| Journalist Or Activist? Smearing Glenn Greenwald

Journalist Or Activist? Smearing Glenn Greenwald ~  David Edwards, Media Lens.

Modern thought control is dependent on subliminal communication. Messages influencing key perceptions are delivered unseen, unnoticed, with minimal public awareness of what is happening or why.

For example, journalists tell us that Hugo Chavez was ‘divisive’, that Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are ‘narcissistic’, that George Galloway is ‘controversial’. But beneath their literal meaning, these adjectives communicate a hidden message: that these individuals are acceptable targets for negative media judgement; they are fair game.

By contrast, Barack Obama is never described as ‘controversial’ or ‘divisive’. David Cameron is not a ‘rightist prime minister’. Why? Because the rules of professional journalism are said to ensure that journalists serve democracy by remaining objective and impartial. Reporters are merely to describe, not to judge, the words and actions of leading politicians.

Crucially, this deference is afforded only to political actors deemed ‘mainstream’, ‘respectable’. By implication, individuals subject to media judgement are presented as outsiders, beyond the democratic pale.

In The Times on October 10, David Aaronovitch compared Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger with Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald:

‘Rusbridger may be a “proper” journalist (and he certainly is), someone like Greenwald is first and foremost an activist. He wants above all to change the world, not just to report it. So while we might trust Rusbridger, what reason do we have for trusting Greenwald with top secret GCHQ information? Or his Brazilian boyfriend who could have been going anywhere and given the stuff on his computer to anybody.’

Aaronovitch thus painted a large, lurid label on Greenwald’s back: ‘activist’. He is to be seen as a pseudo-journalist, an amateur, a loose cannon. Rusbridger is a ‘proper’ journalist, Greenwald is not.

The repeated references to Greenwald’s ‘Brazilian boyfriend’, who ‘could have been going anywhere’, were also intended to depict Greenwald as a shambolic, non-serious figure in journalism. So, too, the attempts to associate Greenwald with the US politician Ron Paul, whose politics ‘are way out there’ (see Greenwald’s response below). For good measure, Aaronovitch described Edward Snowden as a ‘fugitive’, as though referring to an escaped convict rather than a principled and courageous whistle-blower.

The myth that ‘proper’ journalism seeks merely to report, not to change, the world is debunked by the mythologist himself.

In 1999, as Nato bombs blitzed Serbia, Aaronovitch wrote in the Independent:

‘Is this cause, the cause of the Kosovar Albanians, a cause that is worth suffering for?… Would I fight, or (more realistically) would I countenance the possibility that members of my family might die?’

His answer: ‘I think so.’ (Aaronovitch, ‘My country needs me,’ The Independent, April 6, 1999)

The willingness to fight and die as part of a foreign military campaign is the ultimate form of ‘activism’. We are not aware that Greenwald has ever threatened to invade a foreign country.

In February 2003, Aaronovitch declared of Saddam Hussein:

‘I want him out, for the sake of the region (and therefore, eventually, for our sakes), but most particularly for the sake of the Iraqi people who cannot lift this yoke on their own.’ (Aaronovitch, ‘Why the Left must tackle the crimes of Saddam: With or without a second UN resolution, I will not oppose action against Iraq,’ The Observer, February 2, 2003)

Were these not the words of someone who aspires ‘above all to change the world, not just to report it’?

The title of Aaronovitch’s Times piece smearing Greenwald was also purest activism:

‘Beware: a dangerous new generation of leakers; The threat to security services from tech-savvy young anti-government “libertarians” looks to be serious’

Greenwald commented to us on the article:

‘The position he attributed to me about Ron Paul is an outright fabrication, accomplished through an obvious manipulation of quotation marks.

‘The Times allowed him to tell readers that I said “Paul was… ‘the only major presidential candidate’ to say the right things on the questions that really mattered.” Not only did I not say that, but I said the opposite.

‘I wrote that Paul was better than Obama/Dems on some key issues, but that Obama/Dems were better than Paul on other key issues for progressives. For that reason, I wrote, “it’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else.”

