AIM Report: Times Risks American Blood in Terror War - October A
AIM Report | October 4, 2006
From our vantage point, the “Death Becomes Bush” headline is another reason to keep Al-Jazeera International out of the U.S.
TIMES RISKS AMERICAN BLOOD IN TERROR WAR
The September 18 copy of New York magazine features the blaring headline, "Times Under Siege," and the reported claim by President Bush that the paper's editor would have "blood on his hands" if he published a story about electronic surveillance of terrorist telephone calls. If this is true, the Bush Administration has an obligation to prosecute the Times for revealing classified communications intelligence information.
If this story by Joe Hagan is to be believed, Times editor Bill Keller and his publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., thought they might be facing jail time for refusing to go along with White House suggestions to forgo publishing a story about a secret NSA terrorist-surveillance program. At this point, that seems unlikely. Although a grand jury is reportedly looking at the sources for the story by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, the reporters themselves and their editor and publisher seem to be off the hook. That's a shame.
After the NSA story, Hagan says Keller decided to become even "more aggressive" toward the administration. His sidekick, Jill Abramson, is herself an "aggressive editor" who wants reporters to "go kill for us."
Considering the "blood on his hands" comment, that may happen. Rather, the Times may encourage terrorists to go kill even more people, producing what one recent study on media coverage of terrorism called "blood for ink." The Times, of course, will cover the story—that is, if the paper survives the next terrorist attack on New York City.
Meanwhile, the official Al-Jazeera website has targeted President Bush himself by running a story about a movie depicting his assassination under the headline, "Death Becomes Bush." The story began: "It certainly will not cheer the man himself, but a new film depicting the assassination of George Bush is already proving to be successful." It noted the American rights to this British film, "Death of a President," had been sold.
An objective observer would have to conclude that the headline was a not-so-hidden effort to agree with the assassination of Bush depicted in the movie. That would not be out-of-character for Al-Jazeera, a mouthpiece for anti-American al-Qaeda terrorists.
From our vantage point, the "Death Becomes Bush" headline is another reason to keep Al-Jazeera International out of the U.S.
The Bush snuff film is being aired in Britain by the More4 channel, which is carried by Sky Digital. More than a third of the equity of Sky is owned by News Corporation, the parent company of the Fox News Channel, which has also agreed to air Al-Jazeera International in Britain. At the News Corporation annual meeting in New York City on October 20, Accuracy in Media intends to ask chairman Rupert Murdoch about this.
MEDIA DISTORT BUSH ECONOMIC RECORD
The record is clear: the economy is strong and getting stronger, as gasoline prices have recently been coming down. There have been four years of robust economic growth. But this is a record that has gotten the Bush Administration in trouble. Why?
The problem is the perception of what's going on, courtesy of the major media. Even though the latest numbers show unemployment at only 4.7 percent, average hourly earnings up, and an inflation rate of only 3.8 percent, a September Wall Street Journal poll finds 57 percent of the people somewhat or very dissatisfied with the economy.
The scholarly book, Economic Turbulence: Is a Volatile Economy Good for America?, strongly suggests that the major media are focusing on "losers" in the economic situation rather than "winners," and that stories about lost jobs obscures how the economy has become more flexible and a benefit to most workers.
The book begins by taking issue with CNN's Lou Dobbs, who captured the "national angst" about the economy in his book, Exporting America. Dobbs, however, failed to capture the dynamism of the U.S. economy, and the fact that while jobs are lost, new ones are created.
Looking at the Washington, D.C. area, the book notes how, in May 2005, Giant Food shut down its headquarters in Maryland and laid off 500 workers. The news was full of stories about "the demise of good middle-class jobs and how the local economy would be hurt," it notes. But almost unnoticed, at the same time, was the announcement that a new firm, MOM (My Organic Market), was opening a new store in western Maryland.
The book said this is typical of how the media handle economic news. The bad is emphasized while the good is practically ignored. The "nature of the news industry," it notes, "is to report on visible and traumatic events, which tend to be job losses, worker layoffs, and plant closings." On the other hand, job creation, which can be a slow process, is not news.
