is important for Americans to fully witness the bloody horrors of war when that war is being fought by Russia, but we are to be carefully protected from seeing such things when they are being perpetrated by our own centurions. We aren't even allowed to see the grievous injuries and death being suffered by our own troops.
And, of course, don't feel to good about the quality of the coverage of the Russian/Georgia conflict either. This too is biased. Indeed one reason we are shown all the carnage is that the US government has been backing Georgia, and there is evidence that the US even encouraged the Georgian attacks on ethnic Russians which provoked the invasion. The US also has obligingly airlifted Georgian troops back from Iraq to Georgia.
This is not news. This is propaganda, pure and simple.
American corporate news media broadcasts and articles should include a disclaimer: "This report was approved by the media managers of the Bush/Cheney administration."
Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.
90 Comments so far
Show Allwsws.org: You are correct in your assessment of Obama as a war president. See, this is the thing. The United States is NOT a country, or a republic, it is an empire. BOTH parties support the continuation and expansion of the empire. For some reason, Americans seem to think that it's perfectly alright to pursue global hegemony. (Chomsky says 'we own the world').
There's lots of bluster coming out of the US/UK about the evilness of the Russians for "invading Georgia"... but cast aside your American bias and look at the situation rationally. The US has NO business messing around in Georgia or any of the other former SSR's. To do so, just provokes Russia.
When the US ambassador to the US stands up in the Security Council and says that the Caucasus region is a "Sphere of American Interest", what do you think Russia thinks about that? That's like Russia claiming Mexico or Canada is a sphere of Russian interest. It's ridiculous.
The US does NOT own the world, as much as they'd like to think otherwise and it's a very dangerous game they're playing by provoking the Russians so badly.
What has the US done to provoke Russia? Well, the ever eastward march of NATO, in contrary to the guarantees given to Gorbachev by Reagan. They're setting up the 'missile defense' in eastern Europe, which everyone knows is aimed at Russia, not Iran. The CIA has been staging the "colour revolutions" in former SSR's and setting up pro-western fascist puppets. The US is all over the central Asia region with military bases. The US (under the guise of NATO) bombed the living shit out of Serbia (a Russian ally) and tore away Kosovo and made it "independent" (read US client state). On and on it goes.
Russia can only take so much. The US has taken a very aggressive posture in the world and is playing a very dangerous game. Yet, Americans seem to think that Russia is the great danger! Give me a break. The US is far more dangerous and has a proven track record of wars of aggression.
Do you think Putin wants war? He JUST got Russia back on it's feet after the US led raping of his country after the breakup of the USSR. Russia doesn't want another war, especially one with the West. They want to sit back and enjoy their new found energy wealth and grow fat and rich.
The United States of course, is ridiculously paranoid and greedy as all hell and won't stop until they have the entire world under their bootheel. So when it comes to Georgia, which of course IS Russia's neighbourhood (as contrary to what Amb. Marc Ginsberg said), the Russians will NOT blink first when it comes to confrontation with the US. If the Bush administration insists on continuing to provoke Russia, then God help us all.
So please, lose the "American Exceptionalism" and understand that the US has NO BUSINESS messing in the region. Further provocation of Russia by the US will plunge the world into a conflict, the likes of which have never been seen. Russia has allowed the US to have their war in Iraq, and their war in Afghanistan... but when it comes to messing around in Russia's backyard, they will NOT tolerate that, any more than the US would tolerate Russia messing in Mexico.
"Hi, I am John McBush, and I approved this propoganda...err..."news"
It's so obviously propaganda that it reeks. It's not longer possible to believe that our media is anything other than 100% propaganda organs for the neocons.
There are already over a hundred US soldiers in Georgia. The US is airlifting 2000 Georgians out of Iraq (they were the third largest occupation contingent left, after the US and UK). Now the US is announcing that it is flying in more US troops to Georgia, calling the soldiers "humanitarian aid".
This article makes a good point. I would only add my sense of profound concern when I see American pundits, still on the defense department payroll, once again beating the war drums. It looks like the US government, even after the revelations of criminal misconduct leading up to and during the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, has not skipped a beat. What are they thinking, prodding the Russians right on their border?
"humanitarian aid"? don't make me laugh. If America was interested in humanitarian aid, it would not have created four million Iraqi refugees.
Paul CRaig Roberts at Counterpunch calls it "our Israeli-occupied media".
http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts08132008.html
"This report was approved by the media managers of [your bipartisan corporate] administration."
again Dave Lindorff does more to exacerbate a problem than expose it by narrowly blaming one faction, when he knows the propaganda machine is bigger than this.
