By any other name

Tonight's Channel 4 news lapsed into Newspeak once again in a report on the killing of women and children by coalition forces in Iraq.

It is over two years now since the full extent of the torture in Abu Ghraib was revealed. And following the recent revelations of US executions of civilians, the reporters could not make this connection more obvious. As if 'scandalous' war crimes have not been committed since then. As if these incidents exist in isolation.

The BBC on the story: "reports from Iraqi witnesses and in the US media allege that marines went on a rampage. According to the Wall St Journal, there is evidence that marines killed civilians, including women and children, without provocation.

Several marines are likely to be charged with murder and others with attempting to cover up the incident, the newspaper said, quoting civilian and military officials close to the investigations."

The story then plays out in much the same way white color crime is rationalised: "This is the work of a few bad apples, in an isolated incident, etc etc"

Channel 4: "scandal could be worse than Abu Ghraib"

Parallels with Abu Ghraib were obviously going to be drawn, given that only a tiny number of attacks on civilian areas are even questioned. But was it not a pertinent opportunity to mention Abu Sifa or Fallujah?

In March this year, near Balad, the Iraqi police reported the following:

“American forces used helicopters to drop troops on the house of Faiz Harat Khalaf situated in the Abu Sifa village of the Ishaqi district. The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 people, including five children, four women and two men, then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed their animals.”

In November 2004 The Daily Mirror’s political editor, Paul Gilfeather filed a report stating: “US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah. News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.”

Reporter Dahr Jamail's website hosts photographs displaying the reality of this crime that belie the importance the media attaches to it. It seems massacres in the guise of military operations do not warrant the same, or any, attention.

But here too women and children were killed, indiscriminate use of force was again the mainstay and here again the full extent of the crimes committed were hidden from the public for as long as possible.

The report also gave a hefty slot to a spokesperson for the Brooking Institute who repeatedly described the event as a +tragedy+. A Massacre yes, slaughter yes, execution probably, a bloodbath maybe, a tragedy of course, but this in some way intimates it was some kind of accident, something unavoidable. There is little doubt this incident was pre-meditated murder.

This pacification of language is I presume not just a pandering to government listeners but also a crass attempt at impartiality. But the most extraordinary aspect of the report was the Channel 4 correspondent, Keme Nzerem, reference to the massacre as:

"the most damaging report of +abuse+ since the Iraq war began"

'Abuse', surely this is the wrong word to describe the murder of women and children.

Could a bullet to the head really be described as "cruel or inhumane treatment"?

I wrote to Jon Snow, following a Media Lens Alert in 2004, with regards to a similar softening of tone:

"Mr. Snow,

In reference to your description of the the torture techniques used by the US soldiers that has come to light in the last few days, do you think it fair/just to label their actions merely as 'sordid japes'. Consider the actions as if they were perpetrated against you/or a member of your family and then try to describe them as a jape of any nature. The hint of triviality with which you impart onto these crimes (see Geneva convention: Articles 3(a), 17, 87, 130) only contributes to the dehumanising of the Iraqi people.

This careless (as I hope this doesn't represent your true feelings concerning these events, considering that I have regarded your reporting in the past as unbiased) description becomes yet another brick in the wall (constructed in part by the media) creating a distinction between Iraqi people and 'Westerners'. As a person in a position of relative power perhaps more thoughtfulness is required, even in times of 'war'. Thank you for your time."

I attached a BBC report highlighting the immoral use of 'polished' language to describe Western crimes against Arab people. When even reports of animal abuse utilise terms like "abject cruelty" and point out obvious facts like "They suffered immense cruelty before they died."

This shocking divergence between how brutality against specific peoples and against animals is reported shows a lack of regard for human life.

Fortunately Mr. Snow replied:

"Clearly a disgraceful lapse, we shall ensure that snowmail is thoroughly vetted before it goes out..however in mitigation you can see that certainly the female US operative thinks it is some kind of a 'sordid jape' laughing as she points her fingers in a gunlike gesture..but this was an outrageous failure on my part and will not be repeated. best wishes, jon snow"

A disgraceful lapse that has unfortunately been repeated.


Watch the full report here: Channel 4

This post is also available at Indymedia.ie

Iran and Russian Roulette

Charles Krauthammer reveals more of his insightful suggestions for better diplomatic relations:

"You want us to talk? Fine. We will go there but only if you arm us with the largest stick of all: your public support for military action if the talks fail. The mullahs already fear economic sanctions; they will fear European-backed US military action infinitely more. Such negotiations might actually accomplish something."

I guess it should be dubbed 'Gun Point Diplomacy'.

Why in the name of liberal journalism does this guy get printed in the Irish Times?


