Skip to main content

An excellent article on April 10th at by Gary Kamiya about media self-censorship from 9/11 to the war in Iraq, where he discusses in depth the various personal and institutional reasons for self-censorship.  He also references some of the sources - books in particular - which were accurate and insightful in their analysis prior to the war ( that explains my sagging bookshelf - and alas - I have none of the books he cites).

Kamiya's article is also referenced at Juan Cole's site on April 11th.  I won't quote much from it here since you should read it yourself, but he makes this point which has otherwise been lost in the discussion of the failures of the media prior to the war:

American society in general has a strongly pro-Israel orientation -- one that journalists generally share (or are too intimidated or ignorant to contest) -- which inevitably guides their assumptions and beliefs about Arabs, terrorism and the Middle East in general. The historian Tony Judt argued in the London Review of Books that the support so many liberal journalists and pundits gave to Bush's war is best explained by their backing for Israel. This orientation, because it is deemed "appropriate," affects virtually every aspect of the media's coverage of the Middle East. Arab and Muslim perspectives, because they tend to be anti-Israeli, are rarely heard in the American media; if they had been, many Americans might have had quite a different assessment of the Iraq war's chances of success. Instead, the U.S. media works within a tiny ideological spectrum on the Middle East, using the same center-right and right-wing sources again and again. To take just one specific example, the New York Times, when it needs comment on Israeli affairs, often relies on experts from the Washington Institute on Near East Affairs (WINEP), a center-right, pro-Israel think tank. The Times rarely asks center-left or left-wing Middle East experts like Cobban or M.J. Rosenberg to comment on Israel. There is no evidence that the Iraq debacle, which these right-wing pundits almost universally supported, has led the media to rethink its sources or its ideological orientation.

That is not his only point, of course - he has many more, some of which have been discussed elsewhere.  But I think it's reflective of a failing both in the MSM and on DKos, where opinions which challenge the Israeli government are automatically seen by some as anti-semitic.

Kamiya further argues:

The media was unable to deal with the abstract and highly ideological motivations for Bush's war -- especially because those motivations, as Paul Wolfowitz notoriously admitted, were never really made clear. To oppose the war, one had to challenge the two real reasons behind it -- the neoconservative crusade against "Islamofascism" and the cold warriors' desire to assert American power -- head on. But this meant not only taking on the sacred cows of 9/11 and Israel, but also dealing with the refusal of the administration to publicly acknowledge these abstract reasons, and challenging a White House that "for bureaucratic reasons," in Wolfowitz's words, was hiding behind its trumped-up "evidence" about Saddam's WMD.

I can understand why the MSM wouldn't want to take on neocon ideology, if for no other reason than time constraints; that's why Chomsky rarely gets airtime.  What I still can't understand is why a few simple questions were rarely if ever asked by the media:

  • why did 9/11 happen?  ("They hate us for our freedoms" isn't an answer)
  • what distinguishes 9/11 from what we did in Nicaragua?  (or El Salvador, etc, where far more people were killed due to our state-sponsored terrorism)
  • why were we planning to attack a country which had never attacked us?  (Had no one in the MSM ever read the UN charter, and had they forgotten Nuremberg?).

It seems to me that it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist, or a Chomsky, to render the administration's casus belli moot, yet few made the effort for the reasons Kamiya cites.  Nor is he hopeful for the future of the press in this country.

Originally posted to skrekk on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:16 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  they are (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MarketTrustee, Autarkh

    THe MSM is still up to it mindless propaganda.  Hell yesterday how may kept repeating the story that Iran MAY be supplying weapons to Iraqi groups.

    HOW IS THAT NEWS.  I MAY be able to shoot lihtning bolts out my ass.  "MAY" is not a story, its propaganda.  When MAY turns to IS then you have a story.

    MSM in this country is just AWFUL!

    Generals gathered in their masses Just like witches at black masses.. Evil minds that plot destruction Sorcerers of deaths construction..........

    by pissedpatriot on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:24:20 AM PDT

  •  But (0+ / 0-)

    Tom Friedman, when discussing Israel, often relies on Israeli dove Yaron Ezrahi and Stephen Cohen, of the same Israel Policy Forum with which MJ is affiliated.

    Al Gore should be president.

    by another American on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:25:59 AM PDT

  •  Some parts of the MSM (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    did their job. Have a pal who's a researcher at Knight RIdder/McClatchey.  They broke the story on the aluminum tubes back in OCtober of 2002, but hte MSM ignored the shit out of it. They also covered the forged docs before anyone else. They broke the story on the wreck of the military medical and V.A. systems several weeks before the Washington Post noticed Walter Reed.

    The Big Name papers have been slow to cover issues, while some of the smaller sources have done  damned good job..

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:41:10 AM PDT

    •  Knight-Ridder did a great job, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and even the Washington Post did too, although it was in their online edition where one could find the quality reporting easily (ie, Pincus).

      While smaller papers & bloggers did a fine job, it's a shame that the people with the resources to do in-depth investigations fell flat on their collective face.  The Libby trial revealed the absolutely incestuous relationship many MSM reporters find themselves in.

  •  self - censorship? (0+ / 0-)

    you're joking, right? All through the Afghan Campaign, the MSM was relaying a manner of informtion regarding the war. From the outing of a double agent in Pakistan, to troop movements ( pre-Geraldo moment). It' sNOW, withth e failure of Iraq that "self-censorship" has arisen.

    My only question is: Do they swallow?

    "My case is alter'd, I must work for my living." Moll Cut-Purse, The Roaring Girl - 1612, England's First Actress

    by theRoaringGirl on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:42:42 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site