I tried five TV channels (FOX, CNN, MSNBC, Link TV, Free Speech TV), and several radio stations, to get a balanced, reliable and an accurate take on this Libya crisis - from the tsunami crisis (that has left the American psyche) to the Daiichi nuclear reactor crisis (that is now a distant memory for most – though it was less than a week ago)...and the only decently thoughtful five minute coverage was from an obscure local Iowa news.
I had to go to a small radio station, way outside the Midwest, to be able to get some trustworthy reporting and intelligent analysis on Libya. I have been saying all along that “analyzing Gaddafi's badness or madness”, as it is going on in the popular media, should not be the priority. It is the belief that a “military intervention” for what is a “humanitarian crisis” would succeed and be effective that needs to be analyzed.
Dr. Phyllis Bennis, at the Institute for Policy Studies, Washington D.C., admitted in a talk radio (March 19, 2011) that five countries on the United Nations' Security Council, big players in the UN and beyond, abstained from the UN resolution for a no-fly zone over Libya. Why is that not being discussed?
Though this Libya action is presented as a multilateral intervention, unlike the Iraq invasion of 2003, it is much more unilateral than it appears. France's role in pushing this resolution might be more symbolic – rather than serving as an actual military ally in the no-fly operation.
With all the focus on Libya, Bahrain and Yemen have been forgotten in much of the American news. Protesters there have been arrested, shot at, injured, many have gone missing and more than fifty people have been killed in Sanaa alone. The governments of Yemen and Bahrain have used “ruthless force” against their protesters. A MSNBC (supposedly more liberal and fair among the news agencies) reporter actually stated on Friday, 18th of March (paraphrased), “We are not covering Yemen and Bahrain because the protest there is of no interest to America. Their governments are good for us!”
Not even a pretense of independence, objectivity, detached reporting or real international-care in many American popular news agencies anymore. Should not someone be reprimanding these news media for such blatant admission of “inconsistency and hypocrisy”? In the media, even privately run by corporations, there is more competition and digression on commercial issues than on basic news reporting.
With all this we are supposed to believe that Gaddafi is the only one who indulges in propaganda?
It is easy to call all of this “theater of the absurd” - and then chuckle about it. That is what some powers would want – and they are not all conservative these days. While Japan has not received a lot of aid after a major catastrophe - though 50% of the American military-base expenses are borne by the Japanese government and their taxpayers, this excessive “delusion” that “resilience" and "a move-on, move-on psychology" alone will solve everything, popularized by the press, has to be confronted. Resilience requires the right support, sharing, cooperation, education, generosity and reciprocity.
In many ways Japan has dealt with one of its worst crisis with grace and humility. America has turned its economic woes, far from a catastrophe, into another military exercise in a region that it has treated with contempt and superiority for decades. And those who bring this up are usually silenced, marginalized and even unfairly attacked. As one ad for “Peace and Justice in the World” stated, “Thank you for not shooting me or ruining me!” Surviving certain countries, I guess, is the greatest achievement these days.
There are many ways that news is selectively used or manufactured to keep the status-quo, and the public preoccupied or distracted so certain agendas can be pushed through. Whether it is over throwing one dictator while funding another ; whether it is doctoring photos and visuals to create a story or a theme ; whether it is shifting or twisting arguments for one's cultural or economic convenience...or finding ways, insidious and militaristic, to attain, establish, protect and promote “power”.
How else, as my wonderful policy mentor once said, “Can we keep the Frankenstein of a system called 'development' going? We created it, we pursued it and now we kill to keep it! I am a good Christian...even I cannot imagine the karmic price we are going to pay for this?”
As one activist, and bless our world for such sensitively thinking and sweetly caring people, stated, “I have never felt as ashamed or as afraid of the US as I have for the last ten years”.
Are those ten years going to become twenty, thirty, forty...?
