"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Media salivate over GOP intraparty torture "fracas," largely silent on torture victims
Three days ago, on September 19, The Washington Post reported that the United States "secretly whisked" an innocent Canadian citizen to Syria, where he was beaten, forced to make a false confession, and "kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months."
Upon encountering such portraits of America in the 21st century, it is difficult to know whether to weep, to vomit -- or to rage against the morally bankrupt thugs whose "leadership" has done more to destroy the country we carry in our hearts than Al Qaeda could ever dream of.
Or we could react the way NBC and its sister network MSNBC did -- with near-total silence.
NBC's Today has found the time to tell us that it snowed in Utah and that "Tom Brady is one of the most eligible bachelors in the NFL," and to introduce "the grand prize winners of the annual Weight Watchers Inspiring Stories contest." But Today hasn't found the time to tell us that our government sent an innocent man off to be tortured and held in a dungeon for 10 months -- or to question how many others have met similar fates in recent years.
On Monday, September 18, NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams found time to bring viewers a story headlined "Outtakes from news story about pandas." But given three days, Nightly News couldn't find the time -- or the will -- to report what the United States did to Maher Arar.
Apparently, NBC has decided it's better to distract the American people with pictures of cuddly pandas than to tell them the truth about what their government is doing.
Things haven't been any better over at MSNBC, where Countdown host Keith Olbermann is seemingly alone in ... well, in giving a damn. Olbermann summed up the situation succinctly during his September 20 broadcast:
OLBERMANN: So, fact-check me on this, on my simplified version of this whole picture. If it's wrong, tell me so. The president wants torture, or a nice euphemism for torture, and all he'll get out of it is made-up information, revenge later against American prisoners, perhaps, and destroying any moral high ground we might still have in the world.
JACK RICE (former CIA agent): Yes, one other thing besides that. He gets to wrap himself in the flag and say he hates the bad people.
But Olbermann's is a lonely voice at MSNBC, where Arar's treatment was otherwise unmentioned, according to a search of the Nexis database.
But there's no need to single out NBC for turning a blind eye to reality.
On Thursday, September 21, David Broder, the "dean" of the Washington press corps and self-appointed guardian of civility, used his Washington Post column to suggest that an administration he describes as "lawless and reckless" is no worse than "foul-mouthed bloggers on the left."
In a column ostensibly about the "moral scale" of the debate over torture, Broder tactfully avoided any mention of his own newspaper's article about Arar. Indeed, while paying lip service to the "moral scale," Broder suggested to the reader that he is kept awake at night by the "loud" and "vituperative" statements of bloggers and Democratic congressmen -- rather than by the thought that the Bush administration's pro-torture stance not only results in inhumane treatment of those we torture, but increases the risk of our own troops facing similar treatment from foreign regimes.
While concluding that President Bush "has proved to be lawless and reckless" and "started a war he cannot finish, drove the government into debt and repeatedly defied the Constitution," Broder explains why Bush was preferable to Al Gore and John Kerry: Their "know-it-all arrogance rankled Midwesterners such as myself."
Fortunately, in Broder's world, there are people of honor and principle and civility to save us from the nasty bloggers and "know-it-all" Democrats: people like John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Mike DeWine, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham. "These are not ordinary men," Broder tells us, putting his faith in them to stop the president from continuing behaving like a tyrant.
But these same extraordinary men have failed to do so -- again and again. These same extraordinary men have been leaders in Congress at a time when Congress has utterly abdicated its role in government, allowing the administration to be "lawless and reckless" in the first place. These same extraordinary men have stood idly by while the president used "signing statements" to signal his intention to ignore the rare law that they passed without his complete enthusiasm.
That's how McCain's last much-hyped "attempt" to put limits on the administration's torture policies ended: with an avalanche of favorable press for McCain's courageous stand against terrorism -- and a presidential signing statement indicating that Bush would continue to do whatever he damn well pleases.
Yet Broder continues to put his faith in a showman like McCain, perhaps because he is unable to stand with those darn "know-it-all[s]" on the left -- or perhaps because Democrats, too, stood by and let McCain lead the "fight."