Definition Of "News"
Getting to the nub of the issue, the book makes the point that "People see workers getting fired, and jobs being lost as firms shut down because that makes news." (emphasis added).
A "popular perception," the book says, is that good jobs are disappearing. And yet the data assembled by the book's authors, Clair Brown, John Haltiwanger, and Julia Lane, suggest that many laid-off workers "are able to continually improve their career paths by finding better job opportunities with another firm."
Yet the idea that good jobs are disappearing—the so-called "giant sucking sound" described by Ross Perot—has become "a theme of newspaper and magazine articles…" It cites a series of such articles in the Washington Post.
The book analyzes five major industries—retail food, trucking, financial services, software and semiconductors—and concludes that each of them "has more jobs for all workers than a decade ago, and these jobs tend to be higher skilled and higher paying." However, in terms of the media, job destruction and job loss "are much more visible than job gains and worker hires…" That kind of coverage produces the economic depression we see in the public opinion surveys.
Government Policy
Looking at the government approach, the book says that intervention in the economy should be restricted to providing workers with skills and information that facilitates adapting to the ongoing changes in the economy. The alternative is the socialist approach of stifling change and mobility in the economy in the name of saving workers from economic changes and turbulence. That approach, the book suggests, will not be successful over the long run and will undermine a vibrant and dynamic economy that benefits the nation as a whole.
ANTI-BUSH CONSPIRACY TALE FIZZLES OUT
By Roger Aronoff
The shouting is now over: the CIA-leak story, better known as Plamegate, was a big dud. Evan Thomas of Newsweek calls it a "big zero." Those who promoted the story, such as Chris Matthews of MSNBC, Tim Russert of NBC News, and Frank Rich of the New York Times, have egg all over their faces. But don't look for any apologies.
With the confirmation that deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage was the primary source for Bob Novak's July 14, 2003 column identifying Joe Wilson's wife as a CIA employee, the allegations of a White House conspiracy against Wilson have collapsed. For more than two years, the liberal media relentlessly hyped the story, thinking they would find that Karl Rove was behind it all. Instead, it turns out he was a secondary source for Novak, and that he merely confirmed in an off-handed manner that Wilson's wife Valerie Plame had been behind Wilson's CIA trip to Africa to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had been seeking uranium "yellowcake" there.
The confirmation of Armitage's role came in a book, Hubris, by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and The Nation magazine's David Corn. They, the editorial board of the New York Times, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, and others in the mainstream media now seem prepared to accept the idea that the original leak in the case came from Armitage, who served under Colin Powell at State, and who was not part of the Bush-Cheney inner circle nor a supporter of the Iraq War. But they still want to hold on to the notion that this by no means cleared Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, or Bush himself of orchestrating a campaign to discredit Wilson for having attempted to undermine one of the reasons Bush gave for going to war against Iraq. Libby, of course, was the only person indicted in the case. He is accused of lying because of conflicting accounts of what he said to Tim Russert and other media figures about Plame.
Hall Of Shame
Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, who parceled out the real blame in an editorial entitled "The Plamegate Hall of Shame," named Armitage, Powell, and the John Ashcroft Justice Department for knowing from the start who was responsible for the leak of Plame's name, but not bringing it to the attention of the White House and saving the country from the two-and-a-half year investigation by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is on Barnes' list, too, because he knew from the start, but proceeded with an investigation that is still continuing.
Barnes' list, of course, also includes Wilson himself, who Barnes calls "a fraud." Referring to the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Barnes noted that they found "that nearly everything Wilson wrote or said about Bush, Cheney, Iraq, and his own trip to Africa was untrue."
Ironically, the Washington Post, which Barnes singles out along with the New York Times for relying on Wilson's charges "to wage journalistic jihad against the White House and Bush political adviser Karl Rove," acknowledged early on that the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee strongly undermined Wilson's main contentions.
