Konopak submits an article by Norman Solomon:
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:47:36 EST
> >
> > Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:22:28 -0800 (PST)
> >
> > BUILDING A MEDIA AGENDA FOR WAR
> >
> > By Norman Solomon <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >       WASHINGTON -- Listen up, future leaders of America. If you want to
> > develop the necessary skills for promoting a war agenda in our country's
> > news media, recent events are instructive.
> >
> >       Going to war is not simply a matter of ordering soldiers to fire
> > missiles and drop bombs. There's a lot more involved. The public must be
> > induced to accept and even cheer the bloodshed. That requires some careful
> > preparation.

I don't know about "cheering" the bloodshed.  Americans don't need to
be induced to do that.  They grow up being indoctrinated with that
idea by sports and movies.  But what is wrong with saying "convinced"
instead of "induced to accept"?  I assume Mr Solomon would object if
NATO, or the US, just went into this war without telling anyone and
explaining the purpose and the goal.  I'm not satisfied with the
explanation either, and I am *not* convinced, but I certainly expect
the government to explain its actions.

> >       Consider the steps taken by our leaders before missiles began to
> > explode in Yugoslavia on March 24. Prior groundwork was needed. Top U.S.
> > officials deserve a lot of credit -- but they couldn't have gotten the job
> > done without assists from reporters in Washington and their colleagues
> > overseas.

Is Mr Solomon saying the reporters should not have reported what the
government said?  It certainly sounds like it.  At some point, the
decision was taken to go to war.  The decision was taken by NATO.  If
to you that means it was taken by the US, then you will have to
explain why the other members of NATO are participating.  Once that
decision was taken, of course it had to be reported and explained.
The way that is done is by reporting the information to the media who
then report it to the public.

> >       Oh yes, there were exceptions -- some skeptical journalists raised
> > pointed questions about the harm done by launching a military assault on
> > Yugoslavia -- but they mostly served to underscore that dissent can be
> > properly subsumed by a war agenda.

What does he mean by "some skeptical journalist"?  Everybody knows
that a military assault will cause death.  What kind of a journalist
doesn't know that but is only skeptical about it?  There aren't any.
What does skepticism have to do with dissent?  A dissenting opinion
isn't a skeptical one.  On this point, dissent means objecting on the
grounds that you know there will be casualties, not that you think
there might be.
>
> >       Anyone who wants to wield the national-security apparatus of this
> > great nation must learn to steer the mass media in the right direction.
> > It's a matter of sustained guidance rather than turning on a dime.

This isn't even remarkable anymore.  Honest and thorough reporting is
what is required of the government and of the media.  If we don't have
it, the fault is ours.  Members of government and reporters must be
responsible for communicating honestly.  Members of the public must be
responsible for insisting on it, and we must then read and understand
the reports and give feedback.

> >       Let's face it: The world is filled with countries run by
> > governments that abuse human rights. (Yugoslavia is one of many.) But the
> > USA has to be very selective. After all, a lot of those governments are
> > closely allied with Washington. And you can't exactly bomb a government
> > while you're sending it millions of dollars every week!
> >
> >       An evenhanded approach to human rights would seriously damage the
> > capacity of the United States to launch attacks across the globe. If
> > you're going to demonize certain leaders -- and that's just about a
> > prerequisite for building a war agenda -- then you've got to pick and
> > choose.

Instead of ensuring the separation of church and state, the
constitution should ensure the separation of capitalism and human
rights.  Human rights should always come first.  But this is a
fundamental change.  It requires changing the constitution.

> >       To create the proper conditions for war, leave as little to chance
> > as possible. Certain criteria must be met in order to exercise appropriate
> > leadership for war:
> >
> >       * If you're going to bomb a country, it may as well be one that
> > arrogantly refuses to allow U.S. troops to be stationed on its soil.
> > (European countries are wonderfully hospitable in this regard, but
> > Yugoslavia is a notable exception.)

If Yugoslavia had agreed to the presence of NATO troops, there
wouldn't have been any bombing.  Why should thay have agreed to the
presence of NATO troops?  Because NATO insisted.  Why did NATO insist?
Because that's what NATO is there for.  Why didn't Yugoslavia agree to
the presence of NATO troops?  Because then they couldn't have done
what they are doing now, and because they don't think NATO will send
in ground troops after the bombing.

> >       * Steadily vilify the leader of the country you're interested in
> > bombing.  Repeatedly emphasize his evil deeds so that reporters, editorial
> > writers and pundits will relay the message.

Is Mr Solomon saying the reported evil deeds are lies?  If they are
not lies, should they only be reported alongside the good things he
has done?  Maybe he was an abused child and this should mitigate five
evil deeds.

> >       * Meanwhile, to avoid distractions, be careful to downplay or
> > ignore the evil deeds of the governments of countries you're not
> > interested in bombing.  If a regime is allied with Washington, you'll want
> > to ignore its human rights violations as much as possible.

Another constitutional change is required:  The separation of
alliances and human rights.  Human rights should always come first.

> >       * Don't even think about applying a single standard for human
> > rights. The Pentagon would sure look silly firing cruise missiles at
> > countries that receive massive amounts of U.S. aid, such as Egypt, Israel
> > and Turkey. Get it straight: Some torture is deplorable, some is
> fundable.

None of it is fundable.  Neither is it required that the US have an
impeccable track record before it can act.  The track record is
appalling.  Now what do we do?

> >       Most skills must be learned, so don't hesitate to sit at the feet
> > of the masters of war. You can appreciate -- and emulate -- their
> > achievements. The Clinton administration has put its dazzling media acumen
> > behind the NATO forces dropping 2,000-pound bombs on a sovereign nation,
> > in tandem with cooperative American news outlets.

There aren't any sovereign nations because there aren't any
non-sovereign nations.  It doesn't mean anything anymore, if it ever
did, and you can't complain about a bad human rights track record on
the one hand and on the other hand object to violating the
sovereignity of a nation in which human rights are being
systematically violated.

> >       About an hour before the first missiles struck Yugoslavia, viewers
> > heard a Fox News Channel anchor make an understandable slip: "Let's bring
> > in our Pentagon spokesman -- excuse me, our Pentagon correspondent." The
> > fact that it's so often difficult to tell the difference is a triumph for
> > effective perception management.

Whose fault is that?

> >       Soon, all the networks were filled with exciting footage of U.S.
> > planes taking off from bases in Italy and England. And, across television
> > screens, a parade of former military officers began. A retired Marine
> > Corps general named Richard Neal -- now a "CNN military analyst" --
> > bedazzled a fawning anchor with euphemisms like "neutralize," "take out"
> > and "collateral damage." Just what the spin doctors ordered.

I doubt if any of that was even necessary.  But if it was necessary,
then it shows the sorry state of education in the US.

> >       State-of-the-art TV graphics continued to enhance the war-viewing
> > experience for a large nationwide audience of Americans who could see
> > their tax dollars at work -- dramatically underscoring President Clinton's
> > longtime assertion that the government can do some things very well. More
> > than one Pentagon spokesman -- er, Pentagon correspondent -- hailed the
> > "combat debut" of the B-2 stealth bomber.
> >
> >       The war was off to a fine start. The Fourth Estate functioned
> > smoothly as a fourth branch of government. Let that be a lesson to
> > you.

I don't think it is off to a fine start, but it does look like the
military objective of neutralizing the Serb military might succeed to
a high enough degree to then be able to send in a NATO ground force
that can maintain a stable situation in which a political settlement
can be reached.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701