And -- surprise -- it ended with McCain caving and declaring victory while the White House began laying the groundwork to ignore any concessions it pretended to make to McCain.
We can hardly wait for David Broder's next column extolling the "compromise" between Republicans, who want to torture people, and Republicans, who want to torture people a little less. At least it was all so very civil.
Journalist and blogger David Neiwert reminds us that the media's coverage of the Bush administration's torture policies has long been inadequate. Neiwert writes:
Much is being said about Democrats' abysmal failure in stopping the White House's plans to proceed with torturing people suspected of being terrorists, and for good reason.
[...]
But equally abysmal has been the performance of the press in making clear to the American public just what is going on here -- from the get-go. Indeed, for the most part, the press has looked the other way, burying stories that should have been atop their front pages, and treating what should have been monstrous scandals as simply politics-as-usual.
[...]
[W]hen the abuses at Abu Ghraib were revealed, the press utterly failed to examine just how far up the chain of command these abuses originated -- even though there was a trail of evidence leading right up to the top. Certainly there are indications that not just Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, but also former Solicitor General Ted Olson, the White House's legal advocate, were directly involved.
What happened instead was that the press, as a general rule, looked the other way and swallowed whole the administration spin that the problem was consigned to a "few bad apples.
Read the rest here.
Perhaps the media are waiting for Democrats to mount a fight against torture. Such a case needn't be difficult to articulate. Torture is, after all, torture. And a nation that conducts it not only checks its soul at the door, it opens the members of its own armed services to the same treatment.
But that seems like it isn't going to happen any time soon. So rather than waiting for Democrats to do their job, it's time for the nation's media to start doing theirs.
The editorial boards of The New York Times and Washington Post seemed to find their voices today, as both blasted the "deal." But it isn't enough. Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin lays out the challenge for his colleagues:
Members of the traditional press were paying scant attention to the issue of state-sanctioned torture until a rift appeared within the Republican party itself. That, in Washington, qualifies as high drama.
And now that the rift has been papered over, most reporters' tendencies will be to cover the issue mostly from the angle of its effectiveness as a political cudgel in the mid-term elections.
But the American public deserves to hear a full and open debate on this important moral issue. And if Congress won't host it, then it's up to the Fourth Estate to rise to the challenge.
Read the rest here.
Today's Washington Post article on the McCain-Bush "deal" illustrates Froomkin's point perfectly: Post reporters R. Jeffrey Smith and Charles Babington treated the torture debate as an "intraparty fracas that worried GOP leaders in the run-up to the November elections."
Glaringly absent from the 1,100-plus word article is any mention of criticism of the deal. Not a single word was devoted to raising questions about it, or to including the point of view of anyone who disagreed with the policy. The Post did note at the end: "Democrats sounded a cautious note about the Republican accord, calling attention to the past Republican division rather than taking a position on the compromise."
That may be in keeping with the Post's decision to focus on "high drama" in Washington, as Froomkin described it. But it doesn't serve readers well. News organizations should present both sides of the issue, not simply both Republican sides of the issue. There are plenty of people who think the torture deal is a mistake. If Democrats won't say that, the Post should find someone who will.
I can only surmise the reason the MSM REFUSES to show the victims of torture is their lords and masters do business with the ReThuglies and realize that under democrats in power it might be more difficult to get no bid contracts, with no oversight like they have now.
As well the owners are all afraid of being called liberal by showing the death and destruction and torture this so called "war" on terror has caused.
Cute n cuddly pandas? Think about it. leave the viewer with a good taste in their mouths while right before that you talk about how dumbya and his numbers are rising.
Very subtle but nonetheless something they hope works.
What I wouldn't give for a liberal media besides Keith, and Jon cuz they are about the only ones.
"Torture is, after all, torture."
Ah, if only the media would bother to cut through all the euphemisms and call it what it is. My recent favorite is from Bill O'Reilly: "Rough treatment." And he even qualifies it--if it doesn't involve cutting off fingers or gouging out eyeballs, then it isn't torture...it's just rough treatment. And who would object to a little rough treatment after all?
zzzzzzzzzzzz
then go away.
