Guardians of Power

Reviewing David Cromwell and David Edwards' "Guardians of Power"

By Stephen Lendman

Created Jan 9 2008 - 8:27am

David Cromwell is a Scottish writer, activist and oceanographer at the

National Oceanography Centre in Britain. David Edwards is also a UK writer

who focuses on human rights, the environment and the media. Together they

edit an extraordinary "UK-based media-watch project" called Media Lens. It

"offers authoritative criticism of mainstream media bias and censorship, as

well as providing in-depth analysis, quotes, media contact details and other

resources."

Today, the media is in crisis, and a free and open society is at risk.

Fiction substitutes for fact, news is carefully filtered, dissent is

marginalized, and supporting the powerful substitutes for full and accurate

reporting. As a result, wars of aggression are called liberating ones, civil

liberties are suppressed for our own good, and patriotism means going along

with governments that are lawless.

The authors challenge these views and those in the mainstream who reflect

them - the managers, editors and journalists. Their aim in Media Lens and

their writing is to "raise public awareness" to see "reality" as they do,

free from the corrupting influence of media corporations and their

single-minded pursuit of profit "in a society dominated by corporate power"

and governments acting as their handmaiden. They note that Pravda was a

state propaganda organ so "why should we expect the corporate press to tell

the truth about corporate power" and unfettered capitalism when they support

it? They don't and never will.

The authors go further and say their "aim is to increase rational awareness,

critical thought and compassion, and to decrease greed, hatred and ignorance

(and do it by) highlight(ing) significant examples of systemic media

distortion." There are no shortage of examples.

That objective is highlighted in their 2006 book, "Guardians of Power: The

Myth of the Liberal Media" and subject of this review. It's a work

distinguished author John Pilger calls "required reading" and "the most

important book about journalism (he) can remember" since Noam Chomsky and

Edward Herman's classic - "Manufacturing Dissent." Cromwell and Edwards

"have done the job of true journalists: they have set the record straight"

in contrast to the mainstream that distorts and corrupts it for the

powerful. Their book is must reading and will be reviewed in-depth, chapter

by chapter, to show why. It's also why no major broadsheet ever mentions it

or its important content. This review covers lots of it.

The Mass Media - Neutral, Honest, Psychopathic

Years ago, journalist and author AJ Liebling said "The press is free only to

those who own one." He also warned that "People everywhere confuse what they

read in newspapers with news." "Guardians of Power" lifts the confusion

powerfully. It starts off noting that the term media is "problematic." It's

the plural of medium suggesting something neutral, and news organizations

want us to believe "they transmit information in a similarly neutral,

natural way" which, of course, they never do. Why? Because corporate giants

are dominant, and large corporate entities control the media.

The authors thus argue that the entire corporate mass media, including

broadcasters like BBC and the so-called mislabeled "liberal media," function

as a "propaganda system for elite interests." It's especially true for

topics like "US-UK government responsibility for genocide, vast corporate

criminality, (and) threats to the very existence of human life - (they're)

distorted, suppressed, marginalized or ignored." Cromwell and Edwards

present documented forensic proof to set the record straight and expose

corporate media duplicity.

Doing it requires "understanding (that) curious abstract entity - the

corporation," more specifically publicly-owned ones. They're required by law

to maximize shareholder equity and do it by increasing revenue and profits.

Corporate law prohibits boards of directors and senior executives from being

friends of the earth, good community members or whatever else may detract

from that primary goal. Social responsibility is off the table if it reduces

profits, and executives who ignore that mandate may be sued or fired for so

doing.

That led Canadian law professor Joel Bakan to call corporations

"psychopathic creatures" that can't recognize or act morally or avoid

committing harm. It shows up at home and in foreign wars of aggression with

Iraq as Exhibit A that's the focus of three of the book's 13 chapters.

First, an explanation of what Chomsky and Herman called the "propaganda

model" in "Manufacturing Dissent" and that Herman later wrote about in "The

Myth of the Liberal Media." It works by focusing on "the inequality of

wealth and power" and how those with it "filter out the news to print,

marginalize dissent (and assure) government and dominant private interests"

control all information the public gets. It's done through a set of

"filters" that remove what's to be suppressed and "leav(es) only the

cleansed (acceptable) residue fit to print" or broadcast on-air. The media

is largely shaped by market forces and bottom line considerations. They also

rely on advertisers for most of their revenue and are pressured to assure

content conforms to their views.

