| Number 273 | October 15, 2004 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, This is my third “double issue” in the past four weeks. I must be coming down with something. Campaign fever? It’s going around... On numerous occasions over the years I have witnessed some activist or other confront a journalist from the mass media and ask him/her, “How come your paper hasn’t reported X, Y or Z?” Very often the response is, “But we did cover that! I wrote the story myself, and it was published on April 3rd, on page 6!” Perhaps you, dear reader, have gotten a similar response to a complaint of your own directed at the media. Frustrating, isn’t it? This week’s story, “Patterns of Reporting,” is my response to this sort of exchange. I hope it’s helpful. The first and most basic skill involved in being a critical thinker is to come in with your own ideas and not let others tell you what to think about, and what not to think about. To allow the media, or the presidential candidates that they cover, to dictate what is on your agenda and what is not is to submit to what Bob Marley called “mental slavery.” In my two articles about the presidential debates this week I hope to make clear the difference between being a passive “consumer” of politics and an active participant in the democratic project. Boy, have I enjoyed the past week of Nygaard Notes-related activities! Two visits to college classes, yesterday’s panel discussion on the debates, and a workshop on propaganda for local media activists. Thanks for the opportunities, y’all! And welcome, also, to the new readers of the Notes this week. I always appreciate feedback, so please send along your thoughts whenever you have the urge. And, if you want me to come to talk to your class, or your political group, or whatever, just get in touch with me. Until next week, Nygaard |
|
Here’s British journalist Robert Fisk, discussing the September 30th debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry. He was responding to this question from Democracy Now! co-host Juan Gonzalez:
Robert Fisk replied:
This fascinating interview was aired on the October 1 edition of Democracy
Now!, and you can read a transcript on their website, found at http://www.democracynow.org/.
|
|
What is the ongoing story of the so-called “insurgency” in Iraq? Well, on September 29th the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) had a story on the bottom of the front page with this headline: “Pattern In Iraq: 2,300 attacks in 30 Days; Figures Suggest Wider Insurgency, Not Pockets of Resistance.” The story was a reprint from that day’s New York Times, which also placed the story on the front page, under the headline: “Iraq Study Sees Rebels' Attacks As Widespread.” The “pockets of resistance” wording (although not in quotation marks in the headline) was a reference to U.S. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld’s insistence last month that the ongoing story in Iraq is nothing more than “pockets of resistance in a few places.” The article said that “Over the past 30 days, more than 2,300 attacks by insurgents have been directed against civilians and military targets in Iraq, in a pattern that sprawls over nearly every major population center outside the Kurdish north. . . During the past 30 days those attacks totaled 283 in Nineveh, 325 in Salahuddin in the northwest and 332 in the desert badlands of Anbar Province in the west. In the center of Iraq, attacks numbered 123 in Diyala Province, 76 in Babylon and 13 in Wasit. There was not a single province without an attack in the 30-day period.” The average, in other words, is about 75 to 80 attacks every single day. While the exact number is hard to know, the basic reality was widely reported over a two-week period in September. The Cox News Service reported on September 14th that there have been “about 40 attacks per day on the U.S.-led force.” The September 29th USA Today reported that “Attacks by insurgents have increased through the summer and into fall, sometimes reaching 100 a day against U.S. and allied forces.” The New York Times came up with “an average of 87 per day” on September 19th. You get the idea. The reality seems to be uncontested: There is a full-blown insurrection going on in Iraq, in stark contrast with the Bush administration’s version of events. The question to consider is this: Does the fact of publishing one front-page story laying out the true scope of an issue mean that the Times and the Star Trib are doing their job of accurately reporting a major, ongoing story? I don’t think so, and here’s why. The U.S. occupation of Iraq is a major, ongoing story, meaning that there is a story about it in the main news sections of the nation’s newspapers pretty much every day. For those who pay attention to the “stories of the day,” these daily variations on the theme have a cumulative effect, resulting in an overall impression of the nature of “the story.” I wondered if, in the case of the occupation