[Media-watch] FW: Where The Killing Starts

[David Miller]

----------
From: Medialens Media Alerts <noreply at medialens.org>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 20:08:19 +1000
To: Friend <david.miller at stir.ac.uk>
Subject: Where The Killing Starts


MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media


August 8, 2004

MEDIA ALERT: WHERE THE KILLING STARTS


Reporting For Duty

The statistics of death in Baghdad are now “beyond shame”, Robert Fisk
writes in the Independent. In the first three weeks of July there were 506
violent deaths in Baghdad alone: “Even the Iraqi officials here shake their
heads in disbelief”. (Fisk, ‘Baghdad is a city that reeks with the stench of
the dead’, The Independent, July 28, 2004
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles423.htm#FullStory)

Before last year’s invasion, Baghdad’s morgue investigated an average of 20
deaths a month caused by firearms. In June 2003, that number rose to 389 and
in August it reached 518. (Jeffrey Fleishman, ‘Baghdad's Packed Morgue Marks
a City's Descent Into Lawlessness’, Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2003)

Where did all this killing begin? We might think it began with the leaders
who issued the orders for the invasion of Iraq, and with the pilots and
soldiers who pushed the buttons and pulled the triggers. But in truth the
killing always starts with you and us – the public.

First, we have to be persuaded that we are led by good, reasonable people
who absolutely would not kill unless they had to. Psychological buffers must
be set up in our minds to protect us from the realisation that our leaders
are willing to kill cynically - for power, for profit, for the status quo.
Because these buffers erode over time, our leaders must be manufactured
fresh, smiling and new every few years by the same system of power with the
same ruthless goals.

We know all about Bush-I and Thatcher, but things are different now. Now
there is Clinton and Blair. And now Bush-II and Blair. And now, perhaps,
John Kerry and Gordon Brown. All arrive declaring their determination “to
make kinder the face of the nation and gentler the face of the world”, while
the same boot continues stamping on the same human face - for ever.
 
The killing, actually, starts with the surreal emptiness and manufactured
optimism of party conferences and conventions. Have you noticed how desolate
you feel when you see John Edwards’ fake perma-grin, and when you see John
Kerry’s carefully rehearsed salute as he declares, idiotically, "I'm John
Kerry and I'm reporting for duty"?

Do you notice how you cringe when you see Kerry pointing into the crowd – a
gesture associated with confident authority and power? Do you notice there
is something nauseating about the empty clichés, about the speeches about
nothing, about the cheering about nothing? Isn’t it deeply wounding that,
after millions of years of history, humanity has arrived at this utterly
fraudulent charade as an expression of ‘democracy’?

The reason for the desolation, cringing and nausea is that this is where the
killing starts. To kill honesty and sincerity, to kill ideas and discussion,
to kill meaning, is to kill people.

Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times:

“Somewhere along the line, TV news stopped reporting on candidates'
policies, and turned instead to trivia that supposedly reveal their
personalities. We hear about Mr. Kerry's haircuts, not his health care
proposals. We hear about George Bush's brush-cutting, not his environmental
policies.” (Krugman, ‘Triumph of the trivial’, The New York Times, July 30,
2004)

Noam Chomsky describes how the choice in the US presidential election is
restricted to the “savage extreme of a narrow policy spectrum”. It is a
choice between two candidates who were born to wealth and political power,
who attended the same elite university, and who “are able to run because
they are funded by largely the same corporate powers” promoting the same
interests. 

The campaigns are run by the Public Relations industry, which ensures
candidates keep away from real issues: “The public is not unaware of its
purposeful marginalisation”, Chomsky notes. On the eve of the 2000 election,
75% of the American public regarded it as largely meaningless. (Chomsky, in
Merlin Chowkwanyun, ‘”The Savage Extreme of a Narrow Policy Spectrum” - Five
Questions with Noam Chomsky’,
http://www.counterpunch.org/merlin07312004.html, July 31, 2004)

This is where the killing starts – when debate is emptied of reason so that
the public is subject to a kind of mass media lobotomy and fundamentally
disenfranchised. What is the difference between not being able to vote and
not having anything meaningful to vote for? Z Magazine editor, Michael
Albert, notes:

“Bush and Kerry’s battle for swing voters is actually not even a battle over
the informed decisions of those individuals. It is a battle for support from
donors and media moguls who provide the means to manipulate swing voters.”
(Albert, ‘Election Hyperbole’ www.zmag.org, July 28, 2004)


Electric Speakers

We don’t know the names, or even the nationality, of the people who will die
when the cruise missiles fly into Sudan, Syria, Iran, or wherever. But fly
they will. Someone once observed that cruise missile and nappy factories are
similar in one crucial respect – the product has to be used or the factory
shuts down. 

This future killing began with Jon Snow’s excited reporting for Channel 4
News from the Democratic convention. Of John Edwards, Snow said:

“He is a very electric speaker – he will detonate this place. He really will
cause a kind of popular explosion in this hall, there’s no doubt about
that.” (Snow, Channel 4 News, July 28, 2004)

Of John Kerry, Snow said:

“He was jolly successful in Vietnam.”

According to ITV News’ Libby Wiener, Kerry gave “a commanding performance
from the man who hopes to be commander-in-chief”. (ITV 12:30 News, July 30,
2004)

The Guardian’s editors talked of Kerry’s “energising progressive calls”.
Kerry's main task, they noted, was to win the trust of swing voters on
issues of physical and economic security:

“His speech on Thursday was an impressive pitch for that support... Mr Kerry
will not beat Mr Bush by shouting and posturing. He may do so by reasoning
and reassuring. If that's what it takes, then good luck to him.” (Leader,
‘The cautious candidate’, The Guardian, July 31, 2004)

The Guardian’s Martin Kettle congratulated Kerry on “an audacious and
intelligent piece of timing from a candidate who has been written off too
easily in the past as risk-averse”. (Kettle, ‘The Democrats' message: don't
get mad, get even’, The Guardian, July 31, 2004)

The Independent’s Rupert Cornwell wrote of how “an unfamiliar, somehow
liberated John Kerry was on view. The dispassionate man found passion. He
smiled, his sentences were short and emphatic, his message clear, his turn
of phrase, on occasion, compelling. At moments, he was almost visionary.”

Cornwell continued:

”Whatever your political views, the last night of a convention is an
electrifying goose-pimples occasion, more movie than reality...” (Rupert
Cornwell, ‘Hawkish yet visionary, Kerry proves compelling’, The Independent,
July 31, 2004)

A tiny voice of reason intruded into Cornwell’s electrified state of mind:

“On the war against terror and the war in Iraq, the President and his
challenger differ on style rather than substance. Parts of Thursday's speech
could have come from Mr Bush.”

The Independent’s editors opined:

”John Kerry has handsomely passed another test on the course to the White
House. Once again - just as in Vietnam, in his tight Senate re-election race
in 1996, and in the primaries this year - the complicated man from
Massachusetts delivered when it counted.” (Leader, ‘A speech that made Mr
Kerry appear a genuine contender for the crown’, ‘The Independent, July 31,
2004)

Compare this view from one of the country’s two leading ‘liberal’ papers
with the view of Michael Albert:

“Kerry is a vile warrior happy to defend corporate interests. Bush believes
military might produces diplomatic right, offense is everything, and all
obstacles and negotiation must be damned.” (Albert, op.,cit)

Isn’t it clear that Albert is fundamentally not ‘on board’, not willing to
bury the ugly reality in vacuous journalese? Britain’s liberal media –
representing the outer limits of mainstream political dissent –
fundamentally +are+ on board. And they will continue to be on board when the
cruise missiles fly. Because this will, once again, be a case of Kerry
having “delivered when it counted” – just as in Vietnam, just as in his
tight Senate re-election race in 1996, just as in the primaries.

And we, the public, will also be on board when Kerry’s missiles slash into
somebody else’s lives, into somebody else’s loves and hopes and fears and
future, incinerating some other family – because it ‘had to be done’.

Blogger Kurt Nimmo wrote recently of how Clinton blitzed Baghdad with cruise
missiles on June 27, 1993, not long after taking office. Historians tell us
Clinton launched the attack in response to an unproven Iraqi assassination
plot against former president Bush. But Clinton’s real reason, Nimmo writes,
“was to demonstrate to the world he was a tough guy like his predecessor”.
As a retiring tough guy, Bush had also blitzed Iraq on January 17 that same
year as “a sort of perverse farewell”. (Nimmo, ‘Clinton’s Life: In The Grip
Of mass Murder’, July 6, 2004, http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=226)

Kerry, recall, voted for the invasion of Iraq – one of the great war crimes
of modern times. Last month, Rand Beers, national security adviser to the
Kerry campaign, opened a high-level briefing with a warning:

"In many ways, the goals of the two administrations are in fact not all that
different." (David Rennie, ‘Kerry “will not change foreign policy”’, The
Daily Telegraph, July 29, 2004)

This is where the killing starts.


SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for
others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to
maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor:
Email: alan.rusbridger at guardian.co.uk

Write to Martin Kettle:
Email: martin.kettle at guardian.co.uk

Write to Jon Snow:
Email: jon.snow at itn.co.uk

Write to Rupert Cornwell:
Email: rupert.cornwell at independnent.co.uk


Please also send all emails to us at Media Lens:
Email: editor at medialens.org
 
Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

Please consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate.html

This media alert will shortly be archived at:
http://www.MediaLens.org/alerts/index.html



To unsubscribe click on the link below:
http://www.medialens.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/medialens/mailproc/register.cgi?em=
david.miller at stir.ac.uk&act=un&at=2