Media Lies, Again

The media was complicit in the lies that led us into the invasion and occupation of the nation of Iraq. From March 2004,

 We speak with a local Virginia columnist who wrote a column apologizing for the U.S. media's performance in the run-up to the war on Iraq. In his column "Why the Media Owe You An Apology on Iraq" he specifically cites the New York Times and Washington Post. [includes rush transcript]

In an article published on Sunday, March 28, 2004 by The Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, VA, entitled "Why the Media Owe You An Apology on Iraq" columnist Rick Mercier writes:

"The media are finished with their big blowouts on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and there's one thing they forgot to say: We're sorry.

"Sorry we let unsubstantiated claims drive our coverage. Sorry we were dismissive of experts who disputed White House charges against Iraq. Sorry we let a band of self-serving Iraqi defectors make fools of us. Sorry we fell for Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations. Sorry we couldn't bring ourselves to hold the administration's feet to the fire before the war, when it really mattered.

"Maybe we'll do a better job next war.

"Of course it's absurd to receive this apology from a person so low in the media hierarchy. You really ought to be getting it from the editors and reporters at the agenda-setting publications, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/31/1616226

 Jeff Smith's latest column for Recoil, titled "The Lies Continue: US Media and the War in Iraq...and Iran?" looks at the role of the corporate media in the United States in supporting the United States' occupation of Iraq. In the column, Smith writes:

Let's face it folks the media has played a major role in letting the current administration get away with brutalizing the people of Iraq. The major news media in this country instead of just reporting on the latest area soldier who has been killed in Iraq, should get on their fucking knees and ask forgiveness to these military families for contributing to the lie of this war. I mean, I wanna see Lee Van Amyde and Suzanne Geha and the rest of these local media people publicly apologize for not doing their job and holding the government accountable for the reasons they gave in starting a war. Well this isn't likely to happen. Instead the news media now is not only not questioning the ongoing occupation of Iraq and Bush call for a "surge" in US troops, they are going right along with the administration in beating the drums of war against Iran.

Read entire column at: http://www.mediamouse.org/commentary/030407the_l.php

I recall reading apologies from the New York Times on it's coverage. One article in particular comes to mind...you can check it out if you wish: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/9/4621

Yet, I remember thinking to myself...they'll do it again. They apologized because they had to...they were covering their' butts. We have no Fifth Estate...the corporate media is an extension of the Pentagon and the White House. They are the press secretaries. Most reporters are just another pretty face reading monitors and cue cards. They heave no minds and are not journalist...they're cover-girls and boys running ads for the powers that be. I saw a reporter on Jeopardy...I was astounded at how beautiful she was and also, at how stupid she was. They have beautiful bods and faces doing the weather who can't even spell the word meteorology. Some ugly old fart is doing the actual readings while this model is passed off as the real deal.

 It goes beyond just being dumb, though, Peter Jennings is not dumb...so that makes him a liar, because he should know better. Is this their' idea of helping morale for the invaders...to lie about situations on the ground? Who do they work for...the people or the Pentagon? If Bush utters one of his thousand and one lies why don't they bring him to task? Is their' task to not offend the President of the Republic? Is their' calling require them to never stop kissing presidential butt?

Why do they say they're sorry for past wrong-doings, yet, continue to do it? Is it an illness? Are they addicted to lieing and just can't help themselves?

Just yesterday I made a posting to an AOL group:

 

Subject: Gen. David Petraeus Is A Liar
Date: 6/24/07 2:37 AM EST
Author: r7fel@aim.com

 

Manufacturing Consent For War With Iran::

Kidnappers of British contractors in Iraq were backed by Iran: US General :

The kidnappers who snatched five British contractors last month were funded, trained and armed by Iran, the US commander in Iraq said in an interview published late Wednesday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070620/wl_mideast_afp/iraqbritainkidnapus

===

Manufacturing Consent For War With Iran::

Kidnappers of British contractors in Iraq were backed by Iran: US General :

The kidnappers who snatched five British contractors last month were funded, trained and armed by Iran, the US commander in Iraq said in an interview published late Wednesday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070620/wl_mideast_afp/iraqbritainkidnapus

===

Manufacturing Consent For War With Iran:

Iranian weapons still flowing into Iraq -US general:

Smuggled weapons and deadly explosives are still coming into Iraq from neighbouring Iran and continue to kill American soldiers, a top U.S. commander said on Thursday.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BUL154330.htm

It is disturbing how they report this dribble without looking for evidence of such blatantly manufacture pronouncements from this bold face liar that Bush has put over there to act as a spokesperson for the coming war on Iran. This worthless general who is being handed a thorough beat down by the Iraqi nationalist is marketing a war on Iran. What's with that...man, get the job at hand done and stop whining about your' delusions of Iranian interference...but, of course, he is doing his job, namely:

Manufacturing Consent For War With Iran.

