-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Edwards / MEDIA ALERT: PATRIOTISM AS PROPAGANDA - PART 2 / Jan 
20
Date:   Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:49:57 -0800 (PST)
From:   ZNet Commentaries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Sustainers PLEASE note:

--> You can change your email address or cc data or temporarily turn off mail 
delivery via: 
https://www.zmag.org/sustainers/members

--> If you pass this comment along to others -- periodically but not repeatedly 
-- please explain that Commentaries are a premium sent to Sustainer Donors of 
Z/ZNet and that to learn more folks can consult ZNet at http://www.zmag.org 

--> Sustainer Forums Login:
https://www.zmag.org/sustainers/forums

Today's commentary:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-01/14edwards.cfm

==================================

ZNet Commentary
MEDIA ALERT: PATRIOTISM AS PROPAGANDA - PART 2 January 20, 2007
By Dave Edwards 

Voluntary Subjection Cannot Be Forced

Following the death of Ronald Reagan in June 2004, the US media watchdog FAIR 
reported that major US newspapers had used the phrase "death squad" just five 
times in connection with the former US president, two of them in letters to the 
editor. None of the three major US TV networks, or CNN and Fox, mentioned death 
squads at all. (Media Advisory: 'Reagan: Media Myth and Reality,' June 9, 2004, 
www.fair.org) 

And yet Reagan's eight years in office resulted in a bloodbath as Washington 
funnelled money, weapons and military training to client dictators and 
right-wing death squads across Central America. The consequences were 
catastrophic: more than 70,000 political killings in El Salvador, 100,000 in 
Guatemala, and 30,000 in the US Contra war waged against Nicaragua. Journalist 
Allan Nairn describes it as "One of the most intensive campaigns of mass murder 
in recent history." (Democracy Now, June 8, 2004)

BBC Newsnight anchor, Gavin Esler, wrote:

"Ronald Wilson Reagan embodied the best of the American spirit - the optimistic 
belief that problems can and will be solved, that tomorrow will be better than 
today, and that our children will be wealthier and happier than we are." 
(Esler, 'The great communicator,' Daily Mail, June 7, 2004)

Fast forward to December 26 and the death of former president Gerald Ford. A 
media database search (Media Lens, January 9) found 11 mentions in the entire 
US press of Ford's complicity in mass killing in East Timor. Ten of these 
mentions were in letters to newspaper editors, with only one mention in a press 
article (in the Salt Lake Tribune). A letter to the editor of the San Francisco 
Chronicle on December 28 gives an idea of what readers, but not journalists, 
were keen to discuss:

"In 1975, Gerald Ford gave the green light to then-President Suharto of 
Indonesia for the invasion of East Timor. This attack on a sovereign nation 
resulted in the death of one-third of its population, and 24 years of 
resistance before achieving independence in 1999. Weapons used by Indonesia 
were supplied by the United States, in violation of U.S. law stating that 
military supplies to foreign countries would be cut off if they were used to 
attack another nation."

Since Ford's death, there has been a single sentence in the entire UK press on 
the issue, from Christopher Hitchens in the Mirror: 

"It was Kissinger and Ford who gave permission to the Indonesian generals for 
their illegal annexation of East Timor, which turned into a genocide." 
(Hitchens, 'The accidental president,' Mirror, December 28, 2006)

Consigning the crimes of the powerful to oblivion is only one aspect of media 
propaganda - an unholy mix of religion and patriotism is also deployed as a 
weapon against rational thought. Writing in the 1930s, the anarchist thinker, 
Rudolf Rocker, described it well:

"Voluntary subjection cannot be forced; only belief in the divinity of the 
ruler can create it. It has, therefore, been up to now the foremost aim of all 
politics to awaken this belief in the people and to make it a mental fixture." 
(Rudolf Rocker, Culture And Nationalism, Michael E. Coughlan, 1978, p.48)

In the modern age, this is rarely attempted through overt references to the 
divine. Instead the state and its media allies work overtime to suggest that 
presidents and prime ministers operate on a higher ethical and spiritual plane. 
Thus Monica Davey wrote in the New York Times on the death of Gerald Ford:

"Though Mr. Ford had lived elsewhere for decades, Grand Rapids made it clear 
that it still considered this his true home and that it still considered him 
one of its most beloved, famous - and yet ordinary - men." (Monica Davey, 'Ford 
Is Buried After Thousands in Hometown Pay Respects,' New York Times, January 4, 
2007; 
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/04/washington/04ford.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)

Ford was not merely liked and disliked in the normal way of things - he was 
"beloved", not just of some but all of "Grand Rapids" as an entire, mythical 
entity.

