NEW YORK CITY,
February 12: Returning from six days of making people-to-people contacts at schools, hospitals and universities in Baghdad and Basra, Iraq, family members of September 11 victims challenged world leaders to "use some imagination" to find alternatives to military action in that nation. The four-member delegation represents September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, an advocacy group seeking effective, non-violent alternatives to war and terrorism.

"During our trip, I met a lot of people who want their country healthy again, and their children happy," said Kat Tinley, whose uncle, Mike Tinley, perished at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. "Like much of the world, the people of Iraq have known violence entirely too long, and they long for peace."

"We talked with the teachers of a primary school who described the hopes they have for their students," added Terry Rockefeller, who lost her sister, Laura Rockefeller, at the twin towers. "We found a striking commonality in our grief for lost loved ones and our dreams for our children."

The delegation also visited the Amariyah bomb shelter and met relatives of the hundreds of civilians who died after a US missile struck the shelter on February 14, 1991.

"The personal connections we made with the people of Iraq have been very deep and meaningful," said Kristina Olsen, whose sister, Laurie Neira, was aboard Flight 11 on September 11, 2001. "Meeting with sick children and families who have lost loved ones has underscored the importance of the human bond that we share in our mutual suffering."

Colleen Kelly, who lost her brother, Bill Kelly Jr., at the World Trade Center, added, "In Iraq, we have begun to realise our hope of connecting a human face and story to the people of Iraq. This has only deepened our resolve to petition the governments of this world to explore every viable, peaceful alternative to the crisis here, using creative and perhaps non-conventional diplomacy."

In a press conference at the UN Church Center in New York City, the delegation also recognised that January 15 was the birthday of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., whose 1967 declaration that "wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows" provided the inspiration for the group’s name.

(www.peacefultomorrows.org/)

A Grieving Father’s Hope for Peace

JOHN TITUS

I write this letter with sadness in my heart and with a hope that we the people of the United States of America can overcome our differences, put aside our political biases, and open our hearts and minds to greater understanding and compassion. We are standing at the precipice of a war that looms like a dark shadow in the distance and my soul cries out.

Much controversy has resulted as our nation’s leaders move forward with preparation for war. Families, friends, the citizens of our country and the world are divided on the rightness or wrongness of such action. Each of us must search our hearts and souls and come to our own conclusions. I pray for enlightenment for each of us and especially for the leaders of the world as we move forward.

My message is borne of grief but with a clarity that comes from deep soul searching and meditation. When death strikes the heart our view of the world changes profoundly. Clarity finds its way to those who seek truth and understanding born from love.

My daughter, Alicia Titus was murdered by terrorists on September 11, 2001. She was a wizened young woman who lived life with grace, beauty, and compassion. Her whole life was dedicated to loving others, embracing differences, seeking truth and doing acts of goodness. Her joy was a gift she gave freely to all. She was able to see through the outer façade that so many of us maintain to protect our gentle souls. And she communicated at a deep level, beyond the trivial, beyond the mundane, to a level of love and understanding.

She travelled the world with the goal of experiencing all that life had to offer and to meet people from all walks of life. She embraced the sanctity of life. The people of the world were her family. It is a sad irony that she would die so violently at the hands of hate-filled zealots, diametrically opposed to all she stood for and believed in.

My message comes from deep within my soul, a place that feels the connection with all of life, that place where the Divine resides in each of us. The dark forces that took Alicia’s life self-righteously believed that they were fighting evil, ridding the world of the infidels who opposed their core beliefs. They struck at the heart and soul of America and over 3,000 innocent people died. Now we stand ready to use our advanced technology and risk our sons and daughters to fight those whom we believe to be infidels, those who oppose our ideologies and beliefs.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a corrupt, self- centred, egotistic and "evil" person. But, can we justify in our hearts and souls, the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people to try and get one man? And, like Osama bin Laden, he may elude our efforts and taunt us as the innocent dead lie in the Iraqi streets. Estimates range from 500,000 to 1,000,000 people who will directly or indirectly die as a result of our bombing. Sixty per cent of these are children under the age of 15 whose greatest sin is being born. Please, do not write these human lives off as "collateral damage". This is very dehumanising, extremely callous and it goes against all that is right and good.