‘He accomplished his fabrication by quoting a small snippet of what I wrote (that Paul was “‘the only major presidential candidate'” saying the right things on some issues), and then fabricated something I did not say (“on the questions that really mattered”) and lopped it onto the actual quote. That fabrication was all in service of making it appear that I said something that I not only did not say, but explicitly repudiated, including in the first dozen or so paragraphs of the piece he referenced.

‘That’s to say nothing of the hilarious, inane irony of having someone who publicly cheered for the worst political crime of this generation – the attack on Iraq – trying to deny other people “journalist” status on the ground that they seek to “change the world” rather than simply report.

‘Also, did he step out of 1958? What kind of drooling troglodyte still uses the trivializing term “boyfriend” to refer to gay men in an 8-year spousal relationship?

‘But all you need to know about this paper’s journalistic standards is that it prints rank, idiotic, false speculation such as this: “Presumably [Miranda] was taking [the documents], via intermediaries, from Snowden in Moscow to Greenwald in Rio”. If you’re beginning a sentence with “presumably” and then following it with a profoundly serious accusation that lacks any evidence, you may be many things. “Journalist” is most definitely not among them.’ (Glenn Greenwald to Media Lens, October 11, 2013)

‘Changing The Mood Music Of British Politics’ – Activism?

The idea that ‘proper’ journalism is divinely indifferent to human affairs is also mocked by the fact that proprietors are notoriously keen to use their positions, their investment, to influence politics and economics. This is not only understood, it is celebrated, and not just on the right of the ‘mainstream’. In the New Statesman last month, Jonn Elledge argued:

‘What socially conscious journalism needs, then, is a benefactor: a wealthy left-winger who’s willing to step in and support it, not because they think it’ll make them any money but because they want to help shape the debate. By buying one of the more poisonous tabloids, this person could refashion its message about, oh I don’t know, single mothers and benefit claimants, perhaps?’ (Our emphasis)

Clearly, the thought that journalism should be neutral, that proprietors should leave journalism to journalists, has never crossed Elledge’s mind. Instead, his plea was precisely that J.K. Rowling – wealthy author of the Harry Potter books –should shape a newspaper to change the world.

Elledge pointed out that ‘owning’ a newspaper ‘is pretty unlikely to bankrupt her. And it would give her a far greater chance of changing the mood music of British politics than the occasional article ever could.

‘So, Ms Rowling – how about it?’ (Our emphasis)

And consider Elledge’s own magazine. In 2009, the Guardian reported:

‘Mike Danson has taken full control of the New Statesman, the leftwing political weekly, buying out the Labour MP Geoffrey Robinson’s 50% stake in the title.’

Danson made a multimillion-pound fortune when he sold his information business Datamonitor, and ‘played a key role in hiring the New Statesman’s editor, Jason Cowley… [who] has recruited new writers and plans to extend the scope of the magazine’.

In other words, the owner chooses the editor who chooses the journalists – people like Elledge – giving the boss ‘a far greater chance of changing the mood music of British politics’.

This makes a nonsense of freedom-fighting activist Aaronovitch’s notion of ‘proper’ journalism.

On the same theme, the Marxist thinker Ralph Miliband observed that ‘Most newspapers’ are ‘agencies of legitimation and organs of conservative propaganda’ operating under key constraints:

‘The first and most important of these constraints is that newspapers are part of capitalist enterprise – not only business but big business… [A] second important constraint is that newspapers are part of the world of business in a different sense as well, namely in the sense that they depend on the custom of advertisers.

‘Proprietors may or may not choose to exercise direct influence on their newspapers; and the direct influence of advertisers may not in any case be substantial. But the fact that newspapers are an intrinsic part of the world of business fosters a strong climate of orthodoxy for the people who work in them. So does the concern of editors and senior journalists to maintain good relations with government and ministers, civil servants, and other important people in the political and administrative establishment.

‘These constraints, however, do no great violence to the people actually in charge of newspapers and occupying influential positions in the journalistic hierarchy, simply because most of them, notwithstanding the unbuttoned and “populist” style which much of the newspaper world affects, share the assumptions and outlook of the world of business and government. The overwhelming chances are that they would not come to occupy the positions they hold if they did not.’ (Ralph Miliband, Capitalist Democracy In Britain, Oxford University Press, 1982, republished 1988, pp.84-6).

