How corrupt the media?

[Undertoad]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ed...ent_id=1979014

tw: if you don't read this, you are anti-American. If you read it and read it well, your head will explode.

Anyone anti-war: you have to read this to find out how you got that way -- and a few of the names that let you down and made you indirectly support some of the worst horrors of the world so that a small number of people could make a quick buck.

Anyone who follows only one source of news: you have to read this to understand how very little you know.

In one case, a correspondent actually went to the Internet Center at the Al-Rashid Hotel and printed out copies of his and other people's stories -- mine included -- specifically in order to be able to show the difference between himself and the others. He wanted to show what a good boy he was compared to this enemy of the state. He was with a major American newspaper.

Do you think you know what's going on in the world? The only way to know is to read blogs. This story comes to us via Andrew Sullivan.

[Griff]

Since the media is corrupt, including the war-mongering Times, it is best to stick with basic principles like non-intervention. After all,
"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent." -Issac Asimov

Now let me be sure I understand, the war is now about human rights and was all along, even though we were spoon fed lies by a compliant media about WMD and Saddam/Al Queda connections. gotcha... Yes we are the good guys since it will take many many years before we surpass Saddams body count, not that we're counting. Is the world, as a whole, safer because of our aggression? I doubt it. Is Israel safer? I doubt it. These interventions make new enemies for us out of people who should be our allies. I take no responsibility for the message written by this media type but its no more dubious than a blog rant.

[Undertoad]

I should have said "anyone anti-war except Griff" as we know you have other objections.

But the whole point of this is that the media was more compliant to Baghdad than to Washington, solely because Baghdad required such compliance.

[Undertoad]

Let me take that a step further. It's the opinion of 99% of the media that there ARE no WMDs. Most of the outlets I watch have made that decision at a very high level somewhere and have spent time pushing that as fact. CNN was absolutely relentless for two weeks in the beginning of the summer. Only one newspaper bothered to publish the documents that were found suggesting that the al Qaeda connection could be real, and that newspaper is in the UK.

Now regardless of all of that, there are a few people in the world who know about the actual WMD situation and the actual al Qaeda connection, and none of those people work in the media.

A media interested in presenting factual information would have to say the answer is we don't know yet. Sometimes they do admit that, but newspeople resist saying "don't know" at all costs.

We will know more by the end of the month.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Anyone anti-war: you have to read this to find out how you got that way

Blanket statements like these, addressed to "anyone who X," always makes me whip out my heavy-duty, industrial-size, grain of salt. Doubly so when the "damning evidence" is in the form of one single reporter's opinions and impressions. He claims all of the other reporters were lying and bribing, but you assume he isn't lying to make himself look good. Statistically speaking, that's a lot more likely. Maybe this guy was an asshole and created problems for other reporters unnecessarily. Maybe the stories are completely untrue. Or maybe he's being honest. We don't know. This story is information useful in forming an opinion, but it is not damning evidence.

Originally posted by Undertoad
...made you indirectly support some of the worst horrors of the world so that a small number of people could make a quick buck.

I have mixed feelings about the war, but I realize that those in power have more information than I do, and for now I choose to trust their judgement. So I don't really qualify for the "anti-war" category you designated. But the above statement, suggesting that people who don't think we should have invaded Iraq when we did are indirectly supporting the horrors there, is like saying that anyone pro-war is indirectly supporting the murder of decent men, women and children... namely Iraqi civilains and US soldiers.

Both are offensive suggestions, are obviously untrue, and are obviously an attempt to invoke emotion rather than communicate facts. This is exactly the practice that is eroding the quality and value of the news media today. This is exactly the practice that is condemned by so many bloggers today, but then they turn around and do it themselves. To bloggers' credit though, few claim to be impartial and unbiased.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, anyone who categorizes people, and then makes blanket judgements about the moral character of everyone in that category, is being a shithead as far as I'm concerned. And yes, I recognize the irony in that statement.

[Griff]

Sorry. Now get back to baitin tw! Try chumming with MBA degrees.

[Undertoad]

Al, you're right and I shouldn't make the blanket statement.

Still, there's more to this. Here's the thing. The honest reporting of terror probably would have made the case for war. Yes. And here's where we get hypothetical:

It also would have really undercut France's attitude/honest disagreement/perfidy, because it would have cast the problem differently and cast public opinion differently.

