The Daily Grasshopper

Today's New York Times contains an article in its "A Nation at War" section (how long is this section going to be around for?) about what I've called the "FOX-ification" of the TV media. "Cable's War Coverage Suggests a New 'Fox Effect' on Television Journalism," by Jim Rutenberg, suggests that "Fox has brought prominence to a new sort of TV journalism that casts aside traditional notions of objectivity, holds contempt for dissent and eschews the skepticism of government at mainstream journalism's core." You can read the entire article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/16/international/worldspecial/16FOX.html

It's interesting to note Rutenberg's assumption of "the skepticism of government at mainstream journalism's core." This article appeared in the Times, this country's "newspaper of record," and it's probably fair to say that Rutenberg believes that his employers and colleagues maintain a "skepticism" of the Bush administration (and the government, generally) at their "core." As I've been pointing out for months now, it's simply not true. The most recent example of the Times' credulity is only a week old. The U.S. military killed three foreign journalists in Baghdad last Tuesday, sparking outcry around the world that they were targeted by the Pentagon for reporting the war in an unfavorable light. The very next day, with the blood of their colleagues still fresh on the ground in Iraq, the editors of the Times upheld the government's denial of the accusations, calling them "groundless." I suspect the commentators on FOX would find it difficult to be less "skeptical."

I suppose the "notion of objectivity" would include reporting fairly and accurately what is taking place in the world, and what some of the possible motivations behind these events are. I have frequently pointed out the failure of the "liberal" Times and Boston Globe to reach even a basic standard of objectivity in many instances, and today provides another noteworthy example.

For weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq, we were treated to daily coverage of events at the United Nations, including several speculations by the Globe and the Times about possible motives behind France and Russia's willingness to veto a second U.N. resolution authorizing force in Iraq. That's why it's interesting to read the Times and the Globe from front to back today and find no mention of this story, reported yesterday by the Associated Press:

April 15, 2003

U.N. Human Rights Body Criticizes Israel

By CLARE NULLIS ASSOCIATED PRESS

GENEVA (AP) - The United Nations' top human rights body overwhelmingly condemned Israel's human rights record on Tuesday, accusing the country of "mass killings of Palestinians" and a host of other violations.

The United States, Israel's main ally, was alone in voting against all four resolutions. The American delegate said the criticism was one-sided and unfair.

The resolutions came after impassioned arguments earlier in the commission's annual session, during which Palestinian delegate Nabil Ramlawi claimed Israel used methods of killing and torture that 'were worse than the practices of Nazism.' The comments sparked an outcry among Jewish groups.

Israel regularly is condemned by the 53-nation U.N. Human Rights Commission, which is chaired this year by Libyan U.N. Ambassador Najat Al-Hajjaji. Israel is not a member.

By a 50-1 vote, the commission passed a resolution put forward by European countries voicing 'grave concern' because Israel has not halted settlements of Palestinian territory. It criticized restrictions on the movements of Palestinians and a barrier Israel is building to separate it from the Palestinian territories.

Australia and Costa Rica abstained from voting..."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2003/apr/15/041501103.html

I have occasionally written about the significance of the U.S. government's diplomatic and economic support for Israel as it pursues its illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in Palestine. Now, with all indications pointing to the renewal of talks for a settlement, the issue of Israel's continuing human rights abuses will again be in the spotlight - in some places. Not in the "liberal" northeast, apparently.

So what are the Globe and Times reporting today? The Globe has an article in its "The World" section about more killings in the Occupied Territories. "3 Israelis, 3 Palestinians killed in West Bank, Gaza," the headline reads, and the story reminds us "that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict grinds on with its daily violence." In its "In brief" column in the "War in Iraq" section, the Globe ran a Reuters article from the United Nations entitled "Blix will address UN security panel." There is no mention of the UNHRC's vote on Israel.

The lead editorial in the Globe, "Hands Off Syria," concludes this way:

"[Syrian President] Bashar needs to be warned to cease playing with fire. But in the long run, the soundest way to alter the totalitarian politics of the region is to help foster democracy in postwar Iraq and a just and durable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians."

It's clear from the UNHRC vote that there will be much disagreement on what makes for "a just and durable" settlement when the world's greatest superpower refuses to countenance any criticism of its client's policies. The Globe's owner, the New York Times Company, has offered similar editorial suggestions in recent days in its flagship publication, which is also conspicuously devoid of any mention of yesterday's vote in Geneva.

The Times does report from the region, however, with a story about the violence similar to the Globe's ("3 Israelis and 2 Palestinians Are Killed in Separate Shootings" NYT, 4/16/03, p. A8). The other story reveals the confidence that some Jewish citizens in the Middle East have in the maintenance of the status quo. The reality that the U.N. vote represents is well-known in Beit El, a Jewish settlement in the West Bank. Here's part of the article:

"In peace talks that collapsed three years ago, the former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, proposed keeping the large settlements that are near Israel's pre-1967 boundary. Smaller, more isolated settlements would have been dismantled.

If such a plan is ever revived, it could exclude Beit El, which is deep in the West Bank. But Beit El residents shrug at such a prospect.

'We're not going anywhere,' said Toba Frankel, a spokeswoman for Beit El. Mr. Sharon's 'comments haven't raised my panic antennae. We believe God is with us. My higher power is not Ariel Sharon.'"

You can read the whole thing here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/16/international/middleeast/16ISRA.html

I'm sure Ms. Frankel believes God is on her side. But, given the realities of life in the Middle East these days, I'm sure she's glad to have George W. Bush backing God up, should Ariel Sharon waver in his commitment to the illegal settlements.

There was a story in today's Globe about another country that is likely to face censure by the U.N. Human Rights Commission this week. Here's Secretary of State Colin Powell's assessment: "It has always had a horrible human rights record, and rather than improving as we go into the 21st century, it's getting worse." Powell noted that the country's behavior "should be an outrage to everyone." He was talking about Cuba ("Powell urges UN panel to hit Cuba over rights" BG, 4/16/03, p. A16), but the same charges could easily be levelled at Colombia. Yet, rather than ask for the UNHRC's censure of one of our leading client states, Powell wants to send more guns and troops into the Andes.

Were the editors of the Globe or the Times sufficiently "skeptical of government," they might inquire in the coming days about this double standard, whereby the U.S. condemns human rights abuses in Cuba, but embraces them as the cost of fighting "The War on Drugs" or "The War on Terror" in Colombia. Here's some advice: don't hold your breath waiting for that editorial to appear. The same holds for the editorial that questions the ability of the U.S. to be an "honest broker" in any settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis, given its routine international isolation in support of Israel's crimes. That one won't get written any time soon, either, not even by "liberal" newspapers who feel comfortable attacking right-wing zealots while ignoring their own consistent failure to be duly "skeptical" when it comes to questioning the government.

The "Daily Grasshopper" has been skeptical to the core, and, because yesterday was the 100th day since the inception of the "Grasshopper," it's time for a little review. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. I wrote a while back that the U.S. media never refer to Israel's nuclear arsenal, and Globe reporter John Donnelly had a front page article over the weekend that did so. There was also an op-ed in the Times this weekend that referred to the CIA's involvement in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1953, something I wrote about early on:

http://www.netway.com/~pkeaney/011203usvsiran.html

As for my essay, "Structural Adjustment and the Quagmire," I may have given people the impression that I was predicting (or even welcoming) a long, drawn-out battle for control of Iraq. I will confess that I was surprised by both the willingness of the Iraqis to fight early on and the quickness of the subsequent collapse of Baghdad. Neither of these seems to detract from my long-held belief that this invasion/occupation is going to end badly. In fact, the honeymoon already appears to be over in several important respects. If I thought for a moment that the Bush administration were serious about democracy for the Iraqi people, perhaps I'd be more inclined to hold out hope. The lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal today, "Pessimistic Liberalism," takes the war's doubters to task and concludes by saying "we'll hold out hope that the sight of free Iraqis will cause at least some of them to revive their faith in American principles."

Not to sound like a disgraced former president, but I guess that depends on what your definition of "American principles" is. In fact, as the National Museum of Antiquities in Baghdad was being looted, and 7,000 years worth of priceless historical artifacts were being "liberated," there was one place in Iraq that was being well-guarded by U.S. troops: the oil ministry. I have faith in some American principles (all men - and women - are created equal, each is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), which is why I detest so wholeheartedly the principles that guide the Bush administration. And why it's critical to understand that the corporate "mainstream" media are often no better at being "skeptical" of Bush's government than FOX News or MSNBC are.

PK
http://www.dailygrasshopper.com