of Iraq, there was a difference between the one-time revelation of the nature of the conflict that appeared on the front pages of the Times and the Star Trib, and the ongoing coverage in those papers. So I took a look. A Week of Reporting on Iraq What I did was a little mini-study, looking at the coverage that appeared in the two papers during a one week period that seemed fairly typical. I chose the one that went from October 4 through the 11th. Here’s what I found: October 4, Star Trib, page 7 (reprint from the Times): “Three-Day Campaign To Retake Samarra is Complete.” In the twelfth paragraph of a story about the “complete retaking,” we read that “Iraqi officials said yesterday that they had found the bodies of a man and a woman, believed to be Westerners, in a troubled area south of Baghdad.” The original Times story was headlined, “After 3-Day Fight, U.S. and Iraqi Forces Retake Samarra.” October 5, Star Trib, page 1 (Associated Press): “Car Bombs Kill 24, Wound 100 in Iraqi Attacks.” Here’s the ninth paragraph: “Both the Green Zone and the area around the hotels have been targets of previous attacks that have killed dozens of people.” Paragraph 18: “Last month saw at least 39 car bomb attacks in Iraq – the highest number in any month since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. On Sept. 30, insurgents set off a series of vehicle explosives that killed at least 35 children and seven adults at a government ceremony in Baghdad.” In the Times that day: “At Least 26 Die as 3 Car Bombs Explode in Iraq.” October 6, Star Trib, page 6 (from the Times): “Allawi Says Insurgents a ‘Challenge of Our Will;’ Keeping Up the Pressure, U.S. and Iraqi Forces Launched a New Offensive South of Baghdad.” The Times version had a captioned photo that showed the aftermath of “a suicide car bomb attack...” This was edited out of the Star Trib version. October 7 Star Trib, page 6 (from the Times): “U.S. Marines, Soldiers Fan Out South of Baghdad; The Sweep, Which Included the Iraqi National Guard, Was Part of the Drive to Retake Rebel-Controlled Areas.” Again, the article had no mention of specific attacks that day, although it mentioned that Fallujah is “notorious as the staging base for a steady barrage of strikes...” The version that ran in the Times mentioned only one U.S. soldier killed in one attack, in a story headlined “U.S. Forces Capture Insurgents' Weapons.” On October 8th the Star Trib had not a word in the entire paper about any of the presumed 40 or 87 or 100 attacks the previous day. The Times that day had a story “Baghdad ‘Safe Zone’ Proves Vulnerable in Hotel Attack.” October 9, Star Trib, page 6 (from AP): “British Hostage is Beheaded in Iraq, May Have Tried to Escape” One attack was mentioned, thusly: “In other developments: A U.S. soldier was killed and another wounded when their patrol was attacked with a homemade bomb near Tuz.” This is an article in which much text was included that never appeared in the original AP version, while the following was edited out of the Star Trib: “Attacks on foreigners, including gruesome beheadings, have crippled reconstruction by discouraging investment and frightening off international engineers, technicians and others.” The headline in the Times that day was “Video Shows Beheading of Kidnapped British Engineer.” October 10 Star Trib, page 8 (from the Times): “Sadr City Insurgents to Give Up Heavy Weapons.” The last two paragraphs reported two attacks that day. The Times that day had two headlines: On page 1: “Iraqi Cleric's Militia in Sadr City Promises to Hand Over Arms.” On page 18: “Rumsfeld Rallies Allies; In Surprise, Stops in Iraq.” October 11 Star Trib, front page banner (from the Washington Post): “Rumsfeld Rallies Troops In Iraq; He Tells U.S. Forces Victory Belongs to the ‘Resolute and Steadfast’; Car Bombs Kill 11.” Again, only three attacks were mentioned that day. Here’s the summary: Although there is mention at times of “previous attacks that have killed dozens of people,” or that Fallujah is “notorious as the staging base for a steady barrage of strikes,” the vast majority of those “attacks” and “strikes” went unreported when they occurred. As we have seen, in the articles I looked at over a one-week period, roughly 10 specific attacks by insurgents – out of an estimated 525 – were reported as news in the Star Trib. There was a roughly similar number in the Times. So we see that much is left out of the news. But what is put in? The day-to-day reporting gives us headlines that often focus on “good news,” such as “U.S. and Iraqi Forces Launch a New Offensive” and “U.S. Forces Capture Insurgents' Weapons” and “U.S. and Iraqi Forces Retake Samarra.” Meanwhile, the average news day tells us about things like “one U.S. soldier killed” or “3 Car Bombs” in Baghdad, or the occasional spectacular attack that kills “at least 26.” All of this is seen in a context of hideous and inhuman crimes – and they are hideous and inhuman – that give us headlines such as “British Hostage is Beheaded in Iraq.” So, what is the resulting ongoing story of the so-called “insurgency” in Iraq? All in all, it looks like the ongoing story is “pockets of resistance” against an alliance of “U.S. and Iraqi forces” that is “resolute and steadfast” and continues to score victories against an inhuman group of terrorists. Almost exactly, in other words, the official version of events as enunciated by the Bush administration. But if you accuse the media of toeing the official line, I bet they’ll remind you that they did report the facts – on the front page, even! – back on September 29th. Remember? |