>>"zzzzzzzzzzzz"<<
Shhhhhhh..... it's only when right-wingers are sleeping that they can't do any damage.....
..that someone is able to sleep through the "loud" and "vituperative" statements of bloggers and Democratic congressmen. Personally, I haven't been able to sleep in almost 93 days.
I almost felt sorry for Broder. Right at the time he's supposed to be the old lion, revered and respected, the internet has blasted right past him and left him as Mr. Irrelevant for most people under the age of 40. The people who wanted, nay, expected to be the gatekeepers of information and the shapers of opinion are universally flummoxed that the "masses" have found far more on the internet and they are angry that they can't control it. Thanks for a great column.
..very much. I always enjoy reading your articles.
On the article itself, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one kept awake by the "loud" and "vituperative" statements of bloggers and Democratic congressmen. Indeed, such a fate is infinitely more unbearable than being tortured and wrongfully imprisoned for an entire 10-months.
you basically stole my thunder, but I'll try anyway. Broder seems to be saying "sure, this administration supports torture, but left-wing bloggers say mean things about the administration, so its all even." Please.
We read this kind of thing all the time when people criticize Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, etc: "Sure, Beck and Coulter and Hannity and Limbaugh and Liddy and Ingraham and Humphries and Savage and Hughes and Schlesinger and O'Reilly and an entire 'news' network, the syndicated radio networks, and most of the 'mainstream media' says stupid, vicious and downright inaccurate things- but so do Left Wing Bloggers, so its all good!"
Broder seems to be suggesting that criticizing the Administration somehow balances off the Administration torturing people. Sorry, I just dont get it. What am I missing?
broder also preceded his description of "bloggers on the left" by calling them "extremist elements in american society". his remarks calling gore and kerry "know it alls" just further his turn to wingnut territory. really sorry that complex thought from the lips of our political leaders upset you so. he also claimed "the country thought mr. bush was a pleasant down to earth guy, who would not rock the boat". but "swayed by some inner impulse or the influence of dick cheney, he has proved to be lawless and reckless". myself and lots of others saw in him exactly what he has turned out to be, an inflexible right wing ideologue. it's not like he hid his positions. and broder called the elections of joe lieberman and lincoln chafee "important", because of their "independence". exactly wrong. even though lieberman has pledged that he will vote with the democrats to organize the senate, i don't think he is to be trusted. given his holier than thou messianic vision that only he among the democrats can recognize how bush is essential to the security to the country, and given he has called his own party "out of the mainstream", it would not surprise me a few months after the election, with a close party split, to see him give a "i must follow my conscience" speech. if there is only a 5% chance of that, it's still too much. lamont is a democrat, no doubt. and a vote for chafee is a vote to continue billions of spending going unaccounted for, right wing judges to be appointed, and all scandals continuing to be swept under the rug. vote for chafee, vote for bush. a republican senate is no deterrent. maybe broder is lying awake waiting for everyone to apologize to karl rove. sorry, mr. broder, he did exactly what he was accused of. he and libby discussed valerie plame's cia employment with reporters even before robert novak's column.
If the Democrats can't grow a spine and speak out against Bush&McCain's torture "compromise", why should we expect the media to do the job for them?
Yes, we desperately need an independent media that covers the full range of debate on these important issues, but we need - even more desperately - a real opposition party that would provide some debate to cover.
For example: Two weeks ago, the Senate voted another $70 billion to fund the war in Iraq. This received less-than-minimal coverage in the press, but don't blame the media for failing to report the Senate debate - because there wasn't any debate to report. The $70 billion passed by a vote of 98-0.
As far as the "detainee" issue goes, I personally believe there was nothing Senate Democrats could have done to help themselves, and their Party, in the upcoming elections.
Just as the administration holds the actual "detainees" themselves, so doesn't the administration and the Senate majority hold all the cards (and all the power) on this issue... and it was a no-win situation for Senate Democrats to have appeared to be blindly siding with and supporting "detainees" whose identities and suspected crimes they could not possibly know, this close to the election... and so they did well laying down, and just letting the Senate majority go through a mock opposition to the administration on the issue of "detainees"...