More generally, the dominant media serve wealth and power interests that

include their own as well as other corporate giants. They thus rely on

"official sources" for news and information and ignore others considered

"unreliable." More accurately, they ignore the unempowered who have no say

or whose views are out of the "mainstream."

Media expert, Robert McChesney, explains the dilemma by saying publishers

know their journalists must appear neutral and unbiased when, in fact, that

notion is "entirely bogus" for three reasons:

-- to appear neutral, journalists rely on "official sources" as legitimate

news and opinion when, in fact, they're not;

-- a news "hook" or dramatic event is needed to justify covering a story,

but the power elite does the selecting to serve its own interests; and

-- advertisers apply pressure so content favors or at least won't offend

them.

McChesney also explains that "balanced (journalism) smuggles in values

conducive to the commercial aims of the owners and advertisers, as well as

the political aims of the owning class." And as their power grows, so does

their control over what news and information people get as well as a tsunami

of sports and entertainment to divert and distract from what matters most.

Iraq - The Sanctions of Mass Destruction

The authors cite British Prime Minister Tony Blair's "big bad lie" in making

a "moral case for war" for which there was none. Two years later, the Iraqi

Planning Ministry and UN reported that almost one quarter of children aged

five or under suffered from malnutrition. That condition was even worse than

the appalling situation under economic sanctions and the destruction of the

country that began after Saddam invaded Kuwait in August, 1990. Four days

later, Operation Desert Shield was launched. It began with US-dictated

economic sanctions, a large military buildup in the region, and a sweeping

PR campaign for war that became Operation Desert Storm on January 17, 1991.

Before it ended on February 28, US forces committed grievous war crimes that

included gratuitous mass killings as well as bombings to destroy essential

to life facilities of almost everything imaginable. The dominant media

ignored the human cost along with removed power, clean water, sanitation,

fuel, transportation, medical facilities, adequate food, schools, private

dwellings and places of employment. A defenseless nation was leveled by a

ruthless superpower. It was only the beginning.

Twelve years of crushing genocidal sanctions followed. The results were

predictable and devastating. Normal life was impossible and became a daily

struggle to survive. By the mid-1990s, it was apparent many hadn't and

wouldn't going forward. The media ignored it and instead blamed Saddam for

what Washington and the West caused. The authors note that in the face of

ugly facts, Tony Blair "once again employ(ed) his favoured strategy -

passionately 'sincere' truth-reversal."

That and clear facts on the ground got two UN heads of Iraqi humanitarian

relief to resign in anger with Dennis Halliday in 1998 saying he did so

because he "had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the

definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well

over one million individuals, children and adults" including 5000 Iraqi

children monthly in his judgment. The media was silent then and ever since

in spite of appalling evidence of war crimes in plain sight.

Consider the so-called Oil-for-Food program as well. It was adopted under UN

Resolution 986 in 1995 but was hopelessly inadequate by design. An internal

1999 UN report revealed it provided about 21 cents a day for food and 4

cents more for medicines with vitally needed items banned or in short

supply. Everything considered potentially "duel use" was blocked including

chlorine to purify water, vital medical equipment, chemotherapy and

pain-killing drugs, ambulances and whatever else Washington wished to

withhold punitively. The consequences were horrific, the media was silent,

and instead supported Blair's, Clinton's (and now Bush's) "moral war."

As the authors put it: "With the wholehearted complicity of the media, the

US and UK governments were able to blame the Iraqi regime for the suffering"

it didn't cause and could do nothing to prevent. "Supported by a wave of

propaganda, journalists were able to pass over the West's responsibility for

vast crimes against humanity." Examples abound like BBC's John Simpson

restricting his comments on "Western responsibility for genocide" to 16

words in one sentence in a November, 2002 on-air documentary.

The authors noted that nine months after Media Lens was launched in 2001,

they "began to realise the extent to which even high-profile journalists

were unable to defend their arguments" in the face of overwhelming evidence

refuting them. They tried nonetheless, still do and it keeps getting worse.

Iraq Disarmed - Burying the 1991-98 Weapons Inspections

To make its case for the March, 2003 invasion, Bush and Blair promoted two

"myth(s) of non-cooperation" - that Saddam refused to cooperate with UNSCOM

weapons inspectors up to 1998 and had retained deadly WMD stockpiles that

threatened the region and western interests. One big lie followed another

like Saddam expelled weapons inspectors in December, 1998. In fact, he was

remarkably cooperative in the face abusive intrusions few nations would ever

tolerate and if demanded of the US would be impossible.

