G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Wrong and White and Read All Over
By Ted Rall
Created Jul 18 2007 - 9:02am
NEW YORK--On Iraq, the right was wrong. It's a slam dunk. So why do the
wrong righties keep raking in big media cash? And why aren't lefties taking
a victory lap?
It's a Back to the Future moment: back in 2002, polls found most Americans
opposed to war with Iraq at roughly the same two-to-one ration as they do
now. What changed Americans' minds between 2002 and 2003, supplemented by
Bush Administration lies about fictional WMDs and liberation flowers, were
millions of words published in major national magazines and regurgitated on
television news programs by serious-looking, soft-spoken men boasting
impressive journalistic and academic credentials. Pretend experts wove
fantastic tales of wonderful geopolitical benefits that would derive from
taking out Saddam. Invading Iraq was going to democratize the Middle East,
force the Palestinians to sign a peace deal with Israel, and bring Elvis
back to life.
Fareed Zakaria used his column at Newsweek to promote the now-discredited
neoconservative democratization-via-regime-change thesis. William Kristol,
editor of The Weekly Standard and another neocon, sang the same bellicose
tune at Time. David Brooks and Thomas Friedman beat the war drum for the
influential opinion page of The New York Times. Then, against the evidence
and common sense, they declared Mission Accomplished.
"The only people who think this wasn't a victory," wrote Time's Charles
Krauthammer after the fall of Baghdad and the toppling of Saddam's statue,
"are Upper West Side liberals, and a few people here in Washington." Like
the phony Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman stories, the statue story was fake.
We "Upper West Side liberals" were right. But no one cares.
As the occupation went from bad to worse, the WordPerfect Warriors--none had
served in the military or even visited a war zone-- were always a step or
six behind, pushing for more troops in 2006 when they were three years too
late to do any good.
There were, of course, strong antiwar voices. With the exception of Paul
Krugman at the Times, however, they worked for media outlets with far
narrower distribution than the scribes at the big newsweeklies. And they
hardly, if ever, appeared on TV. The liberal weekly magazine The Nation led
the antiwar pack with a circulation of 184,000 in 2004. But Nation pundits
weren't nearly as left as guys like Kristol were right; many supported or
remained silent, for example, about the invasion of Afghanistan. Outlets
like The Nation were mere mouse squeaks next to the thunderous roar of Time
and Newsweek's combined 7,100,000.
That was then, this is now, yet nothing has changed. Despite no WMDs.
Despite turning more "corners" than a milligon. Despite a million dead
Iraqis.
Imagine the scorn and derision that would have rained down upon antiwar
dudes like me if WMDs had turned up behind cheering Iraqi throngs! There
would have been purges and canceled book contracts and all manner of
retribution. "Over the next couple of weeks," crowed Dick Morris on Fox News
on April 9, 2003, "when we find the chemical weapons this guy [Saddam] was
amassing...the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four
years."
Where's the right-wing head-hanging?
Despite their F-rated performances on the biggest political story of their
lives Morris, Krauthammer, Zakaria, Kristol, Brooks, Friedman and likeminded
ideologues continue to sell their opinions for big bucks. True, Time and
Newsweek publish columnists like Joe Klein and Jonathan Alter---antiwar
liberals. Sort of.
Compared to their right-wing colleagues, however, these weak-kneed libbies
are squishy and polite--nothing like their rabidly wrong right-wing
counterparts.
In cartoonist Nina Paley's memorable phrase, these official lefties are
"soft liberals" who call for the left to turn the other cheek to right-wing
attacks. "[Democratic] kowtowing to [left-wing] extremists," Klein wrote in
the June 18 issue of Time, "is exactly the opposite of what this country is
looking for after the lethal radicalism of the Bush Administration."
Nowhere in the "mainstream" media--not in print, not on television--will you
find a left-wing counterpart to radical right Bushists. You know, someone
who wanted the troops out before we ever sent them. Someone who wants an
evacuation, not a phased withdrawal. Who thinks Bush deserves a long stretch
in Milosevic's old cell at The Hague. Who doesn't think Afghanistan had any
more to do with 9/11 than Iraq. Real lefties are out there, all right, but
they're marginalized, relegated to self-published preach-to-the-choir blogs
and low-circulation rags (The Progressive, Mother Jones, Indymedia) and
semi-underground radio broadcasts like Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now!"