For espousing views of this kind, Miliband – father of Labour leader, Ed Miliband – was smeared as ‘The man who hated Britain’ by the Daily Mail. His ideas ‘should disturb everyone who loves this country’.

The Mail article generated an awesome level of liberal outrage. Counter-critics pointed out that Daily Mail proprietor Lord Rothermere had written to Adolf Hitler in June 1939:

‘My Dear Führer, I have watched with understanding and interest the progress of your great and superhuman work in regenerating your country…’

In reality, the Mail article was a foolish and trivial attempt to smear Ed Miliband with his father’s views. The level of liberal outrage mainly demonstrated the ability of the Labourite left to defend its own.

The Lexis media database records 269 hits for UK newspapers mentioning ‘Ralph Miliband’ and the ‘Daily Mail’ over the last month, the file of hits extending to some 600 pages in length. We have also seen many hundreds of outraged comments on Twitter from virtually every vaguely left-liberal journalist.

By contrast, Lexis finds zero hits mentioning Aaronovitch’s far more serious attack on Greenwald, a courageous, compassionate journalist facing severe threats from US-UK state power, whose partner has already suffered state harassment, whose home has been burgled, and so on.

Contrary to Aaronovitch’s version of ‘proper’ journalism, establishment media are only too willing to intervene to protect their interests in this way. They do, however, regularly respond with serene equanimity when dissidents and Official Enemies are under attack.

 

Baron Finkelstein – And Other Activist Monsters

Peter Oborne writes in The Spectator that Aaronovitch’s colleague at The Times, Lord Finkelstein, ‘is close to the Prime Minister’:

‘Lord Finkelstein is, however, closer by far to George Osborne. One senior Times writer told me three years ago that he spoke “six or seven times a day. probably more” to the Chancellor. Mr Osborne once reportedly remarked that he spoke to Mr Finkelstein more often than he did to his wife.’

Oborne supplies some background:

‘One insider told me that “what Danny writes today George thinks tomorrow”. This is a reversal of the normal order of precedence, whereby articles by journalists reflect what they have been told by politicians. But Mr Finkelstein is the intellectual and moral superior (and former boss) of the Chancellor, and informed people know that.’

Is Finkelstein, then, a journalist or an activist? Oborne concludes:

‘As any newspaperman will recognise, Daniel Finkelstein has never in truth been a journalist at all. At the Times he was an ebullient and cheerful manifestation of what all of us can now recognise as a disastrous collaboration between Britain’s most powerful media empire and a morally bankrupt political class.’

This outing of a journalist as an activist is rare indeed.

But the true surrealism of Aaronovitch’s criticism of Greenwald was exposed this month when the Public Accountability Initiative (PAI) published a report indicating the extent to which the corporate media habitually pass off gross bias as neutral commentary.

PAI noted how one US media commentator, Stephen Hadley, had ‘argued strenuously for military intervention’ in Syria in appearances on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and Bloomberg TV. He had also authored a Washington Post op-ed headlined, ‘To stop Iran, Obama must enforce red lines with Assad.’

PAI supplied some background:

‘In each case, Hadley’s audience was not informed that he serves as a director of Raytheon, the weapons manufacturer that makes the Tomahawk cruise missiles that were widely cited as a weapon of choice in a potential strike against Syria. Hadley earns $128,500 in annual cash compensation from the company and chairs its public affairs committee. He also owns 11,477 shares of Raytheon stock, which traded at all-time highs during the Syria debate ($77.65 on August 23, making Hadley’s share’s worth $891,189). Despite this financial stake, Hadley was presented to his audience as an experienced, independent national security expert.’

Hadley was also Assistant to George W. Bush and Deputy National Security Advisor from January 22, 2001. In 2002, Hadley was a member of the discredited White House Iraq Group, set up in August 2002 to sell the Iraq war to the American public.