That, in turn, might have convinced Saddam that it was not possible for him to play various opinions against each other in an attempt to survive. That, in turn, might have convinced him (and other world leaders!) to stop terror -- because it became a political disadvantage. Certainly it would improve the world's opinion of the US.

But Saddam found it easier to bribe the media, and to throw them out on their ear when they reported the facts.

Everyone played by the rules of the game that were cast.

This is not a pro-Bush slant, but it is a pro-Blair slant, because Blair sold the war to his people by pointing out the human equation. Bush largely left that out, as Griff points out. Of course getting the political will for the war was not as big a problem in the US as it was in the UK. We were in a confrontational mood.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Let me take that a step further. It's the opinion of 99% of the media that there ARE no WMDs. Most of the outlets I watch have made that decision at a very high level somewhere and have spent time pushing that as fact. CNN was absolutely relentless for two weeks in the beginning of the summer. Only one newspaper bothered to publish the documents that were found suggesting that the al Qaeda connection could be real, and that newspaper is in the UK.

Now regardless of all of that, there are a few people in the world who know about the actual WMD situation and the actual al Qaeda connection, and none of those people work in the media.

Following are snippets of the text of British PM Tony Blair's speech on March 18, 2003. If you want the whole thing, it's on the guardian website, or PM me and I'll email it to you. My emphasis in color.


So: why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people, for so long brutalised by Saddam. It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century; the development of the UN; the relationship between Europe and the US; the relations within the EU and the way the US engages with the rest of the world. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation.

But first, Iraq and its WMD.
In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its WMD.
Saddam had used the weapons against Iran, against his own people, causing thousands of deaths. He had had plans to use them against allied forces. It became clear after the Gulf war that the WMD ambitions of Iraq were far more extensive than hitherto thought. This issue was identified by the UN as one for urgent remedy. Unscom, the weapons inspection team, was set up. They were expected to complete their task following the declaration at the end of April 1991.
The declaration when it came was false - a blanket denial of the programme, other than in a very tentative form. So the 12-year game began.
The inspectors probed. Finally in March 1992, Iraq admitted it had previously undeclared WMD but said it had destroyed them. It gave another full and final declaration. Again the inspectors probed but found little.
In October 1994, Iraq stopped cooperating with Unscom altogether. Military action was threatened. Inspections resumed. In March 1995, in an effort to rid Iraq of the inspectors, a further full and final declaration of WMD was made. By July 1995, Iraq was forced to admit that too was false. In August they provided yet another full and final declaration.
Then, a week later, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan. He disclosed a far more extensive BW (biological weapons) programme and for the first time said Iraq had weaponised the programme; something Saddam had always strenuously denied. All this had been happening whilst the inspectors were in Iraq. Kamal also revealed Iraq's crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in 1990.
Iraq was forced then to release documents which showed just how extensive those programmes were. In November 1995, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles that could be used for WMD.
In June 1996, a further full and final declaration was made. That too turned out to be false. In June 1997, inspectors were barred from specific sites.
In September 1997, another full and final declaration was made. Also false. Meanwhile the inspectors discovered VX nerve agent production equipment, something always denied by the Iraqis.
In October 1997, the US and the UK threatened military action if Iraq refused to comply with the inspectors. But obstruction continued.
Finally, under threat of action, in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a memorandum with Saddam to allow inspections to continue. They did. For a few months.
In August, cooperation was suspended.
In December the inspectors left. Their final report is a withering indictment of Saddam's lies, deception and obstruction, with large quantities of WMD remained unaccounted for.
The US and the UK then, in December 1998, undertook Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign to degrade as much of the Iraqi WMD facilities as we could.
In 1999, a new inspections team, Unmovic, was set up. But Saddam refused to allow them to enter Iraq.
So there they stayed, in limbo, until after resolution 1441 when last November they were allowed to return.
What is the claim of Saddam today? Why exactly the same claim as before: that he has no WMD.
Indeed we are asked to believe that after seven years of obstruction and non-compliance finally resulting in the inspectors leaving in 1998, seven years in which he hid his programme, built it up even whilst inspection teams were in Iraq, that after they left he then voluntarily decided to do what he had consistently refused to do under coercion.
When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for: 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, possibly more than ten times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; an entire Scud missile programme.
We are now seriously asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence, he decided unilaterally to destroy the weapons. Such a claim is palpably absurd.
1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been, for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate. The first step is a full and final declaration of all WMD to be given on 8 December.
I won't to go through all the events since then - the house is familiar with them - but this much is accepted by all members of the UNSC: the 8 December declaration is false. That in itself is a material breach. Iraq has made some concessions to cooperation but no-one disputes it is not fully cooperating. Iraq continues to deny it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.
On 7 March, the inspectors published a remarkable document. It is 173 pages long, detailing all the unanswered questions about Iraq's WMD. It lists 29 different areas where they have been unable to obtain information. For example, on VX it says: "Documentation available to Unmovic suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to weaponise VX ...
"Mustard constituted an important part (about 70%) of Iraq's CW arsenal ... 550 mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for ... additional uncertainty with respect of 6526 aerial bombs, corresponding to approximately 1000 tonnes of agent, predominantly mustard.
"Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq's potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres ... Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."
On this basis, had we meant what we said in resolution 1441, the security council should have convened and condemned Iraq as in material breach.
What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way. Yes there are concessions. But no fundamental change of heart or mind.
But the inspectors indicated there was at least some cooperation; and the world rightly hesitated over war. We therefore approached a second resolution in this way.
We laid down an ultimatum calling upon Saddam to come into line with resolution 1441 or be in material breach. Not an unreasonable proposition, given the history.
But still countries hesitated: how do we know how to judge full cooperation?
We then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests based on the document they published on 7 March. Tests like interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or documentation showing its destruction.
The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to cooperate with them. So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full cooperation; that if he did so the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme and that if he failed to do so, action would follow.
So clear benchmarks; plus a clear ultimatum. I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position.
Last Monday, we were getting somewhere with it. We very nearly had majority agreement and I thank the Chilean President particularly for the constructive way he approached the issue.
There were debates about the length of the ultimatum. But the basic construct was gathering support.
Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate.