Making false claims was part of the scheme to attack and occupy the country

as Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill discovered in the earliest days of the

administration. He saw a secret memorandum preparing for war and a Pentagon

document that discussed dividing up Iraq's energy reserves among western Big

Oil giants. The road to war was launched with no turning back even though

Scott Ritter, UNSCOM's chief weapons inspector, confirmed the following:

that Bill Clinton ordered his team out of Iraq in December, 1998 on the eve

of Operation Desert Fox, and the country was fundamentally disarmed with

90 - 95% of its (chemical and biological) WMDs "verifiably eliminated" at

the time. There was no nuclear program.

Further, whatever remained didn't "constitute a weapons program....only bits

and pieces of useless sludge" past their limited shelf life. Conclusion:

"Iraq cooperated in" its disarmament, but the US nonetheless manufactured a

conflict in December, 1998 that was a precursor for the big one ahead. It

was also learned that CIA spies operated with arms inspectors to get

information the Clinton administration used for its attack. When it ended,

Saddam wouldn't allow inspectors back in and justifiably called them spies.

All along, the media reported the official line, ignored the truth and were

thus complicit in the crimes of state they supported. The authors noted a

"remarkable feature of media performance - that large numbers of individual

journalists can come to move as an obedient herd despite easily available

evidence contradicting the consensus view." As it always is, "This was

standard right across the media" that never lets facts conflict with their

servility to power.

The authors also point to an "astonishing media omission" they call "the

sludge of mass destruction" and cite CIA as the source. In a 1990 briefing,

the spy agency stated: "(Iraq's) Botulinum toxin (its biological weapons) is

nonpersistent, degrading rapidly in the environment" and only has a shelf

life of a year when stored below 27 degrees Celcius. Further, Scott Ritter

debunked Tony Blair's specter of an Iraq weaponized VX nerve agent. He

confirmed UNSCOM found and blew up a VX factory in 1996. Iraq no longer

could produce it and any amount remaining was worthless sludge. Comments

from the media - support for Tony Blair and silence on the facts.

Iraq - Gunning for War and Burying the Dead

Throughout their book and with ample documentation, the authors eloquently

and persuasively make their case. They conclusively prove without a doubt

that "the role of the media is merely to channel the view of power (to allow

it) to do as it pleases (so) the public will (only) be told what the

powerful believe right, wrong, good and bad....all other views are ignored

as irrelevant...." That's what passes for mainstream journalism in the West

without even a hiccup of contradiction or hint of remorse. Doing otherwise

is viewed as "crusading journalism....no matter how corrupt the interests

and goals driving war." Noam Chomsky put it this way: "The basic principle,

rarely violated, is what conflicts with the requirements of power and

privilege does not exist."

In the case of Iraq, the media fell right in line leading up to the conflict

and once it began. It didn't matter they were being used or that they were

callously indifferent to "the immorality of the US-UK attack and the

(appalling) suffering" it caused. The little touched on above can only hint

at the human toll and plain fact that the "cradle of civilization" was

erased by design and reinvented as a free market paradise for profit with

the grand prize being Iraq's immense, mostly undeveloped oil reserves.

Then, there's the body count with estimates from 1990 to March, 2003 ranging

up to 1.5 million or more deaths, two-thirds being children under age five.

Post-US/UK invasion, it's even more staggering from the highly respected

Lancet, UK ORB polling firm, UNICEF and other sources - up to two million

deaths with UNICEF data estimating 800,000 children under age five.

Slaughter on this scale is incontrovertible genocide under the provisions of

the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It

"means any (acts of this type mass-killing) committed with intent to

destroy, in whole or in part, the national, ethnical, racial or religious

group (by) killing (its) members; causing (them) serious bodily or mental

harm; (or) deliberately inflicting (on them) conditions (that may destroy

them in whole or in part)." By this standard alone, three US administrations

and two in Britain are criminally liable. Additionally, there's what the

Nuremberg Tribunal called "the supreme international crime" against peace,

and the level of culpability overwhelms.

Throughout it all, the media was unperturbed and continues to back the most

appalling crimes of war and against humanity like they never happened.