An issue that means little or nothing to the American People in this election.
But as to Senate Democrats being an "opposition party", and for that matter, as to the entire Democratic Congressional Caucus being an "opposition" to the administration and the Congressional majority?
I cannot recall any "opposition" in my limited first-hand observations of U.S. national politics, as lame and as pitifully incompetent, as the present Democratic Congressional Caucus.
The Vietnam war... the Watergate break-in and cover-up... Iran-Contra... even the insane Monica thing, all had a far greater opposition, than anything this presently pathetic Democratic Congressional Caucus can bring themselves to dare say or do, in opposition to the present administration's (and the Congressional majority's) many crimes.
I know of no other time in my experience (and none in my studies) when the MAJORITY of the American People needed more, an opposition to fight for them, in Washington D.C.
And as I said, I have never seen such a pitiful and worthless "opposition" as the one We the People supposedly have now.
And these two things combined (the greatest need for an "opposition party", and the pitiful efforts of the present "opposition party") make for as great an under-representation of the American People, in their seat of government, Washington D.C., as I have ever seen or can even imagine...
Because as was pointed out above, when the most recent appropriation for the Iraq occupation was before the U.S. Senate, they took that request for $70 billion, and made it not the opportunity to register the American People's antagonism to that occupation and to the administration and the Congressional majority that supports it (over the objections of the majority of the American People)...
Senate Democrats had that opportunity to do something on behalf of the American People, and did nothing instead...
Nothing except vote passively and near-silently, for the continued (and apparently un-ending) funding of that occupation of Iraq.
We need to resolve an issue of the language of our discource.
The Strawman in the room is that the Democrats are silent on the issues we scream about most. The fact is that there is no forums left for their voices to be heard.
Movies that don't get on the National Media, Documentaries that appear in limited PBS markets only, a corporate media that has made it's priority the bottom line, also known as the Republicans.
Day in and day out vital news items and statistics that glairs out for a reporting of our eroding freedoms, government malfeasance, and corruption goes unreported to the general public. We whom find the issues worth devoting our time to seek out truth are in a serious minority.
That having been said, the American Public is awakening to our sad reality. American Fascism is a reality that will either be defeated at the ballot box, or on the streets eventually.
Such a Happy Thought;
Dan Grady
Who were the two abstentions? Did Kerry forget to show up yet again?
"Broder explains why Bush was preferable to Al Gore and John Kerry: 'Their know-it-all arrogance rankled Midwesterners such as myself.' "
So, Dave . . . are you saying you preferred the know-it-all arrogance displayed by Bush when he proclaimed, "I'm the Decider"?
When Rob Scheer was tossed from the L.A Times, and Tom Oliphant was tossed from the Boston Globe, the nation should have got the clue. The Neo-Con propagandist would be only tolerated on the national media stage.
To have an intelligent, informed opinion is to dissent.
Fascism!
Not so Happy Thought;
Dan Grady
- But Olbermann's is a lonely voice at MSNBC - foser
Yup...foser has it right. Olbermann ranked a very distant 19th in the cable news rankings last Thursday...heck, Glenn Beck even cleaned his clock on a couple of nights last week.
had the highest ratings on msnbc and they replaced him because of his antiwar views.
Lets see the MSNBC statement that said he was fired for his antiwar views...
an internal memo leaked afterward that said they didn't want advertising clients offended by his antiwar views.
>>"cable news rankings"<<
Foser was singling-out Olbermann as a person who "gives a damn", as opposed to somebody like Beck who doesn't.
To some apathetic, gullible folks-like you for example-cable ratings, cute panda stories and right-wing government propaganda carry more weight than finding out the truth about matters such as a wrongly accused, tortured journalist. To people who care about the sad turn our country is taking under the Bush regime, exposing lies and injustice are what we care about, and not who is number 18 or 19 on the hit parade.
The real gullibility is your inability to recognize sarcasm...
gullibility: tendency to believe too readily and therefore to be easily deceived.
Lunging and snarling at every opinion not in lockstep with liberalism exposes that gullibility.