For unapproved TV reporting, go to
http://liberationvideo.blogspot.com
In depth TV news you will never see on TV.
Once more, the Sith will rule the galaxy! And... we shall have peace.
We need to post on MSM big newspaper sites. Otherwise we will never TAKE THE OFFENSIVE AGAINST THE BIPARTISAN CORPORATE MEDIA BRAIN-SEWERS. BLAST THE CREDIBILITY OF THE MEDIA ON BIG NEWSPAPER SITES OTHERWISE IT DOES NOT MATTER , YOU ARE ONLY HELPING THEM MARGNINALIZE YOU!
In our major media, nothing is as it appears. An Asia Times article (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH13Ag05.html) confirms much of Lindorff's analysis with added historical detail, including typical US regime-change acitivities in 2003 as well as US-Israeli collusion in arms-peddling, missile defense basing, and of course, oil intrigue---an all-too-familiar (never reported) confluence that makes more sense of yet another bewildering conflict.
According to the article, "This means that the attack on South Ossetia is the first battle in a new proxy warfare between Anglo-American-Israeli led interests and Russia." It could become deadly serious if Bush is allowed to pursue America's self-destructive path.
For those who haven't heard of the Edwards affair, don't worry, Larry King will be covering it for weeks to come on Corporate News Network.
Kill Your Television.
I did ten years ago.
There's nothing worth watching on TV - you can't find in the public library.
It feels so good not to have watched this crap!
I still know the corporate government is evil.
I havn't seen the political ads, nor Paris Hilton's.
I know no details about John Edwards sex life...Yeah!
Dave, why did you parrot the Propaganda System in your first sentence, "Russia's invasion of Georgia," and wait until the end of your item to tell the truth?
I think it's very clear after this incident that the Propaganda System must be destroyed before it creates a false reality that gets us destroyed. That's what your essay should have been about, Dave--Fictional docudramas paraded as news/reality. Ya basta!!
U.S. citizens lack the intelligence to know they've been conned by the masters they so willingly elect year after year.
Dave Lindorff may very well be perpetuating another piece of MSM proganda when he says, "...I was stunned by the graphic depictions of Russian brutality in Gori...". Look up "Russian cameraman: CNN Aired Misleading Footage". According to this report, footage of Georgian troops attacking Russian citizens in Tskhinvali was used erroneously to show this "Russian brutality in Gori". Honest mistake??...doubtful.
It's been really disgusting to watch coverage on network television. Whether it's Katie Couric or Charlie Rose, most of the commentary is coming from neocons such as Robert Kagan as well as members from the Council on Foreign Relations. And this is not just a neocon thing. The Brzezinski faction should have as much light as possible shown on their part in this mass deception.
By definition, propaganda is true. It's the truth presented in a way that favors a particular point of view. Lies aren't propaganda. The implication that dead Georgians killed by Russian ordnance are somehow more newsworthy than dead Arabs killed by American bullets is a lie and not propaganda.
I unplugged my Propaganda Box last year.
My blood pressure has improved and I sleep better and read more without it.
Without Rupert I have undergone a ProLifeStyle change.
Quoting from the article:
And, of course, don't feel to good about the quality of the coverage of the Russian/Georgia conflict either. This too is biased. Indeed one reason we are shown all the carnage is that the US government has been backing Georgia, and there is evidence that the US even encouraged the Georgian attacks on ethnic Russians which provoked the invasion. The US also has obligingly airlifted Georgian troops back from Iraq to Georgia.
This is not news. This is propaganda, pure and simple.
American corporate news media broadcasts and articles should include a disclaimer: "This report was approved by the media managers of the Bush/Cheney administration."
END QUOTE.
I agree, but am disappointed that Dave Lindorff didn't have anything really revealing to say; however, he does allude to what I have in mind in the first paragraph I quoted from the article. Because there are several articles, so far, and since last Thursday or Friday, I'll just suggest that people read articles on both the Georgia matter, and the one about major USN build-up happening in the Persian Gulf, at www.globalresearch.ca .
"by most accounts killed hundreds of thousands and perhaps as many as 1.2 million Iraqis, very few of them combatants"
This number has gone down over the last year. When you lie about Americans killing civilians, use 3 million dead that was the standard number a year ago, from these ,hate us love anyone else sites.
jlocke123-- If we were to prod the Russians, we would not use C-17's filled with food. By the way, name another country that can have troops in combat in two seperate zones, and still have the ability to fly in food to another combat zone. It is a great country
During the past 20 years the Republican-controlled government has converted the corporate media into a state-run news agency. It makes perfect sense since the corporations now own the government.