Davey continued:

"Former President Jimmy Carter, who defeated Mr. Ford in 1976 but later became 
his close friend, said the precise words he used in his own inauguration - 30 
years ago - remained the most appropriate tribute he could make to Mr. Ford... 
'For myself and for our nation, I want to thank my predecessor,' Mr. Carter 
said on Wednesday, pausing to gather his emotions, 'for all he did to heal our 
land.'

"The Army chorus somberly sang 'Goin' Home.' The Rev. Dr. Robert G. Certain 
said a prayer. Canons sent a cloud of thick smoke and loud echoes across a 
silent downtown. F-15s zipped loudly past in formation, traveling north along 
the river's edge."

Ford, then, did not represent particular, elite interests - the reality - he 
did nothing less than "heal our land" in the way of some omnipotent divinity. 
Always the emphasis is on unity: Grand Rapids, former presidents, the army, the 
air force - all are united in love for the self-evidently benevolent figure who 
supplied the Indonesian military with 95% of the bullets and guns that 
devastated East Timor. 

Joe Seeman made the point we are making in a December 28 letter to the Times 
Union (Albany, New York):

"As all life is sacred, we should mourn the death of Gerald Ford, and wish 
comfort to his family. We should also mourn the deaths of hundreds of thousands 
of East Timorese, slaughtered by the Indonesian government with the support of 
then-President Ford. We should also mourn the deaths of tens of thousands of 
Argentineans and Chileans, slaughtered by their governments with the support of 
then-President Ford."

Davey concluded her New York Times article with these words:

"Vice President Dick Cheney handed the flag - the carefully folded flag from 
Mr. Ford's coffin - to Mrs. Ford, who nodded and clutched it briefly to her 
face."

This is patriotic unity raised to the level of religious experience. The "flag" 
symbolises the nation - the unified nation that was beloved by Ford and who is 
in turn beloved by that country. 

If we choose to respond naively, we can accept that all of this is real - that 
there truly is a higher form of benevolence, healing, universal love and 
religious truth here. We can even accept that it would be a gross insult to 
question or challenge this version of the world. Alternatively, we can ask 
ourselves about the real meaning of the canon fire, the F-15s overhead, the 
army songs, the emphasis on a flag. We can seek to resist a system of thought 
control - of idolatry, superstition and submission to authority - that has 
evolved over centuries to stifle dissent, rational thought and compassionate 
action.

 One Nation Under God

Journalist Robert Sherman once asked George Bush Senior whether he recognised 
the equal citizenship and patriotism of American atheists. Bush responded:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should 
they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." (Richard Dawkins, 
The God Delusion, Bantam Press, 2006, p.43)

After Ronald Reagan's death, George Bush Junior wrote: 

"Ronald Reagan believed that God takes the side of justice and that America has 
a special calling to oppose tyranny and defend freedom." 
(http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/a_tribute_gwbush1.asp)

Where in all history can be found a more lethal view than the idea that God 
favours just "us" in defence of just "our" version of "justice"? Who would dare 
now challenge the righteousness and reasoning of "our" leader allied to none 
other than the Creator of this entire universe with its 200 billion galaxies 
containing 200 billion stars apiece? What level of bloodshed could fail to find 
justification when the stakes are so absolute? Are we not invited by this 
ethical sledgehammer to shrug off the deaths even of millions of people when 
the choice lies between the painful triumph of "divine justice" or the far 
greater disaster that is the triumph of "evil"?