Corporate media are packed with corporate activists of this kind. Often these commentators are employed by ‘think tanks’ carefully designed and named to appear impartial. PAI comments:

‘The report profiles seven prominent think tanks with significant industry ties that weighed in on intervention in Syria… The Brookings Institution’s commentary on intervention in Syria was cited in 31 articles… Brooking’s corporate donors include some prominent names in the defense industry.’

These include:

$1 million – 2.5 million: Booz Allen Hamilton
$500,000 – 1 million: Qualcomm Inc.
$50,000 – 100,000: Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Palantir Technologies.

In January 2012, Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Centre, wrote in The Atlantic:

‘I was an early supporter of military intervention in Libya. I called for a no-fly zone on February 23, just 8 days after protests began.’

He continued:

‘The international community must begin considering a variety of military options – the establishment of “safe zones” seems the most plausible – and determine which enjoys the highest likelihood of causing more good than harm. This is now – after nearly a year of waiting and hoping – the right thing to do. It is also the responsible thing to do.’

Finally, we can recognise that BBC grandee and world affairs editor, John Simpson, is certainly deemed a journalist – Aaronovitch would not dream of suggesting otherwise. And yet Simpson commented recently:

‘The US is still the world’s biggest economic and military power, but it seems to have lost the sense of moral mission that caused it to intervene everywhere from Vietnam to Iraq…’

Was this endorsement of the claim that the US has been on a ‘moral mission’ a form of activism? It is interesting to consider an alternative formulation:

‘The US seems to have retained the sense of ruthless, profit-driven moral indifference that caused it to intervene everywhere from Vietnam to Iraq…’

If this version of history reads like activism, why not Simpson’s?

Suggested Action

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, westrongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to David Aaronovitch on Twitter: @DAaronovitch

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

| Warmonger Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action!

David Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action ~ BBC.

David Cameron: “It is clear to me that the British parliament … does not want to see British military action”

British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad government in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

A government motion was defeated by 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.

Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear Parliament does not want action and “the government will act accordingly”.

It effectively rules out British involvement in any US-led strikes against the Assad regime.

Labour leader Ed Miliband said the vote meant military action was “off the agenda”, and added that MPs had reacted against the prime minister’s “cavalier and reckless” leadership.

The defeat comes as a potential blow to the authority of Mr Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to Labour’s demands for more evidence of Assad’s guilt.

Labour had seen its own amendment – calling for “compelling” evidence – rejected by MPs by 114 votes.

PM ‘disappointed’


Analysis

image of Ross Hawkins
Ross Hawkins Political correspondent, BBC News

Backbenchers, and the opposition – not the prime minister – set Britain’s foreign policy tonight.

Put more kindly, Parliament expressed its will and the PM listened.

However you think it through, it will take some explaining, not least to the Americans.

People at home and abroad will ask: who is in charge?

Many at Westminster will, of course, be obsessed by what this means in a place where weakness is a sin.

Others will wonder about the consequences for the people of Syria and the Middle East.

And Britain – a country that has agonised about its role in the world since the Suez crisis – will ask whether it might no longer be a nation that intervenes.

But – in an unexpected turn of events – MPs also rejected the government’s motion in support of military action in Syria if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad‘s regime had used chemical weapons against civilians.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed that Britain would not be involved in any military action against the Assad regime – but said it would probably go ahead in any case.

“I expect that the US and other countries will continue to look at responses to the chemical attack.

“They will be disappointed that Britain will not be involved. I don’t expect that the lack of British participation will stop any action.”

He said he and the prime minister were “disappointed” with the result of the Commons vote which he said would harm Britain’s relationship with Washington.

“It’s certainly going to place some strain on the special relationship.

“The Americans understand the Parliamentary process. Perhaps they have been surprised by the scale of opposition.”

Iraq ‘poisoned the well’Mr Hammond came under fire earlier for claiming Ed Miliband had given “succour” to the Assad regime by refusing to back Mr Cameron

Asked if all the MPs who voted against the government had given succour to President Assad, he said “The word was put in my mouth. The Assad regime is going to be a little bit less uncomfortable tonight as a result of this vote in parliament.”

The moment when it was announced the government’s motion had been defeated

He blamed the 2003 Iraq war for “poisoning the well” of public opinion against British military interventions in the Middle East.