I had to go to a small radio station, way outside the Midwest, to be able to get some trustworthy reporting and intelligent analysis on Libya. I have been saying all along that “analyzing Gaddafi's badness or madness”, as it is going on in the popular media, should not be the priority. It is the belief that a “military intervention” for what is a “humanitarian crisis” would succeed and be effective that needs to be analyzed.
Dr. Phyllis Bennis, at the Institute for Policy Studies, Washington D.C., admitted in a talk radio (March 19, 2011) that five countries on the United Nations' Security Council, big players in the UN and beyond, abstained from the UN resolution for a no-fly zone over Libya. Why is that not being discussed?
Though this Libya action is presented as a multilateral intervention, unlike the Iraq invasion of 2003, it is much more unilateral than it appears. France's role in pushing this resolution might be more symbolic – rather than serving as an actual military ally in the no-fly operation.
With all the focus on Libya, Bahrain and Yemen have been forgotten in much of the American news. Protesters there have been arrested, shot at, injured, many have gone missing and more than fifty people have been killed in Sanaa alone. The governments of Yemen and Bahrain have used “ruthless force” against their protesters. A MSNBC (supposedly more liberal and fair among the news agencies) reporter actually stated on Friday, 18th of March (paraphrased), “We are not covering Yemen and Bahrain because the protest there is of no interest to America. Their governments are good for us!”
Not even a pretense of independence, objectivity, detached reporting or real international-care in many American popular news agencies anymore. Should not someone be reprimanding these news media for such blatant admission of “inconsistency and hypocrisy”? In the media, even privately run by corporations, there is more competition and digression on commercial issues than on basic news reporting.
With all this we are supposed to believe that Gaddafi is the only one who indulges in propaganda?
It is easy to call all of this “theater of the absurd” - and then chuckle about it. That is what some powers would want – and they are not all conservative these days. While Japan has not received a lot of aid after a major catastrophe - though 50% of the American military-base expenses are borne by the Japanese government and their taxpayers, this excessive “delusion” that “resilience" and "a move-on, move-on psychology" alone will solve everything, popularized by the press, has to be confronted. Resilience requires the right support, sharing, cooperation, education, generosity and reciprocity.
In many ways Japan has dealt with one of its worst crisis with grace and humility. America has turned its economic woes, far from a catastrophe, into another military exercise in a region that it has treated with contempt and superiority for decades. And those who bring this up are usually silenced, marginalized and even unfairly attacked. As one ad for “Peace and Justice in the World” stated, “Thank you for not shooting me or ruining me!” Surviving certain countries, I guess, is the greatest achievement these days.
There are many ways that news is selectively used or manufactured to keep the status-quo, and the public preoccupied or distracted so certain agendas can be pushed through. Whether it is over throwing one dictator while funding another ; whether it is doctoring photos and visuals to create a story or a theme ; whether it is shifting or twisting arguments for one's cultural or economic convenience...or finding ways, insidious and militaristic, to attain, establish, protect and promote “power”.
How else, as my wonderful policy mentor once said, “Can we keep the Frankenstein of a system called 'development' going? We created it, we pursued it and now we kill to keep it! I am a good Christian...even I cannot imagine the karmic price we are going to pay for this?”
As one activist, and bless our world for such sensitively thinking and sweetly caring people, stated, “I have never felt as ashamed or as afraid of the US as I have for the last ten years”.
Are those ten years going to become twenty, thirty, forty...?
Thank you Dr. But America's biased media is no news. There has been a lot of criticisms about this for years - which is why alternative media emerged, but unfortunately struggles to survive.
ReplyDeleteAs you stated in your last article Gaddafi has been notorious and ruthless for years...but why take him down now? This is not really as multilateral as it is presented to be, only eleven countries, two in the security council, supported this. But, and I understand your social work heart, there is a place for some military action. I support military action in the region that is not inconsistent and hypocritical. Why are we going into Libya, and not Bahrain and Yemen?
We need to know how much military support we are getting from France and England. What exactly is their input, investment and long term commitment? We need to see the dollars and cents...so we know we are not spent.
Keep writing...but your liberal Democratic bias is showing too much. It cannot be love and dove all the time.