The BBC echoed the same emphasis on unity and divinity:

"In tributes at the funeral service in Washington, President Bush said Gerald 
Ford brought calm and healing to America after President Nixon resigned over 
the Watergate scandal." ('Gerald Ford buried in home town,' January 3, 2007; 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6227267.stm)

And who would be so unfeeling, so brutal, as to question this rendering of the 
world in a time of grief? Unless, of course, death has claimed an official 
enemy. Thus historian Andrew Roberts in the Independent:

"Saddam was not destroyed because he was a monster - there are plenty of those 
in the world, from Robert Mugabe to Kim Il-Sung - but because he was a monster 
who failed to learn an obvious lesson from history: that the English-speaking 
peoples can be pushed very, very far, but no further." (Andrew Roberts, 'Evil 
like Stalin but a fool, too,' The Independent, December 31, 2006; 
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2114414.ece)

A more grotesque rendering of why Saddam was destroyed can hardly be imagined. 
In fact the "English-speaking" elites (the "peoples" had no say in the matter) 
were determined to make an example of the client they helped create but who 
refused to follow orders. It was these elites that were determined to attack 
and occupy Iraq regardless of how far Saddam was willing to cooperate in 
opening the country to arms inspectors. The truth is the exact reverse of 
Roberts' claim - a small group of "English-speaking" elites could be pushed 
very, very far towards the appearance of a peaceful solution (for propaganda 
purposes), but no further. 

Following the barbaric December 30 lynching of Saddam, the British and American 
media have been full of descriptions of the horrors for which he was 
responsible. The 1988 Halabja gas attack, alone, has been mentioned 74 times in 
the US press and 29 times in the UK press.

While Western media focus heavily on Saddam's crimes, they simultaneously 
ignore US-UK complicity in them. Since the execution, there have been close to 
zero mentions in UK media obituaries of CIA support for Saddam Hussein and 
US-UK supply of his worst weapons. In a long article on Saddam's life in the 
New York Times, John F. Burns restricted his comments to a single sentence:

"During the 1980s, the United States had supported Iraq under Mr. Hussein in 
its war with Iran." (Burns, 'Hussein Video Grips Iraq; Attacks Go On,' New York 
Times, December 31, 2006) 

Writing in the Guardian, readers' editor Ian Mayes, cited an anonymous fellow 
Guardian journalist on the execution of Saddam:

"If there will be an iconic symbol of the war, this - not Abu Ghraib or the 
felled statue [of Saddam Hussein] - is it. The war was waged, ostensibly, to 
implant democratic norms. Yet this execution harked back to an extinct era... 
Surely that is the point: a war waged to bring an under-developed society into 
the 'modern' age has done the reverse and thrust Iraq into a chaos that more 
closely resembles medieval barbarism. The photograph symbolically portrays that 
ghastly irony in a way nothing else could." (Ian Mayes, 'Open door,' The 
Guardian, January 8, 2007; 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1984804,00.html) 

After all the lies, the concocted threats, the ongoing plans to grab Iraqi oil, 
for this Guardian journalist the war was "waged to bring an under-developed 
society into the 'modern' age". And for the Guardian readers' editor this 
version of events merited highlighting in a national newspaper.

Ultimately, the process of maintaining control of the population is simple, 
banal, even stupid. 'We' are the "modern" good guys - God agrees! - 'they' are 
the ignorant, "under-developed" primitives who must be guided by their betters. 

Because we are 'good' we always intend well - because they are 'bad' their 
suffering is always justified in the understanding that we have to be 'cruel to 
be kind'. To refuse to act cruelly would simply mean that they and we would 
suffer even more.

 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 Tristan Davies, editor of the Independent on Sunday Email: [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] 

Ask him why his December 24 edition focused so patriotically on British troops 
fighting in Iraq without also challenging their decision to participate in what 
is an example of the supreme war crime - a war of aggression. How does this 
constitute neutral and balanced reporting? Why did his newspaper not also draw 
attention to the conscientious objectors who have courageously  refused  to 
fight in this war of aggression?

Write to Steve Herrmann, editor of BBC News Online Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Ask him why his January 4 news report asserted: "The footage showed Iraqis 
allegedly being kicked, punched and head-butted." Isn't it absolutely clear 
that the Iraqis were kicked, punched and head-butted?

Write to Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Write to Simon Kelner, editor of the Independent Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Write to Roger Alton, editor of the Observer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  



_______________________________________________
FRIENDS mailing list
FRIENDS@sffreaks.org
http://lists.sffreaks.org/mailman/listinfo/friends

Reply via email to