While the Post may have lapsed, following that article, into waging "journalistic jihad," it has redeemed itself since Armitage's role has been confirmed. First, it ran an editorial on September 1 acknowledging that "one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House—that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson—is untrue."
The Real Culprit
While it said the White House was not blameless, and that it had carelessly handled classified information, the paper said that "it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming—falsely, as it turned out—that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials." They concluded that "It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."
Since then, the dean of all political columnists, David Broder, has made a similar case. He wrote a column suggesting that left-wing journalists Sidney Blumenthal and Joe Conason, and several publications, including Newsweek, Salon and American Prospect, owe Rove an apology.
On September 14, Novak further clarified in a column what had happened with Armitage, whom he had continued to protect as a source until Armitage confirmed his role as the original leaker in an interview with CBS News. Armitage, he said, wasn't telling the whole story. It had not been "idle chit-chat" but clear and deliberate conversation, even telling Novak the CIA division for which Mrs. Wilson worked, that she had "recommended" her husband for the mission, and that "he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson's role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column."
According to Novak, "they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he and not Karl Rove was the leaker was devastating news for the left." He ended by criticizing Armitage for not having come clean between October of 2003, when talk of an investigation heated up, and December 30 of that year when Fitzgerald was appointed as Special Counsel. "Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted," wrote Novak, "because it is deceptive."
Disappointing Ending
Veteran journalist Daniel Schorr, who recently turned 90, expressed how many of the administration critics feel about this latest turn of events. When asked by Scott Simon on National Public Radio's Weekend Edition about the news that Armitage turned out to be the source of the leak, Schorr responded that the reaction was "Very disappointing. This was supposed to be a big scandal involving neo-cons in the Bush administration and how they were out to get Valerie Plame. But now we have a former deputy secretary of state under Colin Powell not known to be [a] neo-con and so on, and says it was just in the course of gossip with Bob Novak that he mentioned it with no purpose in mind at all. That really was disappointing."
Of course, that is the way Armitage wants people to see it. The trouble for him is that he has now been sued by lawyers for the Wilsons, who have concluded that he was part of the alleged conspiracy, too.
For his part, Novak says he would like to see Libby pardoned by Bush. Such a move, however, would be sure to gin up the left-wing conspiracy theories once again.
AL-JAZEERA "SCHOLAR" ATTACKS POPE
Stories about the controversy over the Pope's remarks on Islam featured the views of Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi, who has a regular show on the Al-Jazeera television network. Demanding a personal apology from the Pope, Qaradawi declared on Al-Jazeera that "Muslims have the right to be angry and hurt by these comments from the highest cleric in Christianity." Yet, Qaradawi, a supporter or violent Jihad, is living proof of what the Pope was warning about.
Tracy Wilkinson of the Los Angeles Times said that Qaradawi's broadcasts on the Arabic TV network, which now wants to expand into the U.S. through an English-language affiliate called Al-Jazeera International, make him "one of Islam's most influential scholars." Such is the power of Al-Jazeera. And the power now reaches into the U.S. media.
The Pope, whose "offensive" comments consisted of quoting an historical observation from the 14th century about Islam's violent nature, has now said that he is "deeply sorry" over the reaction to what he said. It's the reaction, including violent protests, bombs at Christian churches, the murder of a Catholic Nun in Somalia, and other threats against Christians, including the Pope himself, that deserves condemnation.
USA Today described Qaradawi as a "prominent Muslim scholar" who asserts that Islam is a religion of peace and reason.
Yet Qaradawi has declared, "There is no dialogue between us and the Jews except by the sword and the rifle." While he is said to have condemned the 9/11 attacks, he supports Palestinian suicide bombings and even specifically authorizes using women to carry them out.
In view of such statements, it is significant that Al-Jazeera has made Qaradawi into someone worth quoting in the Western press. His undeserved elevation in such matters makes a mockery of the claim that the American media are "pro-Israel."
Why has the coverage been so obsequious when it doesn't take much effort to dig out the truth about him? With their memories fresh of the violent Muslim reaction to a few papers printing the controversial Mohammad cartoons, it would appear that our media are afraid of telling the truth. They will take on President Bush and Karl Rove but not Islamic radicals.
They know that simply drawing attention to the historical record can generate death threats—or perhaps even death itself. We all remember what happened to Theo Van Gogh, the director of a film critical of the treatment of women under Islam. He was murdered in cold blood in the streets of the Netherlands by an Islamic fanatic.
Qaradawi's emergence as an international spokesman for Islam, despite his history of violent utterances, stems from his association with Al-Jazeera, the Arab channel infiltrated by and a vehicle for al Qaeda. The Middle East Quarterly reports that Qaradawi "was forced from Egypt for his views, and he lives in Qatar, where he has become a media star by virtue of his immensely popular television show on Al-Jazeera television."
That's the same Qatar that is supposed to be a pro-U.S. "friendly" Arab government. The truth is that it is an Arab dictatorial regime which had links to al Qaeda before 9/11 and has a current seat on the U.N. Security Council that it used to vote against requiring Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Qatar is also the base of operations and major underwriter of Al-Jazeera and Al-Jazeera International.
All of this should matter not only because Qaradawi has falsely surfaced in the American press as a peaceful and reasonable critic of the Pope, but because Al-Jazeera International is putting on a major public relations campaign designed to garner carriage on U.S. cable and satellite systems.
We are being told by former CNN journalist Riz Khan and others associated with Al-Jazeera International that they will be objective and independent. But evidence of connections to the Arabic Al-Jazeera keeps surfacing.
It turns out that an Internet firm called iHorizons has been hired to create and launch Al-Jazeera International's new website. The company created AlJazeera.net, the official website of the Arabic TV channel, and is also behind Qaradawi.net, the website for the "moderate" scholar who has become so popular with the U.S. media.
What You Can Do
Send the enclosed cards or cards and letters of your own choosing to Mark Jurkowitz of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Frank Rich of the New York Times, and Joe Scarborough of MSNBC.
CLIFF'S NOTES
by Cliff Kincaid
DEAR FELLOW MEDIA WATCHDOG: September 19, 2006
I WANT TO ASSURE ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE GENEROUSLY RESPONDED with donations to our anti-Al-Jazeera campaign that we are examining every possible option to stop the entry of this channel into the U.S. media market. Without going into detail at this time, let me just say that it is inconceivable that a foreign regime such as the one in the Middle Eastern country of Qatar could start a foreign "news" channel in the U.S. without there being a thorough investigation of this matter. We are going to insist on this channel being closely examined. If the government won't do it, because of fear, incompetence, or business reasons, we will do so. We will not give up.
IN THIS CONTEXT, I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT LIBERALS IN CONGRESS THREATENED government action against ABC over running its "The Path to 9/11" miniseries, which aired on the nights of September 10 and 11. But "The Path to 9/11" was not in any sense a threat to the American people like Al-Jazeera International is. The ABC miniseries was deemed to be an unflattering portrait of former President Clinton and his administration's handling of the terrorism problem. In a letter to Robert Iger, president and CEO of the Walt Disney Company, the parent of ABC, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Charles Schumer, and Senator Byron Dorgan demanded changes in the film, saying, "The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle (sic) obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events." The message was unmistakable: change the film to please us or face legal and congressional consequences.
SUCH A RESPONSE CONFIRMS THE THRUST OF OUR SEPTEMBER-A AIM REPORT ON THE liberal authoritarian mindset. If they get power in any branch of government, they will use it to force their own unpopular views on the American people. They oppose the free flow of information and the marketplace of ideas. But the launch of a foreign-funded television channel, during a time of war, is something else entirely. Giving our enemies access to our airwaves would be an act of national suicide. It's no surprise that an Islamic preacher by the name of Qaradawi with a show on Al-Jazeera has been among the leading critics of the Pope for simply mentioning Islam's violent past. As we point out in our article, Qaradawi is living proof of what the Pope was talking about. The problem of Islamic violence is with us today, and is not just something to be studied in the history books. Al-Jazeera is a big part of the problem we face now. We can't forget it, even if the media want to avoid the truth. It is outrageous and ominous that the Al-Jazeera website ran a story with a headline suggesting the world would be better with President Bush dead.
MARK JURKOWITZ OF THE PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM RECENTLY CON-ducted an interview with Lindsey Oliver, the commercial director of Al-Jazeera International. Asked about the new channel's connection to the Arabic Al-Jazeera, she acknowledged it, saying, "And frankly we're very proud of our heritage." But she also denied that it is an outlet for "anti-American sentiment or propaganda." We have asked Jurkowitz to give us a chance to respond. Perhaps you can encourage him. Please send him one of the enclosed postcards.
IN CONNECTION WITH OUR SECOND ARTICLE, NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST FRANK RICH, who is now hawking a book bashing the Bush Administration, has a secret. He was one of those gullible media figures who bought into the phony conspiracy theory that the White House was out to destroy "whistle-blower" Joe Wilson. In a series of fanciful columns in 2005, Rich repeatedly accused the White House of trying to destroy Joe Wilson and his wife. Rich saw a sinister group of "neo-con zealots" active in the highest reaches of the Bush Administration, some of whom were determined in a systematic way to smear, trash, or take down Wilson. When you review these amazing columns, in light of what has been established as fact in the case, you quickly realize that Rich made things up in order to put the worst possible interpretation on what turned out to be largely insignificant White House involvement in the story. That is why the title of his new book, The Greatest Story Ever Sold, should apply to his own columns. He has far more of a credibility problem than anyone he attacked in print. Please drop him the enclosed postcard about this matter.
THE MSNBC CABLE CHANNEL, WHICH HYPED THE JOE WILSON "SCANDAL," HAS MOVED SO far to the left that program host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, did a show on whether President Bush is an idiot. His liberal bosses must have liked it. Under NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker, one of those bosses, MSNBC has been steadily moving left, with a highly reliable source telling AIM that Scarborough is desperate to appease Zucker and hold on to his job. Conservative views are being discouraged on the air. Scarborough even wrote a piece on the left-wing Huffingtonpost website, saying, "The biggest knock on Bush's brain is his lack of intellectual curiosity. Former administration officials still close to the White House will tell you Mr. Bush detests dissent, embraces a narrow world view and is intellectually incurious." On September 14, I went to Scarborough's MSNBC-TV blog, where he is supposed to talk about the issues that matter to the regular Joe. The day's topic: Tom Cruise. This didn't strike me as intellectually stimulating. Please send him the enclosed postcard about this.
WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS COMING UP, YOU MAY FIND IT INTERESTING THAT Pennsylvania Senate candidate Bob Casey has been endorsed by Moveon.org, the group that got its name from the notion that the nation should dispense with the idea of impeaching President Clinton. But Casey was also endorsed and got money from Citizens for Global Solutions, the new name of the pro-world-government World Federalist Association. This group favors global taxes and a standing U.N. Army. Now, however, in a major controversy ignored by the Democrat-leaning national news media, Casey has given the money back. This part of the story was broken by Dimitri Vassilaros, an editorial page columnist for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, who noted that "Shortly after a Trib editorial challenged Mr. Casey to be forthcoming about a $5,000 donation from the ultra-leftist Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), Casey's campaign returned the money." The group is still endorsing him, however. AIM had exposed the world government PAC contribution to Casey in one of my columns which also noted that the group's political action committee director is an Israel-basher who calls President Bush a fascist. We noted that there are more than 30 candidates or members of Congress, the vast majority of them Democrats, who have accepted tainted money from this group, which is dedicated to the destruction of American sovereignty. That's why AIM exists—to uncover and expose the stories that the media would like to remain hidden. Your support is needed so that we can continue to watch the watchdogs.
For Accuracy in Media,
Cliff Kincaid
Editor
0 Comments | Post a Comment
