it seems suspect to me.
it is disappointing that there is no impartiality, or the appearance of it, in this process. i dont know why blix would not be upfront with such info. regardless this is mediachannel.org's danny schechter with his interpretation of how this built from a ny times story.
from danny schechter of mediachannel's weblog
it is disappointing that there is no impartiality, or the appearance of it, in this process. i dont know why blix would not be upfront with such info. regardless this is mediachannel.org's danny schechter with his interpretation of how this built from a ny times story.
from danny schechter of mediachannel's weblog
Imagine the scenario. It is Saturday night at the State Department and more is stirring than a few mice. The Sunday New York Times has arrived. In it, that newspaper?s first editorial against the war.
"If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no. Even though Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said that Saddam Hussein was not in complete compliance with United Nations orders to disarm, the report of the inspectors on Friday was generally devastating to the American position."
You can just hear one of their media spinners exclaim: "We are losing New York." As they rambled through the Op-ed page, it got worse. Jimmy Carrter, our other Born-Again President, says the war will not be just. Tom Friedman seems to be sliding into the anti-war camp since no one in power seems to be listening to his complaints that "We" will need international support to rebuild Iraq so let?s not piss off the whole world. And the coup de grace: Mareen Dowd calls their boss "The Xanax" President commenting on his s-l-o-w performance last week at that White House press conference that seemed to suggest he was on drugs. She came right out and said it while others spoke of his sedate manner. Sedated was her conclusion.
ORCHESTRATING A STORY
What to do? Since the propaganda war is as important as the real war in the wings, they would have to find something to keep their agenda as the main frame of the debate. They needed to find something to give Secretary of State Powell a "smoking gun" to reveal/expose, and take the offensive on the Sunday TV talk shows--on which he seems to have become a permanent fixture. And sure enough, there it was on page 169 of a 176 UN inspectors technical report. Iraq may have rockets suitable for delivering chemical or biological weapons. GOTCHA.
On Sunday, on Fox, the homeland network, Powell cited the existence of drone aircraft that could unleash black rain on our boys. He hinted at what was to come: ""that?s the kind of thing we?re going to be making some news about in the course of the week," he said. "nd there are other things that have been found that I think more can be made of.? Underscore MORE CAN BE MADE. OF.
THE BIG LEAK
Fast forward, to Fox News this morning. The message of the day: Blast Blix for covering this up. It is on all the networks sources to, why, THE NEW YORK TIMES. Take that Howell Raines. They leaked the story to The Times to undercut the direction of the paper was heading. And where did the Times play it. Why, page one of course. It is today?s BIG story: "
"U.S. Says Iraq Retools Rockets for Illicit Uses
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr. with STEVEN R. WEISMAN
"Weapons inspectors recently discovered rockets configured to disperse chemical or biological agents, U.S. officials"
CHECK THE SOURCE
Note the reference to the US recently discovering the issue. That was not played up on the TV channels who reported Washington?s claims as fact. Actually the Times story traces this "new" disclosure back to 1996. But, never mind. The fact is that this story, played up by all the TV channels is another of item of which "more can be made. It is an allegation from officialdom, not some revelation that Times reporters investigated on their own. No inspectors are quoted in the story. No one by Washington officials are cited. And they are all unnamed. More telling there is no reference in the article to the report last week that DISCOUNTED, challenged and debunker earlier US claims about aluminum tubes, magnets, and uranium from Africa. That latter issue was, it was revealed, based on phony documents.
So here you have it, the newspaper of record, out to prove its impartiality, prominently reporting a claim by only one side in the world debate?the pro-war side?with no skepticism or context that would help readers evaluate its credibility.