So, on page 16, a NY Times black out of Kucinich, in manipulative interference with, and undermining of any semblance of fair US elections, and on page 8, a black out of information that would lead to understanding and having intelligent perceptions of an election overseas. But perhaps the most NY Times condemning item is a tiny announcement on page 18:
"The Times Add an Op-Ed Columnist". "William Kristol, a vigorous supporter of the Iraq war, will write a weekly column starting Jan. 7th." Kristol is a person incapable of feeling shame, for most people would have left the country, after being exposed on old video clips of him laughingly ridiculing reports that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, shown on this year's Bill Moyer’s show “Buying the War”
Shame is also beyond a great and powerfully influential newspaper, The New York Times. The Times would hire the Devil himself, if he existed. "Buying the War" showed up Judith Miller, and William Safire of the NY Times, the anchors of all five networks and many other name media personages, but especially Bill Kristol, as fools, knaves or morally bankrupt coconspirators.
Anyone who watched Bill Moyer's "Buying the War", PBS, April 26, 2007, could recognize the prime killers in our midst. Under an acceptably polite theme of journalistic failure, conglomerate media was shown, in taped documented detail, to have colluding with corporate governance in a conspiracy to commit mass murder. The methods of deception used were reviewed in depth. The evidence put the NY Times in the dock as the number one criminal, but euphemistically and politely described the criminal insanity as a “lack of investigative reporting and failure to check sources” (like the mouth of Bill Bristol.)
The NY Times holds special responsibility, along with all conglomerate owned media, for all the war’s US casualties, and holds the guilt for the two hundred fold more tragic loss of life and limb within the country it justified sending young men to bomb, invade and occupy? One can recall the duplicity in news presentation as the Times marketed the war on Iraq.
Firstly, in the lead up to war, the NY Times temporized, equivocated, misinformed and disinformed by presenting facts out of context; colored its reports with serious quoting of unwarranted fears, exaggerating the capacity and capability of Iraq to endanger a superpower; featured sensationalist pro war arguments uncritical of their source; blacked out any reference to U.S. complicity with the crimes of Saddam, especially during the Reagan administration; subtly cast doubt on the veracity of UN inspectors by quoting and giving undue exposure and credence to voiced suspicions and the opinions of those wanting war; presented outrageously unproven accusations as apparent possibilities; distorted the case for peaceful negotiation; ignored the findings of reputable investigative historians, and presented unsubstantiated evidence as gospel truth enabling unscrupulous war mongers and weak-minded large corporation beholden establishment politicians to successfully dupe enough of the public as to allow the nation to go forward with what is now recognized as an illegal war by a majority of U.S. and world opinion.
Secondly, the Times presented, with vivid color photographs, the long awaited, visually spectacular pyrotechnical display of the initial night time murderous bombing of Baghdad as surgically sparing of civilian life, passing along unchallenged the Pentagon's descriptions of super amazing pin-point accuracy weaponry, hiding from American audiences the enormous Iraqi civilian casualties which much of the rest of the world was able to see on TV screens outside of the U.S.
The Times had to have been part of a gentlemen's agreement, among media CEOs, not to show Iraq casualties. During the Afghan invasion the Times provided a special section "Nation at War" with lots of photos of Afghan children in hospital. However during and after the Iraq invasion, the Times published only a two innocuous photos of Iraqi discomfort and nothing on the massive Iraqi civilian casualties suffered in the invasion.
This writer was in Calcutta, India during the first three and half weeks of the war. On Indian TV, BBC Asia, and in the three major Indian newspapers the great focus was on Iraqi casualties. Photos and videos of women screaming, men crying, piles of bodies, children with arms and legs, even heads blown off. Here, a dozen bodies strew about, there, collapsed buildings with people trapped inside, children crying, women screaming. Far less in number were the pyrotechnical displays of the bombings, and there were even fewer of photos and film of the high tech armed American and British soldiers.
I was curious about the coverage in the States during the same three and half weeks period. When I got back I went to the library, got all the twenty-five back issues of the NY Times during those same weeks of the war’s beginning, and turning carefully page by page looked for photos of dead or wounded Iraqi civilians. There were none. Page after page filled with photos of US armament and soldiers in action and at rest, even of playing basketball on breaks. There was one single photo of a man with in the back of a truck with a leg wound, and one photo of a group of Iraqis covering their noses as they waited for a morgue to open.
Americans might have keenly sensed that, Baghdad, as any city, must be populated with all shapes and sizes of ordinary civilians, young and old, and that someone, that is, a lot of someones, were 'getting it good'. How many 'sane' Americans cheered on the colorful bombardment with a neat circumvention of conscience regarding what was being done to ordinary people who had wished America no harm because the US media, led by its intellectual teacher NY Times, untaught natural feelings of brotherly love and calculatedly replaced them with awe of power and spectacle. The death of Iraqis at the hands of Americans is never a newsworthy item for the Times, baring a court case of an atrocity, the price of gasoline at the pump being the fascination stressed.
