"The truth, always the truth--at all costs"
|
| 617 04/22/2003 PBS Hoodwinks the US Public Sam Hamod |
I used to support PBS. But after the poor reporting during the Iraq invasion and after tonight’s NewsHour nonsense featuring Judith Miller who carried on what was basically an uncritical, pretentious and unprofessional monologue with Ray Suarez tossing her softballs, I’ve had enough. NPRs reporting during the war was almost as bad as the major networks, but not quite as bad as CNN and FAUX (Fox). At least NPR has had Kate Seelye and Ann Garrels, though Garrels at times was far off the mark because she had no real knowledge of Arab or Islamic Culture, Seelye knows her stuff but is featured too little-- I have a hunch some of the upper level mucketymucks don't want too much expert opinion about the Middle East because it will thrown light on how weak their other reporters are on world affairs, especially those in the Middle East (Linda Gradstein for one--who is always reporting from Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, never from any Arab capitols--and her reporting shows it). But tonight, on the NewsHour, Ray Suarez allowed Judith Miller of the NY Times to go on and on and on and on with speculation, exaggeration, hyperbole and just plain nonsense about the “silver bullet,” allegedly an Iraqi scientist, who told the American troops all about Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction.” What was wrong? First, Judith Miller has been known as an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim writer, though she claims to know a lot about the Middle East. To most of us who are experts on the Middle East, she sounds more like a Zionist flak than an honest reporter. Second, Suarez didn’t ask her any hard questions, he just let her go on and on and on. She claimed that the US troops had found this “silver bullet” scientist who was going to blow the lid off all of Saddam’s WMD. She assumed the man was truly a scientist, and that he told the Ameican’s the truth; this shows that neither she, nor the American commander, understands Middle Eastern customs or what men may do under duress or to curry favor in a desperate situation. Oddly enough, she did not interview the scientist, she did not know the man’s qualifications or his name, she did not know if he’d been interviewed by Blix and others from the UN; in fact, she didn’t really know if he was a scientist at all, she just took the word of the American in command of the situation. She didn’t practice the first commandment of an investigative journalist—talk to the person yourself, doubt everything and ask for proof, proof and more proof of the person’s profession, his expertise and ask the same of the US commander—none of this was done. Also, she never once thought about the man trying to curry favor with the American victors in the war with Iraq. This type of behavior often happens after a war—it has happened and continues to happen, people do what they can to protect themselves with the new powers. But Judith was so happy to be the first to scoop the story, that she and the US troops had found the “silver bullet” that would get that bad old werewolf, Saddam Hussein and pin the WMD and poison weapons on him. I just love her phrase, so I keep repeating it because she did in the course of her monologue, so much so that she gave up all of her critical senses. Or did she? Did she have her own agenda to help the Bush team prove their point so she could make points with them, to be part of the “insider” bunch of journalists GW likes—as against the critical and professionally objective, Helen Thomas, who Bush runs from and is afraid of and upon whom he makes snide remarks in his war to keep the truth hidden? Dear Judith has been an Arab and Muslim basher for years from her perch at the NY Times, so it was natural that she would also beat the drums for an attack on Saddam and in this endeavor, she kept trying to pin him to the terrible 9/11 crowd and Al Qa'eda. Through all this, she lost her credibility with professional journalists, but it helped her currency in other quarters, as well as access to the big boys in Washington and the chance to go out with this investigative unit (though neither she nor the US has explained how professional this unit is; Dr. Hans Blix has raised questions at the UN and on the BBC about the qualifications, ethics and professionalism of these types of units the US is deploying in Iraq rather than allowing UN teams to work with them or to monitor them for the sake of truth and credibility). NPR should be ashamed of itself to allow this nonsense on what is supposed to be a public service, not a network show looking for ratings. Jim Lehrer has never been the same since Robert McNeil left the show—Mc Neil at least kept the show very professional, Lehrer often is weak, not very critical and has become a kind of flag waver himself since the Iraq invasion began. The little miniature “crossfire” type debates seem to occur less and less; thus, the show has less critical introspection or examination of stories or the news. But Lehrer is not alone, I’ve noticed, when listening to the “All Things Considered” show, it has become lame in the same way—not enough critical thinking. The guests have little range or depth and there are far too many of the administrations spokespeople and few real experts who might shed some truth on matters,so that truly all things might at least be considered. The show is mis-named, it should be, "Just Certain Things Considered." Also, every time Rummy, Bush or Ashcroft are to speak, NPR is right there. We have enough of these men on the networks, if you’re going to cover them NPR, at least get some critical balance and let someone on the air who can speak for the other side so as to get to the truth. BALANCE, NPR, balance—you’ve been lacking it of late. The speeches by the administration are what Daniel Boorstein, in his fine book, THE IMAGE, called, “pseudo-events”—not real news or very important, but pretending to be important. We’ve all heard the Rummy, Bush, Cheney and Aschcroft lines so often that we know they are memorized lines so that they can be drummed into our minds, our memories, like Goebbels did in Nazi Germany, until everyone finally believed in the absurdities being spouted by Hitler. The Bush catchwords, ala