Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Truth Is The Enemy In The U.S.

The Internet is our last, best hope.



Can Truth Retain Its Independence?


By Paul Craig Roberts

30/05/08 "ICH' -- - J
ustin Raimondo has a good column this morning on Antiwar.com. It is written as a fundraiser. But what it shows is that journalists (and whistle-blowers) who tell the truth in America are more likely to be pummeled than rewarded, whereas those who lie for powerful interest groups live high on the hog.


It wasn’t just Bush, Cheney, and the neoconservatives who deceived us into an illegal war in behalf of a hidden agenda. It was the American media. Raimondo names some of the culprits who are complicit in the deaths of some one million Iraqis, an unknown number of Afghans, and thousands of American soldiers.


It was all for a lie. A lie told by the President of the United States and his handmaidens in the media.


Two of the worst handmaidens, Billy Kristol and Thomas Friedman, have been rewarded for their treachery to America by the New York Times, which pays these men, who have never been right about anything, to pontificate from columns on its pages. Others, such as Peter Beinart, are installed at the Washington Post and other publications.


The benefit of being a name columnist at a name newspaper is that it puts you on the lucrative speaking circuit. Raimondo reports, for example, that Friedman is paid $65,000 for a speech.


Such extravagant fees are not paid for words of wisdom. They are paid by interest groups for service. Even if Friedman had anything intelligent to say, it is unnecessary to pay him $65,000 to repeat what he writes in the New York Times.


The same interest groups that control the government offer the most extravagant fees on the speaking circuit. Global corporations that are driving up their stock prices and management bonuses by moving American jobs offshore reward journalists who write propaganda about the benefits of globalism. The military-security complex rewards journalists that feed hysteria about terrorism and foreign threats.


There are far better columnists available than Friedman and Kristol. There’s Raimondo himself. There’s Alexander Cockburn, Jeffrey St. Clair, Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, to name just a few. If the print media had columnists of intelligence and integrity explaining events, instead of propagandists for government and interest groups, the United States would not have wasted eight years (so far) in pointless, illegal, and immoral wars of aggression that have been financed by foreign loans, thus sapping the strength of the dollar and American power.


In America, money, not truth, has the power. If the New York Times had Cockburn instead of Friedman and the Washington Post had Raimondo instead of Beinart, the newspapers would lose advertising revenues and connections with the power brokers.


The same problem exists outside the media. Studies produced by think tanks and university professors serve the causes of those who finance them. Does anyone think we will ever see a study from the American Enterprise Institute, for example, that is critical of Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians, the military-industrial complex, or the offshoring of American jobs? With rare exceptions, think tanks serve the interests of donors.


Even in universities there is not much of the academic freedom that we hear so much about. The Israel Lobby was able to reach into an American Catholic university and deny tenure to a fine scholar, Norman Finkelstein, who refused to obey the rule against truthfully examining Israeli policy and behavior.


Try to find an academic economist who will describe the devastation that offshoring has brought to the American economy and the economic prospects of US labor.


Try to find an academic physicist who will express in public his doubts about the official explanation for the collapse of the three World Trade buildings. An academic career in physics is almost totally dependent on government research grants. By bringing federal funding to education, liberals handed government the power to control. One physicist who expressed his doubts about the collapse of the twin towers, Steven Jones, was terminated by BYU at the insistence of the federal government, which held the power of the purse over the university’s head.


The same constraint on truth exists everywhere. I once asked the proprietor of a distinguished engineering firm why he didn’t publicly express his doubts about the World Trade Center buildings. He said it would be the end of his business, that he would be denounced as an anti-American and demonized as a terrorist sympathizer. The fact that he would be an expert giving an expert opinion would carry no weight.


The same resistance to truth is found in scholarship where enormous vested interests are entrenched. Taking on these vested interests is most often a career-ending event.


Even when the US had an independent press with independent points of view, hysteria could sweep the country in wrong-headed directions. Today it is easier than ever.


Even when research and scholarship were dependent on philanthropic foundations that supported independent views, academic fraud was not uncommon. Today many academics are bought and paid for.


When government and special interests finance education and research, and the media is concentrated in a few large corporations dependent on government broadcast licenses, there is not much room left for truth.


Consequently, today we have the Internet and a new generation of documentary film makers who, together, provide the information, opinions and research that the media, the universities, and the think tanks cannot provide. These sources are our last best hope.


Scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi said that truth required people to believe in it as a force independent of material interests and intellectual dogmas and to relentlessly seek it. Truth is a belief system, he said, and if we cease to believe in it, it will disappear.


Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was associate editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and contributing editor of National Review. He is author or co-author of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon chair in political economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and senior research fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholarly journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell.



(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. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

NYT: Someone Please Help Us Not Be Complicit in Another War!

Sounds like the Old Gray Lady needs help. We should lend a hand.

