This Week:

Quote of the Week

Anti-War Resource of the Week: Educate Yourself and Your Friends

Oil, War, Experts, and the Press

The Press and War: Comments From the Press

Greetings,

This week I go on and on about a local media celebrity who assures us that the upcoming attack on Iraq has nothing to do with oil. It’s tempting to argue the opposite, that it has everything to do with oil, but I don’t think that’s true. As always, it’s more complex than that. That’s why this week’s “Quote” of the Week is so long. Phyllis Bennis lays it out pretty clearly. The anecdote about the local media celebrity is entertaining, but I think it illustrates an important point: journalists can find “experts” to reinforce any point they like.

I’m very happy that Nygaard Notes now has its own domain on the internet. (www.nygaardnotes.org, y’know). Up until now, awesome Notes webmaster Walker has graciously hosted the site, but I thought it was time to have an address that was a little easier to remember. What could be easier than www.nygaardnotes.org? Walker will still be mastering the site, and he’s made a few minor changes in how it works, so it should be a little easier to use now. It’s searchable by date or by issue number, and you can search for “key words,” too.

The new site (did I mention that it’s www.nygaardnotes.org?) is a direct result of the financial support that so many of you have sent in over the past few months. It’s not tremendously expensive to have one’s own site, but the Nygaard Notes budget is exceptionally low, and we couldn’t do it without all of you who donated your own money to support this independent media project. Thank you, and I hope you know that your support means a lot more than simply having a new web address.

‘Til next week,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

Here is the longest “Quote” of the Week in the history of Nygaard Notes. It’s long by my standards, but I thought it addressed a pretty serious misunderstanding on the part of many of my fellow anti-war citizens, so I’m going with it. The author is Phyllis Bennis, and the quotation is taken from one of this week’s Anti-War Resources of the Week:

“[T]he U.S. isn’t threatening an invasion simply to ensure its continued access to Iraqi oil. Rather, it is a much broader U.S. play for control of the oil industry and the ability to set the price of oil on the world market.

“Iraq’s oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia’s. And with U.S.- backed Saudi Arabia increasingly unstable, the question of which oil companies—French, Russian, or American—would control Iraq's rich but unexplored oil fields once sanctions are lifted has moved to the top of Washington's agenda. Many in the Bush administration believe that in the long term, a post-war, U.S.-dependent Iraq would supplant Saudi control of oil prices and marginalize the influence of the Saudi-led OPEC oil cartel. Iraq could replace Saudi Arabia, at least partially, at the center of U.S. oil and military strategy in the region, and the U.S. would remain able to act as guarantor of oil for Japan, Germany, and other allies in Europe and around the world.

“Expanding U.S. power, central to the Bush administration’s war strategy, includes redrawing the political map of the Middle East. That scenario includes U.S. control of Iraq and the rest of the Gulf states as well as Jordan and Egypt. Some in the administration want even more — "regime change" in Syria, Iran, and Palestine, and Israel as a permanently unchallengeable U.S.-backed regional power. The ring of U.S. military bases built or expanded recently in Qatar, Djibouti, Oman and elsewhere as preparation for a U.S. war against Iraq will advance that goal.

“But the super-hawks of the Bush administration have a broader, global empire-building plan that goes way beyond the Middle East. Much of it was envisioned long before September 11th , but now it is waged under the flag of the "war against terrorism." The war in Afghanistan, the creation of a string of U.S. military bases in the (also oil- and gas-rich) countries of the Caspian region and south-west Asia, the new strategic doctrine of "pre-emptive" wars, and the ascension of unilateralism as a principle are all part of their crusade. Attacking Iraq is only the next step.”

Anti-War Resource of the Week: Educate Yourself and Your Friends

There are millions of opportunities to educate yourself about the war build-up in this country. I think it is worth the time to read one or more of the lengthier pieces that have appeared recently and which give not only arguments against the Bush war plans, but also go into the history and context that explain how we have gotten to this point. Here are three of the best I’ve seen.

1. Just a couple of weeks ago the Institute for Policy Studies came out with a pamphlet by the excellent analyst and activist Phyllis Bennis called “Understanding the U.S.-Iraq Crisis: A Primer.” Bound and printed versions of this 27-page pamphlet are available for $2 (less if you order more than 1) Call Dorian Lipscombe at 202-234-9382, or find it online at http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/primer.htm.

2. In December the well-respected group the Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP) put out a 16-page pamphlet called “Why Another War? A Backgrounder on the Iraq Crisis,” by Sarah Graham-Brown and Chris Toensing. Find it at: http://www.merip.org/. (They’ve already posted a good analysis of the January 27th inspectors’ report that has been all over the news, as well.) If you’re not online, call them up at 202-223-3677.

3. This past September Stephen R. Shalom and Michael Albert over at ZNet wrote up “45 Questions and Answers Regarding: Intervention in General; 9-11 and Afghanistan One Year Later; and Iraq on the Verge of War.” Find that at: http://www.zmag.org/45qairaq.htm. (This one I don’t think you can get if you’re not on the internet. If you’re not, you can go to your neighborhood library and read it.) Then, on October 24, they published some good reading for the already-active: “Ten Q&A On Antiwar Organizing.”

