This Week:

Quote of the Week

Nygaard Teaches Media Class: All Invited

"Two Great Democracies" Arm Themselves With Nukes

Nygaard Notes Correction and Apology

Greetings,

When will I ever learn?  In the last issue I wrote that "Next week I'm planning to write about the London bombings, with a word about the nature of propaganda in a time of crisis."  I lied.  It's taking a little more time than I expected, so I don't have it ready for this issue.  I'll write about it in the next issue. (I plan to, anyway.)  The lesson?  Both you and I - but especially I - should remember that Nygaard Notes does not follow a pre-planned schedule, and in fact follows no schedule at all.  I often don't know what will be in a given issue until hours before YOU know.  So, what in the world was I doing when I said what I was planning to write about "next week?"  I temporarily lost my mind.

The Pledge Drive is over.  Thank you!  So, back to the business of reporting on and helping you think about the amazing, complex, and beautiful world in which we live.

Gratefully yours,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

Typically, the Nygaard Notes "Quote" of the Week is drawn from public comments by prominent figures, usually as they are reported in the media.  But this week the "Quote" of the Week is a small interaction that I had in a local used bookstore.  I consider it a sign of the times, unfortunately.

I went into a local bookstore - Magers and Quinn is the name - one day earlier this month, casually looking for copies of some texts I'm thinking of using for a class I'll be teaching this fall on media and the Arab world [see notice elsewhere in this issue].  After wandering around for a while and not finding what I wanted, I asked the Euro-American guy who was the clerk on duty if they had a section on the Middle East. He said they did, and pointed to my left. I thanked him and, after a brief pause, he volunteered the following comment:

"We also have a special section on terrorism, over there."

The idea of "terrorism" hadn't, in fact, crossed my mind, so I was a bit taken aback.  I looked at him, then I said, "Interesting association you just made, there."  At which he got all embarrassed, so I didn't say any more, as I thought he had gotten the point.  I doubt he would have made that comment if I looked (to him) like I was of Arab descent.  Those of us who are "white," (or look like we are) often receive these sorts of racist comments.  Let's always try to respond.

Nygaard Teaches Media Class: All Invited

The wonderful Arab-American group MIZNA is sponsoring a series of Arab Cultural Classes this fall at the Mizna office in Northeast Minneapolis.  I will be teaching a class called:

"Through the Imperial Lens: How the Media Shapes American Understanding of the Arab World, and What We Can Do about It."

Some of you Nygaard Notes readers have taken other media classes that I have taught, so you know I enjoy this a lot. (If you want to send in some testimonials as to how useful it was to you, please do so!)

The classes will run on six consecutive Tuesday nights, from 6:30 to 8:30, starting October 18th.   It costs $150, or a mere $25 per class.

I do it in a popular education style, with lots of exercises, projects, and a focus on drawing out the already-existing knowledge that the students have, but may not know that they have.  I'll add my thoughts, of course, but the process is one of co-learning and interaction.  If you're not familiar with this type of class, you'll be surprised at how empowering it can be.

Here is the official class description, just so you know:

"Students will focus on the ways that media simultaneously creates and reflects ideology and values, and how that impacts culture and social policy.  This class will help students: develop an institutional/structural analysis of how the U.S. media works; 'decode' the news, focusing on reading the paper and listening to the radio; understand what propaganda is and how to recognize it; find and effectively use news sources; consider how to affect and change the media.  There will be options for special group and/or individual projects.  Instructor will provide all class materials."

For those of you who enjoy the Notes, imagine six weeks of this sort of thinking, but with the opportunity to actively participate, and to further develop some of the skills you get by reading this here newsletter.  That sounds like fun to me!  The class is limited to 12 people, so sign up soon if you want a spot.  Go on the web to  http://www.mizna.org/ .  I hope to see some of you there!

"Two Great Democracies" Arm Themselves With Nukes

On July 18th, during a visit to Washington by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President Bush agreed to share civilian nuclear technology with India.  India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, which bars sales of nuclear technology to any country that breaks the treaty or refuses to join.  India, Pakistan and Israel all have refused to sign.  "The Indians and Israelis [have] used technology acquired ostensibly for civilian purposes to secretly build nuclear weapons," as reported by the Wall Street Journal.  Therefore, up to now, U.S. policy had been to refuse to make these so-called "technology transfers" to India.

In other words, Bush's decision to transfer nuclear technology to a non-signer of the world's main nuclear weapons treaty was a big change in policy for the United States, and a dangerous one, at that.  Is this how the agreement was understood in the nation's media?  Let's have a look.

What's the Story Here?

The day after the story of the nuclear agreement broke, the news stories in the U.S. press had  headlines like "U.S.-India Bond 'Never Stronger' ; Bush Offers to Help India's Nuclear Program" (Grand Rapids, Michigan Press); "India Given U.S. Nod on N-power" (Deseret News, Salt Lake City); and "India, U.S. Agree to Cooperate" (Star Tribune).  The news here seems to be that the U.S. and India are friends.  It is not that the U.S. is breaking a treaty, or that the world is a more dangerous place now than it was last week.

Of course, in a sense it is not really "news" that the U.S. doesn't take seriously the world's best effort to control nuclear weapons.  The Bush administration had previously begun to pursue such new nuclear munitions as so-called "bunker busters" and space-based weapons.  Important?  Yes.  News?  Not really.  Well, the specifics are new, I guess.

The story of the U.S.-India deal was a late-breaking story on July 18th, so it wasn't until two days later that the "analysis" pieces started being published in the nation's press.  "Analysis" pieces are the ones that come after the "news" pieces, and are typically where the media tells us how we are supposed to interpret the news of the day.  To sample the spin, I looked at three of the major newspapers available around my home in Minneapolis.