But Labour’s shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander said the government defeat was down to the “fatally flawed” case put to MPs by Mr Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, claiming the pair’s credibility was now “diminished”.

But shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said: “Parliament is entirely unpredictable sometimes and I don’t think many people saw this coming.”

He said so many of Mr Cameron’s own MPs had voted with Labour because they were now “unwilling to take him at his word”.

Conservative rebel Douglas Carswell said: “There is not now going to be British military involvement in Syria, but that is a good thing, the system works.”

Leading Tory rebel John Baron said he was also “pleased the prime minister has listened” to Parliament.

NO MORE LIESa

| It’s time to bury not just Thatcher – but Thatcherism!

It’s time to bury not just Thatcher – but Thatcherism ~ The Guardian.

She didn’t save Britain or turn the economy round. We need to break with her failed model to escape its baleful consequences.

They have only themselves to blame. Protests were always likely at any official sendoff for the most socially destructive prime minister in modern British history. But by turning Margaret Thatcher’s funeral into a state-funded Tory jamboree, puffed up with pomp and bombast, David Cameron and his acolytes have made them a certainty – and fuelled a political backlash into the bargain.

As the bishop of Grantham, Thatcher’s home town, put it, spending £10m of public money to “glorify” her legacy in the month benefits are slashed and tax cuts handed to the rich is “asking for trouble”. What’s planned today isn’t a national commemoration, but a military-backed party spectacle.

It’s a state funeral in all but name, laid on for none of the last seven prime ministers. Nothing of the kind has been seen since the death of Winston Churchill, who really did unite the country for a time against the mortal threat from Nazi Germany. Thatcher did the opposite, of course, though every effort will be made today to milk her short but bloody colonial conflict in the south Atlantic for all its jingoistic worth.

It’s hardly a surprise that 60% of the population oppose the public subsidy, or that Buckingham Palace is alarmed at the funeral’s regal dimensions. Now the decision to silence Big Ben has tipped the whole saga into the realm of offensive absurdity.

There’s been much talk about a need for dignity and respect. But the prospect of the leader of a class war government being treated like a respected head of state is itself an insult to the half of Britain that recoils from her memory and the millions of people whose communities were devastated by her policies.

From the moment the former prime minister died there has been a determined drive by the Tories and their media allies to rewrite history and rehabilitate a deeply damaged brand. For a few days of fawning wall-to-wall coverage it seemed like that might be working, as happened in the US after Ronald Reagan’s death in 2004.

But a week on, it’s clear the revisionists have overplayed their hand. Anger and revulsion keep bursting into the open. Simply raising her record reminds people of the price paid for unrelenting deregulation, privatisation and tax handouts to the rich; why she was so unpopular across Britain when she was in power; and the striking similarity with what’s being done by today’s Tory-led coalition.

So there’s been no polling bounce for Cameron, even as he claimed that Thatcher “saved our country”. And while people recognise her strength, polls show clear opposition to many of her flagship policies, including privatisation (only a quarter think it’s delivered a better service). Most don’t believe she “put the ‘Great’ back into Great Britain” at all, her economic policies are seen to have done “more harm than good”, and her legacy is regarded as one of division and inequality.

Which is what the facts show. Far from saving Britain, Thatcher’s government delivered rampant inequality, social breakdown, disastrous financial deregulation, pulverising deindustrialisation and mass unemployment. A North Sea oil bonanza was frittered away on tax cuts for the wealthy and a swollen benefits bill as public services were run down, child poverty escalated and social mobility ground to a halt.

But for all that, her apologists insist, Thatcher did what was necessary to turn Britain’s economy round. But she didn’t. Growth during the 1980s, at 2.4%, was exactly the same as during the turbulent 1970s and lower again in the post-Thatcher 1990s, at 2.2% — while in the corporatist 1960s it averaged over 3%.

And despite claims of a Thatcher “productivity miracle”, productivity growth was also higher in the 60s (and it’s gone into reverse under Cameron). What her government did do was redistribute growth from the poor to the rich, driving up profits and slashing employees’ share of national income through her assault on trade unions. That’s why it felt like a boom in better-off Britain, as the top rate of tax was more than halved, while real incomes fell for the poorest 40% in her first decade in power.

You only have to rehearse what Thatcher’s government unleashed a generation ago to recognise the continuity with what’s been happening ever since: first under John Major, then under New Labour, and now under Cameron: privatisation, liberalisation, low taxes for the wealthy and rising inequality. Thatcher was Britain’s first woman prime minister, but her policies hit women hardest, just as Cameron’s are doing today, while Tony Blair says he saw his job as “to build on some of the things she had done rather than reverse them”.

But Thatcherism was only an early variant (following her friend GeneralPinochet, the Chilean dictator) of what became the neoliberal capitalism adopted or imposed across the world for the next generation. And it’s that model which imploded in the crash of 2008. As even the free-market Economist conceded last week, while demanding “more Thatcherism, not less”, her reforms could be said to have “sowed the seeds” of the current crisis.

Like other true believers, the magazine’s editors fret that the pendulum is now swinging away from the neoliberal model. So does Blair, who remains locked in the politics of the boom years and whose comfort zone remains attacking his own party. So he’s launched a coded assault on Labour’s leader, Ed Miliband, for supposedly thinking a crisis caused by under-regulated markets will lead to a shift to the left.

There’s certainly no automatic basis for such a shift. As history shows, the right can also take advantage of economic breakdowns – and often has. But more than 20 years after Thatcher was forced out of office, the evidence is that most British people remain stubbornly resistant to her individualistic small-state philosophy, believing for example that it’s the government’s job to redistribute income across the spectrum and guarantee a decent minimum income for all.

And crucially, the economic model that underpinned the policies of Thatcher and her successors is broken. As the Labour frontbencher Jon Trickett arguedthis week, we need a “rupture” with the “existing economic settlement” – the Thatcher settlement. That’s the challenge of the politics of our time, not only in Britain. As we remember blighted lives and communities today, it’s time not just to bury Thatcher, but Thatcherism itself.

Link to video: Margaret Thatcher’s coffin arrives at Westminster

_______________________________________________________________

RIP Thatcher

| UK PMQ’s: Rich boy Cameron’s foot in mouth: ‘We are raising money for the rich!’

Cameron: ‘We are raising money for the rich’ ~ ANDY MCSMITHThe Independent.

David Cameron made a revealing slip of the tongue at Prime Minister’s Questions today as he answered Ed Miliband’s familiar charge that the government has tax cuts for the rich. “We are raising more money for the rich,” the Prime Minister exclaimed.

This classic Freudian slip is accurately reported in the on line version of Hansard, though Downing Street may yet see to it that it is not in the printed edition available tomorrow.

The quote is about half way down this page.

_____________________________________________________
House of Commons: HANSARD

Today’s Commons debates – Wednesday 12 December 2012

Edward Miliband:“I must say, I have heard everything when the boy from the Bullingdon club lectures people on bullying. Absolutely extraordinary. Have you wrecked a restaurant recently?

The Prime Minister does not want to talk about the facts, but let us give him another one. He is hitting working families, and the richest people in our society will get a massive tax cut next April—an average of £107,000 each for people earning over £1 million. Is he the only person left in the country who cannot see the fundamental injustice of giving huge tax cuts to the richest while punishing those in work on the lowest pay?”

The Prime Minister:“The tax take for the richest under this Government will be higher in every year than it was for any year when the right hon. Gentleman was in government. He has obviously got a short memory, because I explained to him last week that under his plans for the 50p tax rate, millionaires paid £7 billion less in tax than they did previously. The point of raising taxes is to pay for public services. We are raising more money for the rich, but where he is really so profoundly wrong is in the choice that he has decided to make. The facts are these: over the last five years, people in work have seen their incomes go up by 10%, and people out of work have seen their incomes go up by 20%. At a time when people accept a pay freeze we should not be massively increasing benefits massively, yet that is what he wants to do. A party that is not serious about controlling welfare is not serious about controlling the deficit either.”

_____________________________________________________________

david-cameronA