This Week: The "Official" Top Stories of 2006

Annan: "Blasting the U.S.?" Or Speaking for the World?

The Top News Stories of 2006 in the Propaganda System

Greetings,

Well, I've been on vacation for a while, so that's why the long gap since the last issue of the Notes, on December 22nd. Time for one last look back at 2006, before getting into the New Year. Which, by the way, I hope will be a happy, fulfilling, and active one for readers of Nygaard Notes. Some good things are happening in the world, and I hope that the things that are talked about in these pages will inspire and help equip you to do your part to support them.

Hello to the new readers, the first new subscribers of 2007. I look forward to your feedback!

Happily New Yearingly yours,

Nygaard

Annan: "Blasting the U.S.?" Or Speaking for the World?

Outgoing United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan gave a major speech in Independence, Missouri on December 11th. It was understood to be a sort of "farewell" speech since it came just three weeks before he left his post. In the speech he laid out "five lessons I have learned" in his 10 years at the U.N. He said these lessons "can be summed up as five principles, which I believe are essential for the future conduct of international relations: Collective Responsibility, Global Solidarity, The Rule of Law, Mutual Accountability, and Multilateralism."

Annan directed his remarks, in part, at members of the Security Council, "especially the major powers who are permanent members," saying that they "must accept the special responsibility that comes with their privilege." Chief among the "major powers," of course, is the United States. Annan says that "Americans, like the rest of humanity, need a functioning global system through which the world's peoples can face global challenges together." Since no one disputes that the U.S. is the World's Only Superpower, Annan seems justified in adding, "in order to function, the system ... cries out for far-sighted American leadership." Said Annan, "I hope and pray that the American leaders of today, and tomorrow, will provide it."

Around the world the headlines the next day read: "Annan Urges U.S. to Remain True to Its Principles," and "Departing Annan Attacks Bush's ‘War on Terror'," and "Annan Uses Final UN Speech to Warn U.S." The speech was barely noted in the U.S., but when it was, the substance was glossed over, and the emphasis was placed on the "attacking Bush" angle. An example was USA Today, which ran a "preview" article on the day the speech was to be given, headlined "Annan to Blast U.S. in Farewell; Ends U.N. Tenure with Dig at Bush."

But was it simply a "dig at Bush," or was Annan speaking for a large part of humanity? I think the latter. A poll taken by TIME Magazine in 2003, just before the U.S. invaded Iraq, asked "Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003: North Korea, Iraq, or the U.S.?" 87 percent said "The U.S." This past June 13th the Pew Research Center released the results of a poll of people in 15 countries around the world which found that "the U.S. presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran—and in many countries much more often—as a danger to world peace." Pew also asked about "the greatest dangers to world peace" and found that "in Britain, America's closest ally in the war in Iraq, 34 percent of people polled cited Iran as the greatest threat, but 45 percent cited the continued US presence in Iraq." And remember, the British population, like us, faces a constant barrage of propaganda that tells them the opposite. So that figure of 45 percent is truly remarkable.

The respected Harris Interactive organization reported on August 30th that "A new Harris Poll of almost 10,000 people in France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Spain finds that a plurality continues to believe that the United States is more of a threat to global stability than Iran, North Korea, Iraq, China or Russia."

Finally, just two months ago the Swedish media reported that "Nearly one in three Swedes, 29 percent, think that the US is the biggest threat to peace on earth."

It was to this global audience—as well as to you and me—that Annan was speaking when he said, "As things stand, accountability between states is highly skewed. Poor and weak states are easily held to account, because they need foreign assistance. But large and powerful states, whose actions have the greatest impact on others, can be constrained only by their own people, working through their domestic institutions."

A dig at Bush? I think Annan's speech was much more than that, and his five principles of Collective Responsibility, Global Solidarity, The Rule of Law, Mutual Accountability, and Multilateralism are worth remembering as those of us in the United States ponder our responsibilities to act through our domestic institutions to constrain the leadership of The World's Only Superpower as it struggles to maintain, through massive use of force, its crumbling Empire.