(continued next post)

[OnyxCougar]

Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. But they remain utterly opposed to anything which lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.
Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance.
That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action.
So we must demand he disarm but relinquish any concept of a threat if he doesn't. From December 1998 to December 2002, no UN inspector was allowed to inspect anything in Iraq. For four years, not a thing.
What changed his mind? The threat of force. From December to January and then from January through to February, concessions were made.
What changed his mind? The threat of force. And what makes him now issue invitations to the inspectors, discover documents he said he never had, produce evidence of weapons supposed to be non-existent, destroy missiles he said he would keep? The imminence of force.

(snip)

Even now, when if the world united and gave him an ultimatum: comply or face forcible disarmament, he might just do it, the world hesitates and in that hesitation he senses the weakness and therefore continues to defy.
What would any tyrannical regime possessing WMD think viewing the history of the world's diplomatic dance with Saddam? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions is only matched by our feebleness in implementing them.

(snip)

Iraq is not the only regime with WMD. But back away now from this confrontation and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating.
But, of course, in a sense, any fair observer does not really dispute that Iraq is in breach and that 1441 implies action in such circumstances. The real problem is that, underneath, people dispute that Iraq is a threat; dispute the link between terrorism and WMD; dispute the whole basis of our assertion that the two together constitute a fundamental assault on our way of life.

(snip)

So let me explain the nature of this threat as I see it.
The threat today is not that of the 1930s. It's not big powers going to war with each other. The ravages which fundamentalist political ideology inflicted on the 20th century are memories. The Cold war is over. Europe is at peace, if not always diplomatically.
But the world is ever more interdependent. Stock markets and economies rise and fall together. Confidence is the key to prosperity. Insecurity spreads like contagion. So people crave stability and order.
The threat is chaos. And there are two begetters of chaos. Tyrannical regimes with WMD and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam.

Let me tell the house what I know. I know that there are some countries or groups within countries that are proliferating and trading in WMD, especially nuclear weapons technology.
I know there are companies, individuals, some former scientists on nuclear weapons programmes, selling their equipment or expertise.
I know there are several countries - mostly dictatorships with highly repressive regimes - desperately trying to acquire chemical weapons, biological weapons or, in particular, nuclear weapons capability. Some of these countries are now a short time away from having a serviceable nuclear weapon. This activity is not diminishing. It is increasing.
We all know that there are terrorist cells now operating in most major countries. Just as in the last two years, around 20 different nations have suffered serious terrorist outrages. Thousands have died in them.