In short, we are being lied to, again...by the corporate media.

I read an article today that goes to the gist of the matter...check it out (excerpts):

Everyone We Fight in Iraq is Now "al-Qaida"

Josh Marshall publishes an e-mail from a reader who identifies what is one of the most astonishing instances of mindless, pro-government "reporting" yet:

It's a curious thing that, over the past 10 - 12 days, the news from Iraq refers to the combatants there as "al-Qaida" fighters. When did that happen?

 

Until a few days ago, the combatants in Iraq were "insurgents" or they were referred to as "Sunni" or "Shia'a" fighters in the Iraq Civil War. Suddenly, without evidence, without proof, without any semblance of fact, the US military command is referring to these combatants as "al-Qaida".

Welcome to the latest in Iraq propaganda.

That the Bush administration, and specifically its military commanders, decided to begin using the term "Al Qaeda" to designate "anyone and everyeone we fight against or kill in Iraq" is obvious. All of a sudden, every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as "Al Qaeda."

But what is even more notable is that the establishment press has followed right along, just as enthusiastically. I don't think the New York Times has published a story about Iraq in the last two weeks without stating that we are killing "Al Qaeda fighters," capturing "Al Qaeda leaders," and every new operation is against "Al Qaeda."

The Times -- typically in the form of the gullible and always-government-trusting "reporting" of Michael Gordon, though not only -- makes this claim over and over, as prominently as possible, often without the slightest questioning, qualification, or doubt. If your only news about Iraq came from The New York Times, you would think that the war in Iraq is now indistinguishable from the initial stage of the war in Afghanistan -- that we are there fighting against the people who hijacked those planes and flew them into our buildings: "Al Qaeda."

What is so amazing about this new rhetorical development -- not only from our military, but also from our "journalists" -- is that, for years, it was too shameless and false even for the Bush administration to use. Even at the height of their propaganda offensives about the war, the furthest Bush officials were willing to go was to use the generic term "terrorists" for everyone we are fighting in Iraq, as in: "we cannot surrender to the terrorists by withdrawing" and "we must stay on the offensive against terrorists."

But after his 2004 re-election was secure, even the President acknowledged that "Al Qaeda" was the smallest component of the "enemies" we are fighting in Iraq:

A clear strategy begins with a clear understanding of the enemy we face. The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group. . . .

 

The second group that makes up the enemy in Iraq is smaller, but more determined. It contains former regime loyalists who held positions of power under Saddam Hussein -- people who still harbor dreams of returning to power. These hard-core Saddamists are trying to foment anti-democratic sentiment amongst the larger Sunni community. . . .

The third group is the smallest, but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda.

And note that even for the "smallest" group among those we are fighting in Iraq, the president described them not as "Al Qaeda," but as those "affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda." Claiming that our enemy in Iraq was comprised primarily or largely of "Al Qaeda" was too patently false even for the President to invoke in defense of his war.

 

But now, support for the war is at an all-time low and war supporters are truly desperate to find a way to stay in Iraq. So the administration has thrown any remnants of rhetorical caution to the wind, overtly calling everyone we are fighting "Al Qaeda." This strategy was first unveiled by Joe Lieberman when he went on Meet the Press in January and claimed that the U.S. was "attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we're fighting in Iraq today". Though Lieberman was widely mocked at the time for his incomparable willingness to spew even the most patent falsehoods to justify the occupation, our intrepid political press corps now dutifully follows right along.

Rest of article at: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/23/al_qaeda/index.html

Finally, one thing must be borne in mind when considering the New York Times yellow journalism...that one thing is it's editor...Mort Zuckerman. That explains a whole lot...no need for the Pentagon or the White House to twist his arm on biased reporting.