Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald takes the news agencies of the world to task for their tendency to explain it all for us -- in such plainly wrongheaded ways:
"Staunch U.S. ally Qatar..." -- the opening of a story in Reuters.“Kuwait - a key U.S. ally in the Gulf…” – from an AP story.
“Egypt is a leading U.S. ally in the region…” – from a Bloomberg piece on the latest bombings in Egypt.
“Saudi Arabia, a close US ally…” – from Reuters.
Memo to Reuters, to AP, to Agence France Presse, Bloomberg, and all the other supposedly unbiased news organizations in the world:
Here is one way to increase Infidel comprehension of the world: Don't tell your readers. Don't impose a conclusion on them. Don't open a story by calling Qatar "Staunch U.S. ally Qatar." Don't tell us, repeatedly, over the past half century, that "staunch ally Saudi Arabia" is doing such and such to keep oil prices down, or up, or sideways. Don't tell us that "staunch ally Egypt" or "Egypt, one of America's best friends" or "Egypt, America's best friend in the Arab world" or even "Egypt, America's best friend in the Middle East" -- every single one of which I have heard or read within the past few days, and so has everyone else who torments himself by reading or listening to the way the news is presented -- has done this, or has done that, against American interests.
Because if one reads that "Egypt, America's staunch ally" has :1) blocked any discussion of the behavior of the Sudanese government in Darfur
2) prevented any discussion of effective (i.e. Western) troops going to Darfur
3) been found to have high-ranking officials in the pay of Saddam Hussein
4) done nothing to prevent the smuggling of arms into Gaza by "Palestinians"
5) allowed its government-controlled press to publish all kinds of false charges about American soldiers in Iraq
and so on, then in what way is Egypt "America's staunch ally"?
And for that matter, the same question could be asked – and should be asked -- Qatar, the home of Al-Jazeera. That network, after all, is subsidized by the Al-Thani who rule Qatar, a family member of which tipped off an Al Qaeda operative about to be arrested by the FBI, so that he could escape.
Is that the way a staunch ally of the United States should behave?
Egypt is an "ally" in the sense that it receives, with no visible sign of gratitude, nearly $2 billion a year from American taxpayers.
Qatar, awash in natural gas, does not receive such aid. But the only sign that it is a "staunch ally" of the United States is the same sign that Kuwait and Dubai, other sheiklets in the area, rich but without military power, have given: they have allowed American ships to use their ports, or have offered the Americans a base.
This is not, in Qatar's case, not in Kuwait's case, not in Dubai's case, just as it was not in Saudi Arabia's case, because they are an "ally" or "staunch ally" of the United States. The Saudis wanted Americans there to protect the regime against 1) Saddam Hussein and 2) internal rebellion, as a guarantee for the Al-Saud. That is all. The ruling families -- Al-Thani, Al-Sabah, etc. -- who are willing, temporarily, to allow American soldiers onto their soil, are doing it for one reason only: to have some guarantee of American protection against the three big bullies in the neighborhood -- Iran, Iraq (if it remains one country), and Saudi Arabia.
And that is the extent of the "staunch ally-hood" of Qatar or the others.
It is outrageous that we are told what to think about this again and again by journalists who probably have no idea about any of this, and wouldn’t care if they did.
The Homeric epithet has its uses: grey-eyed Athena, wily Odysseus, rosy-fingered Dawn. It is out of place in news reports. Do not tell us what we should think of Qatar, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. Do not be so free with those fixed, and often wildly misleading epithets.
That is not the duty of mere reporters. We will take in the information, and decide for ourselves if the noun "ally" and the adjective "staunch" apply, or do not apply, to the people or polity being reported on.
We don't need Reuters to feed us its propaganda.
And we can't stand it from anyone else, either.
Right on Hugh!
This is the problem with projecting shared values upon nations with whom we share merely economic or strategic interests. America's great strengths, our egalitarian ideal that "we all want the same thing for our children", our liberal with a small "l" political culture, and the mistaken belief that EVERYONE wants life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everyone else, are is in this case a great weakness. The mainstream media, flabby and hidebound, reflects this but does not create it. I really want to believe Egypt is an American ally, but of course I know they can never be more than a "partner" in various undertakings. France is a better ally than any Muslim nation, and that is not saying much.