Consider this audacious comment from BBC political editor, Andrew Marr, from

his 2004 book on British journalism: Those in the trade "are employed to be

studiously neutral, expressing little emotion and certainly no opinion;

millions of people would say that news is the conveying of fact, and nothing

more." The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

It continued as the media uniformly extolled the transfer of "sovereignty"

in June, 2004 without mentioning that no legitimate government can exist

under occupation and certainly not one turned to rubble. The authors quoted

noted British journalist Robert Fisk saying "Alice in Wonderland could not

have improved on this. The looking glass reflects all the way from Baghdad

to Washington" with a stopover in London. Since it was formed, the "Iraqi

government" is impotent. All power is in Washington, liberation is an

illusion, and so is the notion of a free and democratic Iraq that was never

part of the plan. Democracies are messy and the reason they're not

tolerated.

Afghanistan - Let Them East Grass

The authors quote media expert Edward Herman on how the major media and

other experts "normalize the unthinkable" by ignoring the most appalling

state-sponsored crimes, doubting their severity and believing ends justify

means. Bottom line - poor people of color in developing nations don't count,

and the "art of successful mainstream journalism is to (convey this) without

the public noticing."

For the media on Afghanistan, the war largely ended when Kabul fell on

November 13, 2001, a scant five weeks after it began on October 7. The

bombing continued, but "the war was suddenly yesterday's news," and only

Taliban crimes mattered. Ignored was what John Pilger wrote in his newest

book "Freedom Next Time" - that "Through all the humanitarian crises in

living memory, no country has been abused and suffered more, and none helped

less than Afghanistan." He then described what was more like a moonscape

than a functioning nation. Little has changed since, but the major media are

uniformly silent. All that matters is the "war on terrorism" that justifies

occupation, continued conflict, mass suffering and death.

The authors cited a surreal example - "In the land of the blind, (a)

one-eyed lion is news." Against the backdrop of mass human suffering and

deaths, ITN journalists reported on the plight of "Marjan" in Kabul's zoo,

and that a team of vets flew in to help. The network later mentioned that

"Marjan" died as it callously ignored conditions on the ground for

Afghanistan's human population who remain unnamed and matter less than a

lion. Conditions for them are appalling with humanitarian agencies reporting

they saw "people (without food) still eating grass" in January 2002.

This contrasts with state-sponsored propaganda that Afghanistan is now free

from "fear, uncertainty and chaos," and the US and UK "act(ed) benignly, and

(the)humanitarian military assault is beneficial." Again, reality can't deny

the official message so blamed for continuing conflict are the "meddlesome

Afghans (who) are undermining our good work." Out of sight and mind are the

real motives behind the 9/11 attack and the price Afghans (and Iraqis) pay

for it.

Also ignored is why we occupy their country. It has nothing to do with

terrorism, humanitarian intervention or democracy. It has everything to do

with imperial gain. The result is an unimaginable level of suffering that

continues today under a puppet government, a brutal occupation, and no end

to either in sight. Try getting that type report in the mainstream.

Kosovo - Real Bombs, Fictional Genocide

No recent conflict in memory evoked more popular support on the right and

left than the 1990s Balkan wars. They culminated in 1999 with a 78 day NATO

air assault on Serbia whose leader, Slobadon Milosevic, was unfairly cast as

the villain. The conflict lasted from March 24 to June 10 on the pretext of

protecting Kosovo's Albanian population. It was all a ruse. Kosovo is a

Serbian province. It still is, but it's under NATO occupation with plans to

make it independent and complete the "Balkanization" of Yugoslavia.

In the run-up to war, the propaganda was familiar. Tony Blair called it "a

battle between good and evil; between civilization and barbarity; between

democracy and dictatorship." British defence secretary, George Robertson,

was even worse saying intervention was needed to stop "a regime which is

bent on genocide," and Bill Clinton also raised the specter of "genocide."

Each case was the equivalent of elevating Bunker Hill to Mt. Everest or

maybe the heavens.

So how did unreported facts on the ground refute the official myth? The

Balkan wars destroyed a country to keep predatory capitalism on a roll for

new markets, valued resources and cheap exploitable labor. Slobadon

Milosevic was the fall guy and ended up in the Hague where he was hung out

to dry by the ICTY US-run court. There he was effectively silenced, denied

proper medical care and forced in the end to take his secrets to the grave

with him.