Dear Madam,

I hope I don't speak just for myself when I say Charles Krauthammer's definition of 'negotiation' is becoming more unrecognisable by the day and while I appreciate his insightful suggestions for more productive diplomatic relations with Iran, I think 'Gun Point Diplomacy' is best left to Hollywood.

Yours sincerely,

Buy or steal this book

While this review was edited, the only important part cut was my reference to the number of Iraqis killed due to coalition invasion. I quoted the Lancet report figure of over 100,000 in the first six months of the conflict, not as was published "thousands of Iraqis."

Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media
By David Edwards and David Cromwell
Pluto Press, 241 pp, €22.50

It is unusual to agree with everything one reads in their daily newspaper and there are a number of very obvious reasons why this is true. The most glaring of which is the simple fact your daily newspaper cannot be tailored to one specific person. It must appeal to a wide audience and provide information relating to topics and issues that either do not affect you or more commonly, do not interest you. Newspapers are obliged to create certain revenue in order to sustain themselves, generally by retaining a high level of readership and allocating space to advertising. This is of course trivial, but not irrelevant.

Guardians of Power, by David Edwards and David Cromwell, puts the news media under the microscope, analysing the sources of inaccurate and biased reporting. It examines the role of advertising and the influence of government in shaping coverage. It aims not only to identify these inaccuracies, but to explain their existence and outline ways you as a media consumer can correct this distorted version of reality.

In addressing this apparent distortion, the writers chose not to go after relatively soft targets such as the tabloid news, instead directing their efforts towards well respected 'liberal' news outlets such as the Guardian, the Independent and the BBC. The writers dub these institutions, the self styled bastions of liberality, 'Guardians of Power'.

The writers owe much to the work of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, in particular the influential book 'Manufacturing Consent - The Political Economy of the Mass Media''. The Propaganda Model defined within, forms a clinical basis for the writers' description of the news media. This perception is convincingly supported within Guardians of Power not just by the writers' persuading writing and the painstakingly researched facts, but by the sometimes illuminating and sometimes enraging responses of media insiders. These responses and debates form by far the most gripping portions of the book, raising questions not only of the distortions discussed within, but of the journalists own motives in communicating publicly with what is essentially an organisation at odds with the corporate entity the journalists represent.

Edwards and Cromwell identify a recognisable servility to power in much of the reporting examined. A servility that requires statements by those in power to be taken at face value, to be contained within quotation marks if too controversial to report as fact. There are obvious exceptions to this rule, for example if the power in question is that of an official enemy. Therefore the accusations of US meddling by, a leftist leader of a South American regime, Hugo Chavez are always reported as such, whereas the US response generally carries more weight. Historical precedence is rarely, if ever, used to support the rhetoric of blacklisted South American socialists. At the same time Western politicians are rarely criticised using the same scathing language, unless they are politicians fallen foul of the real decision makers, i.e. those on their way out, or those that have simply made mistakes that are impossible to bury. Leaders such as Tony Blair are generally portrayed as loveable rogues, who are sometimes forced to circumvent laws for the public good. A simple example, showing this trait is not restricted to UK media, is Frank Miller in the Irish Times who recently summed up the British Prime Minister's character over the last years, "He is of course a terrible chancer. However, that doesn't mean he isn't sometimes justified."

This inability to criticise government has been evidenced over and over, with little exception. When one does encounter dissent in the ranks we rarely see the same venomous prose seemingly reserved for official enemies. In 2002 the Independent's Richard Lloyd Parry described Indonesia's invasion of East Timor 27 years earlier as a case of "international thuggery." An amazingly civil description of genocide, which belies the reality of the crime: a radio call for help was heard at the time of the invasion, "Soldiers are killing indiscriminately. Women and children are being shot in the streets. We are all going to be killed. I repeat, we are all going to be killed."

The book focuses on a number of important events over the last decade, but it is in their dissection of the media's constant revaluation of historical events that the writers reveal the most damning evidence of the media's conformity to the Propaganda Model, in particular, the near uniform change in account of Iraq's weapons inspector's departure. Where they were once 'withdrawn', it is now reported they were 'thrown out'.

Many of the events discussed within the book impact the important decisions we are involved in today. With Ireland helping to facilitate the liberation of Iraq, the media's responsibility to put this venture in perspective is clear. Quotation's from the likes of the New York Times' Thomas Friedman, an overt backer of the Iraq war, during the bombing of Serbia in 1999 should not be forgotten, "Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverising you. You want 1959? We can do 1959. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too."