We have a choice whether or not to move forward with this war. Unlike the message you have been repeatedly given, this is a war on the Iraqi people, not a war on terrorism. If we systematically kill the citizens of Iraq out of our own sense of self-righteousness and fear, we reduce ourselves to the level of those that we deem as terrorists. Look deep within your soul and seek the truth that longs for expression. There has to be a better way of resolving this conflict other than committing more senseless killing. It is my hope that we can learn from the terrible tragedy of September 11, 2001, without perpetuating a world in which violence and unjust killing are accepted as a solution to conflict. This is how our primitive ancestors resolved differences.

Surely, we have grown in love and understanding beyond that. My prayer is that God will be with our world leaders, our troops who would sacrifice their lives for us and to the children of Iraq whose cries will ring out in agony and resound in the soul of America.

(March 2003).
(http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/voices/jt_030903.html)

___________

‘I’m not going to respond to terrorism by becoming a terrorist’

If you had lost a loved one, would you want revenge? As the world edges closer to war, RACHEL SHABI talks to relatives who believe retaliation is wrong.

RITA LASAR, 71

New York, USA

My brother Abe (Zelmanowitz, 55) worked in the north tower of the World Trade Center, on the 27th floor. He could have got out, but his colleague, Ed, a quadriplegic, was trapped with him. My other brother and sister-in-law called him, begging him to leave, but he said he would wait for help to get Ed out. But help came too late.

Then Bush made his speech at the National Cathedral (September 14, 2001). He mentioned my brother’s heroic act, and it became immediately apparent to me that my country was going to use my brother’s death to justify attacks in Afghanistan. That was as horrendous a blow to me as the actual attacks on September 11. I hoped and prayed that this country would not unleash forces in my brother’s name. When it (the bombing of Afghanistan) happened, I was horrified and devastated. I felt so impotent.

Then I got a call from Global Exchange (a human rights organisation), asking me if I’d like to go to Afghanistan. What I saw there changed my life forever. I had been a very privileged, blessed American who had only ever seen war on TV. And then I went to Afghanistan and saw the devastation and horror of what happens to innocent people when bombs fall — anyone’s bombs, anywhere in the world. That my brother’s name had been used to justify attacks on the people I met, became family with, cried and grieved with, brought it to a point where it was emotional and real. I found nothing but understanding, warmth, hugs — they knew all about 9/11 and they grieved for us and apologised to us. Every American should go there — because, if they did, they would stop the plans for war on Iraq immediately.

I did not pay any attention to who was to blame for 9/11 — there was no place left in my mind and heart other than the grief about my brother and the people who were going to be killed in his name. I didn’t feel anger. I didn’t want any other sister or mother to feel this way. It was only later that I began to think about how to bring the perpetrators to justice. I knew that bombing was not the answer. We are no safer now than when we started bombing. We are going to war with a country that had no connection to 9/11, our privacy and our freedom in this country are being slowly whittled away, and Muslims are afraid to go out in the street — in a city that used to welcome everybody.

Revenge for 9/11 is the excuse they are using to bomb Iraq. There are people in Iraq who are alive today and who will be dead next month if we have a war — and my country will say that they have done that to avenge my brother’s death. I will not let my brother, my dear brother’s death, be hypocritically used in this war — the fact that his death is being used cynically hurts me so much, I can’t tell you. Imagine someone who you loved, who died violently, being used insincerely and untruthfully in a political campaign. It is an exploitation.

So I have no intention of touching the subject of revenge. If people ask me why I don’t want retribution, I say that it is the natural human reaction to not seek retribution — or it should be. It cannot accomplish anything. My brother is dead. I privately mourn for him every moment. But I am not looking to atone for his death. I’m looking to prevent the death of others. I don’t want to see other people die to amend a ghastly, unbelievable death. The world is larger than just me. Things don’t have to be done to make up for things that have happened to me. Things have to be done to make things better in the world. I draw from my love of human beings that everyone is the same as I am. That it is possible — not in a dream, but some day — for this to be a peaceful planet. I’ll fight to the day I die against this war on terror. I don’t want my granddaughter to be sitting here at my age, facing the same world that I’m facing now: a world of starvation, war and inequity. Surely we can do better than this.

DAVID POTORTI, 46

North Carolina, USA

His name was Jim Potorti – he was my eldest brother,53. Jim worked on the 95th floor of the north tower, almost directly where the plane hit.

I was surprised at my reaction at the time, which was that I didn’t have a lot of anger in the way that others did. I felt sadness more than anger, because I recognised that these terrible acts were desperate acts reflecting a desperate feeling.