The Times and all media leapt to demonize the Iraqi soldiers in the Jessica Lynch false story of mistreatment promoting Pentagon 'patriotic' lore similar to the 1990 Pentagon PR planted story of Iraqi soldiers taking Kuwaiti babies out of their hospital ward incubators and letting them die.
When no weapons of mass destruction were found - as most Americans expected, believing as they did in the U.N. inspectors' testimonies, the Times dragged the possibility of finding them on and on, dutifully echoing the faked consternation of the president and his spokesmen. Thereafter, it featured articles putting readers’ attention on the ever more horrendous crimes of Saddam, never in context of President Reagan's funding and acceptance of these crimes. This blackout of the long standing Reagan-Saddam relationship, this consistent omitting mention of the history of Saddam having been a tool of Reagan, especially helping and supporting his war on Iran, which caused a million deaths, is reminiscent of Nazi press blackouts of news unfavorable to Hitler's government.
The Times passed on administration and pentagon propaganda through imbedded reporters and journalists, to counter Al Jazeera’s on the ground coverage reporting independently from Baghdad on civilian damage caused by bombings while the Bush administration continued to project an image of smart bombs, surgical precision, little civilian life lost. The Times has been the administration's mouthpiece, conspiring to confuse the American public about the duplicity of the U.S. Director of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance Paul Bremer's role in selling off Iraq's assets and postponing elections, provoking a Shiite rebellion which cost many lives on both sides. When elections were finally allowed, the Times hyped them with an infantile hailing of the birth of a democracy, oblivious to the political trauma and U.S. policies of interference and power brokering exacerbating Iraqis without basic needs while large U.S. corporations were making a fortune unethically on creeping, slow and inept reconstruction projects as Iraq oil revenues continued to be confiscated for war debts.
While the heavy use of missiles and large bombs was costing great loss of civilian life, and heartbreaking torture stories of Abu Ghrai, Afghanistan and Guantanamo disgusted its readers, the Times practiced damage control and managed to contain criticism and deflect it from reaching upward to President Bush or even Congressional Oversight.
In covering Saddam's trial, the Times successfully smothered any idea of possible testimony on U.S. complicity in providing Saddam with weapons and gas components coming to world public attention. It misrepresented Attorney General Ramsey Clark's desire to join the defense team as one of defending Saddam rather than one of broadening the trial's scope to include the contemptible secret CIA, Pentagon, and US corporate collaboration with Saddam over many years. The Times never speaks to the crimes of the CIA as diminishing the reputation of the ‘honorable’ presidents who secretly ordered them, or to the reflection of these murderous crimes on America as a 'law abiding' nation.
"The Times Add an Op-Ed Columnist". "William Kristol, a vigorous supporter of the Iraq war, will write a weekly column starting Jan. 7th." Kristol is a person incapable of feeling shame, for most people would have left the country, after being exposed on old video clips of him laughingly ridiculing reports that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, shown on this year's Bill Moyer’s show “Buying the War”
Shame is also beyond a great and powerfully influential newspaper, The New York Times. The Times would hire the Devil himself, if he existed. "Buying the War" showed up Judith Miller, and William Safire of the NY Times, the anchors of all five networks and many other name media personages, but especially Bill Kristol, as fools, knaves or morally bankrupt coconspirators.
Anyone who watched Bill Moyer's "Buying the War", PBS, April 26, 2007, could recognize the prime killers in our midst. Under an acceptably polite theme of journalistic failure, conglomerate media was shown, in taped documented detail, to have colluding with corporate governance in a conspiracy to commit mass murder. The methods of deception used were reviewed in depth. The evidence put the NY Times in the dock as the number one criminal, but euphemistically and politely described the criminal insanity as a “lack of investigative reporting and failure to check sources” (like the mouth of Bill Bristol.)
Firstly, in the lead up to war, the NY Times temporized, equivocated, misinformed and disinformed by presenting facts out of context; colored its reports with serious quoting of unwarranted fears, exaggerating the capacity and capability of Iraq to endanger a superpower; featured sensationalist pro war arguments uncritical of their source; blacked out any reference to U.S. complicity with the crimes of Saddam, especially during the Reagan administration; subtly cast doubt on the veracity of UN inspectors by quoting and giving undue exposure and credence to voiced suspicions and the opinions of those wanting war; presented outrageously unproven accusations as apparent possibilities; distorted the case for peaceful negotiation; ignored the findings of reputable investigative historians, and presented unsubstantiated evidence as gospel truth enabling unscrupulous war mongers and weak-minded large corporation beholden establishment politicians to successfully dupe enough of the public as to allow the nation to go forward with what is now recognized as an illegal war by a majority of U.S. and world opinion.
Secondly, the Times presented, with vivid color photographs, the long awaited, visually spectacular pyrotechnical display of the initial night time murderous bombing of Baghdad as surgically sparing of civilian life, passing along unchallenged the Pentagon's descriptions of super amazing pin-point accuracy weaponry, hiding from American audiences the enormous Iraqi civilian casualties which much of the rest of the world was able to see on TV screens outside of the U.S.
The Times had to have been part of a gentlemen's agreement, among media CEOs, not to show Iraq casualties. During the Afghan invasion the Times provided a special section "Nation at War" with lots of photos of Afghan children in hospital. However during and after the Iraq invasion, the Times published only a two innocuous photos of Iraqi discomfort and nothing on the massive Iraqi civilian casualties suffered in the invasion.
This writer was in Calcutta, India during the first three and half weeks of the war. On Indian TV, BBC Asia, and in the three major Indian newspapers the great focus was on Iraqi casualties. Photos and videos of women screaming, men crying, piles of bodies, children with arms and legs, even heads blown off. Here, a dozen bodies strew about, there, collapsed buildings with people trapped inside, children crying, women screaming. Far less in number were the pyrotechnical displays of the bombings, and there were even fewer of photos and film of the high tech armed American and British soldiers.
I was curious about the coverage in the States during the same three and half weeks period. When I got back I went to the library, got all the twenty-five back issues of the NY Times during those same weeks of the war’s beginning, and turning carefully page by page looked for photos of dead or wounded Iraqi civilians. There were none. Page after page filled with photos of US armament and soldiers in action and at rest, even of playing basketball on breaks. There was one single photo of a man with in the back of a truck with a leg wound, and one photo of a group of Iraqis covering their noses as they waited for a morgue to open.
Americans might have keenly sensed that, Baghdad, as any city, must be populated with all shapes and sizes of ordinary civilians, young and old, and that someone, that is, a lot of someones, were 'getting it good'. How many 'sane' Americans cheered on the colorful bombardment with a neat circumvention of conscience regarding what was being done to ordinary people who had wished America no harm because the US media, led by its intellectual teacher NY Times, untaught natural feelings of brotherly love and calculatedly replaced them with awe of power and spectacle. The death of Iraqis at the hands of Americans is never a newsworthy item for the Times, baring a court case of an atrocity, the price of gasoline at the pump being the fascination stressed.
The Times and all media leapt to demonize the Iraqi soldiers in the Jessica Lynch false story of mistreatment promoting Pentagon 'patriotic' lore similar to the 1990 Pentagon PR planted story of Iraqi soldiers taking Kuwaiti babies out of their hospital ward incubators and letting them die.
When no weapons of mass destruction were found - as most Americans expected, believing as they did in the U.N. inspectors' testimonies, the Times dragged the possibility of finding them on and on, dutifully echoing the faked consternation of the president and his spokesmen. Thereafter, it featured articles putting readers’ attention on the ever more horrendous crimes of Saddam, never in context of President Reagan's funding and acceptance of these crimes. This blackout of the long standing Reagan-Saddam relationship, this consistent omitting mention of the history of Saddam having been a tool of Reagan, especially helping and supporting his war on Iran, which caused a million deaths, is reminiscent of Nazi press blackouts of news unfavorable to Hitler's government.
The Times passed on administration and pentagon propaganda through imbedded reporters and journalists, to counter Al Jazeera’s on the ground coverage reporting independently from Baghdad on civilian damage caused by bombings while the Bush administration continued to project an image of smart bombs, surgical precision, little civilian life lost. The Times has been the administration's mouthpiece, conspiring to confuse the American public about the duplicity of the U.S. Director of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance Paul Bremer's role in selling off Iraq's assets and postponing elections, provoking a Shiite rebellion which cost many lives on both sides. When elections were finally allowed, the Times hyped them with an infantile hailing of the birth of a democracy, oblivious to the political trauma and U.S. policies of interference and power brokering exacerbating Iraqis without basic needs while large U.S. corporations were making a fortune unethically on creeping, slow and inept reconstruction projects as Iraq oil revenues continued to be confiscated for war debts.
While the heavy use of missiles and large bombs was costing great loss of civilian life, and heartbreaking torture stories of Abu Ghrai, Afghanistan and Guantanamo disgusted its readers, the Times practiced damage control and managed to contain criticism and deflect it from reaching upward to President Bush or even Congressional Oversight.
In covering Saddam's trial, the Times successfully smothered any idea of possible testimony on U.S. complicity in providing Saddam with weapons and gas components coming to world public attention. It misrepresented Attorney General Ramsey Clark's desire to join the defense team as one of defending Saddam rather than one of broadening the trial's scope to include the contemptible secret CIA, Pentagon, and US corporate collaboration with Saddam over many years. The Times never speaks to the crimes of the CIA as diminishing the reputation of the ‘honorable’ presidents who secretly ordered them, or to the reflection of these murderous crimes on America as a 'law abiding' nation.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
