Two weeks before the U.S. began bombing Afghanistan, an unnamed military officer involved in the planning offered the Washington Post some chilling insight into the Bush administration’s media strategy: “This is the most information-intensive war you can imagine,” the source said. “We’re going to lie about things.”
If you expected the press to summon up some outrage at the prospect of a deliberate disinformation campaign—to maybe start asking, “Was that a lie? No? How about that?” at White House news briefings—you were probably disappointed. Not one major U.S. paper bothered to reprint the quote. (Salon.com did.)
A free, independent, and critical press is never more crucial than in wartime, when millions of lives and the course of history can turn on small bits of information. But since the September 11 attacks, corporate media outlets have been busy doing what News Corp owner Rupert Murdoch called their “patriotic duty”: waving the flag, toeing the government’s line, and ceding their major editorial judgment calls to Condoleezza Rice and other administration bigwigs. These insiders have pressured news executives to suppress information ranging from Al Qaeda statements and security details to public health data available under the Freedom of Information Act.
Rather than challenge government censorship, the press seemed willing propagandizers: the U.S. war should be “media-driven,” a Forbes writer said. On network broadcasts, news analysts and pundits currently or formerly affiliated with the White House, Pentagon, CIA, and FBI portrayed military retaliation as inevitable. While such insiders are valid sources, it’s unsurprising that they provided little historical context regarding the CIA’s prior role in aiding Osama bin Laden and the mujahideen in Afghanistan’s battle with the Soviets. And though they argued that the Taliban should be overthrown partly for their violent misogyny, these mostly male hawks didn’t mention that for years, the United States largely ignored feminists’ pleas on behalf of brutalized Afghan women.
In contrast, international peace and justice experts who could offer non-military response options were virtually invisible in a debate rarely broader than “How Wide a War?,” as PBS’s News Hour framed it. Some journalists, like Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly, answered that question by advocating the starvation of civilians; others, like former New York Times Executive Editor A.M. Rosenthal, answered the question by proposing the complete destruction of the civic infrastructures of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, and Sudan—war crimes that would surely kill millions of innocent people.
Other influential reporters, while not as bloodthirsty, saw themselves as proud partners of the politicians they cover. On David Letterman’s Late Show, CBS anchor Dan Rather announced, “George Bush is the president. Continued
10/21/2014 Afghanistan's New First Lady Advances Women's Issues - Just a few days after moving to the presidential palace, Afghanistan's new First Lady Rula Ghani said that she hopes to encourage greater respect for women.
Rula Ghani already broke tradition by participating in her husband, Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai's, campaign for President. . . .
10/21/2014 Hulu Silences Rape Survivor Speaking Out Against Anti-Abortion Amendment 67 in Colorado - Hulu, an online, ad-supported streaming service, has refused to run an advertisement from the "No on 67" campaign in Colorado, citing the company's policy regarding "controversial" political positions on issues like abortion.
In a letter to the CEO of Hulu, dated October 10, the Vote No on 67 Campaign, which is supported by the Feminist Majority Foundation, asked the company to reconsider its unwillingness to air a 35-second spot featuring a rape survivor's testimony about the far-reaching impact of Colorado's proposed Amendment 67. . . .