|
Listening to the presidential debates, it’s easy to come up with a long list of specific issues of great importance that the candidates are not debating. It’s so easy, in fact, that I’m tempted to skip it entirely. Still, since 50 or 60 million people have been watching these debates, and since most of them, I suspect, have been socialized to be passive “consumers” of the news instead of active participants in the public discussion of ideas and policy, it’s worth stating for the record some of the crucially-important things that haven’t come up. Throughout this piece, I will be talking about all four debates: the three Bush/Kerry ones and the vice-presidential one, as well. If you want to check them out, you can find the full transcripts – as well as much trivia – at the website of the Commission on Presidential Debates, http://www.debates.org/. * One of the things that never came up is drugs. Oh, drugs were talked about, but always “prescription drugs,” which came up more than 30 times. But never the War on Drugs, which has criminalized huge numbers of people in this country. Speaking of criminalizing, never was the prison system in this country mentioned, despite the fact that more than two million United Statesians are now in our prisons and jails. In addition, the Sentencing Project reports that three-fourths of all drug offenders are now persons of color, far out of proportion to their share of drug users in society. We are talking about felonies here but, amazingly, the word “disenfranchisement” was never heard during the debates, and the entire issue of voting rights, voting fraud, and the ongoing issue of racial exclusion from the political process were off the table. * I suppose it is understandable that the candidates did not talk about monetary policy, since so few potential voters understand enough about it to care. But what is the proper role of the Federal Reserve bank? The maintenance of a highly-valued dollar has resulted in a staggeringly-large trade deficit, at the cost of U.S. jobs today, and an almost-certain detriment to our economy in the future. And the Fed’s bias toward fighting inflation as opposed to promoting employment would likely be highly controversial, were it ever mentioned. * Likewise, the International Financial Institutions – like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization – went unmentioned in all four debates, despite their being dominated by the United States, their activities having a huge impact on people around the world, and the constant controversies surrounding their activities. * It is interesting to consider the treatment of the nuclear issue. First of all, what is the nuclear issue? For the major candidates, this was framed as a weapons issue, and largely an issue of foreign policy, being mentioned over 40 times in the four debates in this context. But never was the idea of disarmament – and I mean U.S. disarmament – considered by the candidates. And the phrase “nuclear energy” was never mentioned. In fact, the word “nuclear” never came up in the third presidential debate, which focused on domestic policy. * Kerry charged several times that our military is “overextended.” Yet the reasons why the largest military force in the world – we spend about as much on the military as the rest of the world combined – is overextended is not subject to debate. The debate is purely tactical. * Cuba was never mentioned, except for a reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which took place in 1962. Venezuela, where two years ago the U.S. supported a violent overthrow of a democratically-elected president, was off the agenda. Colombia is the fifth-largest recipient of U.S. “aid” in the world (after Iraq, Israel, Egypt, and Afghanistan) but you’d never know from watching these debates that there was such a country. In fact, you wouldn’t know that there was such a place as “Latin America,” since neither the region nor any country in it was ever mentioned. There are many more issues, or aspects of issues, that were not mentioned. Why this is so is the subject of another article in this week’s issue. It’s a good idea to come up with your own list of questions before watching any debate (or watching the media in general for that matter). That way, you’ll be more likely to notice what is left out of the discussion, which is always as important as what is put in. Plus, you and your allies will be taking responsibility for setting your own agenda, one that may well be quite different from the one you are being asked to accept. That’s a lot different from being a passive “consumer” of the news. |