Goebbels theory are, “terrorism,” “terrorists,” “protecting America,” “I’m gonna git him,” “ I mean what I say,” and “good and evil.” Of course, you know that everything Bush says is true and that anyone who disagrees with him is a "traitor" and "supports evil" or "the enemy", as against Bush’s “good.” NPR never has anyone who questions this nonsense. I thought it was supposed to be a station for the intelligentsia, for the well read, for the educated. I guess not any more; it too has gone down to the lowest common denominator and never questions BushSpeak. But I will say this, even my barber thinks they are weak and not worth listening to anymore! By the way, this is not an insult to barbers, it is just that the common man has even given up on NPR radio and TV. We’ve had the same thing on “Talk of the Nation,” just one guest after another in support of the “war” , spouting the same lines as the Bush team and the neocons. It’s not really the talk of the nation, it’s the talk of the DC and chosen insiders who NPR favors. Also, it's about time we got some cultural diversity on NPR, where are the African Americans, the Latinos, the Arabs, the Asians, etc. You know, we make up this country, in fact, most of our groups outnumber the great majority of announcers who represent one ethnic group (I'm thinking of Linda Gradstein, Daniel Shorr, Scott Simon, Siegel, Susan Stamberg--what happened to Powell and Emile Guillermo--how come there have never been any Mohammad's or Ali's reporting from the Middle East, no Sanchez' or Santos' reporting from the Phillipines, no Sydney Bernard Smith's reporting from Ireland, no Liu's from China or other independent voices that represent all the ethnic groups that make up our American population and spectrum of thought) Even “The World” has had some bad reporting, too few people on their program who understand Iraq, Islam or the Arab world, but plenty of people who don’t know much. At least, they had Professor Fawaz Gerges on a few times, thank God for that; but why not a cleric from Iraq or somewhere else in the MIddle East--telephone hook-ups still work Ms. Mullins. When I sent in an email complaining about the lack of understanding Marco Wurman showed on Iraq and Islam, I got a form response from someone. I replied, asking for a non-form response; I have never heard from them since. Over time, the show has lost its quality and that is sad; I used to look forward to that show above all others on NPR. But there are some alternatives we may use, and by contrast, these sources make NPR look even worse than usual. I am referring to, the BBC World Service for at least some balance, CSpan for real eyewitness truths from all sides and the foreign TV news they carry from China, Russia, the Arab world, the English Parliament, German and French TV, and the British press, especially the Independent and the Guardian. As for reading, perhaps if the NPR people should read such experts as Robert Fisk, who has spent many years in the Arab World and speaks fluent Arabic, of the Independent, Al Jazeera, Al Minar of Lebanon, Edward Said who is an expert from Columbia University on the Middle East and Islam, Alexander Cockburn of CounterPunch and The Nation and even my own articles ( I am an expert on the Middle East, former Director of The Islamic Center in Washington, DC and a former advisor to the US State Department) on www.todaysalternativenews.com, and www.informationclearinghouse.info, they might learn more about Iraq, Islam, Shi’a, Sunni,Kurds, Chalabi, Imam Sistani, the martyr Imam Hussein, Karbala, Najj’af, the Arab World, Abu Sayff and the different group, the Moro Liberation Front (yes, NPR,, they are different groups, and yes, there is an Arab World and an Islamic World, something most westerners have yet to understand or to deal with in a realistic way) and Arab and Muslim attitudes toward the West, toward America and its chief ally, Israel. I know Dan Shorr means well, but Scott Simon and I have been acquaintances for over 17 years, and he has yet to invite me on his weekend show, though he used to pump me for information and learning on Islam and on the Arab World when he and I were members of the Watergate Health Club in Washington, DC in the 80s and 90s. I did get to read one of my poems on the air one weekend, through no help of Scott—it was just that he had a producer who knew of my reputation as a poet and who wanted a good poem from an Arab poet (especially after 9/11). Even these two don’t want to really hear from other voices, they prefer listening to their own repetitive phrases and Scott’s weak questions and “good guy” comments. But in all fairness to Daniel, he is an intelligent man who has strayed from his overtly Zionist ways, to having a bit more objectivity and scholarship on the Middle East and he has made clear that Bush is going down a wrong path, at least he says that part of the time. No, NPR has gone the way of the smoke and mirrors networks that abound in the US; this recent fiasco of Judith Miller, who was blowing more smoke than a Ford that has thrown a rod at 80 miles an hour, was the crowning blow, a new low. Maybe Judith wants to get on as an NPR commentator—watch out Gwen, she may want your job because you are a bit too strong for some of those duds they put on the programs. And Suarez and Lehrer may have wanted Judith on so that they could get more money from the Bush congress and senate for NPR—these days, they have their hands out all the time with a tired Wayne Dyer, a fatuous Suze Orman (some say she has made up her past as “poor”) and other “stars” constantly asking us for money. As for me, I won’t give NPR another dime. I also hope the NY Times editors ask Judith Miller what the hell her sloppiness and pro-Bush rhetoric was all about. Ask her why she was so anxious to announce her bog scoop about the “silver bullet” that she gave up her professional and ethical obligations to make a big splash on NPR. But, as Andy Rooney would say, “I seriously doubt it.” Professor Sam Hamod is an expert on the Middle East and Islam, he was an advisor to the US State Department, a professor at Princeton, the editor of THIRD WORLD NEWS (in Wash, DC) and Director of The National Islamic Center of Washington, DC. He also edits, www.todaysalternativenews.com ; he may be reached at shamod@cox.net. |
