Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- An Outpouring of Love and Support for Bradley Manning to Receive the Nobel Peace Prize
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- Fukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- The Treason of Intellectuals
- The Growing Campaign to Revoke Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Fundamental Unreliablity of America's Media
Consider the record of the American media over the last two weeks alone. Justin Elliott of TPM documents how an absolute falsehood about the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing -- that Abdulmuttab purchased a "one-way ticket" to the U.S., when it was actually a round-trip ticket -- has been repeated far and wide by U.S. media outlets as fact. Two weeks ago, Elliott similarly documented how an equally false claim from ABC News -- that two of the Al Qaeda leaders behind that airliner attack had been released from Guantanamo -- became entrenched as fact in media reports (at most, it is one of them, not two). This week, Dan Froomkin chronicles how completely discredited claims about Guantanamo recidivism rates continue to be uncritically "reported" by The New York Times and then inserted into our debates as fact.
As I documented two weeks ago, government claims about which "top Al Qeada fighters" were killed by our airstrikes turn out to be untrue far more often then true, yet are always mindlessly featured by our media, ensuring little questioning of those actions; at least two of the three Top Terrorists claimed to have been killed by our airstrikes in Yemen -- and possibly all three -- are quite likely alive. As Greg Sargent writes, one of the most provocative and inflammatory claims of the trashy Halperin/Heilmann gossip book -- that Bill Clinton told Ted Kennedy that Obama would have been "getting us coffee" just a couple years earlier -- is not only completely unsourced (like virtually every one of their sleazy claims), but also "paraphrased."
Aside from falsity, what do all of these deceitful reports have in common? They're all the by-product of granting anonymity to people and then repeating what they claim as fact, protected by their journalist-guaranteed anonymity from any and all accountability for their falsehoods. It's exactly the same process that caused our leading media outlets to tell Americans about Iraq's massive WMD program and Al Qaeda connections; Jessica Lynch's heroic firefight with inhumane Iraqi devils and her "rescue" by our Marines; Pat Tillman's death at the hands of Al Qaeda monsters; and government tests that "confirmed" the presence of bentonite in the anthrax used to attack the U.S., which meant it was likely that Saddam was behind the attacks.
Unjustified anonymity -- especially when mindlessly repeating what shielded government sources claim in secret -- is the single greatest enabler of false and deceitful "reporting." Despite its unbroken record of producing lies, it will never stop, because agreeing to it is how "journalists" end up being selected as favored message-carrying servants for the powerful. This falsehood-producing method isn't ancillary to American journalism but central to it; the book which is occupying the attention of America's political and media class is based exclusively on unattributed, shielded sources, and that seems to bother one of them.
None of the falsehoods documented here will ever lead to any accountability, because the identity of the falsehood-producers will be shielded by their loyal journalist-servants, and the journalists themselves will simply claim that they wrote what they did because their hidden sources told them to. That's not only the effect, but the intent, of the central method of American journalism: to disseminate outright falsehoods to the American public and ensure that neither the liars nor their loyal message-carriers ever face any consequences or even reputational loss. Anonymity is so common that "reporters" barely even bother any longer to explain why it's justified, notwithstanding numerous policies of media outlets requiring exactly that explanation. As the use of anonymity has escalated rapidly, so, too, has the pervasiveness of outright falsehoods and the inherent unreliability of much of what the American media "reports." Lying is so much easier -- and thus so much more common -- when you get to do it while remaining hidden.
* * * * *
Two other media points:
(1) I've been writing frequently of late about the perception disparities between Americans and the Muslim world due not to their propaganda-based ignorance but to ours. Here's a somewhat old but highly illustrative example: in 1996, then-Secretary-of-State Madeline Albright was asked by 60 Minutes about the fact that American sanctions on Iraq resulted in the deaths of "half million children," to which Albright dismissively replied: "We think the price is worth it." At the time, FAIR documented that while the number of dead Iraqi children -- as well as Albright's quote -- was known far and wide in predominantly Muslim countries, it was almost completely blacked-out in the American press.
