18 - 24 October 2001
Issue No.556
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 18 - 24 October 2001 Issue No.556 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Barking up the wrong
Government cover-ups and media complicity: no wonder Americans prefer Jerry Springer. Fayza Hassan comments
On 11 September, Chandra Levy disappeared for the second time, violently displaced from public attention by tragic events of unprecedented magnitude.
For the few months preceding the attack on the World Trade Center, photographers and aggressive reporters had lain in wait hoping to catch a glimpse of, or a word from, Senator Gary Condit -- alleged to know more than he was telling about the whereabouts of his ex-girlfriend -- for their breaking-news photos or front page articles. Other news, especially of the international variety, was passed over or relegated to the inside pages of newspapers by editors-in-chief with an eye on sales and the goodwill of advertisers. On major television stations, world events warranted a quick mention before more exciting information was commented on at length.
In July 1996, Bill Clinton was infuriated by the media, complaining that they covered nothing but the Whitewater affair -- in which murky context, "mistakes became supposed crimes, innocent members of his staff were dragged through costly investigations. The scandals were on television all the time. It was all the press cared about. Their sole interest was in destroying as many people as they could and making careers off it. The media was anxious to win Pulitzer Prizes by posting scalps," writes Bob Woodward in Shadow, commenting on the then president's mood. Woodward himself was not particularly popular in the White House; George Bush Sr had often refused to speak to him because of his upsetting habit of looking for the facts behind the scene.
During my brief stays in the United States, I have noticed that CNN was never a favourite; on the whole, audiences preferred more overtly gossipy stations. Even so, it seemed to lack the major ingredient that makes its popularity in the Middle East: accurate, albeit somewhat biased coverage of world events.
The rationale behind this dereliction of serious reporting is that the American public does not wish to be informed; it would rather be entertained. Light news and sit-coms are the right vehicles to capture a faithful audience and, consequently, the favours of the large advertisers. A successful media's immediate interest is to feed into this situation. In his introduction to Censored 2001 (Project Censored's 25th-anniversary publication), Noam Chomsky comments: "Media service to the corporate sector is reflexive: the media are major corporations. Like others, they sell a product to a market: the product is audiences and the market is other businesses (advertisers). It would be surprising indeed if the choice and shaping of media content did not reflect the interests and preferences of the sellers and buyers and the business world in general."
Chomsky distinguishes between the "elite media," which aims to be instructive, "though in ways that reflect dominant interests," and the mass media, whose job is to shape the attitudes and beliefs of "the great beast" -- a term coined by Alexander Hamilton to designate the annoying public. "The great beast," comments Chomsky, needs "to be caged." It must be permeated with respect for its leaders, who by definition pursue the path of righteousness; it must accept its subordinate status gracefully and amuse itself with trivial pursuits that will keep it out of harm's way and the rulers' hair. Hence the proliferation of media material aiming at diverting attention from more serious concerns. When the Center for the Study of Commercialism invited 200 media outlets to a press conference in Washington, DC to announce the results of its study documenting dozens of instances of advertiser censorship in the media, according to Censored 2001, not a single radio or television station or network sent a reporter. Only two newspapers, the Washington Post and the Washington Times, bothered to attend.
Among the various causes of confusion marring relations between the Middle East and the United States is the fact that any barely educated janitor or delivery boy in Egypt, Jordan or Lebanon is far more politically savvy than any average American high-school graduate.
In cafés, on street corners, at home, the office or on a bus, Middle Easterners discuss politics, only briefly interrupting their discourse to cheer for their football teams. They therefore find it incomprehensible that, in a country where democracy is reputed to have abolished media censorship and IT has come into its own, the public remains unaware of its government's shenanigans. How, they wonder in disbelief, is an advanced country like America ignorant of the outside world?
The entire continent was glued to the television screen during the OJ Simpson trial, the Monica Lewinsky affair, or, to a lesser extent, the search for Chandra Levy following her mysterious disappearance. The "outside" world, which happened to be the real one, was out of reach for the non-initiated, kept safely out of mind. As the soap opera du jour followed its infamous course, important international events were in the making. Sometimes they briefly burst onstage but were quickly drowned in the brouhaha of the "local" outrage of the day. Such was the faith of the American debacle in Somalia and the genocide in Rwanda.
It is quite probable that, during those long hours of breathless concentration on the numerous episodes of scandalous sagas, the plans to attack America were being hatched, maybe in other countries, but maybe also in the house next door. Had the Americans been told at the time that suspicious activities were actually taking place under their noses -- a fact of which the FBI, it appears, had at least partial knowledge -- one can safely assume they would have laughed the idea off heartily. As early as 9 September 1981, Ronnie Loveller reported the following item in Los Angeles's Pacifica National News Service under the title "The Miami Connection:" "Guerrilla training camps are openly operating in Florida with the knowledge of the federal government. The activities appear to violate a number of federal laws that prohibit any organised attempt by private citizens to overthrow or undermine another government."
Yet the media did not wish to disturb the public, and preferred to encourage its blissful ignorance. Even on the off chance that an over-zealous reporter had stumbled upon the story, would it have found a slot on the evening news? It is reasonable to presume that a cozy arrangement was worked out between these terrorists as well as others, which remained in place for the following 20 years.
The last decade of the century was good to America, the media kept saying: the economy was the best it had ever been, unemployment was virtually inexistent, and (courtesy of the Gulf War) the US government had a foothold in the Middle East from which it was not about to be dislodged. It was in a position to dictate war and peace and control oil prices. The American people were happy and attacks on the Big Apple were the stuff only bad movies are made of. Few had heard of Afghanistan or Bin Laden, and still fewer wished to know anything about them.
