answering Malign assertions

[Doug Millison]

Malign,

I'm surprised you're bucking Terrance's insistence that we only talk about
Pynchon's texts in this forum.

Polls can "prove" whatever pollsters want them to prove, surely you're
sophisticated enough to know that about political PR.  The results depend
on the questions asked and the way the questions are framed. The former
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq said precisely that recently on CNN (I pointed to a
transcript of his comments in a post the other day), when he noted that
while some pollsters  have  reported that if you ask Americans if they
support military actions against terrorists, 9 out of 10 say yes, but 70 to
80 percent say they don't support it if it kills civilians.

["PRESS: Day two of this war against terrorism in Afghanistan. 94 percent
of the American people support it. Do you? Are you among the 94?

PECK: Oh, yes, sure. Except that you ask the American people the question
one way and they will say, "yes we are for it." And then you watch the body
bags to come home and then they are against it. Polling is a very tricky
business, sir. I don't need to tell you that. When you tell me that 86.2
percent of the people want lower taxes and 94 percent more services, I
recognize that there's a conflict there. What the American people want is
something that's very hard to understand because A) they don't know where
Afghanistan is; B) they know nothing about it; and c) they have no idea
whatsoever as to what the potential gains and costs are from getting
involved ."

http://www.counterpunch.org/peck1.html ]


Malign:
"You would have one believe that, in light of the horrific events of
September
11, the military response is yet "primarily" an opportunistic ploy to
earn
profits for corporations?  Do you have any facts to back this up?"

 I've posted many excerpts and articles that document the fact that
corporate pigs are feeding at the trough at this very moment.  Even the NY
Times and other mainstream news organizations have reported how lobbyists
are seeking to make sure the businesses they represent get their share of
the pork.  Can you provide evidence that the folks who build the airplanes,
bombs, missiles, uniforms, etc. ad nauseum are donating them free of charge
to the U.S. armed forces? Of course not,  it's well documented that they
sell these supplies to the government at a generous profit. When it becomes
unprofitable, I'm confident that the corporate interests that control Bush
and Congress will put pressure on them to stop the war.

Malign:
"Do you believe that the "corporate media" is monolithic in action and
opinion?  In editorial lockstep?  The Times and Wall Street Journal,
for
instance?  Can you show specific evidence of compliance?"

Evidence:  Yes, the agreement by major U.S. television broadcasters to
submit to the Bush Administration demand re broadcasting of statements from
bin Laden and co.  (see below)

No I don't believe the corporate media are monolithic.  They tend to
reflect the ideology of their shareholders and sponsors, and the mainstream
media reflect the ideology of the mainstream. But it remains a mixed bag
nonetheless, complex and nuanced. Every day, for example, the Times
contains stories that only serve to regurgitate government propaganda as
well as stories that pick up bits and pieces of the broader story.


Malign:
"that the current situation and
the
people involved, in their motives and actions, are analogous to those
of
thirty years ago; that this is somehow evidence of what Pynchon would
think
of the current situation.  All speculation, no?"

No.  You can indeed trace a line of direct political and ideological
descent from the folks who planned and executed the Vietnam War to the
people who are planning and executing the current war.  Many of the same
corporations will reap profits again in the current situation -- weapon
systems manufacturers and other suppliers to the various military forces,
IBM, the oil companies (albeit consolidated a bit over the past
generation), etc. The analogy holds in these two significant respects, and
many other points of similarity could be presented.



MEDIA ADVISORY:
Networks Accept Government "Guidance"

October 12, 2001

On October 10, television network executives from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN
held a conference call with national security adviser Condoleeza Rice, and
apparently acceded to her "suggestion" that any future taped statements from
Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda group be "abridged," and any potentially
"inflammatory" language removed before broadcast.

The question of how to present the words of bin Laden or representatives of
Al Qaeda is certainly a valid one for journalists to consider. The
statements require context and explanation of the kind journalists should
use to bracket the remarks of any party in a major news story.  But it is
inappropriate for the government to dictate to journalists how to report the
news. In the context of recent heavy-handedness on the part of the
administration (including White House spokesman Ari Fleischer's ominous
remark that Americans "need to watch what they say"), Rice's request
suggests that the White House is actually asking for something other than
simple journalistic judgement.

Originally the administration expressed concern about the possibility of Al
Qaeda members sending "coded messages" to their followers in the segments.
But Rice's main argument to the networks seems to have been that bin Laden's
statements must be restricted because of their content.  NBC News chief Neal
Shapiro told the New York Times that Rice's main point "was that here was a
charismatic speaker who could arouse anti-American sentiment getting 20
minutes of air time to spew hatred and urge his followers to kill
Americans."

Although presented as only a call for caution, there's a danger that the
White House conference call may make broadcasters think twice about airing
any footage of bin Laden at all.

The following day, Fleischer took the administration's campaign further and
contacted major newspapers to request that they consider not printing full
transcripts of bin Laden's messages. "The request is to report the news to
the American people," said Fleischer. "But if you report it in its entirety,
that could raise concerns that he's getting his prepackaged, pretaped
message out" (New York Times, 10/12/01).

To its credit, the Times has apparently resisted such requests, but some
media executives seem to actually appreciate the White House pressure.
"We'll do whatever is our patriotic duty,'' said News Corp executive Rupert
Murdoch (Reuters, 10/11/01).  In an official statement, CNN declared: "In
deciding what to air, CNN will consider guidance from appropriate
authorities'' (Associated Press, 10/10/01). CNN chief Walter Isaacson added,
"After hearing Dr. Rice, we're not going to step on the land mines she was
talking about" (New York Times, 10/11/01).

The point is not that bin Laden or Al Qaeda deserve "equal time" on U.S.
news broadcasts, but that it is troubling for government to shape or
influence news content. Withholding information from the public is hardly
patriotic. When the White House insists that it's dangerous to report a news
event "in its entirety," alarm bells should go off for journalists and the
American public alike.



                                  FAIR
                             (212) 633-6700
                          http://www.fair.org/
                          E-mail: fair at fair.org