Lynette pointed me to the pages of NEWSROOM - an activist web publication
from NZ.
See Home Page at
http://www.newsroom.co.nz/welcome.htm
This is ONE_MONTH old material. Read it again in light of the bombings.!!
This menu contains a summary of what CHOMSKY said in NZ (you received the
full 3 part transcript a couple of days ago)
==============
NewsRoom - Top Stories
Guilt Free War - The CNN Imperative Takes Over
Saturday, 14 November 1998, 3:39 am
Editorial: Alastair Thompson
NEWSROOM NEWS ANALYSIS/COMMENTARY
As the US media moves into full war cry the latest round of tensions in
the Persian Gulf look set to again become a live action cinema of
violence, anger, racism and hatred.
Andt in the midst of all the news of how many warships and aircraft are
available to pummel Iraq - the reason - Why the US is threatening to bomb
Iraq? - has become completely obscured in a haze of nostalgia.
Professor Noam Chomsky visited Wellington Tuesday. Addressing a conference
on academic freedom (see Tuesday Top Stories Wire for full report) he made
several observations on the US media pertinent to the latest round of
sabre rattling in the Gulf.
In the US, he said, a not-so-subtle system of narrowing the range of
legitimate questions that can be asked binds the media.
On foreign policy for example it was legitimate to ask: Is the US doing a
good job in promoting democracy?
But it was not legitimate, for example, to ask: Has US foreign policy in
the last three months undermined global security? On a quick reading of
any newspaper in the US the phenomena becomes immediately apparent.
A recent example is the issue of whether the Sudanese Pharmaceuticals
factory bombed by the US (in retaliation the bombing of US Embassies in
Africa) was a legitimate target?
In a lengthy investigative piece on the subject, the Wall St Journal in
late October addressed the question from the point of view of asking, how
good was the US intelligence that led to the bombing?
It went on to inquire into the background of the factory's ownership and
owners, seemingly finding little or no evidence of wrongdoing or hard
evidence of a connection to the arms trade. (However this did not allow it
to jump to any subjective conclusions, i.e. that it genuinely was a
pharmaceuticals factory as appears to be the case.)
Except in passing the article did not address the question of whether the
US government had committed an illegal act or war against Sudan at
international law. ( And it is difficult to see how the first strike
bombing of an industrial facility in the capital city of a sovereign
nation without UN authorisation could be anything other.) Nor did the
article question of the morality of the US using its veto rights on the UN
Security Council to prevent an inquiry into its questionable actions.
Rather it focussed - in terms of Chomsky's construct - on asking whether
it was possible the US might have made a - probably rare - mistake in an
aspect of its grand plan to uphold democracy and the rule of the law on
planet earth?
This time Iraq is in the gun. What is the spin? How is the current war cry
in the Middle East being justified?
The answer is simple. It isn't.
The US public do not need an explanation for why the military should want
to bomb Iraq. Everybody in the US knows Saddam Hussein should have had his
head kicked in years ago - 10 years of propaganda have seen to that.
Using the word propaganda in this context is not an attempt to be cute.
Propaganda can be defined as slanted media reports designed to engender
public sympathy for the acts of war of one nation against another.
This is exactly what the current round of reportage - throughout the first
world - on imminent war in the gulf amounts to.
Real concerns about the activities of UNSCOM raised over recent weeks,
notably by the BBC and in UK papers, are not being reported in US papers.
And they probably won't be. In any event they have now been obscured by
the practicalities of kick ass politics.
When it comes to Iraq the US public don't have to be convinced to hate the
Iraqi enemy. They already hate Saddam with a vengeance.
The tragedy is that the distinction between the man Saddam (a monster) and
the nation Iraq (a historic cradle of human civilisation) has disappeared.
So far as the US public are concerned every cruise missile might as well
be targeted personally at Saddam, and certainly at an untrustworthy lyin'
stinkin' Arab.
True the US President has given the explanation that someone has to back
up UNSCOM in its weapons inspections role. A spokesman added that Iraq
could get its weapons projects back underway in three or four weeks if
they wanted to.
However the facts of this matter are far less clear cut than it appears.
The truth is the weapons inspections are substantially complete. Even
Richrd Butler no longer believes Iraq has any missile, chemical weapon or
nuclear weapon technology. The dispute is now essentially over Iraq's
attempts at a biological weapons programme. This could in itself be
serious, however UNSCOM has not seen fit to provide any real information
which would justify coming to such a conclusion.
More significantly however the complaints of Iraq, namely:
1. that it is subject to inspection by an irrational and unaccountable
organisation UNSCOM;
2. that UNSCOM is run by the US, UK and Israel to the exclusion of the
rest of the security council;
3. and that the sanctions policy is unreasonably harsh and oppressive;
all appear to be born out by the facts.
See: INSIDE UNSCOM: The Scott Ritter Tape (2) INSIDE UNSCOM: The Scott
Ritter Tape (1) A Conversation With Richard Butler
[ADDED -I'm posting the Scott Ritter Tape immediately (MP)]
As to the question of whether Iraq will start making weapons of mass
destruction again. Why would it? It would surely know that if it did the
American's would just kick their heads in with a few more "smart" bombs.
And so the US military juggernaut continues to hurtle towards the
precipice. All the while along the way the cheerleaders are becoming ever
more insistent. "BOMB HIM. BOMB HIM. BOMB HIM", the papers scream.
And now the CNN imperative has taken over the media.
The public has become accustomed to seeing the US's magnificent fighting
machines move into position. This is an arm chair sport. War-watchers can
now safely stock the fridge and settle in for some excitement. Counting
the array of weapons, and imagining the enormous firepower they are
capable of delivering is entertaining for the public. The tension of live
coverage of carnage inflicted as America stands up for the rights of the
free world is irresistible.
Under the CNN imperative war has to be short and sharp (so as not to lose
the attention of the fickle TV viewing public).
It has to be technologically explained - with minute detail, a la sports
commentary.
But no moral explanation is necessary - not simply because the reasons are
taken as read - but because war rates, it rates very well and the last
thing any ratings conscious news station wants to do is make its viewers
contemplate their own moral turpitude. That story would just make them
change channel to somewhere they can get bomb-cam without guilt.
Under the CNN imperative the delivery site of the bomb is examined by
camera crews, post bombing. But reports are skeptical at the apparent
carnage. The question asked is not how may people have died? But, what
spin is the enemy's propaganda machine trying to put on our world
liberating bombing action?
Above all, under the CNN imperative, war has to be safe - at least for
those responsible for delivering the "smart" bombs (an expression which
itself must surely be an oxymoron). This is because the weeping relatives
of killed pilots and servicemen tend to take the gloss off the viewing
pleasure.
Roll on chaos. According to the seers mayhem is coming to a screen near
you.
I pray they are wrong.
========
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. **
|