Those ´allies´make me feel all warm and fuzzy, just like Marilyn Monroes `I wanna be loved by you, loved by you, shoo-boo-bee-do...´
And don´t forget Rodney King and ´why can´t we all just get along...´
...and don´t forget Jimmi Kahdr, and Blowboy Clinton who still takes the money, and all those boyz and gals who have the right cultural sensitvity to deal with these complicated issues in the ME, not you crude Islamophobes here on JW and LGF who are driving a wedge between these important inter-faith dialogues...
One could almost get the impression you don´t want to become Muslims...?
Mr. Fitzgerald is right on target with both barrels. No more MSM propaganda!
It gets to you after a while. I think the only STAUNCH allies we have are U.K., Australia....and......ahhhhh......ok, that's all I can think of at the moment. I don't really consider the muslim countries as staunch.
Thank you and God Bless you, Hugh.
Hugh: "Here is one way to increase Infidel comprehension of the world: Don't tell your readers. Don't impose a conclusion on them."
I hate to bring up the obvious but what makes you think the goal of the mainstream media ISN'T precisely to intentionally decrease the Infidel's comprehension of the world precisely for the purpose of imposing a conclusion on them that they wish the infidel to reach? Well, obviously you know this, since you refer to "propoganda" in your title. The question is - who benefits from this propoganda? And how are the MSM specifically tied into the issue of who benefits from it? Americans pretty much understand who benefit from this propoganda in Europe - the E.U. and it's bunch of unelected elites and beaurocrats. But I'm a little less clear about how it works here in the States and who benefits? The left thinks the coroporate right controls the media and the right thinks the liberal left controls the media. This isn't a rhetorical question.
If any of the MSM people ever migrate over to medical journals, we'll hear about "friendly negotiations with our staunch ally, cancer."
Any muslim nation that we do business with will get the same lexicon red carpet intro. More reason not to buy oil from the midle east. Only Syria, Iran and Libya don't get the same intro. But only because they are on our black list. The problem is, Hugh, as long as we do business with a muslim nation, the Press will call it an "ally".
Interestingly, hoever, they never introduce Israel with those words, do they?
"staunch US ally, Israel..."
No, you never do. Think about that one.
Detective Spencer and Detective Fitzgerald:
'Just the facts, Imam'...Just the facts..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gannon%26Friday.png
Hugh
That was a good essay.
Mail it to the dhimmi press.
PS
Hugh
Youy forgot Pakistan - another key US ally. The only business we do with Pakistan is geiving them Jizya.
In WWII, lets see, the Allies were - UK, US, Australia, Canada, NZ, South Africa. The last 4 were part of the Commonwealth.
In this war, we have more additional Allies then we ever imagined - Qatar, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Dubai, Oman etc
With such allies who needs enemies.
. . for the people have eyes to see
and ears to hear and tongues to speak.
And the Pen is mighter than the sword.
Their propaganda smellls
like a rotting mouse.
And they make a mantra of it,
and repeat it to us but we know
it's really shit by any other name,
that theft and rape and cold blooded murder
is the goal of mohammed and allah's duality game.
Thanks, Hugh for wielding your Sword of the Pen,
a mighty Excalibur, in this time of war,
your valiant effort will help us win.
"Americans pretty much understand who benefit from this propoganda in Europe - the E.U. and it's bunch of unelected elites and beaurocrats. But I'm a little less clear about how it works here in the States and who benefits?"
How about "The Council on Foriegn Affairs" who actually direct America's foriegn policy and use storefront dummies like Clinton and Bush to try and explain their moves. Caroline, do you ever get the feeling that we have no political sytsem in America but it's all a staged facade like "American Idol"? Do you think Exxon is a loyal patriotic, American company or do you think they would lend support to a ruthless totalitarian regime like Saudi Arabia as long as they can get oil and make their billions? Most media moguls are part of the CFA and they want us to believe that these blodthirsty, barbaric dictatorships are our "friends". All part of The New World Order.
I believe Freedom loving people have two enemies here: the religious, fanatic Islamists and the souless, ultra capitalists who seek to establish their control over all mankind. They are a marraige made in heaven (I mean hell). They butcher our humanity and rape our Earth and seek to enslave our intelligence and destroy our patriotism.
