This Week:

Quote of the Week

Religion and Power: The White House, CBS, and Bigotry

Who Says? A "Public-Relations Victory" in the "Liberal Media"

Greetings,

When the history of the U.S. attack on and occupation of Iraq is written, surely much attention will be paid to U.S. operations in and around the city of Fallujah. A month ago, while the most recent U.S. attack on that beleaguered city was underway, I published a small case study of reporting on that attack, using National Public Radio as the example. This week I offer another small case study, this time using the New York Times. Both news outlets are considered by many to be bastions of the "liberal media," which is why I chose them. In fact, I think they ARE part of the "liberal media," which is why their slavish devotion to the official wartime propaganda is so important to notice, and why it is so dangerous. Almost everyone in the U.S. press is now - literally or figuratively - "embedded" with the U.S. military, making the need for independent media greater than ever.

The other piece this week is about religion or, more accurately, the political power of organized religious groups. Some people think that the so-called "religious right" has a lot of influence on the government because they are so well organized. Maybe that's true, but I offer two tales about two religious groups that have very different ideas about many things - in this case, gays and lesbians. One is the Salvation Army, ans the other is the United Church of Christ. They are both well organized, but the stories are very different. There's a lesson there, as you will see.

Until next week,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

A new report from the United Nations Children's Fund, "The State of the World's Children," reported last week that more than half the world's children - over 1 billion kids - are suffering extreme deprivations from poverty, war and HIV/AIDS, "conditions that are effectively denying children a childhood and holding back the development of nations." In releasing the report, UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said this:

"Too many governments are making informed, deliberate choices that actually hurt childhood. Poverty doesn't come from nowhere; war doesn't emerge from nothing; AIDS doesn't spread by choice of its own. These are our choices."

Read the report for yourself at http://www.unicef.org/.

Religion and Power: The White House, CBS, and Bigotry

For the record, my mention last week of the $9 million that the Salvation Army stands to lose due to being banned from bell-ringing outside of Target Stores was not meant to imply that I support all of the activities of the SA. (Thanks to readers Bill, Lolly, and others for pointing out that unfortunate implication!)

For example, the Salvation Army has been something of a leader in pushing for the "right" to discriminate against gays and lesbians. As the Washington Post reported back in July of 2001:

"The White House has made a 'firm commitment' to the Salvation Army to issue a regulation protecting such charities from state and city efforts to prevent discrimination against gays in hiring and domestic-partner benefits, according to [an internal Salvation Army document]. The Salvation Army, in turn, has agreed to use its clout to promote the administration's 'faith-based' social services initiative, which seeks to direct more government funds to religious charities."

In the President's January 2001 Executive Order "Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives," Bush said, "This delivery of social services must be results oriented and should value the bedrock principles of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality." OOPS! Why couldn't that "internal" Salvation Army document stay "internal"?!

Speaking of "clout," the SA has quite a bit of it, because of their size and because they were front and center in the early months of the "Faith-Based Initiative," aimed at getting religious groups to take the place of government in providing the social services mandated by public law. The secret deal between Bush and the SA to lock in their shared bigotry is just one small illustration of the problem with this so-called "faith-based" orientation, and underlines the immense importance of the not-always-respected U.S. tradition of separation of church and state.

I probably should have made this very clear in last week's reference to the Army. I'm making it clear now. Perhaps the best comment was sent to me by reader Bill, who said, "It would appear to me that there are better places than Salvation Army or Target to spend our money." And Bill, unlike Target, is speaking from a position of principle, and is not trying to increase his profits.

On the Other Hand...

A religious group with considerably less clout than the Army is the United Church of Christ. They recently made, as they describe it, "a 30-second TV commercial that features two muscle-bound 'bouncers' standing guard outside a symbolic, picturesque church and selecting which persons are permitted to attend Sunday services. Written text interrupts the scene, announcing, 'Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we.'" A narrator then says: "The United Church of Christ. No matter who you are, or where you are on life's journey, you are welcome here." (The ad can be viewed online at www.stillspeaking.com.)

Does that sound controversial to you? No? Good for you, but listen. As the Washington Post put it, the people that the bouncers turn away are "a gay couple, a Latino woman and a disabled man." Allowed in are a stereotypical, "Father Knows Best"-type white nuclear family. It's not too subtle, and the UCC's statement of what the ad is aiming to do seems accurate to me. The ad, they say, attempts to communicate that "The United Church of Christ seeks to welcome all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance or sexual orientation."

You might have seen this ad on TV, since it apparently aired on all sorts of stations. However, it did not air on two of the nation's largest networks, CBS and NBC. NBC just said it was "too controversial," which is hilarious to me. I mean, really, does this network not broadcast the "Tall Tales of George W. Bush" with some regularity? Those can be pretty "controversial." The CBS response went beyond hilarious, though, and was more troubling. They said:

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations, and the fact the Executive Branch [i.e. Bush] has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."

To paraphrase: Since this ad doesn't please the President, we will not run it.

The Times quoted one Edward J. Murray, the chief executive of Faith and Values, a television production company, who said that "the commercial was shown at a spring meeting of Christian and Jewish representatives organized by his group and that some evangelical Christian leaders there were offended because it implied that their churches excluded people."

It's not universal, but certainly some "Christian" churches do exclude gays and lesbians, as you will see if you take a trip to the websites of a few "Christian Colleges." The Pensacola Christian College document "Standards of Conduct," for example, says that "Under no circumstances will pornography, pre-marital or extramarital sex, homosexuality, or other sex perversions be tolerated." Or, at the website of Messiah College, "a Christian college of the liberal and applied arts and sciences," you will find comments like "All homosexual behavior is forbidden, no matter what degree of love or lust is involved."