One correction to this story. Ossetians are not Russians, although they are Orthodox Christians and North Ossetia is Russian territory.
Perhaps The National Enquirer should become America's "newspaper of record" instead of the New York Tombs. At least the Enquirer doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is - a rag. The NY Tombs, The Warshington Pest, The Low Sangeles Tombs, etc. are what so many people have already called them: propaganda sheets, the U.S. version of Pravda.
" Jonthenet August 13th, 2008 2:54 pm
"by most accounts killed hundreds of thousands and perhaps as many as 1.2 million Iraqis, very few of them combatants"
This number has gone down over the last year. When you lie about Americans killing civilians, use 3 million dead that was the standard number a year ago, from these ,hate us love anyone else sites."
NO, LINDORFF used the "standard" reference, and I've been reading very full-time on these current US-et-al wars of aggression for nearly six years now. NEVER has 3mn Iraqis killed in this present war of aggression launched against them been anywhere as high as 3mn.
The only way to arrive at that high number is when we include the estimate 1-1.5mn Iraqis killed only due to the criminal economic sanctions the US-et-al imposed through UNSC WEAKNESS. I have not yet read how many Iraqis, civilians and/or military, killed in Gulf War I, but if we use both those killed because of the sanctions and now this present war, then we near 3mn.
And the number will keep rising, due to radiological poisoning of much of Iraq, lack of restoration of potable, safe drinking water, ETCETERA; for a long time to come, there'll be ever more Iraqi casualties due to only this present war (of aggression) against Iraq and its entire population.
But Lindorff's right and clearly referring to only the number of casualties, Iraqis killed, from the present war.
DL is totally missing the real issue - Big Corp Media held the Edwards story as hole card until Cheney/Bush needed a major distraction from yet another outrageous scandal, or two even - like, say Suskind's revelation they actually forged documents to support the thousands of lies they used to convince "us" a pair of illegal invasions of sovereign nations was immediately necessary. Or the FBI's total bungling of the continued "anthrax killer" cover-up.
Both stories have all but disappeared. That's why the BCM didn't run with the Edwards tale when they had it... because they were told to.
Nathaniel, let's converge on an MSM site. Pick one.
Hi frank1569--Then there is the question of McCain's gross marital "infidelity," and why the Propaganda System has chosen to ignore it and highlight Edwards's.
It seems to me Russia's invasion of Georgia is a direct result of Bush's invasion of Iraq. The US used to wield a certain amount of moral authority.
Now anything goes and Russia knows it can get away with it.
There is some evidence that the US and Israel are backing the Georgian president who without their aid may have been less willing to attempt direct military intervention.
It seems to me Russia's invasion of Georgia is a direct result of Bush's invasion of Iraq. The US used to wield a certain amount of moral authority.
Now anything goes and Russia knows it can get away with it.
There is some evidence that the US and Israel are backing the Georgian president who without their aid may have been less willing to attempt direct military intervention.
It seems to me Russia's invasion of Georgia is a direct result of Bush's invasion of Iraq. The US used to wield a certain amount of moral authority.
Now anything goes and Russia knows it can get away with it.
There is some evidence that the US and Israel are backing the Georgian president who without their aid may have been less willing to attempt direct military intervention.
AllTogetherNow, who hides behind a pseudonym, is wrong. It is not a bipartisan media. It is a Republican media. I'm not saying that there aren't Democrats (there are) who back the same Republican/NeoCon imperial agenda, but it's clear from the way the corporate media have pummelled Democrats--particularly liberals--in campaign after campaign, and from the way they've pursued scandals involving the likes of the Clintons, while ignoring the scandals of Bush, Cheney and other powerful Republicans over the year, that the media are heavily in favor of the Republican agenda. Not everything is aqn over-arching simplistic conspiracy. There are nuances, but people like AllTogetherNow are not all together. They like their conspiracies simple.
As for Karlof1, you answered your own stupid criticism. I said Russia invaded Georgia early in my piece, because...well, because it did invade Georgia. Later, I pointed out that they had reason to invade, to protect ethnic Russians in the GEORGIAN PROVINCE of South Ossatia, who had been attacked by the Georgian military.
So Karlof, dude, what would you want to say? That the Georgians invaded Russia? No, that won't work, because South Ossatia is in...Georgia. Say the Georgians invaded...Georgia? No, you can't invade yourself?
