e-Letter 170: News reports do not necessarily reflect reality
 
April 19, 2003
 
The pre-war and anti-war expressions of concern about the risk to Iraqi civilian life ("half a million will be killed"), the during-the-war claims of "quagmire" (setback for the coalition forces") and the post war charges that the U.S. has not done enough to protect the Baghdad Museum ("from looting over 170,000 items"), all point to misinformation, lack of understanding, and haste, in digesting news from the region.  One is entitled to be wrong but as more reports are coming out the more it is the case of too many things that are too quickly accepted in the haste of reporting unsubstantiated claims.  The case of the Museum is a good example of how a "mob looting" turns out to have been an organized effort by the Saddam regime that secured the ordinals before the war.  Yet, the TV stations were quick to feature Iraqi "grievances" that the U.S. was protecting the Oil Ministry building but "not the museum."  Perhaps news consumption should have a warning label with it: "wait a few days, these ‘news' may not be what they seem to be today."
 
This was not CNN's week.  It drew scathing criticism for its withholding of information on the Iraqi regime's brutality ("CNN's Access of Evil: The network of record covered Saddam's repression with propaganda." Franklin Foer, The Wall Street Journal, April 14, 2003) as well as pointed charges of corruption from a previous reporter ("Corruption at CNN," Peter Collins, The Washington Times, April 15, 2003). 
 
In an obvious attempt at damage control a CNN executive tried to fend-off this criticism by suggesting that he had a tough choice to make between ("Charges of kowtowing to Saddam unfounded," Eason Jordan, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 4/16/03):  "1. Never repeat such horror stories. 2. Tell the stories sooner and, as a result, see innocent people killed. 3. Tell the stories after the downfall of the Saddam Hussein regime."
His choice might have been even tougher had he considered another option, namely, pulling out of Iraq and not cooperating with the regime.  That would have protected not only his professional staff but probably the lives of many others ("Lies, More Lies, and CNN's Lies,"  Marc J. Rauch, April 14, 2003).  It would have certainly added to CNN's credibility.
 
It also appears that correspondence with CNN representatives only further exacerbates the claims that CNN was not playing with a full deck of cards ("CNN Still Doesn't Get It: Note This E-Mail Exchange," Marc J. Rauch, April 16, 2003 and also see: "The Rauch-Quest CNN E-Mail Dispute Continues…" Marc J. Rauch, April 17, 2003 
 
If there is a weak point in the criticism against CNN it is not that it picked an all-too-easy a target but that by no means is CNN the only apple that lacks credibility in the journalism barrel ("The Media's Antiwar Script: Was the New York Times watching the same war as the rest of us?" The Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2003). The difference is of course, that CNN prevented news from going out and the New York Times frames the news differently.
 
And such "framing" proliferates some western media area lapsing into reporting opinions as substitute for facts and truth ("Moral relativism in the press," Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, April 15, 2003): "The more outrageous the claim made by the Arabs, the more skewed media reporting becomes – the more confused it becomes, the less truthful it becomes.  It's time for American journalism to return to its roots, its foundations, its principles. It's time, once again, to start seeking the truth."
 
But by no means is such biased and problematic reporting limited to the U.S. or Europe.  If Arab biases are directed externally against a perceived enemy (the "infidels,"  the "imperialists"), the western press seeks to put the blame internally, on the government, the president, the hawks, corporate interests.  Thus the victims are justifying the criminal act against them as if they deserved it by virtue of who they "are" and what they "did." The situation is not much different in Israel where influential press elements have continuously leveraged biased opinions ("The Israeli Press, and Ours: The worldview options." Barbara Lerner, National review, April 16, 2003).

One can chuck it off to the "advantages" of having a free press and dreading the alternative of only having the party line, as in dictatorial regimes, but the problem remains serious nonetheless as so often facts are reported within a context of a - pre-determined - opinion.
 
Marc Rauch is correct in applying to some media a variation of the term WMD: Weapons of Mass Distortion ("Lies, More Lies, and CNN's Lies," April 14, 2003): "While we may not have yet discovered the so-called smoking gun in Saddam Hussein's arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we do now have the smoking gun in the Arab's arsenal of Weapons of Mass Disinformation."
 
Take a conclusion from a recent opinion written by Tom Friedman ("Roto-Rooter," The New York Times, April 16, 2003):  "...apply "aggressive engagement" — in different ways — to Yasir Arafat and Ariel Sharon. The Arabs need to force Mr. Arafat to retire, and the Americans need to test Mr. Sharon's professed willingness for a fair deal with a reformed Palestinian Authority."  First, Arafat is no longer relevant. Friedman himself acknowledges he should be ousted. Second, what "aggressive pressure" is required against Sharon? Just wait and see if he means business or not. Third, there should be no equation between terrorism and the defense against it. Friedman laments the Syrian occupation of Lebanon but seems to accept - implicitly - terrorism as a strategy for the Palestinians.  It is almost a wonder that he is not a darling in everyone's eyes as some actually do see that this opinion king has no cloths (Books & Critics Benjamin, Schwarz, a critique of Longitudes and Attitudes: Exploring the World After September 11 by Thomas L. Friedman, Atlantic Monthly,  October, 2002):  "Friedman says in twelve words ("This book is the product of my own personal journey of exploration") what a competent writer could say in—actually, wouldn't say at all. What's worst about this book's publication, though, is the sickening display of mutual ingratiation on Charlie Rose that will, inevitably, kick off its promotional campaign."
 