Earlier, however, war raged in his country for 78 mercilessly days as a sort

of earlier version of "shock and awe." NATO bombing killed 500 civilians,

caused an estimated $100 billion in damage, and according to Amnesty

International (AI), was responsible for "serious violations of the laws of

war leading in a number of cases to the unlawful killing of civilians."

Translated in language AI rarely uses - NATO committed war crimes, but only

its victims were punished. They were carried out on the pretext of averting

a humanitarian crisis that didn't exist so NATO invented one.

Here are facts unreported in the mainstream. One month before the bombing,

the German Foreign Office stated that a "feared humanitarian catastrophe

threatening the Albanian civil population had been averted (and) public life

(in larger cities) returned to relative normality." Instead of genocide,

NATO reported after the war that 2000 people were killed in Kosovo on all

sides in the year prior to the bombing, and the US-backed Kosovo Liberation

Army (KLA) did most of it.

NATO's attack was the culprit. It caused a humanitarian crisis, and the

flood of refugees occurred when the bombing began. So did lootings,

killings, rape, kidnappings and pillage according to an OSCE study. The

media response was breathtaking. It "exactly reverse(d) cause and effect

suggesting that bombing was justified (to halt) the flood of refugees it had

in fact created." Once again, the lies were breathtaking.

The authors note that like for the Iraq conflict, this war "was made

possible by audacious government manipulation of a public denied access to

the truth by an incompetent and structurally corrupt media. Every British

paper (and American ones, of course) except one took a pro-war line"

editorially, and journalists "proudly proclaimed their role in supporting

the 'humanitarian intervention' " when there was none.

The authors also note that "Editors and journalists do not drop bombs or

pull triggers, but without their servility to power the public would not be

fooled and the slaughter would have to end" or would never have begun. No

nominally democratic government can stand up against the majority will of

its people - provided they know about "the complicity of the corporate mass

media in mass murder." Another alternative also works against which they're

defenseless - ignore them, denounce them and seek reliable independent news

and information sources like Media Lens, this web site and many other

reliable ones.

East Timor - The Practical Limits of Crusading Humanitarianism

Give credit where it's due. Tiny impoverished East Timor is hardly a match

for Indonesia with its 200 million population backed by Washington for what

both countries gain from each other. Nonetheless and after "months of

murderous intimidation" by Indonesian-backed militias, the East Timorese

overwhelmingly voted for independence by a near four to one margin. It was

courageous but costly, and it came in the form of "a horrendous bloodbath"

against pro-independence backers.

The US held off responding for 10 days intentionally and only did so under

great public pressure. The delay allowed 70% of all public buildings and

private residences to be destroyed and three-fourths of the population to be

"herded across the border to West Timor, where hostage taking, killings and

sexual assault were a daily occurrence." BBC's Matt Frei was indifferent

like his fellow correspondents generally are. He described it as a "moral

crusade," but UN commissioner for human rights, Mary Robinson, had different

view with "thousands pay(ing) with their lives for the world's slow

response."

BBC practically choked before casually admitting our Indonesian allies were

behind the massacres. Never admitted on-air was that its military-run

country is a major Western ally and business partner. For BBC and others in

the dominant media, "news ceases to be news when it seriously damages

establishment interests."

East Timor gained independence on May 20, 2002. At the time, reports

mentioned that around 200,000 East Timorese (or one-third of the population)

were massacred or starved to death in 1975 after the Ford administration

condoned Indonesia's takeover of the territory and supplied the Surharto

government with lists of communist sympathizers to round up and eliminate.

Back then, it got little attention in the mainstream and quickly faded from

view after independence.

Why so? Indonesia is mineral-rich while East Timor hardly matters. The

authors cited the "Golden Rule of media reporting - the tendency to overlook

horrors committed by the West and its allies." They also call this "The

calculations of realpolitik." Mineral wealth trumps concern for an

impoverished people whose only worth is the sweat they supply at the lowest

possible cost - everywhere.

Haiti - The Hidden Logic of Exploitation

Haiti is the poorest country in the Americas and one of its most exploited.

That's saying a lot in a region dismissively called America's "backyard" and

ruthlessly exploited by Washington for decades. The country is small (around

three times the size of Los Angeles) and has a population of around eight

million. Since European settlers arrived 500 years ago, it experienced an

almost unparalleled legacy of colonial violence and exploitation. Even when

it gained independence from France on January 1, 1804, it lay in ruins. It

was short-lived as France regained control and kept it until America took

over later and solidified its hold when Woodrow Wilson sent in Marines in

1915 to protect US investments.