All the radio and TV stations were saying we should kill the people responsible for 9/11, just go and bomb people — and it made me sick in the heart to hear that. I had just lost someone and they were saying we should do the same to others. I never remember being angry at the people who did it, because it was such a political act. It wasn’t like a drunk driver hitting my brother, where I would have been really angry.

I remember being angry that the bombing of Afghanistan was being carried out in my name. Yes, anger is the only word, because I think of what a nice person my brother was, how much he loved his family. I felt we were really dishonouring his memory by throwing our constitution out of the window, that if we really wanted to honour him we should hold on to our principles instead of throwing them all away. I don’t think my brother died for my country, but I hope that my country doesn’t die for him, by rejecting its values and principles.

The goal is always justice, but how you achieve justice is the question. We have all wanted to bring the people responsible for 9/11 to justice. And so another source of anger is that we are not doing that, we are not locating Osama bin Laden or the Al Quaeda network — in fact, we are making it harder to find them. It’s the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Justice for me would be a more equitable world, where people did not live in such misery that they had to hate each other. A world in which the US contributes to a sense of equality, rather than making it worse.

So the rage I felt after 9/11 was rage at the whole system, that people could be so desperate that they would do something like this. The people who flew the planes into the building are dead: what more can you do to them? But this kind of terrorism is like a cancer. The only way you stop it is to stop the cycle, by saying, "I’m not going to respond to terrorism by becoming a terrorist." If you do respond with violence, you are just promoting more and more terrorism.

I don’t make any connection between Iraq and 9/11, because I’ve never seen any. I would only justify an attack on Iraq if the Iraqi army attacked the continental US. Not a terrorist attack, but the official Iraqi army. I got a vicious e-mail today in which someone claimed that Saddam killed my brother. How do you respond to someone who’s so out of touch with reality? My brother’s death was a nightmare, and I feel like it just gets worse every time it’s used to justify more terror and more pain. I just want this to be over. I just want people to stop being so angry. I want people to stop dying.

No one has ever asked me how I feel about anything. That’s where the feeling of violation comes in — speaking for me, instead of asking me how I feel. We had a baby about a month ago, and I’m realising that she will never know my brother. How could I possibly wish that kind of loss on anyone else’s brother, or daughter, or parents?

The thing to atone my brother’s death would be for there to be more honesty in the world, for America to start being more honest about the repercussions of its world policy. Over the past year, I have really educated myself about foreign policy – I wanted to know why this happened. What I wish now is that people in the US would do the same. I want people to just shut their mouths and read – stop talking until they know something. We all have to do that, including me. 

(Excerpted from a report in The Guardian, UK, Saturday February 22, 2003).

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9  No. 85, Cover Story 2

The post ‘Win without war’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

With the USA about to launch a war against Iraq any day now, what will trigger the war? Obviously, Colin Powell’s revelations before Congress didn’t set in motion an immediate attack. Americans sit and wait for convincing evidence. But maybe Hollywood knows…

I previously reported on Hollywood’s uncanny foreknowledge when production of war films began prior to Sept. 11, 2001. (www.lewrockwell.com Feb. 20 and June 4, 2002) Now there is talk that a TV series called "24" may provide clues to what might set off public sentiment to attack Iraq.

In the script for "24," Kiefer Sutherland plays the part of federal agent Jack Bauer who has been called back into service in a counter terrorism unit because of the threat of a nuclear bomb hidden somewhere in Los Angeles. According to the script, a Middle Eastern terrorist cell called the "Second Wave" places the dirty bomb in Los Angeles which would put 2.5 million residents at risk for casualties.

In the TV series, "the President vows to retaliate against an unnamed Middle Eastern country that has harboured the group in much the same fashion that President Bush has done with anyone giving shelter to those behind 9/11." (BBC News, Entertainment Section, Oct. 30, 2002) Mark Armstrong, writing for E! Online News, says the "24" series story line "hits a little bit too close to home for viewers." [E! Online News July 1, 2002]

The TV series has aired in the USA and is scheduled to air in Britain soon. Oddly, the entire series was sponsored on US television by Ford Motor Company, instead of multiple sponsors.

Even if a terrorist organisation had a "dirty nuclear bomb," it wouldn’t produce a mushroom cloud over Los Angeles or any other city. A "dirty bomb" is simply a regular explosive device that disperses radioactive material. So the TV series is inaccurate and spreads inordinate fear. The American Institute of Physics reports that radiation emitted from a "dirty bomb" is likely to be too low to calculate and that the greatest risk from such a weapon is panic. [American Institute of Physics, March 12, 2002] Furthermore, Iraq has no nuclear weapons of fissionable materials according to the UN nuclear inspection agency. [Toronto Sun, Sept. 15, 2002] So don’t look towards Iraq as a possible nuclear terrorist.

Whether Hollywood productions predict reality is of course open for discussion. Certainly Hollywood has been involved in producing war and propaganda films for decades if for nothing else than helping to recruit troops. Of course America didn’t witness the detonation of a "dirty nuclear bomb" at the recent Super Bowl in San Diego, even though this was the central theme in the movie The Sum Of All Fears (Paramount Pictures) based on a Tom Clancy novel.

But maybe Hollywood scripts that contain terrorist threats from foreign groups continue to keep American citizens on edge. There is already criticism that the White House is manufacturing terrorist alerts to keep the issue alive in the minds of voters and help elevate President Bush’s approval ratings. (Capitol Hill Blue, Jan. 3, 2003).

Of course the President hasn’t been waiting for any evidence, or even a "dirty bomb," to go to war. The Washington Post recently revealed that President George W. Bush planned to go to war against Iraq only days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. (Wash. Post Jan. 12, 2003) And why would Iraq sponsor a terrorist attack on the US knowing full well it would prompt horrific retaliation?

Last January, the Los Angeles Times ran a story about the lies that were told to get the US into its first war with Iraq over a decade ago, such as over-exaggerated claims of Iraqi troop strength and stories of Iraqi soldiers yanking new-born babies out of hospital incubators. (Jan. 5, 2003) Television news agencies certainly played a part in disseminating the misinformation leading up to the Gulf War and no American news agency today has ever apologised for airing the false "Iraqi incubator" story. Will the same kind of misinformation be used to get Americans behind this new war effort?

The White House needs something to get the stalled war effort off the ground. Time magazine recently conducted an online poll asking Americans which country, North Korea, Iraq or the USA, posed the greatest danger to world peace in 2003? Out of more than a quarter million votes cast, 83.4% picked the USA as the greatest threat to world peace. (Time magazine, Jan. 22, 2003).

Government sources continue to warn of an impending smallpox terrorist attack. But why wouldn’t a terrorist organisation have released such a terrible bio-weapon before the US had its vaccine ready? The mass vaccination programme promoted by federal authorities would offer little or no protection unless the exact strain of smallpox virus was known ahead of time. The federal government apparently had prior knowledge of the anthrax threat. The White House continues to dodge questions about its foreknowledge of an anthrax threat evidenced by administration of the antibiotic drug CIPRO to White House staff on the same day as the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. (World Net Daily, Jan. 11, 2003).

What does the federal government know about the alleged smallpox threat? The strain of anthrax used in US mail envelopes was traced back to the US army labs at Fort Detrick in Maryland, the same place where the only known stores of smallpox virus outside of Russia are housed. To date, US efforts to apprehend the anthrax terrorist appear to have dwindled. If that terrorist had access to bio-weapons at Ft. Detrick in the past, what would stop him now? 

(Courtesy Bill Sardi. Sardi is a health journalist who dabbles from time to time in current affairs. His website is www.askbillsardi.com).

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9  No. 85, Cover Story 9

The post What does Hollywood know about the upcoming war with Iraq? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

of the pro-war propaganda machine
 

IN THE former USSR, people knew that the country’s state-owned newspaper Pravda would peddle Moscow’s line, no matter how outrageous the lies. George W. Bush can’t boast that the Republican Party owns the country’s newspapers, television stations or radio networks. But he can still count on a press that’s nearly as obedient as Pravda.

No matter how many lies George Bush tells about Iraq’s "threat" to the US, the corporate media won’t ask him the hard questions. Bush and his administration know that they can count on the "patriotism" of the press — which will report on the coming war like a local sports reporter rooting for the home team. And Bush — unlike the rulers of the former USSR — won’t even have to issue any orders or appoint any news censors. That’s because the press in the US censors itself.