(2) Last night, Brian Williams began his NBC News broadcast by expressing extreme and righteous anger over a truly momentous scandal: Mark McGwire's steriod use, telling his audience: "Because this is a family broadcast, we probably can't say what we'd like to about the news today." If Williams has expressed even a small inkling of an objection -- let alone righteous outrage -- over things like torture, lies that led to the Iraq War, chronic surveillance lawbreaking and the like, I'd be quite surprised. Walter Cronkite famously and unusually abandoned precepts of journalistic "objectivity" in order to stand up to the U.S. Government's lies over the Vietnam War; Brian Williams -- who was embedded in the Iraq War and was a reverent commentator regarding everyone involved -- does so in order to stand up to a detested, powerless baseball player. In that contrast one finds a nice illustration of what our modern press corps is.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
82 Comments so far
Show AllFine article, exactly on the mark. Nicely explains why so few Americans know that THREE World Trade Center towers fell directly into their basements at the speed of gravity on September 11th.
Tony Vodvarka
Also explains why so few of the Americans who know that THREE World Trade Center towers fell on Sept 11th are unaware of the massive body of evidence that this was not the result of a vast conspiracy involving the American Government.
And what would that massive body of evidence be; that the Amerikan Gov't had nothing to do with 3 Towers falling nearly at the speed of gravity?
Somewhere in the 90's, CNN ran a video clip of a paid demolition of the Biltmore hotel, I believe in Baltimore:
It came with a country style song " They blew up the Biltmore today, They made all the people go away"
Is the only difference that "They keep 3000 people to stay?"
What doesn't fall at the "speed of gravity" (as if gravity has a speed)? It's been pretty long established that objects fall at a uniform acceleration regardless of mass.
If you want evidence, please widen your horizons, read some books, articles and see some documentaries that don't just feed your paranoia. They're out there; I've seen plenty of highly plausible explanations for most of the anomalies raised in the 9/11 conspiracy theory "literature". All you have to do is have an open mind and look for it. But that's the problem with most 9/11 conspiracy theorists; they only look for information that reinforces what they want to believe. I get that these are dark times, but it makes no sense to me to make them darker by blindly and purposely concluding the darkest possibilities from inconclusive evidence.
I'm not defending the media, either. But I believe most instances of omission, error, unreliability and silliness are by-products of incompetence, bias and the drive to be number one in the ratings. All of which is different from a wilful attempt to lie to the American public. Fox commentators excepted, of course, all they do is lie.
Nonsense, commenter. You cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 from the relatively minimal damage sustained, nor the many explosions on the lower levels of the two towers, nor the instant pulverization of concrete and metal, nor the presence of nanothermite in the dust. And you have no understanding of physics if you think that falling objects will accelerate when falling into the path of greatest resistance. It is YOU who have a closed mind, and clearly cannot contemplate the horrible truth of those events.
Dear Clovis, Don't waste your breath (or ink, or whatever). These folks clearly have not allowed themselves to observe the available footage of WTC #7 fall at the speed of gravity (gosh, what does that mean?) perfectly and symmetrically into its own basement. It is fruitless to explain that a random pancake collapse cannot achieve that effect. In the end, they probably don't have the intellectual integrity to accept the implications of what the naked eye can plainly see.
Tony Vodvarka
Sioux Rose
TONY: "I see you." (reference taken from Avatar). First you provided the quote I alluded to (before I read your post), and then I mentioned that Clovis not waste his breath, only to find you stated the same thing. Psyche! We're riding the same cognitive wave at the moment!
>>But I believe most instances of omission, error, unreliability and silliness are by-products of incompetence, bias and the drive to be number one in the ratings.<<
I'd just add abject stupidity as to believe those "unnamed sources" without confirmation, or ignore the self-serving propaganda from government flacks. Stupid, stupid, stupid and bad journalism as well as any class in journalism would agree.