What's the problem dude? You read my piece, you learn that the Russians invaded Georgia, and that they did it, at least arguably, to protect Russian people under attack.
And for this I'm "parrotting" the propaganda machine?
Get real.
Dave Lindorff
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Davey, I think that is essentially correct, in a roundabout way. Russian troops have been stationed in the separatist regions of Georgia for years. The Russians call their troops "peace keepers" and they guard the people in the autonomous regions who claim ethnic Russian ties. This ethnic reality and real concern for the safety of the population also is in alignment with Russia's interest in monopolizing control over an area that contains oil pipelines that are a minor supplement to its own energy exports going toward Europe.
I think Georgia miscalculated and the recent US/Israeli activity in Georgia leads me to believe that Georgia did not make this blunder on its own. They should have shown more patience and diplomacy. This situation reminds me of the Falklands war. No matter what moral/legal claim Argentina had going in, by starting the shooting they gave the UK the opportunity to settle it on a level where Britain had the advantage. By going the military route, the Georgians have opened the door for the Russians to respond in kind. Russia is not going to sit back and watch its soldiers and the Russian citizens in Georgia flee back over the border and cause a major refugee situation inside Russia.
As for moral authority, yes the US has lost it, but it can get it back. A poster above clearly is proud that America can simultaneously attack other nations on many fronts. I would not share that pride. I am not as concerned with what America can do, as I am with what America chooses to do. In the short term the prevailing American attitudes seem to indicate more aggression, and with that, Russia and others have to deal, but further out, who knows, with different people in congress, with a president who stands for something more than the latest campaign contribution from Exxon?
Good for you, Dave, for answering the nitpickers and naysaysers! Some people just have a serious need to be negative and nasty. I love your articles and commentaries and look for them on several websites on a regular basis.
You did miss one minor item in your response - the poster, Stepfour, is wrong when he says propaganda is, by definition, true. It's often lying by omission with an emphasis that creates incorrect impressions, and is "the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."
That definition does not indicate truth. Truthiness maybe. Speaking of which, Jon Stewart had quite a bit to say about Bush's condemnation of the Russians while he avoided his own invasion of Iraq. (Colbert might have, too, but I fell asleep before I saw his show.)
"The US is to send troops to embattled Georgia in the form of a humanitarian aid exercise, President George Bush announced today."
- We sent 'advisors' to Vietnam too.
The best thing is that I've used the parental blocking features of my sat system to block all the American corporate news channels. This means I'd heard absolutely nothing about the Edwards story until CounterPunch wrote about it.
Ah, now that's sweet!
Actually, our 'advisers' were already there training the Georgian military up near this border and right before the attacks. The US had several hundred there, and our surrogate ally Israel had a thousand or more.
Don't get too caught up in the details of exactly 'what is propaganda.' It of course changes and evolves to meet the needs of its masters.
I like Chomsky's approach better. Take a step back and look at the overall effects, and then decides if those results match what you'd expect from a 'propaganda system' or a free, independent, aggressive 'news' system.
Spot on article.
The points regarding Georgia in this article were on fully-animated display during Condi Rices's televised address today. She warned Russia it was no longer 1968, a time when powerful nations were allowed to invade their neighbors with impunity. All the while, she seemed untroubled (except for the odd bouts of give-away uncontrollable blinking) by the arch hypocrisy of her own nation's recent international behavior.
News approved by government indeed.
jlocke123 August 13th, 2008 4:23 pm
The most sensible thing I read here.
"By the way, name another country that can have troops in combat in two seperate zones, and still have the ability to fly in food to another combat zone. "
Nazi Germany, maybe?
Jeez, What a tool.
US sending Humanitairan Aid, or just more gunsd ammo?
Rice claims she is going to Georgia to "mediate" the dispute...not freakin likely...mediators are generally disinterested third parties, not the military backers and propogandists of one side.
I hear McHell Sack-o-shit-li, the Georgian crybaby, who famously thinks "ceasfire" means murdering civilians in their sleep, has just been awarded the Olympic Gold medal in the "100 mile Dash" retreat..I think he is still running south!
Maybe the National Enquirer is sticking to outing democrats because it got anthrax mailed to it in 2001 when it printed pictures of the drunken bush twins. You never hear that in the "news coverage" of the conveniently dead accused anthrax perpetuator. As a taxpayer, I must say that it certainly saves money when the FBI accuses a dead guy, instead of a live one who can sue for defamation of character.