The Top News Stories of 2006 in the Propaganda System

In the last issue of Nygaard Notes I reviewed the year as it appeared in these pages, as I do every year, reminding people of the wide array of subjects covered in the pages of Nygaard Notes in 2006. Of course, Nygaard Notes is not the only publication to reflect on the year just passed. Many news organizations, from CBS to Reuters to the Associated Press, publish some sort of list of "The Year's Top Stories." By Top Stories, they seem to mean simply the stories that received the most coverage. But they mean more than that. Since most people still get their basic idea of how the world works from the daily mass media, the choices that the large news corporations make as to what are the Top Stories dictate, to a large extent, the premises and boundaries of our public discussion. Let's just take a look at a few of the "Top News Stories of 2006" as listed on December 20th by the Associated Press.

I focus on the Associated Press due to its extraordinary power and influence. For those who don't know, the AP is "a worldwide not-for-profit cooperative with 3,700 employees working in more than 240 worldwide bureaus. AP is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members." It is "the largest and oldest news organization in the world... serving thousands of daily newspaper, radio, television and online customers with coverage in all media and news in all formats." AP stories reach "more than one billion people a day." (That's all from the AP's website.)

In the current context of U.S. news reporting, where newsroom staffs are being dramatically cut and news bureaus closed, the role of wire services like the AP is more important than ever. If you look at your local paper (unless your local paper is one of the agenda-setting ones, like the Washington Post, New York Times, etc), the bulk of the non-local news you will see will be from one wire service or another, most likely the Associated Press. Increasingly, the wire services define the "conventional wisdom" that shapes the public discourse. So I think it's worth the time to take a little closer look at what, exactly, the AP powers-that-be tell us were the Top Stories of 2006.

It's useful to think about this in three different ways. One way is "What do AP members think is a Top Story?" Another way is "What do they NOT think is a Top Story?" And, finally, since the daily news has been called "the first draft of history," I'll give a couple of examples that I think illustrate how the media sometimes can be said to produce "the first revisions of history in line with the propaganda preferences of elite leadership." In other words, since most of us end up talking about the Top Stories because we see and hear them day after day, we also end up thinking largely in accord with the ideas and priorities and values that come into our homes along with those stories. Doncha think? OK, here we go...

What Were the Top Stories, According to Conventional Wisdom?

To start out, here are "2006's top 10 stories, as voted by AP members" (there was a tie for seventh place):

1. IRAQ

2. U.S. ELECTION

3. NUCLEAR STANDOFFS

4. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

5. SCANDALS IN CONGRESS

6. SADDAM CONVICTED

7. MIDEAST FIGHTING

7. RUMSFELD RESIGNS

9. AIRLINER PLOT

10. DISASTER IN DARFUR

What's Missing Here?

Can you think of any other Top Stories that are not on the AP's list? That is, things that might be even more important than the resignation of the Defense Secretary (with no change in policy) or the "airliner plot" that may or may not have been real? Here are a few of my ideas:

To start out, consider these words that immediately followed the AP list in the story that came over the wires: "Just missing out on the Top 10 was mounting concern over climate change and global warming..." Well, at least they mentioned the potentially most-cataclysmic event of the past few millennia. That's more than you can say about some other Non-Top Stories, like the five I'll mention now.

It's truly remarkable that, while Iraq was the consensus Top Story, not a word appears in the AP list about AFGHANISTAN, where "the increased violent and terrorist activity by the Taliban, Al-Qaida, illegally armed groups and those involved in the narcotics trade ... has resulted in increased Afghan civilian casualties," and "the situation... still constitutes a threat to international peace and security," according to UN Security Council resolution 1707 of September 12th (this, too, was unreported in this country). The story of "Canada's mission in Afghanistan," in contrast, was considered the Number 2 news story of 2006 in that country.

Another omission that boggles the mind is the failure to mention the ONGOING HEALTH CARE CRISIS in this country. What aspect of health care? Take your pick. Start with 45 million uninsured, factor in the explosion in medical costs that is bankrupting businesses and wreaking havoc on worker benefit packages, and don't forget the various scandals having to do with fraudulent pharmaceutical testing and obscene executive compensation levels. The solution is clear and obvious (and its name is "The United States National Health Insurance Act, HR 676), but neither the crisis itself, nor the mounting efforts to solve it, are considered Top Stories in the Propaganda System.

