This Week:

Quote of the Week

Anti-War Resource of the Week

Lindner Watch: Victory, Not Peace!

The Three Phases of War Coverage
Tips for Following the War

Greetings,

This issue of the Notes is perhaps marked as much by what was left out (in the interests of space) as by what was put in. For example: We are due for another “Stroll Through the News With Nygaard,” it’s past time for the spring Nygaard Notes Pledge Drive, there are several hot items about Arlon Lindner awaiting publication (only one short one this week), I’ve got another “Fun With Numbers”-type piece all ready to go, I’ve written a response to the charge of “Blaming America First,” there’s a backed-up bunch of really interesting websites I want to tell you about, and on and on. But, that’s how it goes when The World’s Only Superpower goes on the attack—that news takes over for a while. So be it. We’ll get back to “the agenda” when the time is right. Maybe I’ll do a couple of double issues to help with the “catch-up” process. Who knows?

A supporter of Nygaard Notes recently sent in their check with a note saying that they were particularly glad to hear from me, as someone had told them I had died! (I wonder if they saw it in the National Enquirer?) Just in case that rumor goes anywhere, I would like to report for the record that I am alive and well, and that Nygaard Notes is indeed still being written by Nygaard.

Lots of new readers this last couple of weeks—Welcome! As you will soon see for yourself, Nygaard Notes has an improvisational and unpredictable agenda, so I can’t tell you what’s coming up, even if I wanted to. Times are too volatile for any kind of planning. We’ll discover the agenda together, and your feedback will help—I love getting mail!

‘Til next week,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

Noam Chomsky was asked in an interview a few days before the U.S. attack on Iraq started (March 9th) “Assuming that war comes, should the anti-war movement be depressed about its ineffectuality?” Here’s what he said:

“That's like suggesting that abolitionists, or advocates of rights of working people or women, or others concerned with freedom and justice, should have been depressed about their inability to attain their goals, or even make progress towards them, over very long periods. The right reaction is to intensify the struggle.

“In this case, we should recognize that the anti-war movement was unprecedented in scale, so that there is a better base for proceeding further. And that the goals should be far more long-term. A large part of the opposition to Bush's war is based on recognition that Iraq is only a special case of the ‘imperial ambition’ that is widely condemned and rightly feared; that's the source of a good part of the unprecedented opposition to Bush's war right at the heart of the establishment here, and elsewhere as well. Even the mainstream press now reports the ‘urgent and disturbing’ messages sent to Washington from US embassies around the world, warning that ‘many people in the world increasingly think President Bush is a greater threat to world peace’ than Saddam Hussein (Washington Post lead story). That actually goes back to the Clinton years, but it has become far more significant today. With good reasons. The threat is real, and the right place to counter it is here.

"Whatever happens in Iraq, the popular movements here should be invigorated to confront this far larger and continuing threat, which is sure to take new forms, and is quite literally raising issues of the fate of the human species. That aside, the popular movements should be mobilized to support the best outcomes for the people of Iraq, and not only there of course. There's plenty of work to do.”

Anti-War Resource of the Week

This whole issue is one big anti-war resource.

Lindner Watch: Victory, Not Peace!

As part of my ongoing monitoring of 6th-term Republican Minnesota State Representative Arlon Lindner, here’s a tidbit from the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) of March 23rd:

“A day after the start of the war [sic] with Iraq, the Minnesota House unanimously approved a DFL-sponsored resolution calling for ‘a day of prayer for peace and for our armed forces and civilians who may suffer injury.’

“The only bit of dissent came when Rep. Arlon Lindner, R-Corcoran, moved to change the word ‘peace’ to ‘victory.’ His amendment was defeated on a voice vote.”

The Three Phases of War Coverage

“The demands of round-the-clock news means military claims are being relayed instantly to millions without being confirmed or verified, only to be refuted later by reporters on the ground or by fresh military updates.” That’s from Chris Tryhorn in The Guardian of London, March 27, 2003.

As the above quotation makes clear, a large percentage of what we see and hear in the coming period as the U.S. attack on Iraq proceeds will be false. Some will be straight-up propaganda, much of it will simply be uncritical reporting of someone’s speculation and guesswork. Whatever. That’s just the way it is in wartime, and it doesn’t matter which “side” is reporting. Nonetheless, as the New York Times (“All The News That’s Fit To Print”) put it on March 25th, and as journalists in general like to say, reports from the scene do make up “the first draft of history.” As history is being drafted, then, here are a few points to remember as you try to follow along.

When seeking information about any crisis it’s important to remember that there are three distinct phases of coverage that occur in three different time-frames. Tuning in to each one has advantages and disadvantages; I’ll briefly summarize a few of them after explaining each phase.

Phase I: Breaking News

The first general type of coverage during a crisis is BREAKING NEWS from reporters present at the scene. These are the reports that have photos, video, first-hand quotations, eye-witness accounts, and so forth. It’s typically a “small-frame” type of coverage, in that it is a report of what one reporter can see or hear from one particular place. This reporting will, for better or worse, supply the “raw materials” upon which the general perception about “what is going on” will arise. The “first draft of history,” that is. The time-frame is day-to-day (or minute-to-minute in the electronic media).

The advantages of breaking news include: Immediacy; the clarity that comes from talking to people soon after an event, before time clouds memories (i.e. more detail and at least the possibility of accuracy); it is the only real available source of documentation of an event (fro now).