The largest and most influential paper in the state of Minnesota, the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) didn't bother to publish an analysis of this story.  They ran a very-abbreviated version of a news story from the New York Times, then apparently decided that it was not important enough to follow up.

The July 20th  "analysis" piece in the Times was found on page three with the headline, "U.S. Allies and Congress 'Positive' About India Nuclear Deal."  "Positive?"  Well, that was the claim of one high-ranking Bush administration official.  The Times article mentioned that the agreement was made by Bush at "the last minute, leaving little time to brief foreign and Congressional officials in advance."  I suppose it's possible that the un-briefed officials felt "positive" when the news was sprung on them by the administration, after the fact, that the U.S. had decided to abrograte this major treaty.  But we have to take their word for it, since no other comment was sought from any of these "officials."

The Wall Street Journal's "analysis" began to hint at a different spin.  That paper ran its story on page 11, headlined "Bush's India Deal Bends Nuclear Rules; U.S. Cites Exceptionalism Of Situation, but Accord May Stir Others' Ambitions."  The story didn't really talk about "bending," starting as it did with the following statement: "President Bush unilaterally rewrote the rules of the nuclear game this week when he agreed to sell nuclear technology to India."

The set-up for this different spin had appeared in the previous day's Journal, in which the news story on the Prime Minister's visit included this statement: "The agreement, the result of secret negotiations for months between Washington and New Delhi, is sure to draw criticism in Congress and throughout the world..."  Note that, in contrast with the Times' story, the Journal says this agreement was the result of "months" of negotiations, and was hardly "last-minute."

It hasn't been hard to find the official spin on this story, which is that India is "democratic," and thus deserves to be granted an "exception" to the nuclear rules (the implication, of course, is that the U.S. has the right to grant such exceptions, which it does not.)  The Journal's editorial page, for instance, had carried a feature two days earlier by the U.S. ambassador to India, David Mulford, with the headline "Two Great Democracies."  Here's how Mulford baldly put it in his  opening paragraph:

"U.S.-India relations are at an all-time high as President Bush welcomes Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington today.  Our two great pluralistic democracies are now positioned for a partnership that will be crucial in shaping the international landscape of the 21st century."

The idea of the second-largest nation in Asia teaming up with the most powerful nation in the world to "shape the international landscape" is not universally attractive.  Australia's national newspaper, The Australian, said that "Bush's decision last week to reverse 30 years of US policy by opening nuclear trade with India may ultimately come to be regarded as the most dangerous and reckless move of his presidency."  The Journal explains why that might be so: "There are serious concerns that other U.S. allies may decide that they, too, are exceptional and that they can abandon their nuclear vows without facing harsh punishment from Washington."  Or from anyone else, it goes without saying, since the U.S. continues to work to lessen the capacity of any other nation or body of nations to "punish" anyone for violations of international law, preferring to reserve that right to itself.

The Context That Gives Meaning

What was entirely missing from any of the news reports I saw was the context that gives urgency and meaning to this nuclear agreement.  That context includes, among other things, the history of the Bush administration's record of abrogating treaties, ignoring international law, and weakening numerous international organizations.  The almost 400 treaties that the U.S. government has made and broken with this continent's native peoples should be part of the context for any news report on treaties.

But let's not forget that the United States is also in official opposition to the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the International Criminal Court, the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Land Mine Treaty, among many other examples.

All of these things have been reported in the corporate press at one time or another.  What is missing is the assembly of these facts into a coherent pattern, and one that gives meaning to the recent agreement between India and the United States.

So, it seems like a good time for a Nygaard Notes Alternative Headline.  How about, "U.S., India Break Nuclear Treaty; World a More Dangerous Place."  Or, "Bush to World: Treaties Don't Count; We Do What We Want."

Nygaard Notes Correction and Apology

Nygaard Notes was guilty of an error in the last issue, and I became aware of it because alert reader Jim wrote to me after he received his copy of issue #301, and said, "In your latest notes, you refer to Bush's 're-election.'  Have you, as the mainstream press, been co-opted by the lie?  Sigh.  Re-election, indeed."

Jim is right.  The first thing I did in the last issue was to quote the New York Times saying that an attack on the income tax was "one of Mr. Bush's top two economic initiatives upon winning re-election."  That was a direct quotation, so perhaps it can be forgiven.  However, in the very next article I referred to the 2004 election and I, myself, wrote, "Just three days after his re-election, Mr. Bush said..."  That's what Jim is talking about.

Long-time readers know that I did not accept the legitimacy of the Bush presidency until the 2004 election, which Mr. Bush appears to have actually won (or at least he could have won, or at least the Supreme Court didn't have to be called in).  Up until that time I always had used quotation marks when referring to "President" Bush.  This was my way of underlining my skepticism about the legitimacy of 2000 election which, readers may recall, was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, after much fraud, racist exclusion, hanging chads, and who-knows-what.  While the exact goings-on may never be fully known, I will always count myself among those who believe that the 2000 election was, in essence, stolen by Mr. Bush and his allies.  Maybe the 2004 one was, as well, but I don't think so, or at least I'm not so sure.

This is exactly the sort of unconscious parroting of propaganda by the media that I have pointed out in these pages on numerous occasions.  And now I did it myself!  It shows how insidious this stuff really is.

So, my apologies for this significant error.  I don't think Mr. Bush has ever been "re-elected," and in fact am not sure that he was ever legitimately elected at all.  Thanks, Jim!