David Edwards of Media Lens has an interesting article over at ZNet, documenting a conversation he had, by phone and e-mail, with George Entwhistle of BBC’s Newsnight. Edwards starts by asking Entwhistle why anti-war voices like Scott Ritter’s, who both agree is “an incredibly important, authoritative witness” on the state of Iraq’s potential WMD programs, haven’t been invited to appear on Entwhistle’s show as often as pro-war voices. We’ve heard this conversation before–Amy Goodman’s recent Democracy Now interview with CNN‘s Aaron Brown and FAIR‘s Steve Rendall covered some of the same ground–but where it get’s interesting is in the post-interview e-mail follow-ups. We rarely get a chance to look “behind the scenes” at what goes on after the story airs or is published.
What we see here is an exceedingly polite exchange between two journalists–journalists who obviously admire each others’ work–struggling with difficult concepts. How can we measure media bias? How do journalists decide who can best give a fair and balanced report? (Note: really fair and balanced, not Fox News’ style of “fair [to those we agree with] and balanced [between people who share our point of view and those we have on but don’t let talk]”) Entwhistle relies heavily on his program’s audience appeal to show he’s doing a good job–feeling that people want coverage that makes sense of the world around them, and if his coverage were not balanced, it wouldn’t do that for viewers and viewership would go down. Edwards does not see the link, noting that when people are hungry for news, all news outlets see an increase in audience, but that this does not necessarily correlate to the quality of the news being presented.
What I find especially appealing about this article is that both men come across as reasonable, sympathetic figures, each struggling in his own way to make good journalism. This doesn’t mean that Edwards should not be held to account for failing to feature dissident voices like Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Howard Zinn, and Michael Albert, and for featuring voices like George Monbiot, Edward Said, Denis Halliday, Rolf Ekeus, Guada Razuki, Mike Marqusee, Tony Benn, Joan Ruddock, Alice Mahon, Martin Amis, John Rees and Harold Pinter less often than they could. Edwards provides an “action item” at the bottom of the article for readers to contact Entwhistle and ask for more of this kind of voice. Interestingly, he asks that, when writing letters to journalists, writers “maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone” (showing something of the character difference between Americans and Brits, I think), a tone that is all too rare in political discussion these days. What is also interesting is that while many of the calls for “unbiased” reporting are generally calls for reporting biased towards the critic’s point of view and not other peoples’, Edwards seems to honestlybelieve in an ideal of journalism as a service in the creation of an informed public, not merely a tool for the advancement of a point of view. Refreshing, to say the least. This isn’t to say that reporters should be “neutral” or “unbiased”–they’re people, after all. But good reporters recognize their own biases, and work harder to cover the spots they would ordinarily be blind to. Good reporters treat “fair and balanced reporting” as a working ideal, not just a slogan.
LinktoComments(‘92266683’)
Old Comments
A while ago I posted that Al-Jazeera had launched an English-language website covering the war in Iraq. It was almost immediately swamped with both interested viewers and Denial of Service attacks, and has been down ever since. The main, Arabic-language site has also faced traffic problems. The network announced that they would be rolling out a new, more secure site this month sometime, and yesterday when I tried the link, it worked.
Al-Jazeera is important, not only because it provides an alternative viewpoint that most Americans are never exposed to, but because it its at least a minimal force for democracy and freedom of expression in a Middle East whose nations are dominated by oil-rich oligarchies and fundamentalist dictators. It deserves our support, and its ability to broadcast (or webcast, as the case may be) is a good indicator of our commitment to the principles of democracy that we say we’re trying to help take root in the Middle East.
LinktoComments(‘92114061’)
Old Comments
The administration has come up with an answer to my recent question “How will we know when we’ve won?” The answer is “rolling victory”, an arbitrary “now’s a good time” sort of solution. As explained by the Washington Post,
The concept of a “rolling” victory contemplates a time — not yet determined — when U.S. forces control significant territory and have eliminated a critical mass of Iraqi resistance. U.S. military commanders would establish a base of operations, perhaps outside Baghdad, and assert that a new era has begun.
