[Nettime-bold] Media Watch 2

["Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>]

"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve 
neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"There ought to be limits to freedom." - GW Bush, commenting on the 
website www.gwbush.com

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. Like 
fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master." -George Washington 

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as 
I'm the dictator." GW Bush 12/18/2000 CNN.

"Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms [of government] 
those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, 
perverted it into tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson

"Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, saying of news 
organizations, and all Americans, that in times like these "people have to 
watch what they say and watch what they do." -NY Times 9/28/2001 "In 
Patriotic Time, Dissent Is Muted"

At 11 PM on Wednesday, October 10, MSNBC reported from Boca 
Raton, FL, about the third (3) anthrax case so far. The reporter insisted 
that anthrax was caused by a virus, although the FBI official whom her 
crew taped talked about the anthrax bacteria. The expert interviewed later 
in the same program also spoke of anthrax bacteria. The CNN anchor 
referred to anthrax as a bacterium, and my mom, a physician, also told me 
that anthrax is a bacterial disease. Obviously, the MSNBC reporter was 
wrong. First - that she did not check the facts about anthrax etiology and 
second - that she did not listen to what the officials around her said. The 
first mistake is forgivable to a journalist - we shouldn’t expect that 
journalists have extensive knowledge of biology, but the second mistake 
suggests the failure of observing the rules of journalism 101 - not 
listening to what your sources are saying.

It is insulting that the major US media treat their public as an 
undereducated, immature bunch of ignoramuses, that needs events 
filtered and pre-digested for them in contravention of the spirit and letter 
of the First Amendment, yet then they cannot get their facts straight. 
But, besides being shabby at fact-checking, the US networks, also, in 
their self-censorship attempts focus on the wrong issues. The anti-war 
rally in New York on October 7, that went unreported by them, received 
attention abroad. So far, I got information that CBC, Canadian TV had a 
segment and German Der Spiegel magazine has an article about it. In 
Germany particular the peace protests are very strong - on Monday, 
October 8, 5,000 high school pupils in Berlin walked out of classes, 
despite threats from the education authorities and school 
superintendents, to demonstrate for peace. We did not see a report 
about that on the US networks, either. On Friday, October 12, a similar 
youth rally is scheduled in front of MTV studios in New York (www.9-
11peace.org) - we shall see how is that going to be reported.

In the meantime US networks got involved in the nasty squabble about 
the rights to re-broadcast Osama Bin Laden’s video-fatwah from the 
Qatar’s Al Jazeera television. Al Jazeera is the only TV network given 
permission from Taliban to film within Afghanistan. CNN has an 
exclusive deal with Al Jazeera to be given their stuff 6 hours before other 
networks. That usually pertains to those murky, dark green shots of 
skies over Kabul with some indiscernible details and a few moving light 
spots that confirm existence of the anti-aircraft fire. There is not much 
competition over those. However, when Al Jazeera aired Bin Laden, other 
US networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) failed to observe the embargo, 
provoking an angry response from the CNN. CNN eventually backed-off 
after being accused by ABC executives of “actions bordering on war 
profiteering.” Indeed, it looked like the five largest world electronic media 
scrambled into a fight over the crumbs that Osama Bin Laden generously 
let fall of his table and onto the floor of public availability. As Muslims 
once scooped the sand where the feet of prophet Mohammed walked.

That unpleasant situation provoked a stern response from the White 
House. National security adviser Condolezza Rice called on the media to 
exercise judgement in airing Bin Laden’s statements. To that effect CNN 
announced that it will not air Bin Laden at all any more. This may be yet 
another dangerous precedent in stifling media freedoms worldwide. If 
CNN refuses to air Bin Laden - other US networks may fear to do so as 
well. No major network wants to be viewed as un-patriotic in these times. 
And if US networks refuse to air Bin Laden, than other TV stations in the 
world may reconsider airing him, too. Al Jazeera may risk being 
suspected in aiding and abetting terrorism and having its equipment 
seized if it does not join the chorus of ‘enduring freedom.’ The effect 
may be to completely cut off Bin Laden from the world - once he is 
completely unseen and unheard off, the theory goes, he could do less 
potential harm. And Condolezza might be onto something here.

First, unlike the unreported anti-war protests in New York, Osama’s 
message was not an example of speech protected by the First 
Amendment, because it explicitly advocated violence - not only a violent 
overthrow of government, but killing Americans everywhere. It is indeed 
educative to see how the US networks overlooked that in their quest for 
sensational news. Second, while I doubt that he ‘communicates’ to 
terrorist cells through such video messages, I think that is beyond the 
point, because Al Qaeda for its success maybe does not depend only on 
a certain number of terrorist cells, but rather on the general 
dissatisfaction among young Islamic fundamentalists everywhere. In that 
scenario it would be enough for Osama Bin Laden to show himself alive 
and kicking on TV after the first day of bombing and say a few 
regurgitated phrases about how infidel Americans should pay for 
whatever they did to re-invigorate beliefs that a) Al Qaeda is impervious 
to American attacks, b) that Americans are vulnerable to Al Qaeda’s 
attacks and c) that those attacks should go on by any means necessary 
until America is defeated. This may be just enough for another suicide 
bomber to step forward - even if he never was trained, financed or even 
contacted by the Al Qaeda network. That’s the nature of hate.

Obviously, any national security adviser would be nervous with any 
further airing of Bin Laden. Also, while it would bother my libertarian 
self, to see anybody, including Bin Laden, completely censored out of 
the world media, it is definitely a low casualty warfare way of dealing 
with the situation. Instead of killing troves of Afghan civilians and 
turning Western societies to police states, maybe it would be better just 
to cut-off Bin Laden from the rest of the world. If he is not seen any 
more, if he is not heard off, then the rest of the world has to worry only 
about the existing terrorist cells, and not about the entire population of 
angry young Islamic fundamentalists, who would eventually forget him, 
if he does not appear again.  
								
		
However, that would not solve the underlying problem of hate for 
America and the West. And frankly - that ‘problem’ can’t be solved by 
war. The five million offered for Osama’s head is also a good move. It is 
reported that bribes and pay-offs can go a long way among the Afghan 
warring factions. But, again, this does nothing for the underlying 
problem of hate for America and the West. The Arab world is simply 
undergoing some serious changes right now. And the developed world 
was caught on the wrong side - primarily because of its dependence on 
oil and its selfish insistence to keep the status quo in Arab world so that 
oil remains cheap. This wrong should be straightened out right, now - 
because this is the only long-term solution. World needs new energy 
solutions. World needs democratic Arab states.

So that we can live in the world with news that would less often sound 
like this:
- a truck hit a bus in Chile
- US Marines helicopter crashed in Poland
- 9 died in Cessna crash in Alaska
- US embassies around the world ordered to stock up on a 3-day supplies 
of the anti-anthrax drug (that despite the officials deny terrorist activity 
in connection with the anthrax cases in Florida; all US networks except 
FOX bought into the ‘official version’)

Of course, some of those accidents are indeed accidents that would 
happen anyway - with or without Al Qaeda - and some, perhaps, while 
being intentionally caused, may not have anything to do with either Al 
Qaeda or Islamic militants in general. It is, however, truth that there is a 
raise of dangerous events in the world after the September 11 events. 
Which may have its roots in the psychology of violence: at any point of 
time there is a fair amount of angry, hateful, ‘deranged’ individuals in the 
world. They often feel being victims of injustice and helpless in the face 
of it. A percentage of them is violent, and the only thing that ‘holds them 
down’ is the apparent functioning of the system. It is more than just the 
fear of getting caught - it is the understanding of the desperate that 
desperate acts are generally unsuccessful. Al Qaeda changed that 
perception very pointedly by destruction of the WTC. Suddenly it 
seemed possible to punish and hurt the unworthy world. And every 
sighting of Bin Laden re-enforces that bellief.

But again - it is not enough, in my view, to just eradicate Al Qaeda, 
which essentially served as a fuse in already explosive world situation, 
but the reasons for discontent should be addressed and dealt with. We 
shouldn’t feel comfortable living in the world where so many people are 
unhappy. Particularly if they see us as a cause of that unhappiness. 
We’ve seen that in former Yugoslavia. When “it started”, all those 
unbelievable characters started crawling out from under their rocks and 
getting involved in the unspeakable acts of torture and mistreatment of 
the “other side.” Therefore, many of us, who came here from former 
Yugoslavia, tend to see September 11 events, and the post-911 events, 
as the continuance of the same evil that some of us, unfortunately, had 
the opportunity to witness earlier than September 11, 2001.

On Wednesday, October 10, Indira Kajosevic, a Women In Black activist 
from Belgrade and New York (and my partner - so I can’t be fully 
objective :)), appeared in the radio show Democracy Now. She told a 
story about that ‘continuance’: a mother with two sons who survived the 
NATO bombing of Belgrade cowering in bomb shelters, eventually 
immigrated to the US, and got a job on the 80th floor of the WTC 1. She 
was there when the plane hit the building. She survived, but her sons 
watched the event on TV in school, and not knowing what’s happening 
with her, relived the trauma from their previous Belgrade war experience, 
ending up having nightmares and not being able to sleep. In the perverse 
turn of circumstances, she was indeed closer to death in New York than 
in Belgrade.

