Years ago, I always enjoyed the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour on PBS. Whether I agreed with the news analysis and commentaries or not, I always had the sense that the personal integrity of the two anchors was on the line at all times, and that there was some greater depth to the coverage than one would otherwise find on the major networks. This was the pre-CNN and Fox 24-hour news cycle era.
It was from this mental image that I watched, in horror, as the same PBS News Hour last night delivered a typical neoconservative propaganda line, under the pretext of giving news. It was a short news update on the Iran situation, centered on the announcement of new U.S. sanctions against Iran. In the course of the report, the news anchor slipped in the formulation that the United States and Israel are in full agreement that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Hold the phone! Yes, that has been the persistent mantra of every Netanyahu government mouthpiece for months and months, and it has been echoed in every American neocon propaganda front for even longer, dating back to the bad old days of Bush and Cheney.
But, the truth is: In October 2011, the National Intelligence Council, the premier agency of the U.S. intelligence community, issued an update to the November 2007 NIE on Iran's nuclear program. Both the published/declassified 2007 study, and the classified 2011 study reached the same conclusion: Whatever work Iran was doing on weaponization was halted in late 2003, and has not resumed. Iran is engaged in enrichment, and is constantly improving their ballistic missile capabilities. But the vital part of any nuclear weapon program--the actual work on converting enriched uranium into a bomb--has been suspended for almost a decade, and the best U.S. intelligence community estimate is that it remains suspended.
This is no light matter. And this is not something that is based on "leaked" information. While the content of the updated NIE has not been released in declassified form, as recently as last week, General James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, issued an annual global threat assessment, in which he summarized the NIE findings, noting that there is no evidence that Iran has resumed weaponization. Nor is there evidence that the Iranian leadership has made a decision to even pursue building a nuclear bomb.
Back to my original point: The media, including the once-respected public broadcasting network, has gone over to the dark side on an issue that is too serious to let pass. We had the experience in the year leading into the Iraq invasion of a flood of neocon propaganda, about "thermonuclear mushroom clouds" and armageddon from Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Are we going to allow ourselves to be railroaded again into a war that would have far more devastating consequences than Iraq? At least some of our taxpayer dollars go to the funding of PBS. Don't we have a right to expect some degree of accuracy and honesty on matters of war and peace?
Agree and excellent post!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 07 February 2012 at 10:55 AM
I'm sorry, this is the new normal. You have the right to your expectations, its a free country. You just don't have a right, never mind a hope, of them being fulfilled.
Posted by: Charles I | 07 February 2012 at 11:15 AM
" Are we going to allow ourselves to be railroaded again into a war..." Short answer: yes.
Posted by: Bill H. | 07 February 2012 at 11:17 AM
This is the fruit of the long war against 'liberal media bias.' Ironically, Al Jazeera provides much better news now than the hollowed out and co-opted American Corporate Media.
Posted by: Roy G. | 07 February 2012 at 11:19 AM
matters of war and peace?
This reminds me of a story a diplomat member of family from previous generation once told me. A story of an old Iranian diplomat from the bygone years who was dispatched to face a commander of an invading army about to attack the homeland. Despite the diplomats valiant effort to consider a peaceful resolution, the commander was set in his Path to [conquer] Persia. At that point the diplomat showed his hand to the commander and said;
“If you ever see a hair in the palm of my hand, you will see Tehran”.
I must add, Iranians are literally and figuratively speaking, quite hairy.
In their few thousand year history, they have been over run by outsiders a handful of times and each time they have resurrected. With the Arab/Islamic invasion, they eventually created their own interpretation. With the Mongols, they were eventually converted to Islam and took up Iranian/Islamic names./ culture...
A simple question is, what has US gained since 1953?
25 years of a despotic, accommodating ruler. Frozen Iranian assets. A few arms sales to the compliant Arab dictatorships. Any others?
First it was the British and their sun-setting empire. Now it is the Israeli's and their Wall-Street bankers. What has the US brought to ME in this time frame, except wars, killing and bloodshed?
Where are the men like Marshall with their positive vision?
Posted by: Rd. | 07 February 2012 at 11:26 AM
I agree that the media has failed us and it is not liberals who are pushing for a war with Iran. If anybody controls the media today it is the neocons and the corporatists.
Posted by: alvord | 07 February 2012 at 12:07 PM
I am no longer aware of much distinction between liberals and "the necons and the corporatists".
Posted by: steve | 07 February 2012 at 01:50 PM
By the way looking now like over $1B will be injected by the various political campaigns into the MSM this year. A stock boost?
Ever ask yourself how many politicians own MSM stock?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 07 February 2012 at 02:11 PM
Corporatist? Have you heard of occupy wall street? I don't know any liberals who are pushing for war with Iran. Just the opposite. Perhaps you should visit some liberal blogs to learn what liberals actually believe and are saying.
Posted by: Alvord | 07 February 2012 at 03:13 PM
The awareness that the American people are being conned by the media is long overdue.
People need to analyze the news just like Russians learned to analyze Pravda. If something becomes the standard media narrative, there's a strong possibility that it's not true.
Caveat emptor!
Posted by: JohnH | 07 February 2012 at 03:31 PM
The key to perception management is to disconnect the perception of competence from actual achievement.