For those playing the home game, this is pretty much how we won the last Gulf War, and it’s also how Saddam Hussein could claim he won the last Gulf War.
Rolling victory has a lot of things in its favor. You don’t actually have to win to win, so if, for instance, you have forces in Afghanistan that are being killed even as I write this and have managed to uproot al Qaeda camps only temporarily while also failing to prevent the massive resurgance of the heroin trade, you can still say you’ve won. The rest–what were once primary objectives–is just “mopping up”. Another benefit is that rolling victory can keep on rolling, to Syria, Iran, Yemen, wherever evil dwells in the hearts and minds of men.
Amid some controversy, the US is preparing to unveil the new Iraqi government tomorrow. In the rolling victory sense, we’ve won. (Yay.) Baghdad, of course, is still in enemy hands, but that’s relegated to “mopping up”. Hussein is nowhere to be found, and may be long gone. Who would care? It’s just victory, after all.
The name “rolling victory” may be new, but the idea isn’t. Anyone who has had the “America’s never lost a war” argument with someone who firmly believes that America won in Vietnam knows that “victory” is a pretty subjective game. How did we “win” in Vietnam? Simply by engaging the enemy for a long time, by holding the enemy at a standstill. Granted, the moment we declared victory and left, South Vietnam feel to the North. The current war in Iraq is likewise more about the show of force than about any likely objectives. A NY Times article published today, entitled “Viewing the War as a Lesson to the World”, suggests that this war is more a demonstration of the potential of American might than a drive towards particular political objectives. “For a year now, the president and many in his team have privately described the confrontation with Saddam Hussein as something of a demonstration conflict, an experiment in forcible disarmament.”
The debate over Rumsfeld’s “war on the cheap”–sparked by his insistence on a small, perhaps too-small, ground force, and massive aerial bombardment–makes more sense in these terms. A quick and effortless war, especially against a difficult enemy like Saddam’s Iraq, would show the world that not only can we defeat any opposition, but that it’s easy for us, a “cakewalk”. Even if we can’t get rid of the Bad Guys, even if we can’t win the “hearts and minds” of the enemy, we can just roll in, set up shop, and start governing. Resistance is futile.
LinktoComments(‘92106945’)
Old Comments
I started writing this blog in the hopes that some day, I might say something half as well and half as important as Jeanne d’Arc over at Body and Soul. Her 4/4/03 article, Images of a Kinder, Gentler War (no permanent link available; scroll down or use the archives if not at the top) raises the bar to a new and probably impossible-to-match level. *Sigh* Do read it.
LinktoComments(‘92011576’)
Old Comments
As America goes to work overseas bringing it’s peculiar brand of Democracy to the heathens, scary things are happening back home. This story is a little old, but news-junkie that I am, I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere (until this mention today at Dissociated Press). The story is this: as we know, states are broke and the feds aren’t giving them any relief. To cut costs, then, a lot of states are seriously considering, or have already done so, cancelling their presidential primaries. Colorado and Utah have already done so, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona, and Tennessee are thinking about it.
Now, primaries aren’t part of the Constitutional process, as parties in general aren’t, but they’re the way we’ve worked out so far to winnow down the slew of contestants to a reasonable number. They have the advantage of putting this process in the open and subjecting it to regulation. I don’t know–I’m afraid to know–how the parties are going to select their candidates next year. Backroom deals? Size of the campaign warchest? Kissing the ass of the party chair?
For the Republicans, who have given this move a lot of support, this isn’t a problem, at least next year. Running against Bush as a Republican would be political suicide. I mean, first of all, you’d have to point out something Bush did wrong and that kind of dissension just isn’t allowed in today’s Republican Party. But the Democrats are fielding like a hundred candidates! Okay, maybe 8 or so. How will these be narrowed down to the lucky person (or two) who gets to run for office?
And there’s another thing: these are states that tend to vote Republican in the Presidential race (at least, they all did last time around). The primaries are the only chance that registered Democratas in those states will have any chance, most likely, to effect the outcome of the Presidential race. The candidate that wins the primaries in Colorado, if they had one, would be the Democrat most likely to represent Colorado interests. Why should any Democrat worry about those interests now?
Now, I’m not a Democrat, I’m an independent. As I say elsewhere, I don’t much care for primaries as a political institution, because I don’t much care for parties as a political institution. But I’m not idealist enough to believe that the world I would prefer is the world I live in, and primaries are certainly better than nothing. You don’t massively change the foundation of your political process at the last minute to save a little money!
One other thing that scares me–what’s next? We all know Bush doesn’t care for debates that much–maybe no debates next time around? And why bother with conventions? Maybe a parliament-style presidency, who only has to call for elections when s/he feels some sort of moral or political necessity for it? The elimination of primaries represents a fundamental shift in the way politics is carried out in the US–it deserves a little thought. Oh, and a little press.
LinktoComments(‘91965463’)
Old Comments
Yesterday marked the 7th Anniversary of the night my partner and I first kissed outside a London tube station, the night we “officially” started going out together. We couldn’t know on that fateful April Fool’s Day where this all would take us, or how hard it would be at times. We had met at work, in the cafe at the National Gallery, where I was training her in food prep and hygiene, customer service, etc. She’s German, raised in France, and at the time spoke hardly any English, but as we got to know each other over the next few months, we clicked, somehow. Unfortunately, I planned to apply to graduate schools in the States that fall; she planned to start university in Germany. We spent most of the next three years separated and missing each other, until she got a fellowship to come to America and study, eventually earning her Master’s from CUNY with a thesis (in English, of course) on the impact of the German unification on East German women. For three years we lived together in Brooklyn, the longest I’ve ever lived at one address since I was 13. Eventually, though, I had to begin researching my dissertation, which meant time in Washington, DC, and the Midwest, and she had to start her career in international work, which meant time in Paris, Vienna, Rome, London, Brussels, Geneva, or The Hague.
We’ve had some good times and some bad times. We can both be demanding, self-conscious, aggressive, defensive, anxious, depressive, petulant, and spiteful. There’s a lot of presure being apart, but it doesn’t go away when you’re together. Having my family here and her’s in Germany means one of us is always a long way from home–a situation made worse by the events of 9/11 and their aftermath.
Living in New York City isn’t easy on a relationship either. Friends are rarely near at hand, the pressure of just daily life gets to you, commute times are long. Neither of us dealt with 9/11 well (whatever that means)–she was supposed to start a job a couple of blocks from the WTC on Wednesday, 9/12. Knowing that an arbitrary decision, the matter of a day, is all that stood between her and a front-row seat to disaster (if not worse) gave us both quite a scare, the kind of deep fear that doesn’t go away when your heart stops pounding.
Then there’s our families. Both have been supportive above and beyond their call, but still. I don’t speak German well, nor French (they lived in France for many years), so it is difficult for me to communicate with them, and vice versa. My father has the profound distrust of Germans that is common among Jews of his generation, raised in the shadow of WWII and news of the Holocaust. He loves her, but the thought of me living in Germany, or overseas at all, scares him deeply. Again, this is made worse by the events of 9/11, the anger directed at Americans and Jews overseas, the use of Germany as a base for many of the bombers.
And there’s little things–my American lack of formality makes me come off as rude in Germany, my rather picky tastes in food does the same. She’s very outdoorsy, while I’m very bookish. And so on. Big things too–there’s a lot of unsettled issues that lie between us, things that are scary and strenuous and painful to face.
