| http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=247 "Robert Blake, wild turkey, and Al Qaeda" Posted on Thursday, May 02, 2002 @ 04:44:39 EDT ( By Keiler Hook YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States) (YellowTimes.org) – What is happening to our media? When I turned on the television April 19, 2002, I was barraged with a flurry of news reports. I thought we somehow captured Osama bin Laden! Instead, I found all we captured was Robert Blake, an ageing, former actor, arrested for the murder of his wife. Every cable news channel covered the story for hours that evening. Helicopters and police cars trampled all over the lawn of Blake's adult daughter's house. Every 9 PM cable show preempted their regular programming and we listened to either Larry King, or Geraldo, from Israel, no less, giving the viewing folks tales of the actor's past, his wife's past and his chauffeur's past. Aaron Brown, CNN's alleged intellectual, looked uncomfortable, but still was able to fill the viewers in on everything about this dull case. It was mind numbing. In a week entailing 13 people dead in the Philippines' "war on terrorism," Bush’s energy program being stopped by the Senate, Israel pulling out of Ramallah and Nablus, Secretary of State Colin Powell returning from the Middle East in either a successful or unsuccessful trip (according to what "expert" one had access to), and Venezuela's overnight coup (failed), our television news programs are filled with images of Robert Blake. Folks, most people don’t even remember Robert Blake. Sorry, “Baretta,” but you’re no story. Was it a cable television decision to cover this non-news so as not to cover the more timely issues of the day? There was a march on Washington on Saturday, April 20, 2001. Reports of anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 people came together from the peace movement, labor movement, plus a dominating Palestinian gathering objecting to Israel’s occupation of Palestine. The peace and labor people were protesting the "war on terrorism"; erosion of civil liberties in this country since September 11; racism and race profiling; military aid to Colombia; and corporate domination of global economics and the media. Near the end of the march, "We are all Palestinians" became the symbolic cry of the entire group. This event was only partly covered by C-Span and there was perhaps no discussion of it on the cable news programs. On the other hand, in the week before, there was a rally by pro-Israel advocates, also in Washington D.C. Bush's Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz at the White House’s request addressed this demonstration. It was felt that a senior official ought to represent the administration at this rally. What about the rally the following week protesting Israel's actions, among other issues? The U.s. official policy may be for a settlement of the crisis in the Middle East, but its heart beats for Israel. The corporate media that have shown their bias for Israel covered this rally. Isn’t the press supposed to be more objective? Isn’t the government? If a government representative speaks at one rally (a move I question), then shouldn’t someone from the administration address the march that is opposed to its policy? Are we not allowed to see democracy in action? Does the present administration know how to act democratically? Robert Young Pelton, who has written extensively about Afghanistan, most recently in National Geographic, said this about the media in wartime: "The conundrum is that we live and die for the Constitution and one of the elements of the Constitution is freedom of the press – the right of the democratic public to make decisions based on a free flow of information, without censorship, without people rewriting history." If you were to only read the mainstream press and watch the cable news programs you would not be getting a free flow of information. The mainstream press and cable news are corporately owned and operated. Their one and only goal is higher ratings which means more profit and less truth. The military distrusts the press so they censor or they whitewash events. By the time the press releases are released they become examples of "people rewriting history." According to Pelton, the Al Qaeda is irrelevant; our government blew this international conspiracy way out of proportion because they didn’t want to believe that this was a minor group and that minor groups can have a major effect. Again, rewriting history. If this is true and Pelton is a credible, respected author, then why does the government get away with this fabrication? And how did this escape the scrutiny of our mainstream media? How much more do the American people not know because of what the media leaves out? If we look at the present television coverage, the press seems to think that the American people are much more interested in the latest Hollywood scandal than what is going on in the defense department, what is happening to our civil liberties, or what is taking place in Afghanistan. The Sunday morning television news shows seem only to propagate the Bush Doctrine. They are even more right wing than the administration. They transmit the message that not only should we invade Iraq, but that we should use the Bush Doctrine in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The governments decision to make war with Iraq illicit no opposing points of view. I thought The Bush Doctrine was meant to fight terror. The situation in the Middle East does not fit that description. Why are we subjected to the media spokespeople who promote these views? The media’s role is not to be the handmaiden of the government. It is not its role to homogenize thought; it is their obligation to report the news using critical and unbiased analysis. One would think that the administration is directing the television and press coverage in every aspect. If the media is not advancing our imperialistic goals it is discussing Robert Blake or what movie is doing well this week. Again, the media embraces only activity that makes money, which is often the government's agenda. This ineffectual mass media, an apathetic public and the growing power of the alternative press on the Internet are the only deterrents to our government’s war against everyone or every government whom or which disagrees with its international war policies and its national civil rights policies. The disintegration of the Jeffersonian "free and uncensored press" in the United States jeopardizes the liberties of all people here and abroad. The president met with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia at Bush’s ranch in Texas recently. One of Bush’s quotes was heard on every news channel, "…we saw a wild turkey and that was good." Will someone from the media please explain the relevance of this quote? Bush wanted the people to know he was bonding with our oil ally so the television pundits quote inane chatter. Just this moment, on Fox TV, an announcer said, "One of Saddam Hussein's friends, Yasser Arafat, has just been freed to go wherever he wants to go." This is fair and balanced? Fox’s question of the day is "How soon should we go after Saddam?" The media in general treats this Iraq invasion decision as a fait accompli. Are we not entitled to a full debate by the media on whether we go to war or not? By the government? By the people? We are entitled to witness discourse on everything that happens within our government. It is our government and our press and we cannot let either of them forget this very American ideal. |
