|
"U.S.
news media don’t talk straight about the fundamental
injustice of Israel’s 36-year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza."
"Illegal and morally indefensible, the occupation will fuel more killings
on both sides until it ends completely."
"Since
this summer began, the Bush team has felt appreciable heat because of 16
words in the president’s State of the Union speech ..."
"A whole
lot more than 16 words should be under scrutiny. For instance, eight days
after the now-infamous State of the Union address, Colin Powell spoke to
the U.N. Security Council."
"There is
no evidence that the gist of his boffo performance on Feb. 5 was anything
other than smoke and mirrors. Powell fudged, exaggerated and concocted."
"By
sending Powell to address the Security Council, the [New York] Times
claimed, President Bush 'showed a wise concern for international opinion.'
And the paper rejoiced that 'Mr. Powell’s presentation was all the more
convincing because he dispensed with apocalyptic invocations of a struggle
of good and evil and focused on shaping a sober, factual case against Mr.
Hussein’s regime.'"
"[Media]
standards of sobriety and accuracy remain dangerously low."
|
|
We’re living in an era when news coverage often involves plenty of
absurdity.
That’s the case with routine U.S. media spin about the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So, on the July 29 edition of NPR’s
“All Things Considered” program, host Robert
Siegel and correspondent Vicky O’Hara each
recited scripts referring to a “security barrier” that
Israel’s government is building in the West Bank. The next day,
many news outlets -- including the Los Angeles
Times, Baltimore Sun, New York Times, Chicago
Tribune and The Associated Press -- also used the “security
barrier” phrase without quotation marks, treating it as an
objective description rather than the Israeli
government’s preferred characterization.
Meanwhile, in contrast, a Washington Post article managed to be
more evenhanded. When the phrase “security fence” appeared, it was
inside a quotation from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. And the
Post story explained that part of the barrier “divides farmers from
their fields, or other Palestinians from their neighbors.” It takes
varied form as a 20-foot-tall concrete wall and fortified stretches of
razor wire, trenches and electronic fencing.
Overall, U.S. news media don’t talk straight about the fundamental
injustice of Israel’s 36-year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Illegal and morally indefensible, the occupation will fuel more killings
on both sides until it ends completely.
From a media standpoint, the war on Iraq presents the
administration with much bigger problems. Since this summer began,
the Bush team has felt appreciable heat because
of 16 words in the president’s State of the
Union speech: “The British government has learned that Saddam
Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa.” While journalists highlight the fact
that Bush’s statement was false, deeper and
broader questions have been scarce.
At Bush’s news conference on July 30, a reporter asked: “Do you
take personal responsibility for that inaccuracy?”
“I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course.
Absolutely,” Bush replied -- and immediately launched into
boilerplate rhetoric to justify the war. It was
a classic politician’s non-response. And, in the
absence of strong media followup, the meaningless answer
rendered the question ineffectual. (A few decades ago, the French
leader Charles de Gaulle wryly alluded to such
dynamics when he began a press conference this
way: “Gentlemen, I am ready for the questions to my
answers.”)
A whole lot more than 16 words should be under scrutiny. For
instance, eight days after the now-infamous State of the Union
address, Colin Powell spoke to the U.N. Security
Council. Today, there is no evidence that the
gist of his boffo performance on Feb. 5 was anything
other than smoke and mirrors.
Powell fudged, exaggerated and concocted. He played fast and loose
with translations of phone intercepts to make them seem more
incriminating. And, as researchers at the media watch group FAIR
(where I’m an associate) have pointed out,
“Powell relied heavily on the disclosure of
Iraq’s pre-war unconventional weapons programs by defector
Hussein Kamel, without noting that Kamel had also said that all
those weapons had been destroyed.” But the
secretary of state wowed U.S. journalists.
Many liberals were among the swooning pundits. In her Washington Post
column the morning after Powell spoke, Mary McGrory proclaimed that “he
persuaded me.” She wrote: “The cumulative effect was stunning.” And
McGrory, a seasoned and dovish political observer, concluded: “I’m not
ready for war yet. But Colin Powell has convinced me that it might be the
only way to stop a fiend, and that if we do go, there is reason.”
Also smitten was the editorial board of the most influential U.S.
newspaper leaning against the war. Hours after Powell finished his
U.N. snow job, the New York Times published an
editorial with a mollified tone -- declaring
that he “presented the United Nations and a global television
audience yesterday with the most powerful case to date that Saddam
Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council
resolutions and has no intention of revealing or
surrendering whatever unconventional weapons he may have.”
By sending Powell to address the Security Council, the Times
claimed, President Bush “showed a wise concern for international
opinion.” And the paper rejoiced that “Mr. Powell’s presentation
was all the more convincing because he dispensed
with apocalyptic invocations of a struggle of
good and evil and focused on shaping a sober,
factual case against Mr. Hussein’s regime.”
The prevailing media standards of sobriety and accuracy remain
dangerously low.
|