How about the ONGOING CONSOLIDATION OF LATIN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY? Elections in Venezuela, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico (and more) indicate a remarkable upsurge in participation by poor and historically disenfranchised populations all over the continent. Voter turnout for elections in 2006 was more than 80 percent in Peru and Bolivia (88 and 84, respectively) and 72 percent in Ecuador and Venezuela. This compares with a little over 40 percent in the USA. Despite the likelihood that these democratic processes have a good chance of dramatically improving the lives of millions of people, the fact remains that most of these elections produced winners that intend to chart courses independent of—and often contrary to—the needs and wishes of the U.S. government. That may explain, in part, why this remarkable pattern has not been a Top Story north of the Rio Grande.

I speak elsewhere in this issue of the call by Kofi Annan for global solidarity and multilateralism. This call comes in the context of the INCREASING ISOLATION OF THE U.S. as it attempts to consolidate its position as the head of a 21st Century global empire. The nature and manifestations of these attempts should be, in my mind, another Top Story, accompanied by ongoing reporting on the larger, worldwide rejection of U.S. "leadership" of which the previous Top Story is only a part.

The economic aspect of the above story—the story of CHANGES IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF ECONOMIC POWER IN THE WORLD—is another Top Story that is shaping, and will shape, our world in hugely-important ways. If the 20th Century was, as some have said, the "American Century," then how will historians view the 21st Century? Could it be the Chinese Century? The European Century? The European Union, with its powerhouse currency the Euro, is a looming challenge to the U.S. The Indian prime minister called last month for the development of an "Asian Economic Community," a call that went unreported in this country. And Latin leaders, also last month, agreed to create a high-level commission to study the idea of forming their own continent-wide community, similar to the European Union. This also was withheld from U.S. news "consumers." The impact of all of these ongoing developments on U.S. jobs, wage levels, costs of consumer goods, energy prices, and on and on, all make this a Top Story in my view. But not in the view of AP members.

How Were the Top Stories Framed in Line With Propaganda Needs?

Some stories that DID make it onto the AP's list were allotted a place only after being narrowly—and sometimes dangerously—defined in certain and fairly predictable ways.

Consider "Iraq." I doubt that many would argue that this was not a Top Story last year. But what, exactly, IS that story? Is it, as the AP summarizes, "The convoluted, increasingly costly war in Iraq..."? Or is it, instead, "The illegal, immoral, and internationally-condemned occupation of Iraq," as some might phrase it? Is the story here a story of "Iraqis by the thousands killed in sectarian reprisal attacks and the U.S. military death toll nearing 3,000," as the AP puts it? What if the AP spoke, instead, of "Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands killed as a result of a criminal military occupation by an imperial power attempting to consolidate its control over the world's primary oil-producing region?" There IS a Top Story here but is it the one that the AP thinks it is? I think not.

How about the story the AP calls "Nuclear Standoffs?" Many would say that the threat of nuclear war is, indeed, a Top Story. But the story according to the AP is a story in which "The United States and its allies were frustrated in their efforts to rein in nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran." These two countries, after all, are the countries that we have been trained to think of when we worry about the very real dangers of nuclear weapons. But there is another story here, the one about "a pattern of... increased U.S. scepticism regarding the effectiveness of international institutions and instruments, coupled with a drive for freedom of action to maintain an absolute global superiority in weaponry and means of their delivery...." which "is likely to increase nuclear dangers and reduce international security...." (These words are from a Swedish commission, headed by former U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix, and reported in Nygaard Notes #333 last June.)

If we are going to talk about nukes as a Top Story, I think the issue—especially for U.S. readers, who can do something about it—is the rogue state-style behavior that is rejected by "the overwhelming majority" of the world's countries. That's not "the story" according to the AP.

Finally, there is the AP Top Story that they label "MIDEAST FIGHTING." They're talking about a very specific subset of "Mideast Fighting" here. Since the distortions and mis-reporting on this topic are so prevalent, and since it is so important to regional and even world stability, I put this particular Top Story in a propaganda category of its own, and will return to it next week.