Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Fri

27

Oct

2006

Catapulting the Propaganda with the Washington Post
Friday, 27 October 2006 13:41

by Chris Floyd 

The ever persipacious Angry Arab, As'ad AbuKhalil, plucks out the hidden (or not-so-hidden) propaganda in a passing phrase in an otherwise unremarkable Washington Post story about Syria. Let the good doctor tell it in his own words:

[From the WP]: "Horror at the bloodshed accompanying the U.S. effort to bring democracy to Iraq has accomplished what human rights activists, analysts and others say Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had been unable to do by himself: silence public demands for democratic reforms here." (Notice the casual language of the Washington Post. Notice how they insert propaganda lines into articles. "US effort to bring democracy in Iraq"? Are you kidding me? Does the writer of the article really believe that this was what it was about?)

Here we see the falsity of the supposed "objectivity" fetish of the mainstream media laid bare. The fetish is entirely focused on the word "objectivity," never on its practice. There is nothing remotely objective about using "the U.S. effort to bring democracy to Iraq" as a standard descriptor of the war and occupation. It is not an any way a neutral reflection of reality. It simply parrots a Bush Administration propaganda point without question, without nuance.

You can see what the reporter, Ellen Knickmeyer, is trying to do here, I suppose. The article deals with the collapse of reform movements in Syria because "advocates of democracy are equated now with supporters of America, even 'traitors,' said Maan Abdul Salam, 36, a Damascus publisher who has coordinated conferences on women's rights and similar topics...'The people are not believing these thoughts anymore. When the U.S. came to Iraq, it came in the name of democracy and freedom. But all we see are bodies, bodies, bodies.'"

So Knickmeyer wants to set up an ironic contrast: the Americans say they're in Iraq to bring democracy to the Middle East, but the bloody quagmire they've created is having the opposite effect, which is a demonstrable, undeniable reality.  She could have done this easily, while remaining well within the dogma of the "objectivity" word cult, simply by attributing the war motive of "bringing democracy" to the Bush Administration, rather than embracing it as an unquestioned fact.

But to do that would mean breaking with the iron-clad conventional wisdom of Beltway journalism: the war in Iraq is yet another noble cause gone FUBAR because it "wasn't done right." (This is also the prevailing wisdom of much of the Democratic Party as well.). You can see the gang gathering around the water cooler with David Broder, shaking their heads and clucking, "Dang, we'll never get democracy in Iraq now, not after the way Bush and Rumsfeld have screwed this thing up." They might even spend long sleepless hours in the dead of night, fretting that "if only Jerry Bremer hadn't done X, if only we'd gone in with a half a million troops, if only those bad apples hadn't gone sour at Abu Ghraib...." finally trailing off, with a heavy sigh, into troubled dreams.

There is scarcely an acknowledgement anywhere in the Media Establishment that the Iraq War was an evil and misbegotten enterprise from the very beginning: conceived in greed and arrogance, sold by deceit, a criminal action by every legal and moral reckoning. As Hamlet said: "It cannot and it will not come to good." And it has not. Wars of aggression are evil things -- the "supreme international crime," as the Nuremberg Tribunal recognized -- and they will breed nothing but evil. When Bush sat before the television cameras to announce the invasion of Iraq that night in March 2003, he might as well have pulled out the shredded corpse of a child and began gnawing on the red, corrupted flesh, for he was at that moment consigning thousands upon thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of innocent people to death.

Now, none of us expect the Washington Post to ever indulge in such tasteless apprehensions of the actual reality of our time, or to ever describe George W. Bush and his handlers and minions as what they really are: murderers. But would it really be so difficult merely to refrain from adopting the murderers' propaganda directly into "news" stories? Would it really be so difficult to practice a little -- what's that word again? -- objectivity?

Reckon so.