But who am I to say. just a working class lad who bit off too much lead paint from my aunties window sill when I was a toddler.
Caroline's question above assumes there are clear heads behind this propaganda. It's less puzzling if one assumes a great deal of self-deception is going on, based on a sincerely (if irrationally) held world view.
We need to corner some of these media people in an off-camera moment with a Kuran in hand and press them on their knowledge (or lack thereof) of Islam. Then we can use their ignorance as a media item in and of itself. And possibly force their hands politically.
Business Investors Daily has already begun a full-fledged anaytical assessment of the REAL Islam recently and Robert cited it here. So I know there are ways to send SOS messages about Islam's lurking malignancy to the masses (which has been working incidentally-- in the US only 19% of those polled thought favorably of Islam).
This situation need not remain the way it is.
Caroline, who benefits?
The muslim brothers benefit,
another step toward global control,
for soon the masses believe the lie,
Propaganda works, minds die.
The hanged man hangs upside down,
black is white, good is bad
happy is sad and a smile is a frown.
Propaganda grinds you down,
hear it long enough
and it must be true
for everyone thinks it
and it fits with allah's plan.
Caroline
Using the time tested "Follow the money" theory, the obvious beneficiaries would be the Ummah.
Since all the Ummah doesn't have the money, one has to narrow it down to the named "allies" - Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Given that Islam has been recognized as a key ingradient in this World wide terror (and the key ingradient by us at J/W), if Saudi Arabia is an ally, who on earth is an enemy? Iran isn't less Islamic than Saudi Arabia, while Iraq was and Syria is.
Which could explain a part of why the "War on Terror" no longer helps pull up the President's poll ratings. After all, if one has no enemies in this war, then it isn't really a war. If the cretins in Washington saw Islam for the threat that it is, they could at least have constructed it, and then defined every Islamic (not Muslim) country i.e. every OIC member as an enemy. Then at least, we'd have a chance of winning.
I'm not normally a believer in conspiracy theories, but I believe that both the parties have been completely paid for by the Arabs.
Listening to the enemy is the second worse thing about war. These people are truly in a class by themselves.
The only thing I think of when I see the word "staunch" in relation to Muslim countries is not "ally" but "staunch the flow of blood".
Hugh, thanks for the intellectual hemostasis!
May the MSM be called on their presumptuopus assumptions more and more often.
"Leading questions" in court are not allowed.
In journalism they should be considered just as illegimate. Via misleading headlines, or bogus premises.
Because they can cause far more damage.
Screwing up the thinking on entire subjects for the vaguely-informed public.
Excellent points, Hugh. You remind me again of the day I got so furious with the mainstream news that I stopped watching them.
http://www.foehammer.net/
Check out the Map of Jihad. Worked my butt off on it all day -- still have barely scratched the surface when it comes to Islamic aggression, BUT -- I did a complete revamp of the regions depicted on the map and I used the theories of Samuel P. Huntington** to do it. I'm pretty pleased with the results so far.
And, sadly, I did update it with this latest bombing in Egypt.
**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations
I was watching CNN ....
Do you think Al Qaida did it?
Or was it small independant groups inspired by Al Qaeda?
Not a word about how they are following the commands from the Koran and Mohammed.
Hugh: you assume, of course, that journalists know anything about anything. The opposite is usually the case.
They are so ideologically driven, that they are beyond hope.
The interntet is one resource where other than socialist, utopians can communicate. God help us all. Because I am not very hopeful, although I will fight to the end for freedom of religion, for life. liberty and property.
http:thomistic.blgospot.com
I think it is a grave mistake to view the MSM as merely naive useful idiots to the philosophies of progressive liberalism and as enforcemers of cultural equivalence or ideas they may have acquired from their university courses.
In england, public opinion is moulded by the government through the BBC.
the lefist beliefs of the Journalists are merely the tools through which enforcement is made.
For example in France the media acts as indoctrinators of the general public and as enforcers of the views put over.
Dassier who owns FRANCE1 television said recently in reponse to coverage of the ilsamic youth riots:-
Politics in France is heading to the right and I don’t want rightwing politicians back in second, or even first place because we showed burning cars on television.