(snip)

And the possibility of the two coming together - of terrorist groups in possession of WMD, even of a so-called dirty radiological bomb is now, in my judgement, a real and present danger.
And let us recall: what was shocking about September 11 was not just the slaughter of the innocent; but the knowledge that had the terrorists been able to, there would have been not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000 and the more the suffering, the greater the terrorists' rejoicing.
Three kilograms of VX from a rocket launcher would contaminate a quarter of a square kilometre of a city.
Millions of lethal doses are contained in one litre of Anthrax. 10,000 litres are unaccounted for. 11 September has changed the psychology of America. It should have changed the psychology of the world. Of course Iraq is not the only part of this threat. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously.

Faced with it, the world should unite. The UN should be the focus, both of diplomacy and of action. That is what 1441 said. That was the deal. And I say to you to break it now, to will the ends but not the means that would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other course.

To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years, to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions, a worse outcome than never speaking at all.

(snip)

I have come to the conclusion after much reluctance that the greater danger to the UN is inaction: that to pass resolution 1441 and then refuse to enforce it would do the most deadly damage to the UN's future strength, confirming it as an instrument of diplomacy but not of action, forcing nations down the very unilateralist path we wish to avoid.

But there will be, in any event, no sound future for the UN, no guarantee against the repetition of these events, unless we recognise the urgent need for a political agenda we can unite upon.
What we have witnessed is indeed the consequence of Europe and the United States dividing from each other. Not all of Europe - Spain, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Portugal - have all strongly supported us. And not a majority of Europe if we include, as we should, Europe's new members who will accede next year, all 10 of whom have been in our support.

But the paralysis of the UN has been born out of the division there is. And at the heart of it has been the concept of a world in which there are rival poles of power. The US and its allies in one corner. France, Germany, Russia and its allies in the other. I do not believe that all of these nations intend such an outcome. But that is what now faces us.

I believe such a vision to be misguided and profoundly dangerous. I know why it arises. There is resentment of US predominance.

There is fear of US unilateralism. People ask: do the US listen to us and our preoccupations? And there is perhaps a lack of full understanding of US preoccupations after 11th September. I know all of this. But the way to deal with it is not rivalry but partnership. Partners are not servants but neither are they rivals. I tell you what Europe should have said last September to the US. With one voice it should have said: we understand your strategic anxiety over terrorism and WMD and we will help you meet it.

We will mean what we say in any UN resolution we pass and will back it with action if Saddam fails to disarm voluntarily; but in return we ask two things of you: that the US should choose the UN path and you should recognise the fundamental overriding importance of re-starting the MEPP (Middle East Peace Process), which we will hold you to.

(snip)

There should be a new UN resolution following any conflict providing not just for humanitarian help but also for the administration and governance of Iraq. That must now be done under proper UN authorisation.

(snip)

I have never put our justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441. That is our legal base.
But it is the reason, I say frankly, why if we do act we should do so with a clear conscience and strong heart.

I accept fully that those opposed to this course of action share my detestation of Saddam. Who could not? Iraq is a wealthy country that in 1978, the year before Saddam seized power, was richer than Portugal or Malaysia.
Today it is impoverished, 60% of its population dependent on food aid.
Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine.
Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile.
The brutality of the repression - the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or their families suspected of disloyalty are well documented.
Just last week, someone slandering Saddam was tied to a lamp post in a street in Baghdad, his tongue cut out, mutilated and left to bleed to death, as a warning to others.
I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must be under the lash of Saddam.
"But you don't", she replied. "You cannot. You do not know what it is like to live in perpetual fear." And she is right. We take our freedom for granted. But imagine not to be able to speak or discuss or debate or even question the society you live in. To see friends and family taken away and never daring to complain. To suffer the humility of failing courage in face of pitiless terror. That is how the Iraqi people live. Leave Saddam in place and that is how they will continue to live.

(snip)


Saddam himself admitted he had WMD. Gave numbers of how much of what he had. Then when the inspectors come in, they couldn't find it. Or he wouldn't let them in to the sites they suspected he made them at.

Seems to me that this point has been over looked time and time again, along with the point of the UN resolution 1441.

[warch]

For some reason or another, Mr. Bush chose to make his principal case on weapons of mass destruction, which is still an open case. This war could have been justified any time on the basis of human rights, alone.

Corporate media is corrupt, evil, murderous, with no honorable mission? Yeah.

Its the lack of justification for war that chaps me the most, and I imagine the rest of our former allies. Now its on, and Bush and Co continue to inspire me with only distrust and devisiveness, and I imagine the rest of our former allies. As Ive said, Blair gave me as much hope/trust as anyone. I want to believe him. I'd rather he be in charge.