More from this author:
Immaculate Conception: A Squirt in the White House (13199 Hits)
George W. Bush's innumerable sycopants like to potray him as a down-to-earth man of the people: a man's man, tough and fearless, a good-ole-boy...
Thunder on the Mountain: The Murderers of Democracy (11495 Hits)
“Shame on your greed, shame on your wicked schemes. I tell you this right now, I don’t give a damn about your dreams.” -- Bob Dylan,...
War in Heaven: Woodward's Book and the Establishment Insurgency (11849 Hits)
Bob Woodward has long been the voice of the American Establishment – or of certain quadrants of it, at any rate. When Richard Nixon's...
Swing Blades: Don Rumsfeld Bats Both Ways (9545 Hits)
In February 2003, I wrote a column for the Moscow Times detailing Don Rumsfeld's personal – and profitable – connection with North Korea's...
Red October: Killing the Truth in Moscow (11305 Hits)
I. Early October can be dismal in Moscow. The short, harsh summer is over, the brief and beautiful refreshment of September has passed,...
Related Articles:
Rough Justice; prowling Baghdad with a sidearm and a defective bulletproof-vest (8162 Hits)
by Mike Whitney On Monday, an editorial is scheduled to appear in the “Army Times” which will call for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation as...
Paper Trail:Turning the Corner With a Timely Verdict (9556 Hits)
by Chris Floyd Well, Karl Rove got the banner headline he wanted for all the final Sunday papers before the ele ction: Saddam Hussein Is...
Mid-Term Election Post Mortem (5834 Hits)
by Mickey Z. So, the Democrats have a majority in Congress. The bad times are over. The evil ones have been vanquished. Let's go ahead and...
To Hell with Centrism: We Must Reclaim the Inspired Edge (6521 Hits)
by Phil Rockstroh "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act". -George...
The Washington Post's War Against Social Security - Editorializing while reporting (8044 Hits)
By Seth Sandronsky Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post reporter has a problem with Social Security. She writes: "the...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (3)add comment

Jimmy Montague said:

0
You're certainly right, but maybe not
You're certainly right about the Washington Post, about the Bush administration and about the war in Iraq. But you might not be right about the reporter, Ellen Knickmeyer.

I never heard of Knickmeyer myself, but that doesn't mean she isn't a good reporter. Be that as it may, the fact is that Knickmeyer may or may not have written "bring democracy to Iraq." She may have written and submitted her story without using that phrase, and some copyeditor may then have thrown the phrase in there to add a little "balance" to a story he or she merely thought was slanted one way or another. That's how the process works, not just at the Post but at most any newspaper in the nation.

Another possibility is that Knickmeyer did write the phrase, not because she's pro-war or sympathetic to the Bush regime but because she and all other Americans have been beaten over the head with "bring democracy to Iraq" so often and for so long that the lie is burned into their brains. Writing in a hurry, under deadline, she wanted to finish the story and get to work on a quart of Scotch. So she threw that phrase in there without thinking, filed her story, and then went off to get drunk. If that's the case, stranger things have happened.

And finally, you may be right about Knickmeyer: she may actually be a fascist dupe. But that's only one of several possibilities, and at this end of the process, that's not necessarily certain.
 
October 27, 2006 | url
Votes: +0

SamSnedegar said:

0
of men and mice
Come on Chris: it happened to you, I mean getting fired for telling the truth. You can't blame reporters for doing what their editors and publishers want done, and what they want done is LYING. Scheer got fired, and Clymer was sent to the society page; no one publishes Dreyfus's work any longer, and YOU are essentially reduced to blogging to get any message out at all.

The only reporter who succeeds these days is Greg Palast, who gets published and aired IN ENGLAND, not in the USA. The stuff Palast has uncovered ought to be all over the evening news, but you won't see him there unless and until he learns the rules of the game.

Rule 1. Never mention oil.
Rule 2. Never say that Bush is a moron who follows orders because he is utterly incompetent to give any.

That's all . . .
 
October 27, 2006
Votes: +0

Blaqfather said:

0
GIVING A HYPOCRITICAL MESSAGE TO THE WORLD
If you listen to Mr. Bush, you will soon realize, that what ever he says, the opposite is actually true. The United States is not spreading Democracy, it is spreading hatred throughout the world. Bush says he is spreading peace, he is actually spreading war. These are just some of the hypocritical images that are being sent to the world. That is why such confusing rhetoric, coming from the Washington Post does not surprise me.
Stay the course ?
WE MUST HAVE A COURSE FIRST, MR. PRESIDENT, BEFORE WE CAN "STAY" IT.
 
October 28, 2006 | url
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top