** An Idea: Read any or all of these, then make and wear a button that says: “Ask Me About Iraq.” **

Oil, War, Experts, and the Press

On January 29th the Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers (http://www.mapm.org/) called together several prominent members of the local news media to talk to Alliance members about media and the war. The point was to learn about how the local media works when it comes to reporting on war and peace and dissent and that sort of thing. This is part of MAP’s ongoing effort to use the media more effectively. The 50 or so people in attendance wanted to know how decisions are made by local media about what to cover (or not cover), the thinking behind those decisions, and maybe learn something about how to get better coverage for their views and activities. I salute the effort, and I went along to listen.

The panel of journalists included senior editorial writer Kate Stanley and senior reporter Chuck Haga from the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!), producer and reporter Mike Edgerly of Minnesota Public Radio, associate editorial editor Steve Dornfeld of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and the subject of this article, Don Shelby, WCCO-TV news anchor and reporter.

Despite the powerful positions of the panelists, most of the event was a rather tedious repetition of the usual defenses against what I guess were some perceived attacks on their news judgement. (The five journalists on the panel just started talking, with no questions heard by the audience, which is why I have to guess as to the reason for the defensive tone). There were a couple of interesting tidbits, however, and I’ll list a few at the end of this article, just for fun.

“Oil Is NOT An Issue In This War”

For now, I’ll just quote Mr. Shelby, commenting on the oft-heard accusation that the massive oil reserves located under Iraq’s soil might be a part of what is motivating the U.S. drive for war. Shelby stated that “there’s no proof” of that charge, adding that the slogan “‘No Blood For Oil’ is a cartoon, because it doesn’t go beyond that” to make a convincing case. If it did, it would be reported, he said, since “When the case is made, it’s news.” Apparently not worried about seeming like a cartoon character, an audience member later asked again exactly why “the oil connection” has not been more prominently reported in the press. Here’s where the event got interesting, with Mr. Shelby at center stage.

“I’m interested in that question,” Shelby said. So interested, in fact that “I contacted six of the brightest independent oil strategists” around, and asked them about it. They all had different responses, Shelby stressed, but “All of them said that oil is not an issue in this war.” Several people in the audience laughed aloud when he said this. (This reporter included, I confess; I just couldn’t help myself!) Bristling a bit, Shelby acknowledged the laughter and dismissed it, asking “How do you argue with six of the smartest people in the world?” I guess he had us there, since no one responded to his challenge. (If someone has his email address, maybe you could send him this week’s “Quote” of the Week.)

Shelby went on, “I’ve done the research on the oil thing, because it’s important to me. Because [going to war for control of oil] would be terrible! That would be immoral. [But] the evidence doesn’t exist.”

I was dying to hear someone ask him who these experts were, since I can’t imagine the search he must have conducted that enabled him to find six experts—in any field—that were willing to deny that oil plays at least some role in the Bush administration’s planning for war. The only clue Mr. Shelby offered was that one of the unnamed “oil strategists” was from the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management, a highly-regarded local business school. No one asked for names, however. In conclusion, Mr. Shelby added that, since he now knows that there is no “oil connection,” anyone carrying a “No Blood For Oil” placard is obviously wrong.

Mr. Shelby has won all five of the nation’s top journalism awards, including three Emmy Awards, the Columbia duPont Citation, the Scripps-Howard Award, and the Society of Professional Journalists Distinguished Service Award.

The Press and War: Comments From the Press

Here are some additional comments that were heard by the assembled peacemakers on January 29th:

Mr. Edgerly of Minnesota Public Radio pointed out that he doesn’t appreciate name-calling. The example he gave is when people call his employer “Minnesota Corporate Radio.” He also said that National Public Radio “has a pretty well-deserved reputation as having a liberal bias. That’s not the case at Minnesota Public Radio.” Whether that meant that MPR has a “conservative” bias or, impossibly, no bias at all, nobody asked and he didn’t say.

I really don’t mean to pick on Channel 4's Mr. Shelby, but he was such a veritable font of quotable quotes on this particular night! How about: “When the President of the United States is on [TV] every day, when Colin Powell is on every day. . . it’s hard to find a newsworthy opinion to counter that.” (If you don’t understand what he means, don’t feel too bad. I don’t either.) Shelby also explained that “television is an entertainment medium,” because “We’ve created a society that demands entertainment.” He also said “journalists...want to give voice to the voiceless.” What if “the voiceless” are not particularly entertaining? I wanted someone to ask, but alas, no one stepped up.

Someone asked the obligatory question about how advertisers influence the news. And, as always, we got the obligatory response: They exert “no influence whatsoever.” (Shelby) If you don’t believe that’s ridiculous, go to www.nygaardnotes.org and re-read Nygaard Notes #30, “A Talk With the Editor of the Star Tribune.”

It’s pretty important business, deciding what is news and what’s not. Don’t you think? Mr. Haga addressed how he decides, saying “Sometimes one event seems more relevant, more compelling, more interesting” than another. Edgerly assured us that “We want you to know what’s going on.” How about when Stanley said that, “on the editorial page, it’s what’s important, what matters, what people ought to be thinking about” that gets published.

If you know how to listen, comments like these present wonderful opportunities to discuss issues like Power, Accountability, and Class. Why does Chuck Haga, after all, have the power to decide for the Star Tribune’s 300,000-odd readers what is “relevant?” Who holds MPR accountable if we don’t agree with their idea of “what’s going on”? Who is Kate Stanley to decide “what people ought to be thinking about?”

Maybe these people are the best ones to be making these decisions. Or, maybe not. I honestly don’t know. How does anyone in our community know? How does a community decide who shapes and presents what we call “the news?” I don’t know but, if we want a democratic media in our community, these are the questions we should be discussing whenever we get the chance.