Lefties have correctly called every shot since 2000. They were right from
Florida 2000 to 9/11 to Gitmo to torture to the Patriot Act to WMDs to Abu
Ghraib to domestic spying. Yet, against all logic and fairness, they're
treated like kooks. Meanwhile, the real kooks are still getting paid to
spout the same old nonsense.
On June 25 Peter Beinart, yet another pro-Iraq War wacko for Time, wrote
this gem: "Obviously, 9/11--when the U.S. was attacked from Afghanistan, a
terrorist-infested basket case--changed things." Well, no. We were attacked
by Saudis and Egyptians and Pakistanis. Pakistan funded Al Qaeda training
camps, most of which were in Pakistan; only a few were across the Durand
Line in southeastern Afghanistan. 9/11 changed nothing. As usual, the U.S.
attacked countries for fun and profit and allowed real, looming threats
(Pakistan, North Korea) off the hook.
How many of Time's 4.1 million readers, who count on the magazine for
reliable news and credible opinion, will believe Beinart's nonsense?
Which brings us to the age-old question: Why? Why does the "mainstream
media"--big, influential, well-funded outlets--disseminate extremist pap
while censoring sane, rational voices?
Marxists point to the Big Media's corporate masters. Pro-government and
corporate propaganda, goes their reasoning, keeps the masses ignorant and
supports business interests. Pardon the pun, but I don't buy it. I think the
editors and publishers and producers and bookers are distracted. They're so
busy meeting deadlines that they forget to keep track of how often they get
things wrong. What's more, many media executives are lazy thinkers.
Out-of-the-box ideas, such as the fact that politicians lie like they
breathe and that there are perfectly justifiable reasons for hating the
United States, scare them. So they shut out those with shaggy hair and
off-the-rack suits, like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, who speak scary
(and accurate) ideas out loud.
There's still one thing I don't understand: the business angle. Why would
any media outlet risk its profitability by repeatedly printing and
broadcasting big, honking mistakes? After all, credibility is the reason
people (used to) buy newspapers.
_______
About author Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is
Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel
analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.
--
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
By Ted Rall
Created Jul 18 2007 - 9:02am
NEW YORK--On Iraq, the right was wrong. It's a slam dunk. So why do the
wrong righties keep raking in big media cash? And why aren't lefties taking
a victory lap?
It's a Back to the Future moment: back in 2002, polls found most Americans
opposed to war with Iraq at roughly the same two-to-one ration as they do
now. What changed Americans' minds between 2002 and 2003, supplemented by
Bush Administration lies about fictional WMDs and liberation flowers, were
millions of words published in major national magazines and regurgitated on
television news programs by serious-looking, soft-spoken men boasting
impressive journalistic and academic credentials. Pretend experts wove
fantastic tales of wonderful geopolitical benefits that would derive from
taking out Saddam. Invading Iraq was going to democratize the Middle East,
force the Palestinians to sign a peace deal with Israel, and bring Elvis
back to life.
Fareed Zakaria used his column at Newsweek to promote the now-discredited
neoconservative democratization-via-regime-change thesis. William Kristol,
editor of The Weekly Standard and another neocon, sang the same bellicose
tune at Time. David Brooks and Thomas Friedman beat the war drum for the
influential opinion page of The New York Times. Then, against the evidence
and common sense, they declared Mission Accomplished.
"The only people who think this wasn't a victory," wrote Time's Charles
Krauthammer after the fall of Baghdad and the toppling of Saddam's statue,
"are Upper West Side liberals, and a few people here in Washington." Like
the phony Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman stories, the statue story was fake.
We "Upper West Side liberals" were right. But no one cares.
As the occupation went from bad to worse, the WordPerfect Warriors--none had
served in the military or even visited a war zone-- were always a step or
six behind, pushing for more troops in 2006 when they were three years too
late to do any good.
There were, of course, strong antiwar voices. With the exception of Paul
Krugman at the Times, however, they worked for media outlets with far
narrower distribution than the scribes at the big newsweeklies. And they
hardly, if ever, appeared on TV. The liberal weekly magazine The Nation led
the antiwar pack with a circulation of 184,000 in 2004. But Nation pundits
weren't nearly as left as guys like Kristol were right; many supported or
remained silent, for example, about the invasion of Afghanistan. Outlets
like The Nation were mere mouse squeaks next to the thunderous roar of Time
and Newsweek's combined 7,100,000.