So Dasier sees himself as a "protector" of the public opinions as well as a political activist for the goverment.
those who are astute may also wonder:-
Why has not france 2 ,in the light od OVERWHELMING evidence and pressure, not open an enquiry into the falsehoods of the Al Durah Case.
details are now available all over the internet.
Is it perhaps that they are protecting Enderlin and hss co conspirators in some noble solidarity towards their staff?
hardly ,nor is it indeed the fear of any shame they might rightly endure and the loss of integrity that would accompany it.
nor is it the old style antisemitism that still haunts much of french media.
The main reasons for the betrayal of its readers and the disgraceful lies and selctive ommisions that pepper the MSM these days are political.
the media see themselves as "guardians' of public opinion.
If France2 were to admit guilt in the Al durah affair, they believe that such a disclosure would unleash more riots amongst the inflammable muslim youth community. And so israel must be continually demonized and described as a brutish state whatever the reality to appease the explosive Muslim community.
The last thing the MSM want to propagate is the idea that western culture is and has been attacked in a multi dimensional war of invasion and destruction for the last thirty years which would lead to riots throughout europe as citizens wake up the betrayals of their politicians.
I agree with what Chevalier says about what drives the press/media. I would go further and suggest that indoctrination is performed on beginning journalists, or brainwashing, if such actually exists. After all, why do most journalists become so vehement about issues that most reasonable folk might consider secondary or even trivial? Consider the issue of Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip. Why have the bulk of foreign correspondents in Israel plus the operatives of the so-called NGOs [which in fact are usually funded by governments, so are not really "non-governmental"] been so rabidly vehement about settlements for about thirty years now? Why do they care so much if a Jew lives on one side or other of the Green Line [the 1949 armistice line between Israel and Transjordan, now Jordan]? Why have they worked so hard to have people overlook the racist, Judeophobic nature of forbidding Jews to live in those places? The alleged violation of the 4th Geneva Convention that is often cited to argue against these settlements is an example of misrepresentation of the law. So the bulk of journalists are indoctrinated or even brainwashed, as I see it.
Meanwhile, Karl Marx's wisecrack that, on the flat plain of the bourgeois intellect, even a molehill looks like a mountain, is borne out to an extent. Here we have Tom Friedman, as a molehill on the flat and diseased plain of NYTimes "reporting." Since Friedman does know SOMETHING about the Middle East, and makes up his own simplicities about the region, in contrast to others who just repeat the standard goo, then he may seem like a mountain or an island of semi-sanity, when he is just an ignorant molehill or an ant hill.
As to why France2 will not admit its lie or even censure Enderlin, I can't be sure. But I don't think that they're afraid of more Arab riots if they admitted the truth. As I see it, their credibility is already suspect among much of the intelligent and informed public. Admission of a lie might undermine them even among the ignorant and the youth, which they may fear would happen. So they probably fear that the bulk of the population might wake up to them, as Chevalier concludes.
Chevalier, Eliyahu - I think you misunderstand one point about the BBC/Mainstream Media mentality. It is not true that the BBC is the tool of the government; to the contrary, it has long proved singularly ungovernable by any ruling party, left or right, and has often been suspected of actively plotting against them. Margaret Thatcher's husband's alleged description of them - "the reptiles" - has become legendary. What they really regard themselves as is the genuine government of the nation; they have as it were a kind of inbred jealousy against those mental pygmies who dare usurp the governing functions. Never mind that the people in charge often really are mental pygmies - I do not remember one British government I respected in decades, and as for Italy, let's not even talk - the point is that the sense of moral and intellectual superiority in the BBC is stable, and it is supported by a corporate consensus that leads them all to slap each other on the back and congratulate each other on their insight and eminence. (And I cannot remember the last time I saw anything by the BBC's one genuine journalistic giant, Sue Lloyd-Roberts, a woman who would deserve a peerage and a dozen medals if there was any justice.) I imagine that a similar corporate culture renders such beacons of enlightenment as the New Jerk Dimes and the Mahony's Messenger (AKA Los Angeles Times) invulnerable to criticism and evidence.