The yesterday’s Democracy Now was about the FBI call that the feminist-
pacifist group Women in Black received in San Francisco. Some people 
raised a big stink around it. I thought somebody got arrested, 
interrogated or worse. Yet, it was only a phone call. It indeed is 
interference, maybe harassment, but nothing sort of what Women in 
Black in Serbia or Israel had been exposed too, as Ms. Kajosevic and Ms. 
Svirsky (WiB Israel) told the American audience. As those, who were 
involved with peace activism in the U.S., in times when this was an 
interesting and invigorating country, know, peace activism inherently 
entails such risks as being occasionally inconvenienced by the police, 
and activists shouldn’t be too much bothered about that, as the folk 
singer from San Francisco pointed out. Kajosevic and Svirsky gave 
examples suggesting that a little good will communication with police can 
actually do some good both to the movement and to the police.

-/-

The one story that seems to be entirely absent from the mainstream US 
media is that of the Bin Laden’s connection to the US intelligence, 
military and corporate world, mainly through the family Bush. One can 
understand that stories like those would not entirely please the sitting 
president, but they indeed offer a glimpse in why was it possible for 
Osama Bin Laden to get away with his hate rhetoric for so long, and still 
catch the US off guard. I guess, they never expected such a hit from him. 
And I bet they are angry now. It all looks to me as a typical family feud 
from the Dallas soap-opera - only here J.R. found a match well worthy of 
his cunning, knifing Texan self.

In January 15-21,1998 issue of Nouvel Observateur, p. 76, there was an 
interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski.  He said that the CIA was already 
aiding the future Taliban guys against the pro-Soviet Kabul goverment 6 
months before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  Carter gave the first 
secret directive on July 3, 1979. "We knowingly increased the 
probability" of the Soviets invasion in December. Brzezinski wrote Carter 
at the time that "We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its 
Vietnam War."  Any regrets? "What is more important to the history of 
the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet Empire?  Some 
stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe?..."

This from Carter, the guy who could not get American hostages released 
by the Iran Islamic fundamentalist government. How appropriately of 
that revered peacemaker to go on and aid another Islamic fundamentalist 
movement in the sad course of prosecuting the cold war. And who was 
the head of CIA (the one who actually did the “aiding”) in that period?
								
Meanwhile, fresh out of Harvard Business School, young George W. 
Bush returned to Midland, TX, to follow his father's footsteps in the oil 
business. Beginning in 1978, he set up a series of limited partnerships - 
Arbusto '78, Arbusto '79, and so on - to drill for oil. Salem Bin Laden, 
Osama's older brother, was an early investor in Arbusto Energy. 
According to a 1976 trust agreement, Salem bin Laden appointed James 
Bath as his business representative in Houston - the same year former 
President George Herbert Walker Bush served as director of the CIA. 
Bath served with President W. Bush in the Texas Air National Guard, and 
was one of his earliest financial backers.  In 1992 Bill White, a former real 
estate business partner with Bath, informed federal investigators that 
Bath told him that he had assisted the CIA in a liaison role since 1976.

In sworn depositions, Bath admitted he represented four wealthy Saudi 
Arabian businessmen as a trustee. He also admitted he used his name on 
their investments and received, in return, a five- percent stake in their 
business deals.  One of those was Sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz, one of the 
largest stockholders in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. 
BCCI was a corrupt global banking empire operating in 73 nations and 
was a major financial and political force in Washington, Paris, Geneva, 
London, and Hong Kong. Despite the appearance of a normal banking 
operation, BCCI was actually an international crime syndicate providing 
"banking services" to the Medellin drug cartel, Pamama dictator Manuel 
Noriega, Saddam Hussein, terrorist mastermind Abu Nidal, and Khun Sa, 
the heroin kingpin in Asia's Golden Triangle. 

The BCCI scandal implicated some of the biggest political names in 
Washington - both Democrats and Republicans - during the first Bush 
White House. The bank was accused of laundering money for drug 
cartels, smuggling weapons to terrorists, and using Middle Eastern oil 
money to influence American politicians.  There is more of this at 
http://www.americanfreedomnews.com/afn_articles/bushsecrets.htm

Disturbing as it is - it is worth knowing what’s really going on here.

Ivo Skoric


      

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold