Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ----Caveat Lector- http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_11758.shtml Inference and Nuance: The Corporate Media and the War Les Blough, Editor, Axis of LogicSep 14, 2004, 12:23 - The slaughter continues as one day drags into another for the weary victims of the unprovoked, criminal war and occupation of Iraq by the U.S and British governments. This analysis will attempt to examine the shifting sands and stands of the corporate media on the war and occupation. The Corporate Media Distances Themselves From the War Yesterday, the morning's corporate news headlined: Bloody day in Baghdad by Jackie Spinner -on the front page of the Boston Globe (September 13, 2004). Spinner (no pun) describes how 80 civilians died on Sunday in "some of the most intense fighting in months". Later in this article, we will examine the methods by which the Globe and other corporate media report this and other bloody days in Iraq. Today, November 14, 2004, the front page Boston Globe headlines read: Agents knew case flimsy, Powell says. Doubts on Iraq kept from him, he testifies by Bryan Bender, Globe Staff "WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that at the time he made the case to the United Nations for the invasion of Iraq some US intelligence officials already knew many of the claims about weapons and terrorist ties were suspect, but they had not informed him or other senior policy makers about their doubts." Where were the Boston Globe’s front page reports on the "flimsy case" for attacking Iraq in late 2002 and in the Spring of 2003 and following? Today, November 14, 2004, Boston’s "other paper", the Boston Herald, has bold headlines taking up nearly the top half of the front page: Bush family follies: Bombshell book rips clan for sex, drugs - by Rosemary Herbert "Laura Bush was a college co-ed who dealt the dope and smoked it. Her hubby, George W., hired some meatheads to threaten a former flame hoping to sell her sordid story. And the elder Bush, when vice president, hired an uneducated woman he shared the sheets with to be his assistant." Where were the Boston Herald’s front-page attacks on the Bush family in 2002 and 2003 while the Neocon-Bush family was killing with impunity in Afghanistan and Iraq? Today the Washington Post Headlines: Car Bomb Blast in Iraqi Capital Kills at Least 47 More than 100 injured; attack in Baqubah kills 12 Iraqi policemen. by Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Fred Barbash "BAGHDAD, Sept. 14--Two separate attacks on Iraqi police left at least 59 dead and more than 100 wounded Tuesday in a continuation of violence that has claimed more than 137 lives since Sunday." Where were the Washington Post’s front page reports on the massive killing in Iraq in the Spring of 2003 and following? Today, September 14, 2004, the Chicago Tribune headlines: Car Bomb Kills at Least 47 in Iraq by SAMEER N. YACOUB "BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A car bomb exploded near a police station in Baghdad early Tuesday as dozens of Iraqis were applying to join the force, killing at least 47 people and wounding 114, officials said. In Baqouba, gunmen opened fire on a van carrying policemen home from work, killing 11 officers and a civilian. "The attacks were the latest attempts by insurgents to disrupt U.S.-backed efforts to build a strong Iraqi police force capable of taking over security in many towns and cities ahead of nationwide elections slated for January." Where were the Chicago Tribune’s front page articles on the massive death and destruction in Iraq in the Spring of 2003 and following? Also, the front page of today’s Chicago Tribune headlines: Racial profiling on rise in U.S.; Amnesty International reports increase tied to Sept. 11 terrorist attacks by Glenn Jeffers and Sarah Frank "Nearly 32 million Americans, including 1.5 million in Illinois, have been victims of racial profiling by authorities, a practice that has increased since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, an Amnesty International USA report released Monday stated. "The study--a result of 100-plus interviews, extrapolated polling data, census records and university studies--also warned that 87 million Americans were at risk of being targeted because of their race, ethnicity or religious background." Where have the Chicago Tribune’s front page reports on racial profiling of Muslims and people of Arabic descent been from 9/11/01 until now? Where were the corporate media during the buildup for war in 2002 and the attacks on the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the Spring of 2003 and the occupation since? Four days ago (September 10, 2004), even the corporate-funded Financial Times in England published: Time to consider Iraq withdrawal "This week a macabre milestone was passed in Iraq. More than 1,000 American soldiers have now been killed since the US-led invasion of the country began nearly 18 months ago. The overwhelming majority lost their lives after President George W. Bush declared major combat operations over in his now infamous 'Mission Accomplished' photo-opportunity in May last year. "In that time, an unknown number of mostly civilian Iraqis, certainly not less than 10,000 and possibly three times that number, have perished, and hundreds more are dying each week. After an invasion and occupation that promised them freedom, Iraqis have seen their security evaporate, their state smashed and their country fragment into a lawless archipelago ruled by militias, bandits and kidnappers. "The transitional political process, designed to lead to constituent assembly and general elections next year, has been undermined because the nervous US-dominated occupation authority has insisted on hand-picking various permutations of interim Iraqi governors, mostly exiles or expatriates with no standing among their people. Whatever Iraqis thought about the Americans on their way in - and it was never what these emigré politicians told Washington they would be thinking - an overwhelming majority now views US forces as occupiers rather than liberators and wants them out." Where were the Financial Times when Tony Blair was rabidly pursuing brotherhood with Bush and the war on Iraq in late 2002 and throughout 2003? Where were their reports of Blair’s lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the invasion? What has changed about the corporate news industry’s position on the war? When did the corporate media begin to gradually distance itself from the Neocon-Bush war on Iraq. We saw the corporate media begin to gradually "shift horses" by distancing themselves from this massive failure and unconscionable slaughter by the Neocon-Bush regime as early as November, 2003. When Did the Distancing Begin? On November 2, 2003, I wrote The Corporate Media Abandons the Sinking Ship of Fools in Washington - an analysis of an article in the New York Times ( http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?ar chive=34&num=2936 ). This is an excerpt: "The real story in the New York Times article about Paul Bremer's complaints about the media is not just about a political bum moaning about a great media-watchdog - as the NYT would have us believe. "Quite the contrary. Lest we forget, - this same media about which Paul Bremer bitterly complains - is the media that supported the war on Iraq until the destruction [of the invasion] was complete. The Neocons in Zionist "think-tanks" who served as advisors to the Bush regime - engineered the war. The corporate media garnered and maintained the support of the flag-waving U.S. population for the war ... "...Now this same corporate-media - distances itself from the war it wanted all along, burning it's U.S. and U.K. lapdog-governments along the way - with headlines that scream about the injustice of this ill-conceived, criminal war against the sovereign nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Justification for 'pre-emptive wars' has been established as a valid way of dealing with conflict for all nations. The world may be skirting the edges of thermonuclear war and anyone who says so is marginalized by the media as a 'conspiracy-kook'. In the article cited above, the New York Times has it both ways - preserving it's status as a watchdog, victimized by Bremer and Bush-administration, but also selling the propaganda for the regime in Washington that things aren't as bad as they seem to be in Iraq." The corporate media supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq until the destruction and killing by the U.S. government was well in place. They began their move to build a reputation as the watchdog of government in late 2003. Their support for the war in Iraq began before the onset of the invasion in March, 2003 and immediately followed when the media industry cooperated with the U.S. government and "embedded" their reporters within the ranks of the military. It followed since that time with cat and mouse game the media has played with tidbits of criticism of the Neocon-Bush wars but the absence of any significant, aggressive, investigative journalism by them. The corporate media has been distancing themselves from the Neocon-Bush wars, but how are they doing it? We think careful, textual analysis of these reports reveals some answers. It is important to read the way they employ innuendo and suggestion in the text of these reports to understand their game. Allow us to take a few minutes to examine just a few of these recent articles published in the corporate media. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- "It's not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers, without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and the myths that surround it". - John Pilger ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Textual Analysis - In yesterday’s Globe/Post article, originally written by Jackie Spinner (no pun) of the Washington Post and headlined on the front page of the Boston Globe introduced the text of this article in a large subhead: Militants target capital; 80 die amid violence. Analysis: The inference, of course is that the Iraqi resistance is responsible for these deaths rather than U.S. military forces. The opening paragraph (beyond which many do not read) states: "Baghdad - Car bombings, mortar attacks, and clashes between insurgents and US and Iraqi security forces killed at least 80 civilians across the country yesterday, Iraqi officials said." We note the initial reference to the weapons by which these people were killed: "...car bombings, mortar attacks, and clashes", rather than U.S. helicopter gun ships, tanks and missiles. We note that it is not until the third paragraph that they mention: "A US military helicopter fired into a crowd of civilians who had surrounded a burning Army armored vehicle, killing 13 people, said Saad Amili, spokesman for the Health Ministry. Among those killed was a Palestinian journalist ..." The third paragraph rather than the first? Splitting hairs? Not in our view. Decisions about where to place articles and words in newspapers are not made carelessly and without aforethought. Those decisions are made by very well-paid editors whose jobs are to select, organize and publish. This front page news takes care to provide the US justification for these killings by the US soldiers in the helicopter gunship: "The US military said it was trying to scatter looters who were attempting to make off with ammunition and pieces of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, which had been hit by a car bomb early in the morning on Haifa Street, a troublesome north-south artery west of the Tigris River". A helicopter gunship to "scatter looters"? So it's the Iraqis who are "Troublesome"? Troublesome for whom? We note that the article calls the Iraqi military forces who are fighting back as, "militants", "militant group", "insurgents", and "fighters" with one reference to a "suicide bomber". The U.S. militants are called "troops", "army", "military" and "soldiers". The purpose of these verbal mechanics are not accidental. The Iraqi resistance forces are fighting for their independence and freedom from a foreign, invading, occupying army. Are they not soldiers of the first order? Do they not comprise a legitimate army? Can it not be said that their attacks on the invader, occupier are, in fact, "reasonable military operations" and sometimes "successful military operations"? The article also flatly states as fact how the fighting started (rather than how it is alleged to have started). No source is given: "The violence in the capital started as the sun rose. A steady pounding of mortar shells began striking the fortified compound that houses the interim Iraqi government and US Embassy. A large plume of smoke shot into the sky". The writer then references a statement posted on a website to identify who attacked the US-installed government and the US embassy in Iraq: "In a statement posted on a website, the militant group Jamaat al-Tawhid and Jihad (Monotheism and Jihad) said it had carried out attacks throughout the country. The group is associated with Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian accused of having links to Al Quaeda and blamed by US officials for other violence in Iraq". "The militant group .... associated with Abu Musab Zarqawi ... accused of having links to Al Quaeda ... blamed by US officials for other violence in Iraq". A quote from "a website"? No reference is made to any attempt to verify the source or even to raise any question about the real identity of the source. At length, Spinner quotes "Major Philip Smith, spokesman for the First Calvary Division" (note credibility), when he attempted to justify the helicopter attack on Iraqi civilians: "The aircraft was being fired upon", Smith said, adding that an hour later the helicopters were given clearance to fire again, but they did not, because they had not positively identified which people were insurgents". To be fair, Spinner also wrote: "But witnesses, including a Reuters cameraman who was filming the Al Arabiya journalist when he was shot, said the crowd was peaceful." Spinner reported this important detail, but where? - It appeared on the ninth (9th) page at the end of Section A of the Boston Globe. This quote, by no less than a Reuters cameraman, allows the corporate media to claim the appearance of "fair and balanced" reporting. But what do the headlines and preponderance of the article say to reader?The writer also described a video, shown on Al Arabiya, that describes how Mazin Tumaisi the Palestinian journalist who was killed by the helicopter. Two other brief examples: Washington Post, November 14, 2004 - Car Bomb Blast in Iraqi Capital Kills at Least 47. More than 100 injured; attack in Baqubah kills 12 Iraqi policemen Analysis: In this front page article, Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Fred Barbash describe "two separate attacks on Iraqi police left at least 59 dead and more than 100 wounded Tuesday in a continuation of violence that has claimed more than 137 lives since Sunday." The Post reports attacks by the Iraqi "insurgents" no less than 11 times in this article without a single mention of U.S. attacks on Iraqis and without any comment about the attack by the U.S. helicopter gunship on Iraqi civilians. Chicago Tribune, November 14, 2004 - Car Bomb Kills at Least 47 in Iraq Analysis: In this front page article, SAMEER N. YACOUB, blames Tuesday’s deaths of 47 Iraqi civilians on the "insurgents" and "gunmen". He charges them with, "attempts ... to disrupt U.S.-backed efforts to build a strong Iraqi police force capable of taking over security in many towns and cities ahead of nationwide elections slated for January. Yacoub also explains that "Warplanes hit the city west of Baghdad after ‘intelligence sources reported the presence of several (Abu Musab) al-Zarqawi operatives who have been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks against Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Security Forces and multinational forces,’ - a quote attributed to the U.S. military. Yacoub also states, "The military said reports indicated the strikes had achieved their aim, but did not name the operatives". He again quotes "the military": "This strike further erodes the capability of the Zarqawi network and increases safety and security throughout Iraq". Yacoub blames the deaths on Iraqi "insurgents" and "terrorists" nine times and "suicide bombers" twice in the article. He attempts to justify the warplane attacks by the muscle-bound U.S. military. In Yacoub’s view, what is an "insurgent"; what is a "terrorist". Is the use of the term, "suicide bomber" intended to conjure up images of explosive belts detonated in a "settlement" in Palestine? Who can deny that these reports by the corporate media are carefully designed to support the war and occupation of Iraq, while at the same time allowing them to distance themselves from the same war and occupation? We could go on and on, citing the twisting path of a media industry that has too much ill-gotten wealth, far too much power and their own agenda to influence and the public. We could cite ad-nauseam the clever nuance, inference and parsing of words, creating impressions, images, heating up racist and aggressive sentiment against Muslims and Arabs and advancing the objectives of the corporate, global empire. The Central Issue But even our painstaking identification of the clever wording of these reports does not go to the central issue: Why is the United States military in Iraq today? Why are U.S. soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians being slaughtered? Where are the treasures plundered and stolen from the Iraq National Museum of Antiquities while U.S. Marines stood by and watched? There were no WMD. Saddam is gone. Iraq is never was a threat to the United States and is not a threat today. So why is does the U.S. continue its occupation? On May 31, 2004, Uriel Wittenberg argued that the New York Times deliberately misled the public prior to the war on Iraq in his letter to Daniel Okrent 8 http://www.urielw.com/nyt/disaster.htm ), NYT Public Editor: "Dear Mr. Okrent, "It has seemed for some time now that the U.S. war of "self-defense" against Iraq was an outright mistake, based on an erroneous belief that Iraq possessed W.M.D. More recently it has been emerging that this mistake may have been encouraged, perhaps even perpetrated, by liars with an agenda -- Iraqi exiles intentionally manipulating the U.S. into ousting the Saddam regime. Now a wholly inadequate editors' note to readers and a vague public editor column suggest that these deceptions were abetted by a journalistic Abu Ghraib at the Times itself. The editors' note says coverage sometimes "was not as rigorous as it should have been" or was "insufficiently qualified," and wishes the Times had been "more aggressive" in re-examining dubious claims. "Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation [from biased sources]," the note continues, adding that "many news organizations -- in particular, this one," did so too. ("The Times and Iraq," May 26, 2004.) But these confessions of innocent error are followed by examples that suggest deliberate efforts to present slanted information to readers ..." The corporate media has danced around the truth about Iraq far too long with their propaganda game of cleverly chosen words and phrases. They have already lost what credibility they may have had before this war began with the American people and the rest of the world. The time has long passed for the corporate media-arm of the United States government to begin to report the whole truth about the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The killing must stop. The corporate media must be stopped. Otherwise we can expect that U.S. and U.K. war, occupation, colonization and interference in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Haiti, Venezuela, Sudan and other nations will continue. The most effective means available for informing and educating the public is through the many alternative news and information services on the Internet. The most effective ways to stop the U.S. and U.K. governments are by sharing information with our friends and neighbors and voting with our "feet on the street". There is no substitute for standing up in massive protests and telling them to end the occupation and bring the troops home now. The next such national mobilization and anti-war protest in the U.S. will be the October 17 Million Worker March to Washington D.C. Join us in this and other local and national protests against the war! © Copyright 2004 by AxisofLogic.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/TySplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -__ ___ _ ___ __ ___ _ _ _ __ /-_|-0-\-V-/-\|-|-__|-|-|-/-_| \_-\--_/\-/|-\\-|-_||-V-V-\_-\ |__/_|--//-|_|\_|___|\_A_/|__/ SPY NEWS is OSINT newsletter and discussion list associated to Mario's Cyberspace Station - The Global Intelligence News Portal http://mprofaca.cro.net ######## CAUTION! ######### Since you are receiving and reading documents, news stories, comments and opinions not only from so called (or self-proclaimed) "reliable sources", but also a lot of possible misinformation collected by Spy News moderator and subscribers and posted to Spy News for OSINT purposes - it should be a serious reason (particularly to journalists and web publishers) to think twice before using it for their story writing, further publishing or forwarding throughout Cyberspace. To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE: This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Spy News is making it available without profit to SPY NEWS eGroup members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------------------------------- SPY NEWS home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spynews Mario Profaca http://mprofaca.cro.net/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spynews/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
--- End Message ---