Although this sort of warmongering is not typical of every journalist, this generalisation of whom and what 'we' are fighting is often employed. For instance the present political tide turning against Iran is always framed as the West versus some sort of lunacy. The solution is officially 'diplomatic', however if this fails, Iran can expect sanctions or even military aggression. What is rarely, if ever, mentioned is that the Iranian government is unlikely to suffer at the hands of sanctions or military action. The people most likely to suffer are the poorest Iranians, those with no political influence, those least likely to gain from any solution, be it a civilian nuclear programme or 10 years of sanctions. War with Iran is not, as it is framed, a fight against hardliners or terrorists. It is war to be waged against civilians. Just as we have seen in Iraq, sanctions and conflict have claimed more lives in the past 10 to 15 years than they were officially designed to save.

The book focuses heavily not just on the content outputted by the media, but the language employed in its coverage. So British forces will 'go after' and 'take out' the enemy, while the enemy is generally depicted as indiscriminate killers who, for instance, "sprayed the checkpoint with bullets" [exert from a BBC report in late April 2006]. This echoes the language used by US officials in their quest to "go after the terrorists" and "take down the Taliban." The absurdity of this language in neutral reporting is only apparent when we apply it to official enemies: "Iraqi forces are deploying across southern Iraq, where they will conduct an intensive campaign designed to go after and take down coalition strongholds." Mark Steyn in the Irish Times wrote last year, "there are millions of Americans who take the view that there's no such thing as a bad reason to whack Saddam." While this may be true and the language gung-ho, Saddam remains well and truly alive, while thousands of Iraqis and coalition troops have suffered said "whacking".

The liberal media prides itself on its' ability to remain impartial and free from bias. This ability to detach personnel opinion from fact is the backbone of a medium that regards itself as the Fourth Estate. However, this impartiality lapses on occasion and reveals a worrying subordination to power. BBC Political Editor Andrew Marr had one such lapse while describing Tony Blair's metamorphosis as Baghdad fell to coalition troops. The result was enormously revealing; "And it would be entirely ungracious, even for his critics, not to acknowledge that today he stands as a larger man and a stronger Prime Minster as a result." This indignant outburst is at odds with his conscious interpretation of a journalists role, as he explains in his book, "Gavin Hewitt, John Simpson, Andrew Marr and the rest are employed to be studiously neutral, expressing little emotion and certainly no opinion; millions of people would say that news is the conveying of fact, and nothing more."

The discrepancy between how Mr. Marr perceives journalism and what he actually outputs evidences more than just a lack of perspective, it is a prime example of the qualities a journalist requires to attain the success of Editor at an institution such as the BBC. Mr. Marr's own obliviousness to the bias he frequents is revealed clearly in an interview with Noam Chomsky in 1996. Marr asked, "How can you know that I'm self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..." Chomsky replied, "I don't say you're self-censoring - I'm sure you believe everything you're saying; but what I'm saying is, if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."

Finally, the media's conflicting portrayal of the elections of official enemies and those conducted by their own government or its allies is another savage example of media bias which clearly shows the media's lack of continuity with regard to what constitutes democracy, the very institution the liberal media has appointed itself guardian of. In 2005 the media chorus hailed the Iraqi elections, conducted under foreign military occupation, a "resounding success" and an "astonishing testimony to the power of democracy," while in the same year the media described elections in Zimbabwe as "stealing democracy" even though a similar formula for un-fair and un-free elections existed in both countries.

'Guardians of Power' focuses almost exclusively on the British news media, but the Irish news media is not exempt from the self imposed restrictions of the Propaganda Model. If you want to reconcile what you read in the media with what happens in reality this book is essential reading.

[Printed on Thursday and available online: The Village]

The IT are still, over a month now, humming and hawing over publishing a much shorter version.

The way it used to be...

Iran was once the model to which America could aspire to. No?

Via Lenin via MRzine

Got CO2?

Real Climate finds some really crazy PR:

'CO₂: they call it pollution, we call it Life!'

The "Debate" Continues...

Are air raid shelters really protection against a nuclear attack?

Since Iran is about 10 years from a nuclear weapon, if it actually intends on obtaining 'one' (which there is little or no evidence to support), then surely that is sufficient time to acquire more "accurate weapons."

This letter is completely without merit. Though the purpose of printing it is quite obvious.

"Madam, - If an Iranian nuclear missile is ever launched at Israel the people who will suffer most will be the Palestinians as, unlike their Israeli neighbours, they lack air-raid shelters and a functioning civil defence system. Given the accuracy of the missiles available to Iran it is just as likely that ground zero would be in a Palestinian location as an Israeli one.

If Raymond Deane and the so-called Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign were genuinely concerned about the interests of Palestinians they would be as concerned as the Israelis are about the Iranian leader's increasingly erratic behaviour and public statements. Instead, Mr Deane uses his access to the media to try to equate the democratically elected governments of Israel and the US with the demagogue who leads Iran. With friends like Raymond Deane the Palestinians don't need any more enemies. - Yours, etc, XXXX"

The Irish Times

The Illusion of Balance

[First Posted: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76129]

Ah that wistful sense of balance so uncommon in the liberal media. In response to a letter sent to the Irish Times criticising Charles Krauthammer's mis-quotation, among other things, of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks at the "World without Zionism" conference held in Tehran, the Irish Times printed a 'counter balance' of sizeable proportion.