As for the 9/11 conspiracy screwballs:
http://www.debunking911.com/
Gary
The website you cite does nothing to dispel the doubts, and it most certainly doesn't contradict any of the hard evidence that has been gathered. Go back to your TV.
In a word: HUMBUG!
Gary
I think your word very well sums up your whole approach to the matter. I have reviewed the "debunkers," and their case is very weak. I try to read as much as possible on both sides of this issue. The problem is that the evidence for demolition and foul play is overwhelming. If American and world leaders had any spine or ethics, this case could be blown wide open. At any rate, the research has been done and continues to be done, for future historians to sort out. Once people no longer have a political stake in their investigation, they will have no more qualms about revealing the truth.
Sioux Rose
CLOVIS: You're wasting your breath. Some of these "doubters" have been involved (under current user names or others) in threads that ran past several hundred comments, a few involving sophisticated weblink addresses. They have no interest in letting the Truth be known, and merely throw stones at those who deviate from the official story. It's ironic that they think by demonizing true progressives who recognize the extents this government will go to (after all, it's drunk on that form of absolute power that corrupts absolutely) they secure the status of being true progressives, as opposed to those tin hat embarassments. They are to the Truth movement what the official democratic party is to real progressives. They exist to keep the dialog managed within allowable parameters. Anyone who is NOT skeptical (about the official 911 storyline) at this point is either braindead, or as someone noted, dependent upon a paycheck that doesn't allow them to bear witness to the greater Truth.
commenter, define "bias". Back during the Vietnam War, the NYT dutifully reported the Pentagon releases of Vietcong kills until if you added them all up, the country would be empty.
When asked if the US should have free public education, Horace Greeley said "By all means teach them how to read. Then we can tell them what to think." It's been working ever since. The press has consistently demonized anyone who represented any threat to the status quo (rule by the elite for the elite).
The owners of the media (all five of them) have an agenda, and reporters have learned that keeping their jobs depend on reporting what the owners want to hear. And what they want to hear is omission, error, unreliability and silliness. So when reporters "get" stories, they do not look behind the curtain.
We here on CD read many stories from the foreign press. And how many of us reflect that "we'll never see this in the US news". Has that occurred to you as well? And if so have you pondered on why that would be?
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
You took the words right out of my keyboard, Tony. Greenwald is a quite a resource, and we must be thankful for his energy and dedication. This article, and others, say a great deal about how common perception is shaped for political ends. It is only logical that the argument should extendsto the black hole at the start of our now eight-year descent into madness. My only fear is that, as is often the case with whistleblowers like Glenn, and people of passionate integrity in general, is that he will be gradually marginalized, even, or perhaps especially, by the 'liberal' community, as someone who has 'gone off the deep end.' My hope of course is that he will become an example to those more cowardly than he and with the strength of numbers, progressive journalism will blow the lid of the currently, carefully constructed political discourse of the mainstream. So far, however, there is very little indication of this.
"You can't get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon not understanding it", Upton Sinclair. I'm afraid the corporate media system is rotten to the core. For both personal and political reasons, boycott the corporate media!
Tony Vodvarka
Thanks for the quote. And I do boycott the corporate media.
I was reminded of this very same issue just yesterday when I heard the Beastie Boys song "An Open Letter to NYC", where the guys talk about the city that birthed them and praise its resilience. I'm not a huge BB fan, but I enjoy them every now and then. The irony of this line had never hit me before yesterday.
"Dear New York, I know a lot has changed
Two towers down but you're still in the game"
I'm not suggesting there is some big Beastie Boys conspiracy here to keep their fans ignorant. It is most likely an honest mistake on their part. And that's precisely my point. They may be just as ignorant of this fact as so many other Americans, and this honest mistake has indeed helped perpetuate the official lie.
Yes, let's straighten out our news media first. Then we can turn our righteous wrath to mediocre rockers. :-)
q
Welp I just went out and popped me a big bowl of popcorn that I can munch on as I read the verbal ping pong match that your post is about to kick off... ;-)
The 70's are often looked upon as the golden age of American journalism, largely because of the Watergate scandal and the subsequent resignation of Richard Nixon.