Disadvantages: It’s chaotic; there is no time for reporters to reflect and put news into context; the necessarily “small picture” view distorts things by making small things seem large and vice versa; military censorship, especially in recent years, is intense; reporters representing large, for profit media (which make up the bulk of reporters in a U.S. war zone) are particularly prone to self-censorship; the race to meet deadline results in lots of errors in reporting.

Phase II: Context and Analysis

Days or weeks or months after the initial breaking news is reported (and after we have all internalized some basic ideas about “what happened”) there will appear a variety of attempts to take the facts that everyone “knows” and reflect on them. Occasionally there will be some investigation done to determine which version most closely resembles the truth, but don’t assume this to be the case. Often what passes for news “analysis” is nothing more than somebody’s “opinion” on the meaning of a bunch of facts that are false to begin with. Still, the passage of even a little time, combined with a little less deadline pressure, presents an opportunity for reflection and thought that breaking news does not.

The advantages of Analytical and Contextual News pieces include: The journalist has had a little time to think; being further from the “action” reduces the adrenaline that can cloud judgement, especially in war reporting; various versions of the original report, often contradictory, have all come out and can be compared; there is time for some investigation of the original story, sources, and versions; analysis can be done on a lower budget, since it doesn’t necessarily involve expensive travel, technical equipment, or (in the current case) “embedding.”

Disadvantages: Distance and time sometimes make interviewing less useful; it’s usually less emotionally “gripping” than breaking news.

Phase III: Historical Perspective

Immediately after the end of an event—and sometimes while it is still going on—historians will begin to take the various “first drafts of history” and attempt to actually write a history of the event. This will typically be the “big picture” of the event, placing it in a context, looking at the factors that brought the event to pass and assessing the impact of the event on what occurred afterward. Historians will talk to and look at all sorts of sources, including much of the Breaking News and the Analytical and Contextual News pieces that arose during the event.

A good history will attempt to answer some of the questions that were raised by the event, using the wisdom of hindsight and the advantage that comes with knowledge of what actually happened after the event ended. For example, historians of the future will be far more able to say whether the United Nations became stronger or weaker as a result of decisions made by the U.S. in planning and carrying out its attack on Iraq, a question that is being hotly debated as the attack proceeds, with no way to know the answer.

The advantages of the Historical Perspective are numerous, and include: Access to many documents that were not known to the public during the event (many official documents, for example, are not declassified until decades later); no deadline pressure means that a history doesn’t have to be published until the necessary research is complete; since it is not constructed in the heat of the moment, many sources will talk that would or could not talk at the time; histories can be lengthy, allowing space for the context to be spelled out.

I can only think of two disadvantages of taking a historical approach to learning about an event: Histories can’t be written in time to help with a crisis while it’s going on (not counting the histories of the events that led up to the current crisis), and; few people actually read histories, as opposed to how many people watch the news as it happens.

As readers can probably tell, I don’t think too much of the breaking news. Still, there are some things to be gotten from following it, if you’re careful. In the next piece I recommend some specific sources to look at for breaking news, if you insist on tuning in.

Tips for Following the War

Here are a few specific sources that I recommend for those who plan to follow the breaking news of the current U.S. attack on Iraq.

First of all, a warning: Do not watch television news. Seriously. It’s exciting, but it really will only end up confusing most people. I’ve watched a total of about 5 minutes so far (which is about 5 minutes more than in a typical week.)

For breaking news, look at the foreign press first. You can find a list of all sorts of online newspapers around the world at www.gt.kth.se/publishing/news.html#C. Specific papers to look at regularly might be:

• The London Guardian, on the web at http://www.guardian.co.uk/
• the British daily The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/ (Look especially for Robert Fisk’s byline; he’s one of the best reporters from the region), and
• the BBC at http://www.bbc.co.uk/.

None of these are unbiased; they just have different biases than the U.S. press. And they are generally far less afraid of being called “unpatriotic.”

Both the BBC and the Guardian offer hour-by-hour timelines for each day of the military conflict. The BBC’s is called “Iraq Latest: At-a-glance,” and the Guardian has “Timeline: Day [one, two, etc] of War.”

For the most mind-boggling list of internet websites related to the current U.S. attack that I’ve seen anywhere, go to the Guardian’s Timeline page and look for the button called “Conflict of Interest: The Sites You Need to See.” Omigosh.

Radio/TV: Listen to or watch Democracy Now! (find your local radio or TV station that carries it on the DM website at http://www.democracynow.org/. Or, check out the special Iraq website coordinated by DM correspondent Jeremy Scahill at http://www.iraqjournal.org/.

Other breaking news sources:

• the brand-new online news project, Electronic Iraq, at http://electronicIraq.net;
• AlterNet’s Iraq page has good links, breaking news, analysis, at http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/;
• Common Dreams at http://www.commondreams.org/;
• Truthout at http://www.truthout.org/

For news on civilian casualties, check out Iraqi Body Count at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/.

For a “smart” analysis of the military aspect of events, check out the Center for Defense Information at http://www.cdi.org/iraq/eye-on-iraq.cfm.

For help in judging for yourself on the issue of the humanitarian consequences of the current conflict, see the excellent links at the website of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq at http://www.casi.org.uk/info/consequences.html.

For general analysis and context, Znet at http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm.