Visit our website: HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "FAIR-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 12:58 AM Subject: [FAIR-L] Media March to War > FAIR-L > Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting > Media analysis, critiques and news reports > > > > > > MEDIA ADVISORY: > Media March to War > > September 17, 2001 > > In the wake of the devastating attacks on the World Trade Center and the > Pentagon, many media pundits focused on one theme: retaliation. For some, it > did not matter who bears the brunt of an American attack: > > "There is only one way to begin to deal with people like this, and that is > you have to kill some of them even if they are not immediately directly > involved in this thing." > --former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger (CNN, 9/11/01) > > "The response to this unimaginable 21st-century Pearl Harbor should be as > simple as it is swift-- kill the bastards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow > them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. As for cities or countries > that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts." > --Steve Dunleavy (New York Post, 9/12/01) > > "America roused to a righteous anger has always been a force for good. > States that have been supporting if not Osama bin Laden, people like him > need to feel pain. If we flatten part of Damascus or Tehran or whatever it > takes, that is part of the solution." > --Rich Lowry, National Review editor, to Howard Kurtz (Washington Post, > 9/13/01) > > "TIME TO TAKE NAMES AND NUKE AFGHANISTAN." > --Caption to cartoon by Gary Brookins (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 9/13/01) > > "At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilites should be used against the > bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan. To do less would be rightly > seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on > the part of the United States and the current administration." > --Former Defense Intelligence Agency officer Thomas Woodrow, "Time to Use > the Nuclear Option" (Washington Times, 9/14/01) > > Bill O'Reilly: "If the Taliban government of Afghanistan does not cooperate, > then we will damage that government with air power, probably. All right? We > will blast them, because..." > > Sam Husseini, Institute for Public Accuracy: "Who will you kill in the > process?" > > O'Reilly: "Doesn't make any difference." > --("The O'Reilly Factor," Fox News Channel, 9/13/01) > > "This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals > directly involved in this particular terrorist attack.... We should invade > their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We > weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top > officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. > And this is war." > --Syndicated columnist Ann Coulter (New York Daily News, 9/12/01) > > > "Real" Retribution > > Many media commentators appeared to blame the attacks on what they saw as > America's unwillingness to act aggressively in recent years. > > As conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post, 9/12/01) > wrote: "One of the reasons there are enough terrorists out there capable and > deadly enough to carry out the deadliest attack on the United States in its > history is that, while they have declared war on us, we have in the past > responded (with the exception of a few useless cruise missile attacks on > empty tents in the desert) by issuing subpoenas." > > The Washington Post's David Broder (9/13/01), considered a moderate, issued > his own call for "new realism-- and steel-- in America's national security > policy": "For far too long, we have been queasy about responding to > terrorism. Two decades ago, when those with real or imagined grievances > against the United States began picking off Americans overseas on military > or diplomatic assignments or on business, singly or in groups, we delivered > pinprick retaliations or none at all." > > It's worth recalling the U.S. response to the bombing of a Berlin disco in > April 1986, which resulted in the deaths of two U.S. service members: The > U.S. immediately bombed Libya, which it blamed for the attack. According to > Libya, 36 civilians were killed in the air assault, including the year-old > daughter of Libyan leader Moamar Khadafy (Washington Post, 5/9/86). It is > unlikely that Libyans considered this a "pinprick." Yet these deaths > apparently had little deterrence value: In December 1988, less than 20 > months later, Pan Am 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in an even > deadlier act of > terrorism the U.S. blames on Libyan agents. > > More recently, in 1998, Bill Clinton sent 60 cruise missiles, some equipped > with cluster bombs, against bin Laden's Afghan base, in what was presented > as retaliation for the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa. One missile > aimed at Afghan training camps landed hundreds of miles off course in > Pakistan, while a simultaneous attack in Sudan leveled one of the country's > few pharmaceutical factories. Media cheered the attacks (In These Times, > 9/6/98), though careful investigation into the case revealed no credible > evidence linking the plant to chemical weapons or Osama bin Laden, the two > justifications offered for the attack (New York Times, 10/27/99, London > Observer, 8/23/98). > > Despite the dubious record of retributory violence in insuring security, > many pundits insist that previous retaliation failed only because it was not > severe enough. As the Chicago Tribune's John Kass declared (9/13/01), "For > the past decade we've sat dumb and stupid as the U.S. military was > transformed from a killing machine into a playpen for sociologists and > political schemers." This "playpen" dropped 23,000 bombs on Yugoslavia in > 1999, killing between 500 and 1,500 civilians, and may have killed as many > as 1,200 Iraqis in 1998's Desert Fox attack (Agence France Presse, > 12/23/98). > > The Wall Street Journal (9/13/01) urged the U.S. to "get serious" about > terrorism by, among other things, eliminating "the 1995 rule, imposed by > former CIA Director John Deutsch under political pressure, limiting whom the > U.S. can recruit for counter-terrorism. For fear of hiring rogues, the CIA > decided it would only hire Boy Scouts." One non-Boy Scout the CIA worked > with in the 1980s is none other than Osama bin Laden (MSNBC, 8/24/98; The > Atlantic, 7-8/01)-- then considered a valuable asset in the fight against > Communism, but now suspected of being the chief instigator of the World > Trade Center attacks. > > > Who's to Blame? > > In crisis situations, particularly those involving