The Daily Grasshopper

So, "Operation Iraqi Fiefdom," er, I mean "Freedom," is underway. And while Americans are being treated to such spectacles as the massive "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign on Baghdad and the "liberation" of cities (and oil) in southern Iraq, some are wondering if there might be more to this than meets the eye.

On the back page of the "War in Iraq" section of the Boston Globe (a new feature, devoted entirely to each day's war coverage), you'll find this article:

"Qatar headquarters says mum's the word" (p. A20)
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/081/nation/Qatar_headquarters_say_mum_s_the_word+.shtml

Here are the key paragraphs:

"Two days into the war on Iraq, the public's knowledge of the conflict has been characterized by a mix of unprecedented access to the ant's-eye view of troops on the ground and, in official briefings, a near-total lack of information that would fill in the big picture of the war and put reports from the field in context. Spokesmen at Centcom defended their policies, saying the secrecy was needed to protect troops and preserve tactical surprise.

But veteran defense reporter Robert Hodierne, senior editor at the Military Times newspapers, said the secrecy went far beyond normal security caution, as Centcom withheld times, casualty numbers, and weapons used long after operations were over...

But the vacuum left by the official silence has already been filled with questions. Some reporters found themselves wondering if the embedding process was all part of a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the movements of units that have no reporters in tow. No reporters were with the American and British troops involved in what appears to have been the toughest ground fighting yet, around the port of Umm Qasr.

'Is America hiding something?' one Al-Jazeera reporter asked. The Arabic-language channel quoted an Iraqi minister as saying that the surrender of Iraqis shown by embedded reporters was staged. There was no one to contradict him."

And in a related story, on the same page, you'll discover that CNN was kicked out of Baghdad yesterday. According to the article, "Reuters reported that the Iraqis had accused the cable network of being a propaganda vehicle, but CNN officials declined to comment."

Why might anyone be concerned about CNN performing propaganda functions? Let's have an actual CNN reporter explain, in his own words. This is from the same article:

"In a brief interview with the Globe, CNN's Jason Bellini, who is with the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which arrived in the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr yesterday, half-jokingly compared the experience 'to extreme camping.'

Discussing the psychological aspects of traveling with US troops during wartime, Bellini added that 'the excitement that they're feeling, we've been feeling as well. ... They've sort of included us into their family. It felt like we were going to war with them as peers.'"

You can read the article here:
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/081/nation/For_TV_viewers_a_stunning_display_of_destruction+.shtml

Now, when reporters are feeling like they've been "included" by U.S. troops "into their family," and that they're "going to war with them as peers," what effect do you think that has on their ability to report objectively? Before you answer, consider this statement that was made by one of America's best-known reporters last year:

"What we are talking about here - whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not - is a form of self-censorship. It starts with a feeling of patriotism within oneself. It carries through with a certain knowledge that the country as a whole - and for all the right reasons - felt and continues to feel this surge of patriotism within themselves. And one finds oneself saying: 'I know the right question, but you know what? This is not exactly the right time to ask it'."

That's none other than veteran CBS News anchor Dan Rather, quoted from an interview he did last May. Of course, this was reported not here, in the U.S., where the self-censorship is happening, but in London. Here's the full report by the BBC. You really ought to check this out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/05_may/16/dan_rather.shtml

Here's how Rather concluded his interview:

"The belief runs so strong in both the political and military leadership of the current war effort that those who control the images will control public opinion. They realise what an entertainment-oriented society ours has become. Therefore one way of looking at it is quite natural, they would say to themselves: 'Hey, we've had the Hollywoodisation of the news, we have had the Hollywoodisation of almost everything else in society, why not the Hollywoodisation of the war?'

And I want to say quietly but as forcefully as I can that I hope this doesn't go any further, it has gone too far already. I am appalled by it, I do think it is an outrage, this is a personal opinion."

Even "liberal" newspapers can be found marching in lockstep once the bombs start dropping. Remember the other day, when I pointed out how the Globe's editorial writers were taking Bush's claims about the need for war at face value? Check out their lead editorial today:

"War is intrinsically dangerous, destructive, and inhumane. The war to disarm Saddam Hussein by toppling his regime is no exception. But because a primary war aim of the United States - repeatedly invoked by Bush administration officials - is to liberate Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny, it is crucial that coalition military tactics are molded to that humane goal."

You can link to it here:
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/081/editorials/Shock_treatment+.shtml

How about that logic? All Bush has to do is "repeatedly invoke" his "primary war aim" and that's good enough for the Boston Globe. No investigation needed. Of course, the reason Bush has had to "repeatedly invoke" his war aim is because not enough people bought it the first (or second, or fifteenth) time around. And if you take a look around the world today, a good look (not the one that the "embedded reporters" are giving you), you'll note that they still don't buy it.