Caroline asks: "how it [the Mainstream Media, MSM] works here in the States and who benefits?"
Nielsen ratings!
Insightful investigative reporting is a dying breed. Part of this happened in the 1980's, with the TV networks' converting of their News Divisions from money-losing enterprises serving the public interest, to profit centers that had to get good Nielsen ratings and profits just like the Entertainment Divisions do, often by appealing to the same tastes. (This trend was satirized in the 1975 movie "Network.") This has killed the hour-long investigative reporting documentary specials we used to get on prime-time TV, from such as CBS News (now a pale shadow of its former self).
The Old Media has become steadily more concentrated--fewer newspapers left in each major market, more radio and TV stations owned by the same companies and networks. As a result, diversity of opinion and fearless investigative reporting have taken a back seat to catering to the lowest common denominator. The morning news programs are just as likely to feature the latest electronic gadget, fashion trend or Hollywood gossip as they are to talk about Iran or nuclear proliferation. Controversial subjects, like the ones we talk about here on JW, would turn off certain segments of the public and hence aren't discussed much. Everything must be pablum that can be easily swallowed by the masses.
The salvation of public opinion lies in the New Media--websites and forums like JW, blogs (of every political persuasion and interest), and the reduced cost of media production on today's personal computers which make it possible for young independent filmmakers to produce documentary films and videos on a small budget--and even distribute them directly over the Internet.
Paolo, to say that the BBC is independent of the elected govts is one thing. Maybe you're right about that. But it doesn't mean that it isn't tied to the Establishment or part of it. I see the bbc as tied to the royal inst of int'l affairs [chatham house] way of thinking and I see the bbc's guiding ideology as what I call Toynbeeism [as I describe on a later thread].
Thanks to the posters who took a stab at my question (and poetess - a poem to boot!). I don't usually post and run. And it really was an honest question, so I appreciate all the perspectives offered and I also gave some further thought to my own question today. I am especially perplexed about the issue of the left claiming that the US media is controlled by corporations while the right claims the US media is controlled by liberals. Re-reading Hugh's original post re these specific lead-ins about Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Kuwait and Egypt, I see that these are specifically examples from Reuters and AP. And from casual observation, both seem to have quite the pro-Arab perspective in their reporting about the ME - whether re the I/P conflict, or more recently Iraq.
So to address the issue of propoganda in the US media, I think one has to factor in the fact that the corporate run media in this country (the left is correct on that point) is largely staffed by left-leaning elite liberals who consider themselves "global citizens of the world". And what does that mean, really, for an American to fancy themselves a “global citizen of the world”? Isn’t such a person someone who fancies themselves to be enlightened along the European model (as opposed to being “ignorant” as they fancy most heartland Americans to be?) But if our so-called enlightened journalists are getting their world-view from the Europeans, they would be absorbing from their European counterparts the pro-Arab perspective which Bat Ye’or has described as having permeated all the institutions in Europe, including the press.
So my theory is that the bias we see in the American press comes from Europe (which has been sold out to the Arabs) – and that it is our own corporate-owned but liberal leaning media, who fancy themselves enlightened citizens of the world because they look to Europe – who are spreading the pro-Arab propoganda that has infected Europe – to our shores. I don't think the Arab money is big-time here yet in our media. I don't think that's the explanation yet - although it's coming fast. I think what we're seeing to date is more accidental, and based on the European world view of most of our elite media.
I didn't articulate that very clearly. And I could be totally off-base. It’s just a theory…
Paolo
I always enjoy your posts and often find them thought provoking.
Most of the time i see the BBC (news and current affairs) as the interface of propaganda between the corridors of power in the foreign office etc and the general public.
BBC journalists such as John Simpson are veiled government officials, who for whatever reasons(self agrandisement mateship with the elites of academia or politics)follow their directives and seldom out of genuine political ideals.
They are paid by the public purse as the BBC is financed by a compulsory TAX on the people. in the same way that the armies of civil servants are funded.
it is difficult to imagine than any Journalist with independant views would survive for long in the employ of the BBC. Such deviancy is unacceptable to media organisations who are extensions of the government whether in Soviet russia or the west. and that is why in the end mediocrity will reign in such places.
Not that it does not reign in some private funded media establishments too.