In May 2002, CBS news anchor Dan Rather acknowledged, "What we are talking about here —whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not — is a form of self-censorship. It starts with a feeling of patriotism within oneself. It carries through with a certain knowledge that the country as a whole… felt and continues to feel this surge of patriotism within themselves. And one finds oneself saying: ‘I know the right question, but you know what? This is not exactly the right time to ask it.’"

Of course, Rather said this to Britain’s BBC — and didn’t have the courage to say it at home, where he had been leading the patriotic charge in the media after the attacks of September 11. Predictably, almost no outlet of the US mainstream media reported on Rather’s comments.

No one in Washington had to tell newspapers to bury them – just like no one had to tell the press to ignore reports, published in Britain’s Observer newspaper, that the Bush administration spied on United Nations (UN) Security Council members during the debate on a new resolution to authorise war on Iraq.

And few media outlets have focused on Newsweek magazine’s revelation that Iraqi Gen. Hussein Kamel, a prominent defector, testified in 1995 that Iraq had already been significantly disarmed. Bush and other administration officials have regularly cited Kamel’s testimony as evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction.

The fact is that the media will support this war, despite the restrictions that the government will place on their ability to report freely — and despite the administration’s open manipulation of information.

The image presented of the new Gulf War will be totally sanitised. During the US bombardment of Afghanistan, Walter Isaacson, the chief executive of CNN, told his staff that it was "perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan." And during the 1991 Gulf War, the media quickly buried images of the horrific slaughter carried out against retreating soldiers and civilians on the "Highway of Death" at the end of the war.

The media lines up with the government on fundamental matters not because of any conspiracy or backroom deals, but because the media themselves are huge corporations that share the same economic and political interests with the tiny elite that runs the US government. In some cases, they’re the same people.

It’s now common practice for the Big Three networks to put former military officials, politicians and government bureaucrats on the payroll. "The media has simply become a branch of the war effort," the Palestinian author Edward Said wrote recently. "What has entirely disappeared from television is anything remotely resembling a consistently dissenting voice." As if to underline the point, in February, the cable news network MSNBC cancelled Phil Donahue’s show – and announced that it was hiring Republican hack Dick Armey as a commentator.

Current and former government voices dominate the "debate" in the media about war and other questions of foreign policy. "Unnamed government sources," press spokespeople, Pentagon officers, White House officials, and ideologues close to the administration make up most of the "experts" and "reliable sources" that we hear from.

The corporations that dominate the media are getting more and more concentrated. Ben Bagdikian, author of Media Monopoly, estimates that six inter-linked corporations dominate the US media today. NBC is owned by major military contractor General Electric. But even news media that aren’t directly tied to the military-industrial complex have a stake in the system.

That’s because the media are in the business of making profits from selling advertising. Print, television and radio media all make their money by selling audiences to advertisers – and they know that their bottom line will suffer if they pursue stories that might damage advertisers.

The economics of reporting also shapes the news that we see. For example, rather than spend large sums to send an investigative reporter to uncover human rights abuses against detainees being tortured at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, for next to nothing, the media can cover the latest White House press conference denying the crimes.

That means independent media are a crucial source of information that the mainstream media won’t report – or will bury in a sea of pro-war coverage. We need to support independent media efforts where we can and build our own newspapers, like Socialist Worker, that will tell the truth about this war. But we also need to directly challenge the corporate media outlets – to force their hand and shame them into covering the stories that we know they would rather not touch.

After months of downplaying the size of demonstrations against the war on Iraq, major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post were forced to give front-page coverage to the massive February 15 international demonstrations against the war. The main reason was that the participation of more than 10 million people around the world meant the demonstrations were simply too big for editors to bury. But activists also directly targeted National Public Radio, the Times and other elite media — and shamed them into acknowledging that they had ignored the story of earlier protests.

February 15 showed the power of protest to reach millions of people who share our anger about this war – and who will be more likely to join us on the streets at the next demonstration. We can also look to the example of the Vietnam War to see this power. The media backed the brutal war against the people of Vietnam from the moment that the US began to send in its "advisers." But the anti-war movement forced the reality of the war into public consciousness – and pressured the US establishment, including the media, to open up the issue to debate.

Reporters were able to file stories that exposed the brutality of the war and challenged the government’s lies – a process that led millions of people to turn against the Vietnam War, and eventually helped bring it to an end.
 

