I’ve got almost as many op-eds in
my files with theories as to why the MSM does
not report on the DSM, as those that do report.
There are more letters to the editor
demanding coverage, as there are letters by
informed citizens with good advice for action to
take (i.e. Congress, the Senate, and Coalition
efforts)
But there are very few articles, op-eds and
letters to the editor that address the basic
problem of WHY there is so little, or almost NO
coverage in the US Main Stream Media about
the Downing Street Documents, the RAF
bombing, the pre-war bombing, etc.
Here follows four theories. You might not
like this.
THEORY ONE
BRANZBURG V. HAYES
Branzburg v. Hayes is a court case from 1972
that addresses the journalist’s rights to protect
his/her sources. The passage from the
judge’s ruling that has bearing on the US
non-reporting of the DSM is here:
situations where a source is not engaged in
criminal conduct but has information suggesting
illegal conduct by others. Newsmen frequently
receive information from such sources pursuant
to a tacit or express agreement to withhold the
source’s name and suppress any information
that the source wishes not published. Such
informants presumably desire anonymity in order
to avoid being entangled as a witness in a
criminal trial or grand jury investigation. They
may fear that disclosure will threaten their job
security or personal safety or that it will simply
result in dishonor or
embarrassment.
Now in this situation we are dealing with
reporting on the illegality of the war in Iraq is
made almost impossible by journalists in the
Main Stream Media because of what is
contained in Branzburg v. Hayes. We are
talking about criminality at the very highest level
of US government, and an involvement that is all
encompassing… nearly every branch of
government is involved. Congress, too,
I’m sorry to say. The October Resolution
was not Constitutional.
THEORY TWO
You will not believe me when I tell you that the
top reporter on the story of the illegal war in Iraq
for the last three years, was told by his
managing editor not to write stories that reported
the truth of the situation because it was
unpatriotic and would lead to non-support for the
President’s policies. Yet, it
happened.
On what basis can this be considered allowable
within First Ammendment protections of the
freedom of speech?
Well, there’s this:
censorship
Censorship can be explicit, as in laws passed to
prevent information being published or
propagated (as in Australia, or Saudi Arabia
where certain Internet pages are not permitted
entry), or it can be implicit, taking the form of
intimidation by government or even by
popular censure, where people are afraid to
express or support certain opinions for fear of
losing their lives, or their jobs, position in
society, or in academia, their academic
credibility. In this latter form it is similar to
McCarthyism.
These two forms (explicit and
implicit) can be generalized to represent laws
and government authority (explicit) and social
forces or social persuasion (implicit).
During wartime, censorship is carried out
with the intention of preventing the release of
information that might be advantageous to the
enemy Typically it involves obfuscation of
times or locations, or delaying the release of
information (e.g. the objective of an operation)
until it is of no possible use to enemy forces.
Mention of weapons and equipment (especially if
newly introduced) is another favourite area for
censorship.
The moral issues here are
somewhat different as release of the information
carries a high risk of increased casualties
among one’s own forces and possibly loss of the
overall conflict.
Censorship is regarded as a
typical feature of dictatorships and other
authoritarian political systems. Democratic
nations usually have far less institutionalized
censorship, and instead tout the importance of
freedom of speech
Some thinkers understand
censorship to include other attempts to suppress
points of view or ideas such as negative
propaganda, media manipulation, spin,
disinformation, or “free speech zones”
(ghettoizing or containing speech). These
methods, collectively, tend to work by
disseminating misleading information or by
preventing other ideas from obtaining a receptive
audience
Wikipedia
Encyclopedia
Now it is possible that the US government has
imposed censorship on the fourth estate using
as its argument that during wartime, accurate
reporting of bombing campaigns, US casualties,
and battle/attack figures would be aiding and
abetting the enemy. But in our situation,
the only enemy that would have been aided by
reporting the truth are those enemies to tyranny
and Empire that have been trying to correct the
excesses and abuses of power of this
administration.
THEORY THREE
Is it possible that the truth HAS been reported,
but the people, in their stupor did not recognize
it?
Certainly. Case in point, my hero, Bob
Woodward. There has been so much
Woodward slamming around dKos ever since the
outing of “Deep Throat” that I had to give up
defending him.
One of the avenues of attack was Woodward’s
book “Plan of Attack.” The following
passage is from Shakespeare’s Sister, at: THE DAILY
HOWLER
LEADER! Amazing! When Plan of Attack first
appeared, the press said it proved Bush’s
honesty!
Yes–Woodward’s book does show the Bush
Admin “fixing the facts and the intelligence.” And
yes, it does show them starting to do this shortly
after the Downing Street memo appeared. But
when this fascinating book first appeared, it
wasn’t used by the Washington press to batter
the Bush Admin on this score. Quite the
contrary–the book was used to praise Wise
Leader Bush for the great depth of his honesty!
How did this odd transaction occur? Let’s go
back to the front-page report with which the Post
introduced this new book–a front-page report
which took us straight to the book’s most
ballyhooed passage.
“Plan of Attack” was released in April 2004. On
Saturday morning, April 17, the Post ran a
front-page report on its contents, written by
reporter William Hamilton. In his second
paragraph, Hamilton cited the puzzling anecdote
which became the book’s most famous passage.