But it’s her body I imagine next to mine when I sleep alone, her warmth I wish for when I’m cold, her laughter I want to hear when I’m sad (and when I’m happy). Her’s is the advice I need when I’m unsure, and the kick in the ass I need when I’m lazy. Her problems are my problems, and her successes are my pride. She has this way with people that I never stop wondering over, an outwardness, a pleasantness, that I envy. (Yeah, I know–I’m supposed to be the anthropologist, and I can barely talk to people. Go figure!) She constantly challenges me to live up to my best ethical and intellectual standards, to speak clearly and directly to people instead of burying my thoughts in an academic’s language. She has a faith in me that she lacks in herself (and vice versa). I am absolutely thrilled by the pleasure she takes in small things–the taste of fine food, the play of light in leaves, the feel of sunlight.
It’s sad and scary to be separated again now, when the world is in chaos and when both of us are unsure of our futures. Neither of us has a lot of money–I’m the typical broke grad student, she’s just getting started in her career–and travel prices are rising. Americans aren’t too well liked in Germany and France, and Franco-Germans doubly unliked here.
But so far we’ve managed, somehow. I don’t think, in the broad strokes if not the details, that our situation is much different from any other relationship. It’s hard work, sometimes, but it’s work worth doing. Of course I talked to her yesterday, sent her my love and congratulated us both for staying together this long, when so much was against us. I told her all that, but even after 7 years, I still want to tell the world, so here it is.
I love you, Nat. I hope the next 7 years are as good as the last 7.
LinktoComments(‘91861488’)
Old Comments
Congressman Dennis Kucinich gave the following address from the House floor yesterday (from kucinich.us):
“Stop the war now. As Baghdad will be encircled, this is the time to get the UN back in to inspect Baghdad and the rest of Iraq for biological and chemical weapons. Our troops should not have to be the ones who will find out, in combat, whether Iraq has such weapons. Why put our troops at greater risk? We could get the United Nations inspectors back in.Stop the war now. Before we send our troops into house-to-house combat in Baghdad, a city of five million people. Before we ask our troops to take up the burden of shooting innocent civilians in the fog of war.
Stop the war now. This war has been advanced on lie upon lie. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for any role al-Qaeda may have had in 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attacks on this country. Iraq did not tried to acquire nuclear weapons technology from Niger. This war is built on falsehood.
Stop the war now. We are not defending America in Iraq. Iraq did not attack this nation. Iraq has no ability to attack this nation. Each innocent civilian casualty represents a threat to America for years to come and will end up making our nation less safe. The seventy-five billion dollar supplemental needs to be challenged because each dime we spend on this war makes America less safe. Only international cooperation will help us meet the challenge of terrorism. After 9/11 all Americans remember we had the support and the sympathy of the world. Every nation was ready to be of assistance to the United States in meeting the challenge of terrorism. And yet, with this war, we have squandered the sympathy of the world. We have brought upon this nation the anger of the world. We need the cooperation of the world, to find the terrorists before they come to our shores.
Stop this war now. Seventy-five billion dollars more for war. Three-quarters of a trillion dollars for tax cuts, but no money for veterans’ benefits. Money for war. No money for health care in America, but money for war. No money for social security, but money for war. We have money to blow up bridges over the Tigris and the Euphrates, but no money to build bridges in our own cities. We have money to ruin the health of the Iraqi children, but no money to repair the health of our own children and our educational programs.
Stop this war now. It is wrong. It is illegal. It is unjust and it will come to no good for this country.
Stop this war now. Show our wisdom and our humanity, to be able to stop it, to bring back the United Nations into the process. Rescue this moment. Rescue this nation from a war that is wrong, that is unjust, that is immoral.
Stop this war now.”
I don’t agree with all of Kucinich’s positions, but the man has style, courage, and convictions. He certainly outclasses any 4 of the other Democratic presidential candidates put together. I can’t say this early in the game if I’ll vote Democratic in the 2004 election, but if Kucinich makes it through the primaries (since I’m registered “Independent” I won’t be voting in the primaries), I can definitely see voting for him. He certainly has the edge on Lieberman who, after 2 1/2 years of soulsearching and wondering “what went wrong” has still only managed to come up with four “liberal social goals” he can bring himself to endorse.