Washington remains in control, and the authors explain its logic to keep

Haitians and other developing world people in line. Their "dreams of a

better life must be crushed by violence and grinding poverty so extreme that

local people will accept any work at any rate, and abandon all notions of

improving their lot." It's the reason why western elites use "death squads,

tyrants and economic oppression" as their methods of choice and why ordinary

people are no match against them.

Hope for Haitians arose in 1990 when a Catholic priest named Jean-Bertrand

Aristide gained prominence. He ran for President and shocked Washington by

getting two-thirds of the vote to become Haiti's first ever democratically

elected leader. A September, 1991 US-backed military coup cut short his

tenure, however. It removed him, reestablished harsh rule, and "stamp(ed)

out (the beginnings of a) vibrant civil society" that began to take root. A

bloodbath followed with CIA paramilitaries behind it.

Aristide regained nominal power in 1994 after he agreed to Washington's

neoliberal terms. Haiti's constitutional rule was restored, and he was

allowed to return as President along with 20,000 US "peacekeepers" to assure

IMF demands were observed.

The authors noted the "free press" version of events from when Aristide was

first elected. Like always, it glossed over facts and ignored "the long,

documented history of US support for mass murderers attacking Aristide's

democratic government and killing his supporters....the hidden agenda behind

(his return) to power (and) the limits imposed on his range of options by

the superpower protecting its business interests." There was barely a

mention of US commercial interests in Haiti or how brutally Haitians are

exploited for profit.

Against all obstacles, however, Aristide was overwhelmingly popular. It

showed in November, 2000 when he was reelected President with 92% of the

vote, and his Lavalas party dominated parliament from the earlier May

election. Their control lasted four years, then ended abruptly on February

29, 2004. In the middle of the night, a US Marine contingent forcibly

removed the Haitian leader because he defied the rules of imperial

management, governed like a democrat and was committed to helping Haiti's

poor. Ever since, the country has been a killing field under US control with

a paramilitary "peacekeeper" contingent as enforcers. They were sent

illegally for the first time ever to support a coup d'etat against a

democratically elected President instead of backing his right to return to

the office he won freely and fairly.

The media ignored the facts and portrayed the US as an "honest broker." They

supported the scheme that Aristide "had to go" because his people no longer

supported him nor did the international community. "Forget the democratic

process. Forget the landslide victories." Forget the successive US-backed

bloodbaths following Aristide's rise to power in 1990. Forget any hope Haiti

might emerge from its nightmarish 500 year history. All that mattered was

power and where most of it lay. No need to point a finger. A great need to

denounce the media that turns a blind eye to it.

Idolatry Ink - Reagan, the 'Cheerful Conservative' and 'Chubby Bubba'

Clinton

Few US presidents did more harm yet got more praise than Ronald Reagan, and

Mark Hertsgaard wrote about it in his book,"On Bended Knee: The Press and

the Reagan Presidency." The authors here review his record and cover some of

the adulatory avalanche following his death on June 5, 2004. It was a

painful week to recall and one that abandoned any measure of truth to

portray a man and his "extraordinary successful presidency." It was indeed

for the power elite and the way he served them at the expense of the public

good.

Out of sight and mind were a few minor things that happened during his

tenure. The Iran-Contra scandal for one that would have sunk Nixon faster

than Watergate had he been the culprit. But there was much more, and the

authors cover some of it to set the record straight on a man only

corporatists and friendly tyrants could love.

Reagan earned his bona fides on two issues - supporting big business and

claiming he was hawkishly anti-communist. The two were, in fact, the same

with the authors saying "the real motive behind the American slaughter in

the Third World - profits, not fear of the Soviet Union - is indicated by

patterns of investment" that rose dramatically under US friendly regimes.

Examples were in Chile under Pinochet, Iran under the Shah, Brazil under the

generals, Guatemala after its democracy died, and many other client

countries around the world. Excluded from investment and targeted for regime

change are states run independently that place their sovereignty above our

right to control it.

The authors give examples of leaders who tried in Central America and paid

dearly for their effort. They put it this way: "Reagan's eight years in

office (1981-1989) produced a vast bloodbath as Washington funnelled money,

weapons and supplies to client dictators and right-wing death squads

battling independent nationalism across Central America." Central Asia,

Africa and wherever else an independent leader arose followed a similar

pattern.