A different...and provocative take on that incident appears in Russ Baker's recent book "A Family of Secrets," his exhaustively researched study of the Bush crime family.
How many of us knew at the time, or know now, that Bob Woodward came directly from ONI (the Office of Naval Intelligence) to the Washington Post and immediately began the startling revelations that brought down a president, revelations which could only have come from sources deep inside the power establishment?
Curiouser and curiouser...
thank you Glenn ..fine article explains why most Americans are poorley informed...and manipulated
Sorry double post
Reminds me of one one of my favorite Media deversions: Sometime in 2005,around the time that it was quite obvious that Iraq had no WMD:
CNN comes out with a panel of Pundits asking "Was Bush misinformed", like maybe the CIA just didn't really know?
But even this provacative question, I read somewhere that this question
got only about 10% Air play time compared to the Bush/Cheney often repeated words that Iraq did have WMD.
some 50%+ of the USA population still believed it even in 2007. Gee whiz, maybe his Daddy lied to him?
So we are left with the same problem as to "How can we speak truth to power and have it reach the majority of Amerikans"
My best answer is keep talking to those who will listen that have not gotten it yet. And be careful you don't get jailed for propagating misinformed information..
But likewise, there's no "accountability" for the (s)elected NAPPYS (No Account President and Party of Yoo're Screwed), either! Time to CHANGE the NAPPYS!
boysgramps, great acronym. In England, "nappies" means diapers.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Well done, Glenn Greewald, of course!
Besides the outright lies that the media so smoothly perpetuate, I am intrigued as well by the way they collaborate with "impressions" that government officials want to create about government actions. Diane Sawyer has recently been anointed as the queen of the anchor desk at ABC News and, perhaps as an initiation ritual for her new job, she is whisked off to Afghanistan and reports from the scene by emphasizing such things that Americans need to know as that our marvelous General McChrystal walks around without body armor and eats only one meal a day (has for years) and that the Afghan children she interviewed really admire America and want to come here to fulfill their dreams of a land flowing with milk and honey. Does one ever wonder at the stage-managing (photo-opping) of a battlefield tour which shows smiling Afghan children and brave and wise commanders instead of soldiers driven to or over the brink of suicide, or Afghan children (what remains of them) with their limbs blown off as collateral damage (oops, sorry about that), victims of another drone attack on a "suspected" terrorist hangout? For that matter, does the media ever question the sampling techniques by means of which government agencies conduct and the media dutifully reports the results of public opinion polls showing that Afghans are happy and hopeful and support the U.S. "mission" in their country? Greenwald mentions some of these fairy stories concocted by the Pentagon and sucked up by the gullible press---Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, etc.---but his analysis shouldn't leave us with the impression that anything has really changed with media coverage today.
I have always wanted someone to ask Albright on the record whom she perceived as paying the price of a half million dead Iraqi children. The sense I got from her answer on 60 Minutes was that she thought the USA had paid the price (in grief? remorse?).
Bull!
Amy Goodman has asked her -- Madeline was NOT happy about being asked the question.
I still recall watching that interview on 60 Minutes, and being stunned by Ms. Albright's reply.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/7/30/democracy_now_confronts_madeline_albright_on
When I was a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, many, many Moons ago, we needed several sources for almost anything, and often begged sources to speak for attribution.
If they didn't want their names used, much more often than not I simply would not use whatever it was they had to say.
>>Here's a somewhat old but highly illustrative example: in 1996, then-Secretary-of-State Madeline Albright was asked by 60 Minutes about the fact that American sanctions on Iraq resulted in the deaths of "half million children," to which Albright dismissively replied: "We think the price is worth it."
And to think that Hillary Clinton is our Secretary of State today. There's a lot of skeletons in that closet. When do little Eichmanns wake up?
There's also the context in which all this happens: 24/7 demand for infotainment.