Surely, you recall that “slam dunk:”
HAMILTON (4/17/04): Beginning in late
December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly
with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war
cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as
he and administration spokesmen insisted they
were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to
a new book on the origins of the war.
The intensive war planning throughout 2002
created its own momentum, according to “Plan of
Attack” by Bob Woodward, fueled in part by the
CIA’s conclusion that Saddam Hussein could not
be removed from power except through a war
and CIA Director George J. Tenet’s assurance to
the president that it was a “slam dunk” case that
Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction.
THEORY FOUR
have been examining the Downing Street
Minutes. Of all eight Downing Street
Memos, this one continues to be the most
damning. And it is the phrase “intelligence
was being fixed” to fit the policy of illegal war
with Iraq that is smoking gun in that one.
The MSM in the United States has been and
continues to be part of that system of
“intelligence was fixed.” If you want to see
this in action, follow the Newsweek story on the
desecration of the Qu’ran.
How did that one go again? Newsweek reported
the truth, as had the International Committee of
the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and
Amnesty before them. A massive amount of FBI
emails released through the FOIA by the ACLU
last December told the same story. Yet the US
government stepped in and demanded that
Newsweek retract, and blamed the press for the
ensuing violence for having reported the truth.
The Qu’ran was desecrated, but one was not to
report it.
At a White House Press Conference one bold
journalist asked Scott McClellan when he
became the managing editor of Newsweek.
I don’t think we have yet to get an answer
to that one.
There’s my four theories. Of all of them, I
would ask you to consider theory number one,
Branzburg v. Hayes. Put yourself in the
place of the journalist who is more loyal to the
pursuit of the truth than he is to his newspaper’s
editorial policy. He is going to lose his/her job,
his/her standing in the pecking order, or his/her mind.
(His/her) What would you do?
Report, tone it down, or look for a new
job?
I have found that it’s job security that cuts right
through the BS every time. We all talk a
good game, until we are looking at our last
paycheck. It takes courage of the very
highest order to take on this story.
Courage I think very few of us possess.
I’ll close now with a list of the most
courageous Americans on my list at
present.
Our Time
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
Bittler, Thomas, Training Coordinator, TSA-DHS
Carman, John, Former Senior Inspector, U.S.
Customs
Chudson, Jonathan, Former
Special Agents, IG-Office, EPA
Cole, John M., Former Veteran Intelligence
Operations Specialist, FBI
Conrad, David “Mark”, Retired Agent in Charge,
Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs
Connolly, Frank, Senior Screening Manager @
Buffalo, TSA
Copley, James, Project Manager, DOE Costello,
Edward J. Jr., Former Special Agent,
Counterintelligence, FBI
Cruse, Larry, Army Intelligence Analyst, DOD
Dzakovic, Bogdan, Former Red Team Leader,
FAA
Edmonds, Sibel, Former Language Specialist,
FBI
Ellsberg, Dan, Former Special Assistant to the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (ISA), DOD
Elson, Steve, Veteran Agent, FAA
Forbes, David, Aviation, Logistics and Govt.
Security Analysts
German, Mike, Former Special Agent,
Counterterrorism, FBI
Goodman, Melvin A., Former Senior Analyst/
Division Manager, CIA; Senior Fellow at the
Center for International Policy
Guagliardi, Ray, training coordinator, TSA-DHS
Jenkins, Steve, Intelligence Analyst, NGIC, US
Army
Kwiatkowski, Karen U., Lt. Col. USAF (ret.),
Veteran Policy Analyst-DOD
Larkin, Lynne A., Former Operations Officer, CIA
Lau, Lok, Former Special Agent,
Counterintelligence, FBI
Lipsky, John, Supervisory Special Agent, FBI
Mansour, Joe, Occupational Safety Specialist,
Federal Bureau of Prisons
MacMichael, David, Former Senior Estimates
Officer, CIA
McGovern, Raymond L., Former Analyst, CIA
Nunn, Sandy, Former Special Agent, US
Customs
Pahle, Theodore J., Senior Intelligence Officer
(Ret), DIA
Price, Paul, Language Analyst, NSA
Sarshar, Behrooz, Retired Language Specialist,
FBI
Sculimbrene, Dennis, Former Special Agent, FBI
Springmann, Mike, Foreign Service Officer-5;
Second Secretary & Vice Consul,
Department of State
Starns, Robert, Special Agent in Charge,
Diplomatic Security Service, Department of
State Stroup, Jay, Former Federal Security
Director, TSA
Sullivan, Brian, Special Agent, Risk Program
Management Specialist, FAA
Tice, Russ, Senior Intelligence Analyst &
Action Officer, NSA
Tortorich, Larry J., Retired Naval Officer, US
Navy & Dept. of Homeland Security/TSA,
Turner, Jane, Veteran Special Agent, FBI
Vincent, John, Veteran Special Agent,
Counterterrorism, FBI
Walp, Glenn, PhD, Former Office Leader of the
Office of Security Inquiries, Los Alamos National
Lab, DOE
Woo, Robert, Special Agent, Counterintelligence,
FBI
Wright, Robert, Veteran Special agent,
Counterterrorism, FBI