You also never hear that the other 2 targets were democratic senators, Leahy and Dashcle, who might have slowed the Patriot Act rush to pass. Or not. The democrats certainly rolled over and passed it again 5 years later, with no anthrax needed.
That said, Mr. Lindorff, I agree that your opening sentence is very misleading. Saying "Russia's invasion of Georgia", makes it sound as if the invasion was unprovoked. As if Georgia were Iraq, or something, minding its own business when suddenly a big country invaded it.
Georgia attacked civilians in South Ossetia while the Olympic Games were starting, and then Russia responded, after thousands of civilians and some Russian peacekeeping troops were killed. You allude to this in your last paragraph, but, come on, that doesn't make up for the first sentence.
And as Mister Chips points out, the graphic violence that stunned you so, may very well have been Georgian violence relabeled. The US has been proven to manufacture evidence, and to lie at first and backtrack much later. I don't believe anything I see on the corporate media.
Russia has a complex history of expanding outwards and conquering and absorbing lots of various races and societies as they did so. This history extends through much of the 18th and 19th centuries. Thus, it becomes rather complicated to say whether a people is or isn't 'russian'. Does the term just refer to the 'muscovites' who were at the core of this expanding empire? Or does it include others who were born in 'russia', lived in 'russia' and died in 'russia'?
For instance, Georgia itself was a part of Russia and the Soviet Union for a long time. In fact, one Joseph Stalin was a 'Georgian'. He of course also ruled the Soviet Union for decades. I suspect most people would casually refer to Stalin as 'russian'.
canuckchuck August 13th, 2008 4:40 pm
This is getting serious. 2.5 agreements with canuckchuck this last few weeks.
There isn't another country that can do it, but I can't think of another country that would want to be in two seperate zones of combat, or one for that matter.
Plus the fact that it is shattering our military to sustain this and causing untold damage to our troops.
"She warned Russia it was no longer 1968, a time when powerful nations were allowed to invade their neighbors with impunity."
They are always very slippery in their language (just like Obama and the Democrats by the way). For instance, there is nothing at all hypocritical with this statement, assuming the poster paraphrased it correctly.
After all, the United States has not invaded 'its neighbors' during the years Rice has served the Bush administration. The US of course travels around the world and invades countries far from home. So far, Mexico and Canada have been safe from us.
These are the words of our UK Foreign Secretary, today:
"The sight of Russian tanks rolling into part of a sovereign country on its neighbouring borders will have brought a chill to the spine of many people, rightly, because that is a reversion to - it's not just Cold War politics, it's a 19th Century way of doing politics."
He added: "That is simply not the way international relations can be run in the 21st Century."
Can you believe the DUPLICITY of this disgraceful government that willingly assisted and assists in the invasion and occupation of A SOVEREIGN NATION that was no threat at all!!!!
russia is going to punch us in the stomach and put this brainwashed ego maniac US corporatocracy in it's rightful place.
I hear russian president Dimitri Medvedev has already parked a handful of medium range nuclear missile launchers along the southern border of captured territories. Thanks BushCo, uniter extraordinaire.
What is all this crap about "the Russian invasion of Georgia"? THE GEORGIANS INVADED SOUTH OSSETIA and almost certainly did so with the advance knowledge of the chimpster and the state of Israel. (The Georgian Minister of Defense is Israeli.) The hypocrisy of the press is staggering. The first day of the invasion, before the outcome was certain, they were blatting away about a Georgian victory. After that, it's all about the "Russian invasion." The people parroting this nonsense right here on CD are either trolls or seriously misinformed.
Parroting trolls unite! You have nothing to lose but your serious nonsense!
See to your networks of contacts; keep yourselves informed and keep them informed, and keep the pressure on. But as a hedge, start setting up cheap lo-tech ways of printing, face-to-face networks and ways of communicating that can't be disrupted electronically.
And then promise yourselves and each other that you won't give up.
Dave,
South Ossetia voted in a referendum to join Russia instead of Georgia when the USSR was dissolved by Yeltsin and the CIS formed. As an Autonomous Oblast, they were entitled to do so, and the results were accepted by the three parties, Georgia, Russia, and South Ossetia. The Georgian government then reneged on their acceptance, invaded and were repelled, and the situation became "frozen." So, the de facto and de jure situation is that South Ossetia is a part of Russia. It's just very inconvenient for the truth to be told, isn't it. The truth is Georgia invaded South Ossetia, which is a part of the Russian Empire. I somehow get the idea that you didn't know that.