LinktoComments(‘91856323’)
Old Comments
According to Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clarke, Saddam Hussein is the worst dictator in world history”, including Stalin and Hitler (and Pol Pot, and Mao, and Milosevic, and…). The erstwhile Reuters reporter comes through for once, giving us a glimpse of a world in which the media really worked, with what might just be the understatement of the year: “Saddam has been condemned for his exceptional brutality against his own people but historians generally agree that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and Soviet leader Josef Stalin were responsible for killing more people than any other dictators in world history.”
Prediction: Ms. Clarke’s days as Pentagon spokesperson are numbered.
LinktoComments(‘91793674’)
Old Comments
By now, the comments made by Nicholas de Genova at a Columbia University teach-in the other night have penetrated to the furthest reaches of the mediascape. “The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military,” he said. “I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus.” Responses have ranged from “he doesn’t represent me!” to “let’s go get that motherf***er!”. Looks like there’s not much worse de Genova could have said.
Here’s the thing, though: I agree with him. Kind of. With reservations.
Let me be clear: Although I share de Genova’s frustration at the willingness of American soldiers to kill for what is surely a corrupt cause, I do not want to see American soldiers lose their lives. I also do not want to see Iraqi soldiers, and especially not Iraqi civilians, dead. American soldiers and Iraqi soldiers have to bear some of the blame for carrying out this war, but the real blame lies with their leaders, the politicians and string-pullers on both sides who ordered them into battle.
But how do we stop it? How do we put an end to this war, and the next one, and the one after that? When we’re done in Iraq (which we never will be, it seems, but say when an American flag flies over Baghdad) it looks like we’ll be rolling right on to Iran. Then Syria. Then what? What other clients might be found for this new, military-sponsored structural adjustment program? Saudi Arabia? Certainly the country that gave us 9/11 and that continues to give us lots and lots of oil would be even more of a threat if current reforms don’t go our way. Chechnya? Certainly a good use for all those troops we’re training up in Georgia. The Phillipines? Sure, why not? We’ve got troops there already, and anywhere there’s uppity Muslims will make an easy-to-sell target back home. What’s to stop the US–my country, mind you– from carrying the 21st century war to all corners of the earth? We’ve tried massive, worlwide protests. Mr. Bush dismissed public opinion as irrelevant. The UN has tried to reign in Bush and Co., with a resounding lack of success. It is clear, I think, that nothing short of a massive military failure in Iraq is going to prevent the worst, at this point. I don’t wish for “a million Mogadishus”, and I think, in terms of the loss of human life, de Genova doesn’t either, but I don’t see how else this military juggernaut is going to be stopped. And, American media “reportage” aside, there’s lots of people out there who feel strangely elated–guiltily elated–about reports of in Iraq. They’re not happy that soldiers are dying, or even that the Coalition forces aren’t doing as well as we’d been led to expect (Scroll 2/3 down for Perlse’s comments), they’re angry that lives–American. Iraqi, and other–are being wasted by people who don’t know what they’re doing but insisted on doing it anyway.
LinktoComments(‘91759569’)
Old Comments
I can’t help but think that this was not part of the plan. American forces are “camping out” for 4-6 days to give themselves a chance to catch up with the war. They’ll still be shelling Baghdad and enemy formations ahead of their lines, but they’re not marching until late next week.
Even more worrying is this: “Use of gas-guzzling armored vehicles has been restricted to save fuel and food is also in short supply. In one frontline infantry unit, for instance, soldiers have had their rations cut to one meal packet a day from three.” It’s bad enough that we are running out of gas in an oil-field, but we’re running out of food?! How does that happen?
LinktoComments(‘91640731’)
Old Comments
|
|