nv1962

Corruption of the Government, by the Government, for the Government

The New York Times has apparently decided to put a little more bite to its otherwise generally still forgiving portrayal of the Bush administration’s push for the invasion and occupation of Iraq (and the subsequent, hardly surprising utter disaster, even five years into the mess). After obtaining several thousands of texts under a Freedom of Information Act appeal, they unearthed tons of paper trails, pointing to the systematical and at least from the outside fairly obvious orchestration of deceit, misinformation and blatant propaganda to quell the protestations of those more reasonably inclined.

Oddly, the singular occurrence of the partial term “corrupt” in their pertaining lengthy article signed off by Dan Barstow is in characterization of Iraqi security forces. However, what on the one hand might appear as a somewhat understandable overly cohesive “team player” mindset and the resulting baffling effect of old boys networks of former military officers appearing visibly in media as “military analysts” while carrying the White House’s political water, can hardly be otherwise labeled than as the essence of mingled, mangled and confused interests.

As time goes by, I’m getting a better grip on the tremendous chasm in perception of the “threat” posed by Iraq - or better: the regime of thug Saddam Hussein - separating either side of the Atlantic. As an example, to the proverbial “average European” (if you can forgive that use of an atrocious oversimplification) the bravado and bluster displayed by former Secretary of State Colin Powell in his infamous remarks to the UN Security Council was far, far more transparent in its manipulative nature, than it was stateside, to his domestic audience.

Yet even as the New York Times spells out the details of a finely honed PR operation - that in some parts of that article even is alluded to with the charged term “Psyop” - the implication is still kept fairly low-key: the inherent untrustworthiness of mainstream media in the US.

How else can one reconcile the erstwhile widespread, almost bubbling regurgitation of so-called White House “talking points” (an interesting misnomer for submission of informed discussion to and subversion of it with pure, unadulterated political propaganda) that even the New York Times itself came to regret (among others, evidently long after the facts played out) with the relentless yet regrettably current pathology some unfortunately have attributed to individual “journalists” that systemically and categorically fudges, kludges and generally clobbers the all-important Big Picture to “inform” their audience?

Much as Fox News’ competitors would like one to disbelieve, the tendencies and systemic factors that work against investigative journalism in its truth finding mission and its efforts toward reasonably intelligent and objective reporting aren’t distinguished by what might be called “political bias”.

In fact, I believe the scope of political affinity should be restrained in its diversionary effects to a different angle on facts presented. All beyond that point, including flat out denials of facts, is a distortion that has no place in journalism. It is somewhat amusing to see how cases of blatant corruption of Iraqi news outlets by US government officials (as also mentioned tangentially in that NYT article, alongside references to past cash-for-favorable comments scandals) slip past obvious parallels in the US.

There is a momentous difference between so-called “military analysts” who, of course, claim full control over determining appropriate distinctions between their monetary interests (i.e. in Iraq war-related private companies bidding on US Government contracts) and the managers or “executives” of the news outlets that hire their commentary services, whether paid or not: a news medium has to guard the flows of information that ultimately make it to publication, as the entire credibility of the medium itself is at stake.

It is at the very least laughable that - according to that NYT article - news networks resort to variations on “how could we know” while, at the same time, the much higher ethical standards imposed on their own journalists appear somehow irrelevant in comparison. Just putting in the frequently abused standard weasel-worded disclaimer that “opinions expressed are not the medium’s” doesn’t cut it, when news reporting is concerned. Less so, when considering the implications of treating the news department as the morally challenged and money losing little sibling of the entertainment division of one media empire or another: as the fourth estate can’t do its business, reporting on the three branches of government, the last institutional safeguard against discretionary tyranny is blasted off its natural place.

This is all the more pertinent in the “debate” over the return of Nixon-era “executive privilege”, such as most notably exemplified in Vicepresident Cheney’s archetypal my-way-or-the-highway approach. Then again, it shouldn’t cause too much surprise to see exactly the same names that surrounded the Nixon presidency beholden to a decades old grudge to strike back with a vengeance at those pesky checks and balances that cost them their job, way back when.

But when Government treats its enormous responsibility toward the nation it governs in its interests as an opportunity to set the clock back forty-five years or so, one might expect at least a greater curiosity for that enterprise among the media that two generations ago let the cat out of the bag, and ultimately allowed for a broad informed discussion on the merits of a regal presidency. Alas: not so, today.

Whereas Dan Barstow’s article sheds invaluable light on the collusion of old boys, acting in a eerie orchestrated display of “team play”, the implicit conclusion of severely abused trust (placed in them by networks and audiences alike) and present a grossly distorted, deliberately manipulated discourse to suit a politically motivated club in government (especially where serving their own business interests) doesn’t seem to be taken to port with particular interest.

That, I believe, is a gross disservice - I’ll take that back: a betrayal of their role in fomenting and factually supporting an informed discussion among its reader-citizens.

A disgraceful self-inflicted insult to the injury opened now, with five years delay, uncovering the evidence of a nation that’s been had by its own Government, serving its own narrow agenda, by agents that saw ample benefits and rewards in what in Spanish would be called a shameless (and criminal!) trafficking with influences.

A game of thieves, run by thieves, reported by thieves: it’s hardly surprising everyone comes off squeaky clean in this absurd Kafkian situation.

In all this… Wither integrity?