Freedom of the Press

 

My last piece was the longest, most intensively-researched, article I've ever posted here. Called Give Peace A Chance,  it contained a large number of links throughout in support of my various statements of fact.

Beyond some of the very eye-opening information I came across and cited in the piece itself, I had a startling epiphany.

Generally, I see noticeable differences in what is reported "out here" __ as you probably know, I'm an expat living in Japan __ and what I get from the American media.  These are sometimes slight but unmistakable differences in content, but more often of emphasis, as the respective articles understandably are tailored for different audiences.

But this time my realization went far beyond that. I encountered what can only be deemed crude and blatant censorship, a glaring lack of any coverage of specific noteworthy events by any of the standard U.S. news outlets __ the ones most commonly used by Americans.
Let me explain.

Sometimes I am accused of leaning too much on RT, the Russian news site. Personally I find it to be extremely valuable, mostly quite balanced, and a great source for a different take on world events. But since I sometimes get slammed by Russophobes for using that "damn Russkie propaganda rag", I typically try to mix in a lot of different sources when providing support for whatever point I'm trying to make.

Since they have solid __ if often undeserved __ reputations in America, I heavily rely on the Washington Post, New York Times, Forbes Magazine, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, CNN, Bloomberg, Huffington Post, Time Magazine, and occasionally USA Today.

For non-U.S. reporting I turn to Britain's Guardian, Telegraph and Independent, Reuters, Al Jazeera, and a few Asian online news sites.

What struck me was the number of articles related to the Ukraine crisis, the confrontation with Russia, the frenzy of military exercises throughout Europe, the escalation of the new Cold War stand-off between Russian and the West, and preparation for a possibly massive military conflict between NATO and Russia, which HAD NO COMPARABLE REPORTING in America's main stream media __ I mean nothing!

In other words, an item would be featured in RT, but Google produced no similar article in the American press.

There were numerous examples. But let me mention a few that stood out.

"Over 100 US armored vehicles roll into Latvia, NATO flexes muscles in Europe" was the headline in RT. No mention in the U.S. of what seems like a rather startling development.

You would expect an announcement like "US National Guard sends 12 F-15 interceptor jets to Europe to guard against Russia" to raise some eyebrows. Of course, since none of the major news programs __ at least none that I can find __ mentioned it, eyebrows got the day off.

A month after the Minsk II agreement struck by France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine, which specifically bars introduction from outside countries of material support and lethal weapons, we have "Poroshenko: 11 EU states struck deal with Ukraine to deliver weapons, including lethal", an ominous bit of treachery. While there is mention at an Iranian news site of Russian objections to this, and a link back to the RT article at Israel Foreign Affairs, discussion in major media forums is conspicuously lacking in the U.S. and Europe itself.

How about "US troops in Europe request bigger guns amid Russia anxieties", appearing April 25? Do Americans even know there are U.S. soldiers in countries right on Russia's border preparing for battle? They do only if they read the California Telegraph, a news outlet I never heard of before this.

No wonder very few in America seem aware of what's at stake here, the current magnitude of the tension, the potential for this crisis escalating into World War III, or the possibility of an apocalyptic nuclear exchange between Russia and the U.S.

This is a frightening and dangerous breech of trust between the American people and its news sources. How are people supposed to make informed judgments about what their government is doing in their name without knowing what's going on?

Then again maybe the point is . . . they're not.

Of course, it's much worse than just sins of omission.

The other half of the story is the deception __ the gross distortions and outright lies that sometimes appear.

Sometimes the distortions are so profound, if you were to lay an article written for U.S. public consumption next to one on the exact same topic written by a correspondent from a non-NATO country, you would think they were about two completely different, unrelated matters. Often you get an entirely opposite rendering of what actually happened.

There is, of course, a pattern here. It's one I've seen unfolding and becoming increasingly obvious over the past few years.

At first it surfaced as journalists just respectfully aligning their perceptions and editorial perspectives to official government positions on any matters pertaining to international relations and formulation of foreign policy. Politeness and pandering discreetly replaced asking probing questions and conducting deep-source investigation.

That morphed into advocating and cheer leading on behalf of the government. We saw an abundance of this leading up to the second Iraq war. Press conferences with George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were like frat parties before a home game.

American media now only mimics the official government line. Rather than actually cover the news, investigate it thoroughly and report it objectively, it merely takes dictation from the official spokespersons for the White House, State Department, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies, including the NSA and CIA. Doing original research, challenging shoddy reasoning, objecting to spurious claims, demanding proof and corroboration, all have faded into a hazy memory of quaint bygone times.

I can only draw one conclusion.

There is indeed freedom of the press in America.

But it's not quite what I understood it to be.

Now it's the freedom to keep Americans in the dark.
It's the freedom cherry-pick from the vast array of newsworthy items and only publish those consistent with the preferred narrative of our government.

It's the freedom to suppress anything which official spokespersons find inconvenient or untimely in their ongoing effort to enforce their manufactured version world events.

It's the freedom to distort and invent facts which support official government policies.

It's the freedom to shape the national conversation in ways that aligns with the official view of developments and incidents.