Major media ignored official Reagan administration policy - to "terrorize

impoverished people into accepting a status quo that condemned them to lives

of profitable misery." It doesn't matter how many tens of thousands die or

how impoverished we condemn the living. Instead, typical media comments

about Reagan were like the one from the London Guardian saying he'll be

"chiefly remembered now for....his tax cutting economic policies, his role

in (ending) the cold war and his ability to make America feel so good about

itself after the turmoil of Vietnam, civil rights and Watergate."

Bill Clinton is still living, but he's also well treated, aside from his

personal peccadillos in office now forgotten. As usual, the media ignores

his dark side that caused great harm at home and an overwhelming amount

abroad. As the authors observe, it's because demeaning a president is

"disrespectful, even irresponsible." So the worst of his record was

unreported with plenty of choices to choose from such as eight harsh years

of Iraq sanctions that caused around 1.5 million deaths with two-thirds of

them children under age five. This and more go unmentioned because the media

defer to power, and presidents and prime ministers get "unlimited respect

bordering on reverence." Want the truth? Independent journalism provides

what's absent in the mainstream everywhere.

Ultimate Change - The Ultimate Media Betrayal

The issue here is the danger that the planet may become uninhabitable

because of climate change alone, and the authors cite evidence to show it.

In each case, the conclusion is the same - global warming is real,

threatening, and serious efforts are urgently needed to remediate it.

Enter the media with the authors saying although they "do report the latest

disasters and dramatic warnings, there are few serious attempts to explore

the identity and motives of corporate opponents to action" on this vital

issue. Why? Because of powerful business opposition that includes the

corporate press. The silence is deafening, and the authors state it's "the

mother of all silences, because the fossil fuel economy is the mother of all

vested interests."

It hardly matters that the London-based Global Commons Institute predicts

over two million deaths worldwide in the next 10 years from climate-related

disasters, and we see lesser amounts happening now every year. It gets worse

with the prestigious journal Nature publishing a four-year research study by

scientists from eight countries. They predict over one million species will

be extinct by 2050, and they describe their findings as "terrifying."

How does the oil industry respond? According to oil and gas industry

consultant, Bob Williams, it must "put the environmental lobby out of

business." How does the media respond? Silence in the face of "much of life

on earth threatened by mass death...." The authors say "the corporate media

occasionally laments the destruction of our world in editorials, but it is

not in the business of doing anything about it. In fact, literally the

reverse is true." In their advertising and content, they promote a lifestyle

of excessive fossil fuel consumption - gas-guzzling cars, air travel and a

whole array of other high energy consuming products most of which are

unessential and do little to enhance our lives.

The authors wonder if readers may question their view on how the media

approach climate issues and answer this way: "....we believe our lives, the

lives of our children, indeed much of animal and plant life on this planet,

are in great danger. We believe, further, that the means of mobilizing

popular support for action to prevent this catastrophe - the mass media - is

fatally compromised by its very structure, nature and goals. This is no

joke," and unless we expose and challenge the status quo "there may well be

no future for any of us." What greater motivation is there than that.

Disciplined Media - Professional Conformity to Power

Key here is that nations or people committing destructive acts don't usually

act out of ingrained cruelty and hatred. As the authors put it: "In reality,

evil is not merely banal. It is often free of any sense of being evil -

there may be no sense of moral responsibility for suffering at all." A

typical response when asked is: "I'm just doing what I'm paid to do (or) I'm

just doing my job." It's as true of torturers as businessmen who must do as

they're told and know what comes with the job. Perform or find another one,

and the same obligation holds for journalists. "Like military personnel,

(they) also sign themselves over to authority" and that requires

prioritizing their employers' welfare "in everything they say and do."

The result is always the same. Official enemies are demonized, government

crimes are ignored or "prettified," and corporate greed is overlooked along

with the common good. The authors refer to this as the "gushing phenomenon"

that led western journalists to "gush" over the fall of Baghdad and later

the transfer of "sovereignty" in the country's "first democratic elections

in 50 years in January, 2005." Never mind the absence of democracy, the myth

that there is any, and the fact that the country's "sovereignty" resides in

Washington and is enforced from its branch office inside the heavily

fortified Green Zone.

Mainstream journalists ignore this and are compliant because they have to be

or find other work. They perform "in the absence of any conspiracy, with

minimal self-censorship, and with even less outright lying." Psychologist

Eric Fromm explained the phenomenon that the authors expressed their way:

that "all modern individuals are socialised to perceive themselves as

morally empty vessels willing to accept whatever is demanded of them."