terrorism, media often > report unsubstantiated information about suspects or those claiming > responsibility-- an error that is especially dangerous in the midst of calls > for military retaliation. > > Early reports on the morning of the attack indicated that the Democratic > Front for the Liberation of Palestine had claimed responsibility on Abu > Dhabi Television. Most outlets were careful with the information, though > NBC's Tom Brokaw, while not confirming the story, added fuel to the fire: > "This comes, ironically, on a day when the Israel Foreign Minister Shimon > Peres is scheduled to meet with Yasser Arafat. Of course, we've had the > meeting in South Africa for the past several days in which the Palestinians > were accusing the Israelis of racism"-- as if making such an accusation were > tantamount to blowing up the World Trade Center. > > Hours after a spokesperson for the Democratic Front for the Liberation of > Palestine denied any responsibility for the attack, the Drudge Report > website still had the headline "Palestinian Group Says Responsible" at the > top of the page. > > Though the threat from a Palestinian group proved unsubstantiated, that did > not stop media from making gross generalizations about Arabs and Islam in > general. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wondered (9/13/01): > "Surely Islam, a grand religion that never perpetrated the sort of Holocaust > against the Jews in its midst that Europe did, is being distorted when it is > treated as a guidebook for suicide bombing. How is it that not a single > Muslim leader will say that?" > > Of course, many Muslims would-- and did-- say just that. Political and > civil leaders throughout the Muslim world have condemned the attacks, and > Muslim clerics throughout the Middle East have given sermons refuting the > idea that targeting civilians is a tenet of Islam (BBC, 9/14/01; Washington > Post 9/17/01). > > > Why They Hate Us > > As the media investigation focused on Osama bin Laden, news outlets still > provided little information about what fuels his fanaticism. Instead of a > serious inquiry into anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East and elsewhere, > many commentators media offered little more than self-congratulatory > rhetoric: > > "[The World Trade Center and the Pentagon] have drawn, like gathered > lightning, the anger of the enemies of civilization. Those enemies are > always out there.... Americans are slow to anger but mighty when angry, and > their proper anger now should be alloyed with pride. They are targets > because of their virtues--principally democracy, and loyalty to those > nations which, like Israel, are embattled salients of our virtues in a > still-dangerous world." > --George Will (Washington Post, 9/12/01) > > "This nation symbolizes freedom, strength, tolerance, and democratic > principles dedicated to both liberty and peace. To the tyrants, the despots, > the closed societies, there are no alterations to the policies, no gestures > we can make, no words we can say that will convince those determined to > continue their hate." > --Charles G. Boyd (Washington Post, 9/12/01) > > "Are Americans afraid to face the reality that there is a significant > portion of this world's population that hates America, hates what freedom > represents, hates the fact that we fight for freedom worldwide, hates our > prosperity, hates our way of life? Have we been unwilling to face that very > difficult reality?" > --Sean Hannity (Fox News Channel, 9/13/01) > > "Our principled defense of individual freedom and our reluctance to > intervene in the affairs of states harboring terrorists makes us an easy > target." > --Robert McFarlane (Washington Post, 9/13/01) > > One exception was ABC's Jim Wooten (World News Tonight, 9/12/01), who tried > to shed some light on what might motivate some anti-U.S. sentiment in the > Middle East, reporting that "Arabs see the U.S. as an accomplice of Israel, > a partner in what they believe is the ruthless repression of Palestinian > aspirations for land and independence." Wooten continued: "The most > provocative issues: Israel's control over Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem; > the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia near some of Islam's holiest > sites; and economic sanctions against Iraq, which have been seen to deprive > children there of medicine and food." > > Stories like Wooten's, which examine the U.S.'s highly contentious role in > the Middle East and illuminate some of the forces that can give rise to > violent extremism, contribute far more to public security than do pundits > calling for indiscriminate revenge. > > ---------- > > Feel free to respond to FAIR ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ). We can't reply to > everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate > documented example of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of > your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to us > at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > > FAIR ON THE AIR: FAIR's founder Jeff Cohen is a regular panelist on the Fox > News Channel's "Fox News Watch," which airs which airs Saturdays at 7 pm and > Sundays at 11 am (Eastern Standard Time). Check your local listings. > > FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in > the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit > http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html . > > Please support FAIR by subscribing to our bimonthly magazine, Extra! > For more information, go to: > http://www.fair.org/extra/subscribe.html . Or call 1-800-847-3993. > > FAIR's INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its New > York office on a rolling basis. For more information, see: > http://www.fair.org/internships.html > > You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org , or by > sending a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name" command to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Our subscriber list is kept confidential. > > You may leave the list at any time-- just send a message with "SIGNOFF > FAIR-L" in the body to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > > FAIR > (212) 633-6700 > http://www.fair.org/ > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > list administrators: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ------------------------------------------------- This Discussion List is the follow-up for the old stopnato @listbot.com that has been shut down ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://TOPICA.COM/u/?a84x2u.a9spWA Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: archive@jab.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