Exhibit A: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
We are told that she's a "great" diplomat, but look at her accomplishments: (1) non-reset reset with the Russians; (2) failure to accomplish any meaningful cooperation with the Chinese on trade; (3) zero progress in establishing a relationship with Iran; (4) the final demise of American credibility as a "good faith" broker in Israel-Palestine; and (5) the bungled negotiations with the Iraqis.
Sure, she had Bush's treaty. But she did a lousy job preparing the country for the reality that the Iraqis wanted us out.
She had produced a long list of failures yet she is lionized every day. She's really representative of our political class and the craven sensibilities of the MSM.
Posted by: Matthew | 07 February 2012 at 05:51 PM
"Truth in media IS dying"?
You're a few decades late and quite a few dollars short...
Truth in media has been dead since at least William Casey stating quite seriously that the CIA controls ALL the mainstream media...
If you want a clear example, look at the coverage of Syria...
ALL accounts claim Homs was bombarded Saturday with "hundreds" of dead.
But Pepe Escobar in Asia Times published the account of a Syrian Christian he described as utterly trustworthy who declared their family went to Homs on Saturday...and there was nothing going on.
EVERY account you see about Syria is coming from the West-supported activists.
Then the Russians are castigated for vetoing a UN resolution which demanded that Assad pull back ALL his forces to their home bases WITHOUT demanding that the insurgents lay down their arms. As the Russian envoy said, no government would accept that deal.
And today there are reports the Pentagon is planning military intervention in Syria "if Obama calls on that option".
And State's Neuland says, "all options are on the table" for military intervention in Syria. Where have we heard THAT line before?
My prediction is very simple: The US and NATO will be bombing Syria by summer.
In the process, Israel will use the suppression of Syrian military forces by the US and NATO to enable a surprise attack on Hizballah in Lebanon.
One armored division will push north into southern Lebanon, a second will push into Syrian territory to protect the rear of the third armored division which will proceed up and left to flank Hizballah in the Bekaa Valley.
Once Syria and Hizballah have been weakened (assuming the US/NATO/Israel succeed - which is not a certainty), the next step, probably beginning next year or some reasonable time after the previous events, will be either Israel launching a unilateral attack on Iran in order to drag the US into a war with Iran, OR the US President will begin ramping up a naval BLOCKADE of Iranian oil exports (once the oil EMBARGO has been proven to have failed.)
Such a blockade will force Iran to retaliate, just justifying an all-out regime change war.
Posted by: Richard Hack | 08 February 2012 at 02:19 AM
There was an interesting presentation on TED Talks by Lauren Zalaznick, NBC Executive, that TV is not a leader of society, but actually a follower or indicator of overall social state.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lauren_zalaznick.html
I highly recommend it, and more to the point, if our societies recreational viewing habits are an indicator of the zeitgeist, why not the news.
Despite their kvetching, maybe Americans prefer News that bears the same relationship to reality TV now, while in the 70s Americans like biting sarcasm from MASH and All in the Family and Walter Cronkite.
Anyway, just a modest proposal.
Posted by: ISL | 08 February 2012 at 08:48 AM
Richard Hack
What casey was referring to was CIA's long standing practice of cultivating certain journalists to the point of obtaining their nearly unquestioning loyalty. That is one influence on the media. Much stronger is the Israel first grip through access, advertising money and sheer muscle that can make or kill careers. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 08 February 2012 at 08:55 AM
Israel is going to invade southern Lebanon (how'd that work out last time?) and Syria too? Just what are they going to do IF they 'win'?
Posted by: Fred | 08 February 2012 at 10:33 AM
Yes, nothing is happening in Homs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEnAMMbiYko&feature=player_embedded
Posted by: Thomas | 08 February 2012 at 03:00 PM
I visit leftwing blogs routinely, but only those not affiliated with the democratic party.
By "liberal" I was referring to that segment of the democratic party which purports to call itself liberal yet supports the worst policies of the bush administration, particularly Obama and the democrats in Congress.
Posted by: steve | 08 February 2012 at 04:17 PM
I have to post this. It's hard to argue with the action, isn't it? Dual citizenships do have a way of influencing a nation's policies and security.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4187233,00.html
IDF submarine fleet bans dual citizenship
The IDF now demands that new candidates for service in Israel's submarine fleet waive their foreign citizenship in order to join the elite unit.
The demand to concede one's dual citizenship is made at certain IDF combat units and for posts requiring high security clearance. Submarine fleet recruits receive a notification stating they must renounce their foreign citizenships in order to qualify for the prolonged training, as part of their security screenings....
Posted by: Castellio | 08 February 2012 at 10:51 PM
Am I correct that over 80% of political campaign contributions go to MSM media buys?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 09 February 2012 at 02:44 AM
I heard analysis yesterday either on CBC radio or TV news or on PBS, can't recall, claiming that near $6 billion would be spent on primaries & the election.
Posted by: Charles I | 09 February 2012 at 10:53 AM
More like 40% according to these tables (graphs only show Obama):
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?cid=N00009638
and/though it does not reflect media buys by irregulars, auxiliaries, guerrillas, and fellow travelers.
Posted by: rjj | 10 February 2012 at 05:55 PM