They're "commodities to be bought and sold for employment" - to do their job

and not question their employers. Journalists aren't paid to lie. They

simply "subordinate their capacity for critical thought to a professional

standard (knowing this is) just how things are done."

In a nominally free society, control isn't maintained by violence but "by

deception, self-deception, and by a mass willingness to subordinate our own

thoughts and feelings to notions of professionalism and objectivity." It's

sadly ironic that people who make an evil and violent world possible aren't

that way themselves. Nonetheless, it must be wondered how often, if ever,

they consider the consequences of their actions or inactions.

Toward a Compassionate Media

The authors note that the dominant media's "subliminal message is that our

rulers are superior, transcendent, benign (so they must) be afforded

respect, even awe, as the loftiest stratum of a proudly meritocratic

political system" that places all other people and their leaders on lower

rungs. It shouldn't surprise that many journalists view western values and

sophistication as "intellectually, culturally and morally superior to the

less developed societies of the impoverished South." In a word, "West is

best" in their minds so it follows our lives have greater value.

Enter Media Lens and its mission. The authors state to the best of their

knowledge it's "the first serious attempt to provide a regular, radical

response to mainstream propaganda in the UK." If corporate-paid journalists

did it, their careers would end so they can't, won't and don't ever except

around the edges where it hardly matters or is barely noticed. Media Lens,

in the authors' words, does "much more than talk about practical solutions."

It is "a practical solution."

The dominant media depends on uncriticized "self-delusions" while the role

of the alternative media is to challenge them. With an expanding internet,

it can be done by reaching a mass audience with minimal cost. The authors

refer to "citizen reporters" and their growing role in providing real news

and information unavailable in the mainstream. They hope this will lead to a

greater public awareness and "power to impose a news agenda on the

mainstream" or replace it altogether as a reliable source. Even more, they

hope to "motivate large popular movements" that may be able to "reform media

structures to restrict the influence of corporate interests" where the

bottom-line priority is their "bottom line."

The authors go further as well and say an "honest media" require "truth

telling (that) should be motivated by compassion for suffering rather than

greed for wealth, status and privilege." In their judgment, that's incentive

enough to seek real causes of problems and workable solutions to them. Their

goal is an "honest, compassionate, non-corporate" media because a model

based on profit and growing shareholder equity can't possibly allow

sentiment and compassion to be a consideration. It doesn't flow to the

bottom line.

Great goals begin with noble ideas backed by action, but the authors admit

that vision is a long way off. For now, their "energies (are) spent....in

joining, forming, funding and supporting real democratic media

initiatives.... through Internet websites and blogs." The mainstream can be

challenged, they believe, and success depends on believing in three things:

the benefits of ending others' suffering; a compassionate media is worth

working for; and acting to achieve it.

Full Human Dissent

Corporations today manipulate society and our lives by harming the greater

good for profits. Consider the cost: "individual depression, global

environmental collapse, wars for control of natural resources" and global

dominion. It happens because we're saturated in a "mass consumer culture"

that ignores "our needs as human beings." To counteract this, we need "to

find more humanly productive answers" mainstream culture calls "dissident"

or "absurd," but the authors believe are possible and vital.

Approaches to "individual and social well-being (are) practiced in many

traditional cultures (but have been) filtered out" of ours because they

conflict with corporate goals already explained. The authors once worked for

corporate employers and described their condition as "unrelieved boredom and

stress....work....of no intrinsic interest (and) simply a means to the end

of material acquisition." They concluded that life centered around money and

status "becomes a depressing dead end, a kind of emotional wasteland."

They contrast that experience to their involvement today in "unpaid human

rights and environmental work" that includes their Media Lens efforts.

Compassionate dissent holds promise as a motivating force - "for media

activism, peace activism, human and animal rights activism, and

environmental activism." It's also "profoundly conducive to our own

well-being." The authors end by stating political dissent must be combined

with human dissent. The combination can be powerfully self-liberating and

"all the motivation we need to act for the welfare of the world." Isn't that

a goal worth working for? Isn't it what what we want for ourselves?

_______

--

NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material

available to advance understanding of

political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I

believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their

spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their

government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are

suffering deeply in spirit,

and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public

debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have

patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning

back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at

stake."

-Thomas Jefferson