The Globe's owner, the New York Times Company, has a story in its flagship publication today about the possibility that U.S. media are partly to blame for the war in Iraq. "Critics of Iraq War Say Lack of Scrutiny Helped Administration to Press Its Case" is a story on page B10 of today's New York Times (whose own all-war section is called "A Nation at War." Give them credit for giving roughly equal space to a picture of a wounded Marine and a picture of bloodied Iraqi civilians on the front of today's section). Count me among the critics, as those of you who have been reading for a while know. Too bad the Times didn't report on these concerns back when it might have made a difference.

Here's part of the story:

"There has also been a shift in some quarters of the news industry in what its role should be. Executives at the most-watched cable news network, the Fox News Channel, have said they do not start from the general premise that the administration is wrong.

John Moody, a senior vice president at Fox, said, 'President Bush used intelligence information not necessarily available to everyone and made what is not a terribly large leap of logic: that terrorists and sponsors of terrorism might have a lot in common.'

David Greenberg, a historian, writer for Slate and author of 'Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image,' to be published this fall by W.W. Norton, argues that the news media did 'a creditable job.'

But he added that American reporters have certain 'cultural assumptions' not shared by much of the European press, which has been noticeably more skeptical of the administration's arguments.

'A story line that no matter how suspicious we may be of the Bush administration's motives or competence doesn't challenge the fundamental assumption of underlying good intentions,' he said."

FOX News giving Bush the benefit of the doubt? Who would have thought?

The whole article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/international/worldspecial/22MEDI.html

I can't even escape the jingoism, or the "fundamental assumption of underlying good intentions" that causes it, at the corner store. I go into the Kwik Mart to buy the newspapers this morning, and they were cranking the local "classic rock" station behind the counter, WROR, 105.7 FM (http://www.wror.com/). The station has a little ad they've put together to promote their patriotism, which features snippets of songs with the word "Free" in them. Included are "Free Fallin'," by Tom Petty, "Keep on Rockin' in the Free World," by Neil Young, and "Free Bird," by Lynyrd Skynyrd. It was all I could do to keep from laughing out loud.

Neil Young's song, for anyone who's ever listened to the lyrics, is anything BUT "patriotic," by the prevailing definition, in that it openly questions our country's policies (I happen to consider that patriotism, but realize that I'm in the distinct minority). Here's a sample of the lyrics:

We got a thousand points of light
For the homeless man
We got a kinder gentler machine gun hand

We got department stores and toilet paper
Got styrofoam boxes for the ozone layer
Got a man of the people says keep hope alive
Got fuel to burn, got roads to drive"

And "Free Bird," the Skynyrd anthem that I and a whole bunch of my friends grew up listening to, was written as a tribute to the late, great Duane Allman, not the U.S. of A. However, Ronnie Van Zant, the band's songwriter, did write a song that dealt with the subject. It was on the same album as "Free Bird," and the song was called "Things Goin' On." Here are the lyrics:

Well, have you ever lived down in the ghetto?
Have you ever felt the cold wind blow?
Well, if you don't know what I mean
Won't you stand up and scream?
'Cause there's things goin' on that you don't know

Too many lives they've spent across the ocean
Too much money been spent upon the moon
Well, until they make it right
I hope they never sleep at night
They better make some changes
And do it soon

Well, they're goin' ruin the air we breathe
Lord have mercy
They're gonna ruin us all, by and by
I'm telling all you beware
I don't think they really care
I think they just sit up there
And just get high

WROR is owned by the Greater Media Corporation. In addition to WROR, they also own WBOS (92.9), WTKK (96.9), WKLB (99.5), and WMJX (106.7), and that's just in Boston. They own dozens of other stations around the country. There's another big corporate media conglomerate, Clear Channel, which has taken its pro-war stance significantly further than just misrepresenting the work of artists like Young and Van Zant. Here's a story you may or may not have heard about the Clear Channel Corporation's involvement in orchestrating pro-war demonstrations:

"Some of the biggest rallies this month have endorsed President Bush's strategy against Saddam Hussein, and the common thread linking most of them is Clear Channel Worldwide Inc., the nation's largest owner of radio stations.

In a move that has raised eyebrows in some legal and journalistic circles, Clear Channel radio stations in Atlanta, Cleveland, San Antonio, Cincinnati and other cities have sponsored rallies attended by up to 20,000 people. The events have served as a loud rebuttal to the more numerous but generally smaller anti-war rallies.

The sponsorship of large rallies by Clear Channel stations is unique among major media companies, which have confined their activities in the war debate to reporting and occasionally commenting on the news. The San Antonio-based broadcaster owns more than 1,200 stations in 50 states and the District of Columbia."

It was reported by the Chicago Tribune last week:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0319-01.htm

Truth is the first casualty of war. Something to remember as we watch, from the safety and comfort of our homes, the "Shock and Awe" that our tax dollars are generating for audiences around the world, many of whom get far more reliable news about the things going on in Iraq than we ever will.