"Madam, - According to David Manning (May 12th), your columnist Charles Krauthammer is guilty of "blatant propaganda" in misrepresenting the Iranian president's remarks on Israel. Mr Manning quotes from a translation of President Ahmadinejad's October 2005 speech which appears to show its intention as one of mere regime change rather than destruction of the state of Israel. But the translation, by the Middle East Media Research Institute, of the speech as a whole shows clearly that the Krauthammer interpretation is the correct one.

The speech, delivered at a "World without Zionism" conference, is full of bellicose rhetoric from start to finish, and portrays Israel as the spearhead of the West in the Islamic world which must be eliminated: "This occupying country [ Israel] is in fact a front of the World of Arrogance in the heart of the Islamic world. They have in fact built a bastion from which they can expand their rule to the entire Islamic world

. . .Very soon, this stain of disgrace [ ie Israel] will vanish from the centre of the Islamic world - and this is attainable."

These are the words of a millenarian leader who believes in the imminent return of the Twelfth Imam following a world conflagration. Some of his other statements - that he was enveloped in a green aura while speaking at the UN General Assembly, and that his audience was so overawed that nobody blinked for 30 minutes - call his actual sanity into question.

But this matter involves more than the personality of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The suicide cult of radical Islamism in general renders a regime such as that in Teheran unamenable to the rational calculation of mutual destruction which kept the world safe from nuclear conflict during the cold war. As Mr Krauthammer shows in his quotation from ex-president Rafsanjani, it is quite easy to conceive of the Iranian leadership being willing to accept the destruction of some of its cities as the price of destroying tiny Israel with a single nuclear bomb.

Do we need any further reasons why, grim as the dangers may be, the military option must be held in reserve to ensure that the Iranian regime is never allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon? - Yours, etc, Dermot Meleady"

Although this accounts for only three articles in three different issues of the Irish Times it does represent almost the sum total of 'balance' applied to the Iranian 'crsis'. Therefore it is, I feel, fair to infer that the Irish Times considers the 'debate' representative of it's position on the issue.

In my original letter, which Mr. Meleady was subsequently allowed ample space to take issue with, I merely pointed out that in fact Mr. Ahmadinejad had in fact not called for the 'wiping out' of Israel, he 'merely' agreed with the sentiment of [Ayatollah] Khomeini, that the Israeli regime should be "eliminated from the pages of history". A basic fact, that Mr. Krauthammer must be obliged to restrict himself to.

"Madam, - Charles Krauthammer's continued misrepresentation of the Iranian president's remarks on Israel and its leaders now borders on the ridiculous. "The world has paid ample attention to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that Israel must be destroyed," he writes (Opinion, May 8th).

The Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute, gives the following as the correct translation of the president's remark: "Imam [ Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [ Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise."

While Mr Krauthammer may disagree fundamentally with everything the Iranian President has to say, he must at least be obliged to find issue with what he actually said, not what it would be useful for him to have said. There is no excuse for this sort of blatant propaganda. - Yours, etc, David Manning"

However, in the unedited version of my letter which neither Mr. Meleady nor the Irish Times readers could be privy to, I pointed out, through the words of Juan Cole, Professor at the University of Michigan, that neither the quote, nor the speech (though obviously overtly anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist) endorse military action, indeed it does not support killing anyone at all (a strange idea in times of deaths numbering the tens of thousands in Iraq). The phrase Mr. Krauthammer +quotes+ (not infers) is in actuality "almost metaphysical." "It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks."

While the speech is as I said anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli, it is arguably no more anti-Israeli than present US and Israeli rhetoric is anti-Iranian.

""All options are on the table," Mr Bush said as he responded to a question at the White House about whether the US was considering military action."

""Israel — and not only Israel — cannot accept a nuclear Iran," Sharon warned recently. "We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation.""

But in order to bring public opinion around to 'realising' the dangers of an Iran with or without nuclear weapons it is necessary to first convince them we are dealing with a lunatic. Therefore the content of the speech which Mr. Meleady alludes to:

"This occupying country [ Israel] is in fact a front of the World of Arrogance in the heart of the Islamic world. They have in fact built a bastion from which they can expand their rule to the entire Islamic world

. . .Very soon, this stain of disgrace [ ie Israel] will vanish from the centre of the Islamic world - and this is attainable."

Is again subject to the selective quoting Mr. Krauthammer got bogged down in. Juan Cole continues..."Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government."

This explanation is backed up throughout the speech. Mr. Ahmadinejad makes many references to the fall of regimes, without any reference to the wiping out of nations or peoples.

"When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah's regime can be toppled]?"

"Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it."

"Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country... "

But this is all quite irrelevant as Mr. Meleady explains:

"But this matter involves more than the personality of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The suicide cult of radical Islamism in general renders a regime such as that in Teheran unamenable to the rational calculation of mutual destruction which kept the world safe from nuclear conflict during the cold war."

Suffice to say, the content of Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech is not the real issue. It exists only to support the contention that "the suicide cult of radical Islamism" is alive in Iran and therefore a military solution must not be ruled out.

Indeed Mr. Krauthammer could have simply gone the route of Mr Meleady and taken as a whole Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech at the "World without Zionism" conference. He could have inferred that this is simply the rhetoric common to "the suicide cult of radical Islamism" and that he possess none of the "rational calculation of mutual destruction" that kept us safe throughout the Cold War.

He could have done this, but it would have sounded quite ridiculous.

The quotation of former president Hashemi Rafsanjani that explained "the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam," while despicable, does not suggest or promote nuclear action. It is irrelevant.

The substantial content of both Mr. Meleady and Mr. Krauthammer's writing suggests Mr. Ahmadinejad is an unstable villain. But his talk of being enveloped in a green aura while speaking at the UN General Assembly, is odd, but no more strange than Tony Blair's recent confession he was sent by God to find imaginary Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.


Yet no one has suggested Mr. Blair's actual sanity is in question, despite the fact US plans for a nulcear solution to the Iranian issue are public knowledge. The idea of a "rational calculation of mutual destruction" is quite absurd. It is also noteable, no one has ever called the illegal invasion of Iraq a form of Christian Aggression. Though it is quite common and acceptable in the mainstream media for people to correlate regimes such as that in Iran with the "suicide cult of radical Islamism," as if the religion and the political philosophy are the same thing, "as though they were split from the same Zygote."

[Eamon Brennan at Persistence of Vision]

The escalating 'situation', that is actually Iran's 'inalienable right' to 'develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination' afforded to it under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is again ignored. And absent still is discussion of the possible effects on ordinary Iranians, those who would be bombed.

So no surprise then that here again the misrepresented words of a hardline president are provided as justification for sanctions, and possibly war, that may cost Iranian people their families, their friends and their futures.

[The Iranian people have enough problems as it is...]

Chavez - Our Enemy

Read the latest MediaLens Alert:

MediaLens, the Press and Chavez's regime

and then open the paper to see for yourself:

As President Hugo Chavez visits the UK, the BBC coincidentally takes to waxing lyrical about US enemies in South America:

"While the Bush administration has been fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, relations between the United States and the countries of Latin America have become a festering sore - the worst for years.

Virtually anyone paying attention to events in Venezuela and Nicaragua in the north to Peru and Bolivia further south, plus in different ways Mexico, Argentina and Brazil, comes to the same conclusion: there is a wave of profound anti-American feeling stretching from the Texas border to the Antarctic.

And almost everyone believes it will get worse."

The picture painted seems pretty bleak. South America is turning it's back on the 'gringo' and his 'globalisation'. Fidel Castro is no longer the only thorn in the US administration's side.

"Where once Cuba's Fidel Castro could harangue the US with talk of the colonisers and the colonised, Ollanta Humala attacks globalisation as a plot to undermine Peru's national sovereignty and benefit only the rich on the backs of Latin America's poor."

Why is it that the dirty word colonialism only rears it's ugly head when spoken by already cartoon like characters. Inspite of the fact that 'colonialism' is right there in front of you:

"In pursuit of American interests, the US has overthrown or undermined around 40 Latin American governments in the 20th Century."

But what does this really mean, 'overthrown' and 'undermined'?

"During the Reagan administration money was channelled - illegally Democrats said - to the Nicaraguan "Contra" guerrillas, a motley crew of CIA trained anti-communists, paramilitaries and thugs.

The resulting scandal - known as "Iran-Contra" - almost brought down the Reagan administration. George Bush senior survived the scandal, and as president managed to see his policies finally work when Nicaragua's own people threw out the Sandinistas in a democratic election in 1990." [BBC]

The resulting scandal! A journalist has never been so kind, perhaps the lack of space accounts for the lack of historical perspective.

"The "Contras" as they were called -- from the Spanish for counter-revolutionaries -- were recruited, armed, trained, and paid by the CIA. They waged war not so much against the Nicaraguan army as against "soft targets:" teachers, health care workers, elected officials (a CIA-prepared manual actually advocated their assassination)."

What Everyone Should Know About Nicaragua

Even the most innocuous sentences reveal a worrying disregard for democracy.