In a fascinating paper - "Christian Opposition to Homosexuality" - just published this year, Professor Donald B. Cochrane of the University of Saskatchewan reports that "The most basic tenet of the religious right is that homosexual activity is always immoral, even sinful." Need I remind you of the Salvation Army's secret White House deal to "exclude" gays and lesbians from employment?

Given this, anyone who claims to be "offended" by the "implication" that some churches exclude gays is either being dishonest or is seriously deluded. And the desire of the United Church of Christ to state clearly that they do not share the bigoted beliefs of many Christian churches is, or should be, understandable.

The lesson here is that religious belief can be translated into public life in a variety of ways. If your interpretation fits with those in power, your group will have "clout." If not, God help you, because those who have the power in this world will not.

Who Says? A "Public-Relations Victory" in the "Liberal Media"

The two most important questions to ask when reading any news report are: "So what?" and "Who says?" The first question has to do with the overall meaning and context of a news report, and implies questions like "Why is this important?" and "What does this have to do with the larger issue at hand?" That sort of thing.

The second question, the one I'm about to address, is about sources. In a culture obsessed with image, and in which public figures define themselves largely by using the techniques of public relations, the wise news reader will want to know the identity of the people whose words are used to construct a story. Furthermore, when the story has to do with a controversial item or a contested idea, the wise reader will want to see a variety of sources that illustrate the reporter's attempt to give a balanced accounting.

Last month the United States launched a ferocious attack on the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which I have written about a little bit in previous issues. As the Times had commented in an article that appeared just as the attack was winding down, "Falluja remains a potent symbol of resistance, and both sides see a public-relations victory here as crucial to the broader struggle before elections set for January." ("Sides in Falluja Fight for Hearts and Minds," November 17)

The U.S. version of a "public-relations victory" is what you might expect, with no room for inconvenient details like the numerous reports of U.S. use of cluster bombs, white phosphorous, indiscriminate demolitions, and so forth. No room, in other words, for the human suffering that is part of any war, and certainly this one. The U.S. media is doing its part in the PR campaign, offering upbeat headlines like "Rebels Routed in Falluja." (From the Times of November 15th)

Sources Everywhere, But Not a Name to be Found

On December 3rd the New York Times ran a follow-up article on the U.S. attack, headlined "Falluja Data Said to Pressure Guerrillas" that was an almost textbook example of irresponsible sourcing that looks a lot like, well, public relations. Let's have a look.

The article referenced a total of 16 sources (in 21 paragraphs!), and only one of them had a name. That name was "Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," who stated for the record that "The Falluja operation was very successful, and we want to capitalize on that success." Many more bold claims were made in the article. Here are a few of them, along with who said them (sort of):

THE ARTICLE BEGAN by saying, "The expulsion of Iraqi guerrillas and foreign fighters from Falluja has provided the American military with a treasure-trove of intelligence that is giving commanders insights into the next phase of the insurgency..." Who says? "Senior Pentagon and military officials."

PARAGRAPH 3 tells us that "[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's] network can no longer communicate effectively by use of messengers and cellphones..." Who says? "Senior Pentagon officials and military officers" and "officials."

PARAGRAPH 6: "The insurgents are expected to rely less on attacks by home-made bombs and ambushes, and instead focus on a campaign of coercion by violence directed at Iraqis who cooperate with the Americans in building security forces or a new national government and their families." Who says? No source was given for this one.

PARAGRAPH 8: "[F]or an insurgency that now has lost Falluja as a safe haven to build explosives and plot attacks on police stations and Iraqi National Guard headquarters, assassination is expected to become the primary weapon." Who "expects" this? Again, no source. (Remember, this is a "news" story, not an editorial.)

PARAGRAPH 11: " American and Iraqi forces have found cellphone numbers in Falluja that they are using to track insurgents." Who says? "Military officials" and " military officers"

PARAGRAPH 15: "[N]ot all of the 1,200 [Iraqis] taken into custody have turned out to be insurgents or terrorists and a significant number have been released." Really? Were any innocent Iraqis actually released? And, were the numbers really "significant?" Well, that's what "senior officers said."

PARAGRAPH 16: "...initial predictions of about 4,000 insurgents in Falluja at the time the offensive began appear to have been accurate." To whom do they "appear" accurate? To "one senior official."

PARAGRAPH 18: "Hundreds of militants were killed in the Falluja offensive." Who says? "Commanders."

PARAGRAPH 19: "...militant cells . . . draw significant money from an underground financial network run by former Baath Party leaders and Saddam Hussein's relatives..." Just the usual suspects, in other words. Who says? "American officials."

All in all, the article served to reinforce the official version of events, as stated in a different article from November 15th which quoted "American military commanders" saying that "the weeklong assault... has achieved nearly all their objectives well ahead of schedule and with fewer pitfalls than anticipated."

Here, for the record, are ALL of the sources listed in this lengthy news report (including the ones cited above), none of which seemed to notice any "pitfalls":

* "One senior commander in Iraq"
* "Commanders"
* "Senior officers"
* "Military officers"
* "Military intelligence and operations officers"
* "Senior Pentagon officials and military officers"
* "One senior official"
* "A senior Pentagon official"
* "Military officials"
* "Officials
* "The officials" and "the officials"
* "American officials"
* "A senior Pentagon official" and
* "Senior Pentagon and military officials"
* and, of course, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Someone who knows nothing about the United States might wonder if this story was put out by some sort of official State News Agency. It was not. It was published by the New York Times, the chief symbol, in many minds, of "The Liberal Media."