|
There are three categories of things that are never talked about in presidential debates. The categories are: Unthinkable, Unsayable, and Agreed-Upon. To say that something is Unthinkable is to say that it doesn’t occur to the candidates nor to anyone who might approach them, such as the moderator from the corporate press. When there is even the slightest attempt to open the process to the public, as in the second debate, the questions get a little more interesting, although the prevailing doctrine is strong enough to place limits here, as well. For example, the phrase “middle class” was uttered 16 times, yet the phrase “working class” was never heard in these debates. Heaven forbid the phrase “ruling class,” or even “upper class” should be mentioned. They were not, although “the top one percent” got mentioned as recipients of tax cuts. Likewise, neither were the words “Indian” or “Native American” ever uttered. The Unthinkable are the things that are so far out of the normal paths trodden by the minds of the candidates that they just can’t go there. I’m sure you can think of many more examples of things that fail to get the attention of people like the current two candidates. The second reason some things never enter into the debate is that they are Unsayable. These are the things of which the candidate may be aware, but that cannot be spoken because the costs would be too high. This week’s “Quote” of the Week was chosen to illustrate this. Other Unsayable things might include a call for socialized medicine (or even what might be understood as the moderate compromise, a national single-payer plan), or a call for a military structure geared toward defense instead of attack. These ideas may seem kind of ridiculous to you, which is the point. They are Unsayable, or maybe they are Unthinkable. No matter, the effect is the same. The third reason that some things are not debated is that the agreement between the candidates is unquestioned. Thus, there is nothing to debate. Elsewhere in this issue I talk about monetary policy, and that’s a good example. Both candidates agree that monetary policy should serve the interests of those who lend money over those who borrow, that is, the interests of the wealthy over the interests of the vast majority of us. Further, they both agree that a “get-tough” policy on “crime” is fine, that the economy should focus on “growth” rather than equality, and that basic decisions about investment and resource allocation are the job of the “private sector,” and so on and so forth. Nothing to debate on any of these points, and many others. So, they don’t come up. Unthinkable, Unsayable, Agreed-Upon. Fundamentally, what was, and is always, excluded from the debate is a radically-democratic critique. That would include, as a friend of mine put it, “anything to the left of centrist Bill Clinton.” Certainly such a critique would consider the legitimacy of U.S. consumption patterns, power relations, institutional structures, and the actual nature of democracy and freedom, beyond their use as slogans. Increasingly these things are off the table, while the radically-individualized vision of George W. Bush and his handlers sets the limits of debate. This is not an accident. The vision of a radically-individualized “Free Market” society has been systematically promoted for roughly 40 years by the supporters and allies of those currently in power, using a conscious strategy of making their radical ideas acceptable to the general public by funding media, academics, writers, speakers, and other shapers of the public debate. These efforts have brought us Ronald Reagan, and now George W. Bush, and the chosen ideas are now so dominant that our debates are, well, they are what they are. And the list of Agreed-Upon, and thus undebatable, ideas keeps on growing: Taxes are bad; government is too big; the environment is a commodity with a dollar value; everybody is middle class; people only have rights if they “own” something; international law is for other countries, not us; democracy is a “thing” that we can “give” to another country. . . Someone stop me before I start believing this stuff! How can this vision be challenged? What we need is a long-term commitment on the part of progressive people and the “have-nots” who are currently excluded from the political system. A long-term commitment, that is, to articulate and defend a radically-democratic vision that contrasts with the vision that is currently dominant. This newsletter is a tiny, tiny attempt commitment to this idea, and I plan to keep doing it as long as I can afford to. I hope each of you, in your own way, are supporting this or other attempts to turn the philosophical tide. |