Write letters to the editor calling them on every last one of these type idiotic reportings and reminding them of the lives lost because of the last time they reported junk news

As someone who's been in newspapers for more than a quarter-century, the hardest thing for me to explain to non-journalists is the so-called "Chinese wall" between news reporters and the editorial page. That's understandable -- most normal businesses don't have key departments under orders not to work together. But having said that, the New York Times has an editorial on the key issue of a possible war with Iran that takes this separation to a new and kind of ridiculous level.

Otherwise preoccupied, I haven't been able to write much this week about what I see as the biggest outrage in journalism in the last four years, and that is the stunning willingness of major news orgs like the New York Times and Washington Post -- having apparently learned nothing when they were fooled by the Bush White House on the reasons for invading Iraq -- to let the same folks get away with the same tricks to foment a much more dangerous conflict with Iran.
In fact, the same reporters are falling for it -- specifically Michael Gordon of the New York Times.

As Editor and Publisher reported this weekend:

Saturday’s New York Times features an article, posted at the top of its Web site late Friday, that suggests very strongly that Iran is supplying the “deadliest weapon aimed at American troops” in Iraq. The author notes, “Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile.”

What is the source of this volatile information? Nothing less than “civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies.”

Sound pretty convincing? Well, almost all the sources in the story are unnamed. It also may be worth noting that the author is Michael R. Gordon, the same Times reporter who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.

It got worse. The Washington Post picked on the same thinly sourced story the next day, and a large group of reporters then willingly took place in a bizarre "off-the-record" briefing by three military and military-intelligence officials, in Baghdad the next day. The news orgs were happy to grant anonymity to these military officials, even though one of them (Gen. William Caldwell, as later reported) meets with journalists on-the-record all the time. The officials were given a free pass to use the exact same tactics that spread so much misinformation about Iraq four years earlier.

The officials today in Baghdad who blamed Iran for killing Americans said they decided to speak "on the condition of anonymity so the trio's explosives expert and analyst who would normally not speak to reporters could provide more information. The analyst's exact job description was not revealed to reporters. Reporters' cell phones were taken before the briefing, and the officials did not allow reporters to record or videotape the proceedings....

Freedom of the press also means freedom of thought. There is nothing that would have prevented the news orgs from boycotting the Baghdad event -- it would have been the reasonable and responsible thing to do, given the track record of the sources.

They also would have had the freedom to report the event, but with the type of skepticism voiced by the UK's Independent:

The allegations by senior but unnamed US officials in Baghdad and Washington are bizarre. The US has been fighting a Sunni insurgency in Iraq since 2003 that is deeply hostile to Iran.
This morning, another voice weighed in that was critical of the reporting that began Saturday on the front page of the New York Times. It was, you guessed it by now, the editorial page of the New York Times.

Its editorial said in part:

Consider last weekend’s supersecret briefing in Baghdad by a group of American military officials whose names could not be revealed to the voters who are paying for this war with their taxes and their children’s blood. The briefers tried to prove the White House’s case that Iran is shipping deadly weapons, including armor-piercing explosives, to Shiite militias in Iraq.
Unlike Colin Powell’s infamous prewar presentation on Iraq at the United Nations, this briefing had actual weapons to look at. And perhaps in time, the administration will be able to prove conclusively that the weapons came from arms factories in Iran.

But the officials offered no evidence to support their charge that “the highest levels of the Iranian government” had authorized smuggling these weapons into Iraq for use against American forces. Nor could they adequately explain why they had been sitting on this urgent evidence since 2004. The only thing that was not surprising was the refusal of any of the briefers to allow their names to be published. Mr. Powell is probably wondering why he didn’t insist on the same deal.

The tone of high outrage is understandable on one hand (it is right, after all) but on the other hand comes off as more than a little hypocritical. It was none other than the top editors on the news side of the New York Times -- not mentioned or criticized here, of course -- who had the power to at least slow down this charade before it got started, by spiking Michael Gordon's unsourced story in the first place.

In fact, as Raw Story pointed out, the Michael Gordon story appears to violate the paper's anonymous source policy that was adopted in the wake of the Iraq coverage fiasco:
According to the confidential news sources policy, the New York Times has "long observed the principle of identifying our sources by name and title or, when that is not possible, explaining why we consider them authoritative, why they are speaking to us and why they have demanded confidentiality."

The story on Saturday contained no such explanation. And for the Times to run that article and then complain three days later about this crusade by anonymous officials is the height of institutional hypocrisy. A newspaper can take responsibility for its actions, the same way that a person can.

If someone had a problem like alcoholism, should they go out, two days after a bender, and write an essay on the perils of demon rum? Or should they step up to the plate, and pledge to stop drinking altogether.

I'd like to see the unfortunate events of the last few days serve as a kind of a wake-up call. People in the media -- even those who nomally compete -- need to talk to each other, and develop some industrywide standards and channels of communications, to make sure that this type of shameful media manipulation by the Bush administration doesn't work again.
There's an old saying in the newspaper business, or at least in Texas, that goes, fool me once, shame on you...uh....we won't get fooled again.

Seriously people, don't get fooled again.

It's not just your reputation.

It's a matter of life and death.

(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. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.