And as I was reading this excellent article I had a funny feeling arise. It felt as though I was reading a great explanation of a single problem of a person who was sick and dying of numerous other larger problems. Like previously reading how famous person X was addicted to crack, alcohol, had heart problems, nose bleeds, broken arms, legs, etc. THEN reading an article about the same person describing brilliantly how person X was addicted to cough medicine. Weird.
.... and MSM is already concluding that an Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated by the Iranian government yesterday because he was among the hundreds of academicians who penned their signatures on a letter sent to their President regarding the on-going election disputes. There are other outsiders who would want to kill these scientists as well.
Good article Glenn, even though most progessives have known this for a long time. The latest addition to the whore Media; Palin on Foxy News. We distort you decide.
The goofy PBS-BBC show "World Have Your Say," with its bleating Brit radio announcers, is now promulgating a view that Afghans are happy as clams although there isn't an ocean or bay anywhere around, and Afghans now supposedly hate the Taliban more and more. Scrupulously avoided is discussion of whether Afghans hate the Americans and the Brits more and more, too.
I find this biased discussion obnoxious, but obnoxiousness is the coin of all talk shows. Warmongering presidents, prime ministers and media moguls are all of a feather. Personally speaking, I think that after withdrawing our forces, we Americans should put Gordon Brown and Tony Blair squarely in the middle of the Khuyber Pass and let them stand there.
Bottle
"we Americans should put Gordon Brown and Tony Blair squarely in the middle of the Khuyber Pass and let them stand there."
I think thats a fair suggestion, but we'll have to put George and Dickie out there with them if you don't mind. That way we will have two fools and two cowards there.
I think that after withdrawing our forces, we Americans should put Gordon Brown and Tony Blair squarely in the middle of the Khyber Pass and let them stand there.
Do not forget Daddy Long Legs, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, George Wanker Bush, Cheesedick Cheney, Robert Gates, Donald Rumsfeld, ad nauseum. Leave them all naked and unarmed in the Khyber Pass. Give them each a box of Red Vines, then drive away in a cloud of dust, yelling, "Give 'em hell, you guys!"
Notwithstanding his justified swipe at The New York Times, the remainder of Mr. Greenwald's evidence of the unreliability of "the media" is aimed at network television.
Would he have us believe that actual journalism is practiced there?
Of course, Brian Williams is outraged at Mark McGwire's steroid admission. He's in the same scandal-mongering business as Fox and all the rest of them. It's good for ratings.
God knows, the press in this country ain't what it used to be, but if we are going to engage in serious criticism of the news media, let's at least focus on actual reporting and not the foolishness that masquerades as "news" on the networks and cable television.
forgive me, I don't watch tv anymore...is this new?
"Of course, Brian Williams is outraged at Mark McGwire's steroid admission. "
Mark McGwire was obviously using steroids many years ago...as was Sammy Sosa and Jose Canseco and others...just look at their musculature from one year to the next, and look how many more home runs they're suddenly hitting, and how much farther...there's really no mystery...the only mystery is how baseball continues to pretend this isn't common...
from the article:
"Last night, Brian Williams began his NBC News broadcast by expressing extreme and righteous anger over a truly momentous scandal: Mark McGwire's steriod use..."
why is his steroid use 'truly momentous'? because you didn't know?
I'm pretty sure Glen means that ironically.
i thought so, too, but the phrasing wasn't clear...
the whole 'discovering' something, years later, that anyone could see with their own eyes years ago just got me going and I couldn't help myself...
like I said, I don't even watch tv anymore...this kind of thing is largely why...the 'revelations' following 9/11 just left my jaw permanently dropped in their obtuseness...
peace, clovis...
My experience was rather similar to yours. I had always been, especially since the Reagan years, deeply pessimistic from a socio-historico-metaphysical standpoint. Then 9/11 totally "blew my mind" (to resuscitate one of the better expressions of '60s slang). It "proved" everything I had always thought, but my reaction was one of utter horror. There is no satisfaction in being "right" about these things. I do think the unbridled arrogance and violence of the power elite that we now see, as they are no longer shackled by the niceties of having to pretend they are civilized, has created a distict opportunity for profound change, but I don't see that many people, and certainly not enough young people, picking up the ball and running with it. And so we wait.