Scoff if you will at international law, I think it offers the only route to lasting or at least longer term peace. no justice, no peace

[Torrere]

That information is indeed awful, UT. It ought to be equally awful to people who are pro-war and people who are anti-war. The media has been corrupt (it almost always has been), and in this case biased about Saddam's offensiveness, to the detriment of the federal government's point of view. It was also biased and corrupt in support of Bush. You may be correct that it would have made it more difficult for other nations to oppose the war, and it could have cast the US in a better light. The vivid reporting of terror in Iraq might have helped persuade more people to go to war against Iraq.

Unfortunately, I don't see how it has anything to do with why I, or anyone whom I've talked to, is anti-war. It doesn't make having gone to war any better of a decision. As far as I could see, Saddam's anti-citizen stance didn't have much to do with Bush's reasons for war. Personally, what I really want to know is the real reason why Hermann went to war. I don't care how he persauded the American people to follow along. The reasons given were not convincing.

[jaguar]

Because blogland is the best place for unbiased factual reporting.

I mean I agree - the media is unquestionably full of corruption and incompetence. No denying that. Whoopdedoo they sucked up to the Iraqis, whoopdedoo they suck up to Bush every press conference, what's new? What's the point? Saddam was not the first nor the last nor the worst dictator in history. The media has always been manipulated, death and taxes.

News reporting in the runup to and during the short, sharp conflict had utterly zilch to do with my or many others anti-war stance. The geopolitical makeup of the reigon would be a little closer to the truth.

I find your statements about how people 'ended up this way' frankly, insulting, narrow minded bigotry.

[Whit]

      I have to agree with Torrere, the media is corrupt in both directions. Either that or Fox News is purely anti-Bush. Whatever.

      Blogs are good for quick info about things that won't get said to US News people on foreign soil. However, those people have an agenda too. Frankly, without being there you don't know for sure what the situation is. Even then, it can change quickly.
      All info should be taken with a pound of salt. I would think most of the people on this site are intelligent enough to know that, 'cause frankly, nothing in that story surprised me.

      In UT's defense I don't recall him ever defending Bush's reasons for the war directly. He's not here, there is a wide margin for believing Bush is full of it and still being glad we took out Hussein. I'm sure there are a few of us that fall in this gray area. Don't assume every pro-war sentiment is necessarily pro-Bush.

[Chewbaccus]

Originally posted by Whit
All info should be taken with a pound of salt.

Wholeheartedly agree. The news, sadly, has fallen victim to the "If it's on TV, it must be true!" syndrome that has plagued our country since we invented the damn box. I flip around the news stations, but MSNBC is the anchor channel for me. I feel they at least attempt to strike the balance between left and right. Do they consistently succeed? No, but then, who does? Seriously, who does? You know someone out there who pulls this off, let a guy know, huh?

Anyhow, whenever one of these places has "breaking news", my first reaction isn't "Oh, wow, look at that.", but "Wait, are they serious?" and then start flipping to the other channels to see if they picked up on this too. Like with the recent blackout in the City, when I first heard it, I thought "Now wait, is someone's blender broken or--(change channel)--oh, look at that."

[SteveDallas]

Originally posted by Undertoad

Still, there's more to this. Here's the thing. The honest reporting of terror probably would have made the case for war. Yes. And here's where we get hypothetical:

So why didn't we have this case made for the war? You're saying it's because Saddam put the clamps on the media and the media went along so they'd still be able to report from Iraq.

OK, let's let that one ride--although I've got to think any network with a half-decent PR department could have done it, and turn their explusion into part of the story, with a huge spin about their defense of Truth, Justice, and the American Way(tm). But let's ignore that.

The media are not responsible for justifying any case to go to war. They are responsible to make cash for their shareholders/owners. Some outlets do this by publishing sober news analysis of international events. Some do it by displaying video of a fire or crime scene from your local city at 6:00 every night. Some do it by explaining that Britney Spears says she's a good girl, even if she does snog Madonna and pose for Rolling Stone in her undies. (This last from the Newsmakers page of yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer.)

The responsibility for any justification, or lack thereof, must lie with our government. So we have to ask ourselves, why didn't our government make the case you suggest? Because they didn't know the facts? Because they tried to make the case but Saddam's lap dogs in the media wouldn't run the stories? Because.....?

I'm not going to defend the jackals of the press. But don't give them the responsibility for making the case for war.