Wag the media lapdog

Nothing exposed the Washington press corps as lapdogs as much as its gutless behaviour at George Bush’s White House press conference two weeks ago. Bush got away with mentioning September 11 eight times during the press conference — even though, to date, no one has offered any evidence that there’s any connection between Iraq and the hijackings.

But the media have given Bush a free pass to use September 11 as a pretext for a war against Iraq. "As a bogus rallying cry, ‘Remember 9/11’ ranks with ‘Remember the Maine’ of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964," Nation journalist William Greider recently wrote.

Greider points out that, according to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. And 55 per cent believe that Saddam directly supports Al Qaeda, according to an ABC News poll.

There’s no evidence for either belief. But here’s one question that you won’t hear the media asking: How have we contributed to spreading these myths, which we then report as evidence of people’s support for war?

As veteran journalist Tom Wicker wrote recently, "Bush administration spokesmen have made several cases for waging war against Iraq, and the US press has tended to present all those cases to the public as if they were gospel." We are seeing, Wicker concluded, "an American press that seems sometimes to be playing on the administration team rather than pursuing the necessary search for truth, wherever it may lead."
 

‘Just tell me where I should line up’

Dan Rather is sometimes pointed out as an example of liberal bias in the media. It’s hard to understand why, though, when you look at what Rather has had to say about the "war on terrorism."

"George Bush is the president, he makes the decisions, and, you know, as just one American, he wants me to line up, just tell me where."

"Whatever arguments one may or may not have had with George Bush the younger before September 11, he is our commander in chief, he’s the man now. And we need unity, we need steadiness. I’m not preaching about it. We all know this."

"I would willingly die for my country at a moment’s notice and on the command of my president."

The ‘liberal bias’ hoax

Of the many myths about the US media, the two most common are that we have a "free press" and that we have a "liberal" media. In its ads for the aggressively right-wing Fox News Channel, Roger Ailes, the network’s chairman, sums up these two myths in a single quote: "America guarantees a free press… Freedom relies on a fair press."

The implication of Ailes’ idiotic statement is that Fox is providing a right-wing balance against the liberal bias of the mainstream press. But is there a liberal bias?

Nation columnist Eric Alterman recently did a study of newspaper articles and found that since 1992, the word "media" appeared close to the phrase "liberal bias" 469 times. The words "media" and "conservative bias" were linked only 17 times. As Alterman notes, "If people are disposed to believe that the media have a liberal bias, it’s because that’s what the media have been telling them all along."

Likewise, right-wing "watchdog" groups have orchestrated well-financed campaigns to squelch any deviation in the mainstream media. "We are training our guns on any media outlet or any reporter interfering with America’s war on terrorism or trying to undermine the authority of President Bush," said L Brent Bozell III, founder of the Media Research Center (MRC). Or, as the MRC’s director of media research Rick Noyes put it: "What we were looking for was home-team sports reporting."

The truth is that the media is far from "liberal"—and far from free. The press is free only for those who own the press — that is, individual billionaires and huge corporations. And those gatekeepers of who can and cannot appear on the news or in the editorial pages overwhelmingly share the assumptions of the tiny elite that runs this country.

Far from liberal, they share a narrow worldview that accepts the "right" of the US military and the free market to dominate people’s lives around the world – and this is what we see reflected in the corporate media. What "debate" we see in the media is overwhelmingly between people who agree on the fundamentals – but occasionally disagree on how best to sell their right-wing agenda.
 

Why Donahue got canned at MSNBC

Veteran television talk show host Phil Donahue had his show pulled by MSNBC in February. Why? A leaked internal report says that his show presented "a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war."

"He seems to delight in presenting guests who are antiwar, anti-Bush and sceptical of the administration’s motives," the report said. Of course, you won’t see any leaked reports about how notorious right-wingers, such as Bill O’Reilly and Brit Hume at Fox News, consistently present pro-war, pro-Bush voices.

The leaked NBC document describes Donahue as "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace." In fact, Donahue’s show averaged more than 4,46,000 viewers and was the top-rated show on MSNBC, outperforming Hardball with Chris Matthews.

But NBC is in a race to the bottom with Fox – to see which network can wrap itself in the largest flag. Cutting out Donahue was part of NBC’s strategy for shedding anything that might make it seem like a "liberal" network. 

(Socialist Worker, March 19, 2003)
(http://www.zmag.org)

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9  No. 85, Cover Story 12

The post The ‘free press’ myth appeared first on SabrangIndia.