Indeed, a rare combination of reporters, editors, public figures, and politicians find themselves in the unpleasant position of being terribly wrong ("The Liberal Pessimists: Why do American elites scoff at American values?" The Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2003).
 
Add to this the feeling that the west has gotten into the habit of seeking rapid need gratification. What George Rizter calls "The McDonaldization of Society." While on one hand the anti-war groups used every tactic possible to ask for "more time" and consider "other alternatives" to war, now the post-war results such as nation-building and protection/restoring of infrastructure and museums is expected to be done instantaneously yet without the presence of an "occupying power."  Voices are already out there complaining that the weapons of mass destruction have not been found ("are we there yet?").  As if there is truly a viable alternative.  It is therefore worth viewing the context of American occupation to realize that despite its "non-appeal" it has proved to be beneficial to those it occupied and certainly not as the evil it has been portrayed as ("America as occupier: A short history," Bret Stephens, The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 10, 2003):  "But it should give pause to those who doubt the ability of the US military not only to win the peace in the way it now looks set to win the war. And as for those who'd rather consign Iraq's future to the UN - well, weren't they the ones who, just a month ago, would have consigned the country to Saddam Hussein?"
 
Actually one of the positive impacts of the war on Iraq is that it has negative political and economic consequences for the current Syrian regime ("The Liberation of Iraq: Economic Consequences for Syria," Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli, MEMRI, Inquiry and Analysis - Syria/Economic Studies, April 16, 2003, No.133).  That should satisfy even Tom Friedman.  And not surprisingly some do understand the implications of the victory in Iraq ("Political Shock and Awe : We've won a war--and taught the Middle East a lesson," James Schlesinger, The Wall Street Journal, April 17, 2003).  And it is not necessarily the obvious conclusions listed in Schlesinger's position as much as in his implied rebuke of those who were wrong and impatient and are rushing to make the same mistakes again, namely the Europeans and the U.N. 
 
This may have immediate implications for Syria as the U.S. has placed it in its cross-hair ("The Turkish treatment," Editorial, The Jerusalem Post,  Apr. 16, 2003). After all, it became evident that "Dictatorships understand the difference between rattling one's saber and drawing one's sword, even if democracies often don't... The sooner and more convincingly Bashar Assad is stared down, then, the less likely the chance of war. Then again, should it come to war, that would only mean one awful regime less, not a bad outcome in a region that still has too many of them."
 
And what about the other source of trouble in the region? It appears that Arafat continues in the Palestinian tradition of never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.  While on one hand he is giving more "legitimacy" to the new prime minister by making him look "less extreme" (when compared to Arafat), he is still trying hard to botch the attempt at forming a new cabinet ("Palestinian Premier Sets Cabinet List But Arafat Resists," Mark Lavie, The Washington Post, April 14, 2003). 
 
In the mean time the Palestinians continue with their blatantly aggressive racism ("Asian American Marines are Mongols," Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, April 14, 2003).  And true to their terrorist nature they already place "demands" on the U.S. administration to release a notorious terrorist nabbed in Baghdad ("Palestinian Authority Demands U.S. Free Abu Abbas," The Washington Post, April 16, 2003).
 
An editorial in the Wall Street Journal aptly understands the complexities of the prospects for peace in the Middle East and squarely places the onus of responsibility for this to happen on the Palestinians ("Palestinian Liberation: An Israeli-Arab peace will be harder than freeing Baghdad," The Wall Street Journal, April 18, 2003).  While the editorial is absolutely correct in identifying the source of the blame it uses terminology that has much to be desired. For example, reference to "the 50-year Israeli-Palestinian civil war," should have used 100 and drop the "civil." Or, "Violence in Israel has at least subsided lately."  This is clearly not for lack of trying.  In the last four months about 150 suicide attempts were foiled with at least six only during Passover eve last week.  Also ""return by Israel of some settlements on the West Bank" should have stated "giving up" because the settlements do not belong to the Palestinians.  Yet these do not take much away from the crux of the editorial.
 
What the peace negotiators (whether Americans or Israeli) will have to take into account is the "Baghdad Bob" syndrome ("Lies, More Lies, and CNN's Lies," April 14, 2003): "Over the years, the world has heard from an incredible coterie of fraudulent Arab leaders and spokespersons who seem to grossly distort every fact and event related to the history of their people; not to defend themselves and their homelands against an aggressor that doesn't exist, but to defend their unjustified aggression against the Jewish State, as well as the atrocities that they commit each and every day against their own Muslim brothers and sisters."
 