Peace to you too, dubet. See you on the next thread.
Compare how a typical football player looks with a typical baseball player. Look at an NFL linebacker, a safety, a defensive end with his shirt off.
The only mystery is how EVERYONE pretends this isn't common...
If we are to judge by the outcome of events, most US citizens lack any type of BS Detector, while those that do sometimes fail to use it. One of my former jobs was to help college students develop their BS Detectors, but the failure rate was very high because BS Detectors need to be instilled in people's minds by Sixth Grade (and in some cases--TV commercials, for example--much earlier). Having a well developed BS Detector is essential as most of what passes for journalism today is no more than stenography or opinion. I know it's tiresome, but it's best to treat anything announced by the federal government or congress directly or repeated by the Propaganda System as false until proven true. Or as with BushCo to take the opposite of what was said as the truth of the matter until proven otherwise.
It is interesting if not hugely ironic that slightly mentally handicapped persons are known to have unfailing BS Detectors. A beautiful example was the little British prince (John, son of George V) who said what he thought and thereby repeatedly embarrassed the Court. Apparently a high IQ shuts off BS Detectors. Time and again researches by advertisers have shown that highly educated persons are the easiest fooled. Apparently education is not necessarily an antidote.
If TV journalists and commentators want unvarnished truths they could do no better than inviting slightly mentally handicapped persons as regular guests on their programs. I would tune in to see and hear them make mincemeat of our politicians.
Sioux Rose
CROWSNEST: What is an IQ? Many who score high understand the parameters of the test, but like some of my friends with Ph.Ds, their thinking process is highly specialized and narrow. In other words they are hardly geniuses "across the board." Instinct, or something more akin to intuition and/or the emotional IQ is probably where the BS detector comes into play. A lot of intelligent persons preciously guard their career positions in "the hierarchy" and may appear not to question so as not to rock the fiscal boat. Whether they REALLY believe what their bosses and "annointed experts" have to say is something one cannot truly determine. You know the line about people not seeing or exposing what their paychecks demand that they endorse? There is yet to be a test that measures the integrity of a person, their innermost truth against the behaviors they adapt to survive in a rather sick society. That designation being derived from its penchant for war and its careless disregard of actual human rights, health care access among those.
Mr. Greenwald mentions a Sports Illustrated article from 2004 on Pat Tillman's death "at the hands of Al Qaeda monsters", but in fact the article does not claim that Tillman was killed by Al Qaeda forces. In retrospect, the military was probably very careful in its phrasing, knowing as they did that he was killed by American forces.
I think we should stop using the term "mainstream media". MSM is an oxymoron. It is neither mainstream nor media when used in the sense of the word journalism.
A more accurate term might be something like the Governmentcorps Ministry of Truth; GCMT.
That aside, wouldn't an "honest journalism company" simply say; OK, we will grant you anonymity but if it turns out to be not a mistake but a lie then we will post your name as the source of the deception.
I want to thank GG for outing at least some of those that seek to manufacture consent.
I've called it the Propaganda System for several years now, while its poor relation the "Education system" is properly called the Indoctrination System. And of course they work in concert so it's hard to tell one apart from the other at times.
How about (Ray McGovern's) term Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) as it appears (just check out their "business" let alone labor reporting) the media jumps to corporate puppetmasters even more than to government. But then again, MilitaryIndustrialComples so what's the diff?
Gary
To extend Greenwald's logic to the most egregious case of unsubstantiated assertion by government officials being passed as "fact" by the media, let us not forget that never has the official attribution of the events of 9/11/01 to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida been shown, at least in public, to be based on anything that could be called evidence. The "authorities" simply issued the accusation on the day itself, declared war that evening, and the world has been at war ever since. And in the ensuing confusion, the simple fact that the founding premise of all this war was never proved seems to have been forgotten.