After the fact, as the appalling events of 11 September and its aftermath are examined in a new light, analysts are slowly coming to the realisation that a more accurate reading of the international situation could at least have suggested that all was not well in the kingdom of Denmark. The question is: was it ignorance or arrogance that brought about the attack on the World Trade Center?
***
clockwise from top left: contemplating the ruins of Al-Shifa pharmaceutical company;Monica Lewinsky; OJ Simpson and lawyer Johnny Cochran; the Cinton family just before the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan
While Americans sorrowfully wonder why Third World countries need quid pro quo promises before reluctantly agreeing to fight in the US's new war against terrorism -- instead of rising unquestioningly to its defence -- the rest of the world would like to know whether or not the American public has really known about the government's often vicious foreign policy during the past half century. It is all very well to state forcefully that "we are right and they are wrong," but past sins have an embarrassing tendency to resist being swept under the carpet, even when, as now, it would be convenient to see them disappear or be forgotten in the hysteria. How many countries -- now remembered and pressed to join the coalition -- have been slighted, treated unjustly, subjected to cruel sanctions and made to suffer from the application of blatant double standards? How much reporting covered these events?
In its Ten Top Stories Censored in 1992, Censored 2001 has this to say under the title "Iraqgate and the Quiet Death of the Watergate Law:" "Representative Henry B Gonzales (D-TX), chair of the House Banking Committee, launched an intensive investigation into the Iraqgate scandal. Gonzales charged that the Bush [Sr] administration was instrumental in building up Iraq militarily, including supplying nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry, and that it was blocking investigation into these actions. In September 1992, the Senate quietly killed the legislation that was necessary to renew the Watergate Law which had previously assured independent investigations of criminal acts by top officials." An article by Frederick Clairmonte in the World Press Review (September 1992) states that the leading arms merchant in the world is the United States, which has provided over $128 billion in weaponry and military assistance to more than 125 of the world's 169 countries since 1982. These two items shed new light on Desert Storm and the sanctions that followed. Nor is it particularly strange that the United States is so terrified by the possibility of a biological war; after all, they provided the stuff themselves.
A few days after Osama Bin Laden appeared on television with a message that greatly impressed the Muslim world, there was a sudden flurry of questions about a covert message to terrorist accomplices that may have been contained in the tape. Apparently the segments released by Al-Jazeera and shared with CNN had been aired unedited. In a debate with Eason Jordan, executive director of CNN news, anchor Jonathan Mann asked in his famous programme "Insight": "Should CNN try to influence world events [by withholding information]?" Responsible journalism demands that any material that may help the enemy be censored, argued Jordan. The first duty of the American media is to their country and its combat against terrorism, not to fairness of reporting. John King, the White House spokesman, concurred, conceding that in matters of national security it is acceptable to lie to the press. He did not elaborate on who decides what constitutes national security.
***
That the greatest democracy in the world manipulates the media is bad enough. Worse still is that it is in a position to manipulate the events themselves, particularly when they involve those countries that have aroused the Supreme Ringmaster's ire for one reason or another. In the film Wag the Dog, a phony war is launched in order to distract attention from a president's sexual indiscretion. Was the script pure fiction or fact? According to Woodward, on 19 August 1998, a downcast President Clinton, plagued by the Lewinsky scandal and Hillary's deep displeasure, celebrated his birthday at Vernon and Ann Jordan's home on Martha's Vineyard. Clinton and Hillary were barely on speaking terms, and the dinner of barbecued chicken and coconut cake was a gloomy affair. Chelsea left immediately after dinner, temporarily abandoning the role of mediator between her parents.
"Back at their vacation residence, the president was on the phone until about 3am. He was going to order the US military to attack targets in Afghanistan and Sudan used by Osama Bin Laden's terrorist organization. The network was suspected of masterminding the bombings of two US embassies in Africa earlier in the month," writes Woodward. In an article titled "War Dog," journalist Christopher Hitchens sheds more light on the event: "On August 20, 1998, the night of Monica Lewinsky's return to the grand jury... Clinton personally ordered the missile strikes against El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company on the outskirts of Sudan's capital city. The Clinton administration made three allegations about the El-Shifa plant: that it did not make, as it claimed, medicines and veterinary products; that it did use the chemical EMPTA (O-ethyl methylphospho-nothiotic acid), which is a "precursor", or building block, in the manufacture of VX nerve gas; that it was financed by Osama Bin Laden, the sinister and fanatical Saudi entrepreneur wanted in connection with lethal attacks on US embassies in Africa."
Hitchens continues: "These three claims evaporated with astonishing speed. It was conceded within days by Defence Secretary William Cohen that the factory did make medicines, vials of which were filmed while they lay in the rubble. It was further conceded that there was no 'direct' connection between the plant and Bin Laden's holdings. Later came the humbling admission that a local CIA informer in Sudan had been fired for the fabrication of evidence. Later still came the even more humbling refusal to produce the 'soil sample' taken from outside the factory claimed to contain traces of EMPTA. In the end, the United States was placed in the agonizing position, at the United Nations, of opposing a call for on-site inspection that had been put forward by the Sudanese."
The public, however, soon forgot the bombing of the El- Shifa plant; it was being saturated around the clock with the impeachment proceedings that followed soon after.
It is doubtful that George W Bush has a skeleton in his closet, but the World Trade Center attack has gone a long way toward saving his presidency, which got off to a tainted start and was plagued with the threat of economic disaster. With the help of an only too willing media, intent on making light of the opposition to his new war, he may yet come out smelling like roses and be touted as the president who cleansed the world of the peril of terrorism.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page