That was then, this is now, yet nothing has changed. Despite no WMDs.
Despite turning more "corners" than a milligon. Despite a million dead
Iraqis.
Imagine the scorn and derision that would have rained down upon antiwar
dudes like me if WMDs had turned up behind cheering Iraqi throngs! There
would have been purges and canceled book contracts and all manner of
retribution. "Over the next couple of weeks," crowed Dick Morris on Fox News
on April 9, 2003, "when we find the chemical weapons this guy [Saddam] was
amassing...the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four
years."
Where's the right-wing head-hanging?
Despite their F-rated performances on the biggest political story of their
lives Morris, Krauthammer, Zakaria, Kristol, Brooks, Friedman and likeminded
ideologues continue to sell their opinions for big bucks. True, Time and
Newsweek publish columnists like Joe Klein and Jonathan Alter---antiwar
liberals. Sort of.
Compared to their right-wing colleagues, however, these weak-kneed libbies
are squishy and polite--nothing like their rabidly wrong right-wing
counterparts.
In cartoonist Nina Paley's memorable phrase, these official lefties are
"soft liberals" who call for the left to turn the other cheek to right-wing
attacks. "[Democratic] kowtowing to [left-wing] extremists," Klein wrote in
the June 18 issue of Time, "is exactly the opposite of what this country is
looking for after the lethal radicalism of the Bush Administration."
Nowhere in the "mainstream" media--not in print, not on television--will you
find a left-wing counterpart to radical right Bushists. You know, someone
who wanted the troops out before we ever sent them. Someone who wants an
evacuation, not a phased withdrawal. Who thinks Bush deserves a long stretch
in Milosevic's old cell at The Hague. Who doesn't think Afghanistan had any
more to do with 9/11 than Iraq. Real lefties are out there, all right, but
they're marginalized, relegated to self-published preach-to-the-choir blogs
and low-circulation rags (The Progressive, Mother Jones, Indymedia) and
semi-underground radio broadcasts like Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now!"
Lefties have correctly called every shot since 2000. They were right from
Florida 2000 to 9/11 to Gitmo to torture to the Patriot Act to WMDs to Abu
Ghraib to domestic spying. Yet, against all logic and fairness, they're
treated like kooks. Meanwhile, the real kooks are still getting paid to
spout the same old nonsense.
On June 25 Peter Beinart, yet another pro-Iraq War wacko for Time, wrote
this gem: "Obviously, 9/11--when the U.S. was attacked from Afghanistan, a
terrorist-infested basket case--changed things." Well, no. We were attacked
by Saudis and Egyptians and Pakistanis. Pakistan funded Al Qaeda training
camps, most of which were in Pakistan; only a few were across the Durand
Line in southeastern Afghanistan. 9/11 changed nothing. As usual, the U.S.
attacked countries for fun and profit and allowed real, looming threats
(Pakistan, North Korea) off the hook.
How many of Time's 4.1 million readers, who count on the magazine for
reliable news and credible opinion, will believe Beinart's nonsense?
Which brings us to the age-old question: Why? Why does the "mainstream
media"--big, influential, well-funded outlets--disseminate extremist pap
while censoring sane, rational voices?
Marxists point to the Big Media's corporate masters. Pro-government and
corporate propaganda, goes their reasoning, keeps the masses ignorant and
supports business interests. Pardon the pun, but I don't buy it. I think the
editors and publishers and producers and bookers are distracted. They're so
busy meeting deadlines that they forget to keep track of how often they get
things wrong. What's more, many media executives are lazy thinkers.
Out-of-the-box ideas, such as the fact that politicians lie like they
breathe and that there are perfectly justifiable reasons for hating the
United States, scare them. So they shut out those with shaggy hair and
off-the-rack suits, like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, who speak scary
(and accurate) ideas out loud.
There's still one thing I don't understand: the business angle. Why would
any media outlet risk its profitability by repeatedly printing and
broadcasting big, honking mistakes? After all, credibility is the reason
people (used to) buy newspapers.
_______
About author Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is
Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel
analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.
--
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