"He says Mr Chavez does not want a "European flank" opening that would support the critical comments made of his regime by the US."

A regime?

Wikipedia has a fair definition of this gem's use:

"In theory, the term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most political scientists use it as a neutral term. The term is sometimes used colloquially by some in reference to governments which they believe are repressive, undemocratic or illegitimate, such that in these contexts the word conveys a sense of moral disapproval or political opposition. For example, one is less likely to hear of a "democratic regime"."

And this is backed up repeatedly:

"US officials argue that the rule of President Chavez is eroding democracy and human rights in Venezuela and that he is working to undermine American influence in the region."

Eroding democracy indeed.

"The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.

Now officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success."

Venezuela Coup Linked to Bush Team

Livingstone talks Chavez

Livingstone interviewed on BBC Radio 4

Human rights, elections etc...

To Edit - Devine

Edited version of my letter on Iran printed in today's Irish Times:

Madam, - Charles Krauthammer's continued misrepresentation of the Iranian president's remarks on Israel and its leaders now borders on the ridiculous. "The world has paid ample attention to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that Israel must be destroyed," he writes (Opinion, May 8th).

The Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute, gives the following as the correct translation of the president's remark: "Imam [ Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [ Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise."

While Mr Krauthammer may disagree fundamentally with everything the Iranian President has to say, he must at least be obliged to find issue with what he actually said, not what it would be useful for him to have said. There is no excuse for this sort of blatant propaganda. - Yours, etc,

Where is the Uproar?

Brazil joins the club:

BBC.co.uk

In an inconspicuous article tucked away, quite rightly (if for a moment you excuse the real threat here, that of setting a country the size of Brazil on the road to nuclear dependency), on the Americas World page, we find out that Brazil has joined that "select group of countries" who have not faced military threats from the world's super powers in their search for a civilian nuclear programme.

Notice the language used:

"The government says that within a decade the country will be able to meet all its nuclear energy needs."

"Brazilian scientists insist their technology is superior to that of existing nuclear powers."

"Friday's opening at Resende is being hailed as a major step forward in Brazil's development and it comes amid renewed concerns about energy supplies in South America. "

Nuclear power will provide for Brazil's energy needs. Not only this, it will actually enrich scientific knowledge in the field. While at the same time relieving investors troubled by the state of popular movements in South America, specifically those that intend on bringing natural resources back to 'the state'.

This big step for Brazil's energy sector did not pass without incident though:

"Keen to protect its commercial secrets, Brazil was reluctant to give inspectors full access to its facilities and politically the negotiations were complicated by simultaneous concerns about Iran's nuclear plans.

But in the end Brazil and the IAEA agreed a system of safeguards to ensure that the new facilities would not be channelled into weapons production."

It is quite obvious, if you are not on the 'hitlist', the path to nuclear enlightenment has a relatively smooth surface.

Propaganda 101

Charles Krauthammer in today's Irish Times:
Iran nuclear ambitions aim to finish Hitler's work

"When something happens for the first time in 1,871 years, it is worth noting. In AD 70, and again in 135, the Roman Empire brutally put down Jewish revolts in Judea, destroying Jerusalem, killing hundreds of thousands of Jews and sending hundreds of thousands more into slavery and exile."

Dear Madam,

Charles Krauthammer's continued misrepresentation of the Iranian President's remarks on Israel and it's leaders now borders on ridiculous, "The world has paid ample attention to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that Israel must be destroyed."

Washington based research institute MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute), gives this as the correct translation: ""'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise."

Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan stated in an off the record email exchange: "I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people. But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of [Ayatollah] Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all.

The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks."

While Mr. Krauthammer may fundamentally disagree with everything the Iranian President has to say. He must at least be obliged to find issue with what he actually said, not what it is useful for him to have said. There is literally no excuse for this sort of blatant propaganda.

Yours etc...

See David Sketchley's email to Helen Boaden of the BBC at:

Media Lens Message board

and the Full Article: The Irish Times

6 Days in the Fourth Estate

When an article about journalism begins with the sentence "Journalists are not the most important people in the world" you can be reasonably sure what follows will be equally worthless. On World Press Freedom Day the Irish Times took time out from it's job as the giant cog in the mechanism for successful democracy for a bit of self examination. However, what at the outset appeared interesting reading rapidly deteriorated into a random concoction of jargon. 'Citizen' journos?

The writer begins, "When the media writes about itself ... it often seems to others that a sense of perspective is somehow temporarily mislaid" and this is the last reference to 'itself', no analysis of the Irish Times, the Irish media or even Western media is offered. So in order to to get that 'perspective' so lacking in this editorial here are 6 Days in the Fourth Estate.

In Monday's Irish Times an opinion piece outlines the consequences of a military solution to the latest fabricated crisis in the Middle East, "Military action by the US outside UN auspices would be a dangerous folly. It would precipitate regional turmoil, escalate anti-American terrorism, disrupt world oil supplies and therefore the international economy, and reinforce popular support for the Iranian radicals whose sources of power are uneven and precarious." The piece, as with every other, avoids predicting civilian casualties and 'most' importantly it steers clear of questioning the legality of such action.

Denis Staunton reports that former US secretary of state Colin Powell advised President George Bush to send more troops to Iraq to deal with the aftermath of the invasion. "The aftermath turned out to be much more difficult than anyone had anticipated. I don't think we had enough force there to impose order . . . The president's military advisers felt that the size of the force was adequate. They may still feel that years later. Some of us don't. I don't," he said. An unusual piece, considering Mr. Powell is rarely in the lime light these days, only popping up irregularly, disguised as some sort of misunderstood do gooder. Not the same Colin Powell who's colourful, yet forgotten, address to the UN was a critical factor in the initiation of the Iraq war.

"At the starting of the week. At summit talks you'll hear them speak. It's only Monday"

In Tuesday's Irish Times Samuel Loewenberg gives credit to the US and the EU for the €13 million in emergency aid given to Niger, where more than 1.8 million people are facing acute malnutrition. That's about 7 cents per starving person, from a group of countries that spends over $500 billion on their military each year.

While Denis Staunton gives up his column inches to a/another US senator, "A leading Democratic senator has called for Iraq to be partitioned into three largely autonomous states within a federation similar to that established in Bosnia a decade ago." Again, the analysis of this suggestion or the ramifications of its employment are conspicuously absent.

"Negotiations breaking down. See those leaders start to frown. It's sword and gun day."

In Wednesday's Irish Times Iran is characterised as a crazy recluse with paranoid delusions, "US 'evil' will lead to attack on Israel, Iran threatened yesterday to attack Israel in response to any "evil" act by the US and said it had enriched uranium to a level close to the maximum compatible with civilian use in power stations." Thus is born a completely new kind of pre-emptive policy. An attack can now be justified by the enemy's commitment to retaliation in the event of attack.

A kindly opinion piece " extolling the unique importance of [journalists] contribution to society" comically fails in its analysis of mainstream journalism and the views of those outside the loop. Typically, this was not a critical examination of the successes and failures of mainstream reporting, just another opportunity to dilute the term 'free press' of all meaning. "Where a free press does not exist (which, sadly, is most parts of the world), those who hold power, and those who seek to usurp it, understand this very well."

"You could be sitting taking lunch. The news will hit you like a punch. It's only [Wednes]day."

In Thursday's Irish Times Angela Long nearly lost her job, but managed to reign in the truth before anyone important noticed. "The Americans seem to be looking admiringly at their friends in Israel, and the Kafkaesque wall which has been built, often +illegally+, to divide Palestinians from their land, though ostensibly to protect settlers from murderous attacks."

Ewen MacAskill in Washington earns his crust reciting the words of government verbatim, "Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's nuclear industry, said Iran had enriched uranium to 4.8 per cent a month after the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, revealed scientists had enriched it to 3.6 per cent. Uranium enrichment to much higher levels is essential for a nuclear weapons capability." How much higher Ewen, 80/90 per cent, you don't say. No, you don't.

"You never thought we'd go to war. After all the things we saw. It's April Fools' day."

In Friday's Irish Times an op ed piece regales the reader with a colourful story of Irish ties and Latvia's coldest winter on record. Unsurprisingly this travel documentary maker found it impossible to squeeze in anything about climate change in the measly fourteen paragraphs allotted to him. But that really isn't the place to read a few home truths, we couldn't have people associating travel with Global Warming could we.

David G Savage in Washington sums up the War on Terror, "The contradiction in Bush's fight against terrorism is that only the bit players are being put on trial." A courageous accusation indeed, however there are a few niggling issues of the War on Terror that bring to mind more important contradictions. There's the fact that the net quantity of 'Terror' has increased since the war began, there's the migration of the Salvador Option, there's the use of banned weapons, etc...

Meanwhile in London Frank Miller found only the kindest of words to describe the British Prime Minister responsible for countless deaths in the past number of years, "He is of course a terrible chancer. However, that doesn't mean he isn't sometimes justified." The old boy's club has never been so cosy. And all this with Kevin Myers absent.

"You hear a whistling overhead. Are you alive or are you dead? It's only [Fri]day."

Last Saturday's Irish Times in a break from the current norm printed only two articles about the Iranian threat, "The UN agency's report also found Iran had failed to answer questions intended to ascertain whether it was attempting to build nuclear weapons."

"You feel a shaking on the ground. A billion candles burn around. Is it your birthday?"

It seems quite clear, if "Every government is run by liars" and the views expressed in your daily newspaper do not diverge significantly from those of the government, it is completely reasonable to think "Nothing they say should be believed."

[Lyrics - DJ Shadow's '6 Days' from the album The Private Press]

This article is also posted at the Global Echo and Indymedia.ie

For related perspectives on the Irish Times' view of the Fourth Estate see Miriam Cotton's article here:

Indymedia


The Fourth Estate

Journalists are not the most important people in the world. When the media writes about itself - the functions it performs and the travails of those who work in it - it often seems to others that a sense of perspective is somehow temporarily mislaid.

The observation is at times well made: there are few things less edifying than the members of a profession or craft extolling the unique importance of their own contribution to society.

Full Article... The Irish Times

Fabricated Crisis

The media has for some time now been discussing the probability of military action against Iran, based on the purported but unsubstantiated threat posed by the current regime. The thrust of the argument being that Iran can not maintain a peaceful nuclear programme, therefore the civilised West must consider, and plan for, perhaps even nuclear pre-emption.

The 'threat' fabricated by the US and UK governments is generally echoed by the faithful mainstream media with little comment on the the legality of an attack and even less on the harmful effects of plan B, sanctions.

The possible effects of sanctions are innumerable and the loss of life can only be guessed at. But one need look no further than Iraq to increase the accuracy of your guess.

Former Assistant Secretary General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, Hans von Sponeck, in interview with Larry Everest:

"The fact that today, on average, according to UNICEF, 5,000 children are dying every month because of sanctions is a violation of human rights. "

http://www.zmag.org/vonsponek.htm

The fact that the sanctions 'succeeded' in their +stated+ goal, ridding Iraq of WMDs, is irrelevant. Not least because this salient fact had literally no baring on the what is occurring in Iraq today.

A prime example of the deficient reporting is this, from The Irish Times:

"The crisis is made much more serious by the Bush administration's policy that Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, combined with its outright refusal to engage Iran directly in negotiations. The logic of this position seems to point inexorably to escalating towards a military confrontation. Tension is being escalated by mutual obduracy in Tehran and Washington, putting radicals in the ascendant. Military action by the US outside UN auspices would be a dangerous folly. It would precipitate regional turmoil, escalate anti-American terrorism, disrupt world oil supplies and therefore the international economy, and reinforce popular support for the Iranian radicals whose sources of power are uneven and precarious."

The Irish Times

In an otherwise fairly unbiased account of the situation, albeit a fabricated situation, as it is, there stands out that typical inhumane streak more common in the Economist or the Financial Times. The effects of sanctions are limited to... possible retaliation, an increase in support for 'hardliners' (to be solved militarily at some later date) and most important of all, economic risk.

This type of reporting regularly gets passed off as the complete picture and yet the duties of the publication as set out by The Irish Times Editor clearly show some disparity between what is printed and what she intends to output.

"We are conscious of our power and responsibility when we deal with issues or events that touch upon the private lives of individuals."

http://www.ireland.com/about/p_intro.htm

In an email to the BBC's Steve Herrmann, Media Lens reader Darren makes a few simple requests:

"Dear Mr. Herrmann,

I see the BBC's continued, disproportional focus on Iran continues unabated, with now a fully interactive map placed on the home page,which helpfully, allows your readers to local it's "Key nuclear sites"(what are they: power sites or weapon's installations; it is not clear). Why this continued disproportional focus on Iran? Why is there not a map of Italy instead?

But seeing the BBC has clearly allocated extra resources to presenting Iran, perhaps you might consider articles on the following topics:
* how many civilians would be killed in a US strike (nuclear or otherwise) on Iran? What would be the effect on children living near bombed installations?
* how prepared is Iran for protecting its civilians? I.e. how well developed are its emergency services, and hospitals? * what are the opinions of ordinary Iranians? Do they fear themselves,or their families, would be harmed in any attack? What will ordinary Iranians do to prepare for such an attack (perhaps you can provide some pictures of home made shelters, etc?) * what would be the legality, or otherwise, of any attack on Iran? I.e.explain the UN articles which allow for any military operation against another country, and a discussion on whether the US will achieve the requirements.

Regards,"

Media Lens Message Board

The Irish Times publishes several stories a day on the growing/mounting/escalating 'situation', that is actually Iran's 'inalienable right' to 'develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination' afforded to it under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with little or no discussion of the effects on ordinary Iranians, those who would be bombed.

If it is unavoidable for the mainstream media to simply repeat the words of those in power as fact, then in the interests of some journalistic, or even human, morality, Darren's simple requests are not unresonable.

"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

Email the Irish Times editor at:

gkennedy@irish-times.ie, edsoffice@irish-times.ie, lettersed@irish-times.ie

[cross posted on Indymedia http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75776]