The Arabs are very industriously continuing to produce anti-Semitic canards at a rate that would earn them an award in the Goebbels Hall of Shame ("Author of Saudi Blood Libel and Professor at King Faysal University Lectures at Arab League Think Tank: 'U.S. War on Iraq Timed To Coincide With Jewish Holiday Purim'" MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia/Arab Antisemitism, April 11, 2003, No. 494).
 
Again, the venom is externally directed. It is not what the Saddam regime has done but rather it is what the U.S. is doing. It is a "crusade" against the Muslims that "coincides" (as if the Pentagon planners have nothing better to do) with the one Jewish holiday that signifies a successful deliverance from the first documented planned genocide.
Often it becomes an art to understand what a writer wants to convey and find out that the headline editor has something else in mind.  A New York Times article by columnist William Safire ("Sharon at Passover," April 17, 2003)   was recycled by the Atlanta paper to read: "After Iraq, Sharon hopeful of ‘road map'" (Atlanta Journal Constitution).  Problem is that nothing in the article is even remotely close to indicate that Sharon is "hopeful."  He is anything but: "Sharon, reacting mildly because he trusts Bush, prefers to interpret its timeline as a series of targets: ‘We will move from one phase to another only after accomplishment. Progress will be based on performance.'"  This is misleading to the readers and misrepresents Sharon even if flattering to him.
 
The Atlanta paper has also carried an opinion that provides another example to how "framing" and terminology are not merely unrelated to facts but actually grossly contravenes them ("Get tough on illegal Jewish settlements," Jay Bookman,  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 4/17/03).   The world according to Bookman has troublemakers and those who have entitlements. The trouble makers are Israelis, the victims are the "poor Palestinians."  Problem is that the settlements are NOT illegal. Would he call Atlanta a settlement and declare it illegal?  The area in question is at best disputed. The Palestinians have no entitlement over it. They have claims mostly by force and by lies. Therefore the settlements do not "represent an immoral attempt to dispossess a downtrodden people" as Bookman claims. 
 
Bookman relies on another (Israeli) journalist to concoct his "facts" yet they are contradicted when Sharon actually came out with a very pro-peace posture.  Bookman argues that "Israel has employed its overwhelming military power to crush the Palestinian resistance and destroy much of its economy." Which linguistic school did he go to? "Overwhelming" - he has no clue what overwhelming is. "Resistance?" Bookman justifies terrorism and the killing of civilians because that is what "Palestinian resistance" is all about.  And what about the Israeli economy that Palestinian terror has destroyed? Why is that acceptable? He then laments about stripping Arafat of power suggesting that "Israel has paid no price for its insistence on continuing settlement" and begs Bush to supply an earthquake (to "shake" - or destroy - Israel). Has the Atlanta paper become a derivative of Der Strmer? 
 
Indeed, those who have a better understanding to the menace that the Palestinians have brought on Israel and upon themselves urge president Bush not to be pre-occupied with seismic activities but rather stick with the principles he enunciated in his June 24 speech ("Speak, Mr. President," Editorial, The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 13, 2003):  "What should be done instead is to supplant the road map, just like the road map supplanted Bush's June 24 speech. Turnover is fair play. Bush, not the Quartet, is the ultimate interpreter of his own speech. And the essence of that speech was to place the primary burden of statehood and peace on the Palestinians, where it belongs."
  
Therefore, on this Passover of the year 5763 some hope is replacing the gloom that Israelis have been feeling for the last two and a half years.  Perhaps better said, things are not exactly as they seem to be. Particularly not in the Middle East where the Baghdad Bobs will convince you at midnight that it is high noon and will provide the camera lights as proof of that ("Counting Israel's blessings," Isi Leibler, The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 15, 2003).
Clearly, the American victory (not yet declared) has replaced gloom with hope by cutting off a major source of trouble.  And it looks as if Arafat continues his old games and with it the realization that terror will not win.  It certainly should never be rewarded not by a road map or any other political gains or it will be with us forever.
 
With the change that the U.S. has brought to the Middle East there is far more reason to be hopeful these days than prior to the war.  One can therefore hope that future immediate and more distant developments will give added support to this sentiment.  So while trouble is far from being over in this holiday season things look a bit better.  So, it is with some relief and more joy that Passover and Easter can be celebrated this year.    
 
ฉ Robbie Friedmann, Ph.D.
 
To view previous e-Letters:
 
        "Golf Wars" (e-Letter #169)
 
        "1001 Baghdad tales" (e-Letter #168)
 
       "Taxi wars"  (e-Letter #167) 
 
 
       "The terrorist as a killer and destroyer" (e-Letter #160)
 
 
Additional e-Letters and articles:    
 
                                                                       * * * 
   * Text of the e-Letter includes hyperlinks to the source articles (where available).
 
  * Your feedback, comments, suggestions, and your referral of additional sources is appreciated. Please provide complete and precise web link addresses (URL).
 
  * This e-Letter has been sent for the use of the intended recipients. The message may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
 
  * As a recipient of this e-Letter you have permission to distribute it. 
  
  * Should you wish to be taken off this mailing list please indicate so in a return e-mail.
 

                                                                         * * *