It's the freedom to shape public perception by using loaded phrases and unrepresentative images, to editorialize while hiding behind a facade of objectivity.

It's the freedom to malign and demonize both national and international figures who the U.S. government has targeted for character assassination and marginalization.

It's the freedom to do balanced journalism, but with a new, different twist. Individual correspondents will balance their desire for career advancement with the demand they write the right kind of articles given the correct spin about a range of "acceptable" issues. News media organizations will balance their need for access to the White House and other high-level officials with the kind of coverage that meets the approval of those they access.

But I will give credit where it's due. Under this new definition of "freedom of the press", American journalists can now surely be saluted for unfailingly and aggressively exercising this time-honored privilege.

"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will in time produce a people as base as itself." --- Joseph Pulitzer

[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Absentee Patriotism

 

It's no secret that I am very critical of the policies of this
administration, and the general direction America has been taking for
the past three decades.

As a result, infrequently but uncomfortably too often, I get this remark from
some rabid, myopic super-patriot who gets their understanding of our
political system from the box that his hot glue gun came in:

"You don't even live here. You have no right to criticize America."

It's one of those battle cries from desperately small minds which on the surface
offers some common sense logic but with bare minimum scrutiny falls
apart like stale Saltines.

Let's imagine . . .

It's 1938 and I am a Jew who has been living in Nazi Germany. I am getting
increasingly uncomfortable with developments both locally in my village
and nationally. So I leave and become an expatriate, a German citizen
living in a foreign country.

While living outside the sphere of the Reich and its pervasive propaganda
machine, I see that my discomfort was more than justified, that there
are horrible things going on in my home country which threaten not only
my fellow Jews, but threaten other individuals and the peace and
stability of the whole European continent. I learn from other
expatriates about the forced labor and concentration camps, and what
appears to be a well-planned program being put in place for the
extermination of millions of people. I learn of a massive build-up of
military machinery which portends provocations of neighboring countries
and promises massive military confrontation.

Are the people who question my now living overseas saying I would have had
no right to warn people about the developments I had learned about? That I
was disqualified by my foreign mailing address from speaking out against the
policies of "my country"? That I would not have had the right to at
least warn other Jews __ my fellow citizens __ and urge them to
escape as soon as possible or face possible extermination?

I would argue that not only would I have the right to be critical of my country, I would have a moral obligation, a duty to do so, openly and aggressively.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."  -  Edmund Burke

Am I making a comparison between today's U.S. and Nazi Germany?

Yes and no. Of course, anytime anyone wants to provoke a hysterical public
outcry on any matter these days, they just yell 'Nazi' or 'Hitler' or
'holocaust' and the knee jerk response is right there for the having.
That's not what I'm doing here. The U.S. is slowly descending into a
form of autocracy, a totalitarianism quite unlike Nazi Germany in many
respects. But I believe it is potentially as thoroughly and ultimately
menacing.

We can fret and argue about whether that's correct but that's not the point I'm making.

The simple point here is that, regardless of where I live or choose to travel, I share 
with every other American citizen the duty
to keep a watchful eye on what my government is doing in my name, and
to speak out when and where I see objectionable plans, policies,
declarations, or provocative acts towards other countries. It is
especially incumbent on me __ it is my responsibility as a citizen __ to
share from out here what is not available from within
U.S. borders, because of what is clearly massive censorship of the news
there by the government and main stream media, which have become
Siamese Twins joined at the pocketbook.

It is particularly my duty to warn others in America who are not as I am in a 
position to live elsewhere, of developments which portend the worst and pose 
threats to them.

We all see the signs. Often we don't know what to make of them. The incessant
puerile prattle of politicians and pundits creates a constant stream of
obfuscation and confusion.

But it is the duty of every single American citizen to try to make sense
of our increasingly precarious situation, and to share their insights with
their fellow citizens. It is our duty to call out the official
lies, the gross imbalance of power, the horrific inequality of wealth,
the ongoing and systematic efforts by our government to promote and
prosecute in our names policies and initiatives, foreign and domestic,
which if the public had full knowledge of, it would steadfastly reject.

It takes a lot of courage these days to speak out against the government,
especially the current administration, which has done a phenomenal job
of PR and spin, and certainly makes no secret of its intent to squash
dissent in America.

Yet,  despite massive surveillance of citizens by the security agencies, the
watch lists, the no-fly lists, the kill lists, the persecution of
whistle blowers, the beatings and arrests which the most peaceful
demonstrators now endure at the hands of the police, the suspension of
habeas corpus, gross abuses of the FISA Act and the National Defense
Authorization Act, there are still many courageous individuals and
organizations which continue the daunting but necessary battle to expose
the deeply entrenched and dangerous corruption which now poisons our
system of government.

I make no claims to be on the same level as these exemplary patriots, speaking
truth to power under the threat of persecution, an unconstitutional
repression of free speech and basic human rights, the whole of which is
more and more is beginning to exhibit parallels with some of the more
oppressive regimes in history.


 

Right or wrong, I'm just an ordinary citizen merely doing my duty.

Just like you.

I watch. I listen. I speak out. I vote.

I do what little I can.

I wish it were more.



[ This originated at the author's personal web page . . . http://jdrachel.com ]