>>"The real gullibility is your inability to recognize sarcasm...
Here I thought it was a conservative troll attacking (or 'lunging') once *again* Keith Olbermann's cable ratings (ratings are superior to truth in the right-wing world), and championing the Neilsen superiority of the acidic ('snarling', if you will) but right-winger-friendly Glenn Beck.
But you were being sarcastic! How "gullible" of me not to appreciate your sarcasm.
- But you were being sarcastic! How "gullible" of me not to appreciate your sarcasm.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
Wesley is that kind of fella whom is more intent on winning an arguement, than making a sincere point.
When faced with the reality of failed, corrupt, and criminal governance of a Republican Leadership there is little else to rely on.
If the election passes without the change of leadership in the House or Senate, we would have effectively abandoned our democracy.
If your are from either party and allow this to happen, please don't count your self an American Patriot, embrace your new definition; American Fascist.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
So Wesley, Cable Network ratings are the barometer for your idea of a rational, free press??
Walter Cronkite; would he be a rational, informed, and reliable voice, say in comparison to Katie Couric, or Bill O"Rielley??
Howard K. Smith; would he be a liberal "drive-by media type" that would be low rated in the cable news venue? Would you prefer to rely on Howard, or say Cavuto for your news??
David Brinkley; how would he rate with Wolf??
Love that rationalizing. Would the internment camps be half full, or half empty before you awoke from your slumber??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Do you really think George W. Bush The Pius would do bad torture?
writing about the clinton interview on fox by chris wallace, michael grunwald of the washington post said: "wallace is not usually considered part of the network's conservative commentariat." riiiiight. who did grunwald get that from? the same people who consider fox fair and balanced? and mara liasson of npr is just another bush apologist on fox news sunday.
Broder is apparently equating what he calls the "know-it-alls", in favor of the "damn-it-alls". You know, damn the Constitution, damn the law, damn the Geneva Convention, damn any convention or treaty that limits the agenda, damn morality, damn civility, damn fairness, damn everyone who doesn't agree with us, damn the truth, damn the U.N., damn Congress, damn the American people, damn the media, damn democracy, damn those who have had enough and speak out strongly in opposition, damn those who believe torture is abhorrent, that lying about war is wrong, damn those who ask why our children are dying, or why we really went to war in Iraq, damn anything and everything that demands accountability, or that requires respect for due process. In essence, damn America.
Apparently Broder believes the "foul-mouthed bloggers on the left", are out of line when speaking out strongly against the foul-minded politicians on the right. He recognizes much that is wrong with this administration, yet curiously would prefer we treat liars, frauds, and crooks, with perhaps the same gentleness the Republicans treated Bill Clinton. When confronted with the stonewalls of corruption, dissenting voices will always grow loud and even "foul-mouthed" in anger and frustration. Put the blame where it belongs.
We have a LIST of the things our "prisoners" have been subjected to. The one most cited is "loud music", because that makes torture sound silly.
Here's a partial list of some of the techniques WE (America) have used recently:
Prisoners were, "wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music and strobe lights, made to stand at attention for hours, subjected to sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees ear openings."
OK, maybe these things are NOT strictly "torture." But we need authoritative confirmation that these things are "NO BIG DEAL."
I suggest a small cadre of rightwing media personalities ... O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Hume ... be escorted to a remote facility and subjected to these methods. After three weeks, they can be released and THEN their comments about what IS or IS NOT "torture" will have the backing of personal experience, and thus the great credibility that comes from first-hand involvement.
Any volunteers to help conduct this vital fact-finding operation? Any predictions on how well our rightwing media corps will hold up under this kind of treatment?
If Democrats have a problem with how the terrorists are being treated, why not just issue a statement declaring what is acceptable interrogation? That would clear the issue up for the voters so they could make an informed decision. If Democrats are against loud music, say it. If they oppose sleep depravation, say it. If they oppose interrogation by female staffers, say it. If they oppose lack of a private bathroom, say it. This is one of the reasons that a recent poll indicated that only 23% of Americans feel that Democrats have a "clear plan" on Iraq. They are LONG on complaints and way, way short of ANSWERS.