The Summer of Sequels
In a summer packed with blockbuster movie sequels, from Spidey to Shrek to Pirates and on and on, it seems to fit.
The same gang is back in action, with a few cast changes to keep it interesting, but the same plot that previously brought in millions of dollars for the investors. It's implausible, and the plot machinery is obvious, but none of that matters when it can be marketed and is sure to sell.
The New York Times has a front page story today titled Iran Strategy Stirs Debate at White House. Once again viewers are treated to the familar story of a Secretary of State feverishly trying to steer policy toward a diplomatic and internationalist approach, while hawks in the Vice President's office demand military solutions.
There is, as with the original blockbuster, a 'growing threat': a rogue regime in the Mideast that must be dealt with. Many of the familiar faces are back in their original roles, including Dick Cheney as the dark Vice President and Joe Lieberman as the warmongering 'moderate' Senator. In a clever twist, the producers have moved femme fatale Condoleeza Rice from her warhawk role as National Security Adviser into an ironic casting as the 'cooling rod' Secretary of State, the role previously played by Colin Powell.
Since I don't read the Hollywood trades, I was very surprised to see that they were able to sign up the New York Times to reprise its role in the original, as the 'credible' paper that happily prints incomplete and misleading stories to build support for the war. (How long, I wonder, will it be before this article gets used by Dick Cheney to support his position?)
As Glenn Greenwald describes in detail, the Times article is written in a way that takes the Iranian threat as proven fact. In the phrasing and arrangement of details, there is an ominous undertone, a subtle background soundtrack meant to cue the audience to the presence of danger, and predispose them to believe the actions of the characters. Once again, we see sentences crafted to encourage the readers toward one assumption: the threat is real, and something must be done.
For example:
Also good to know would be that the centrifuges currently in place enrich uranium only to the level used by power plants, and more enrichment would be required to obtain bomb-grade material. So, in fact, centrifuges do not automatically mean bomb-grade material, and bomb-grade material does not mean they have a working bomb. Do the authors of this article choose to bring this information to their readers?
No, having finished planting the image (with "hard numbers") of a thriving nuclear program which requires some response from the President, they move on to this paragraph:
But wait. Do they, as objective journalists, give us any facts that allow us to see that Iran is actually doing that? Or is the international insurgency work of Iran now so widely documented and accepted that it can be used in passing, like a mention of gravity?
What comes right after the paragraph about the 'fact' that Iran is up to no good?
Might the idea that a military strike could be a disaster actually be important? Not, apparently, as important as the idea that diplomacy is a failed European idea that Condi is supporting even though Iran is (somehow) well known to be causing trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere.
Those expecting that the Times reporters might have actually bothered to do any fact-checking or independent research of their own, or might provide us with information about a larger context on the Iran situation shouldn't hold their breath.
The Times reporters chose to grant that anonymity. Was it necessary in order to provide vital information to the public? Because anonymity has often been used as a way to promote one's own biased policy position in the press without accountability, and to pre-define the limits of public discussion of an issue. But independent reporters from the august New York Times would never be complicit in that, would they? Of course there are only two sides to the debate on Iran, the bomb-them-now vs. the talk-to-them-before-we-bomb sides!
To be fair, I must acknowledge that not all the information in the article comes from people in the administration. In fact, some of the longest quotes are from outside.
Finally, toward the end of the article, there is a quote from someone not connected to the administration.
In the run-up to Iraq, the supposedly liberal New York Times published a series of articles based on information fed from the White House as part of a propaganda campaign to sell the country on an invasion. Sometimes those articles published as fact things that were not. Often, they used turns of phrase or arrangement of information to shape the opinion of the unskeptical reader in support of the war.
In the years since, much has been written on how the Times got it so wrong, when others, particularly Knight-Ridder, got it right. Along the way, the Grey Lady has even made some small apologies for its failures. Still, it played a vital role in a massive manipulation of the American people.
I'd thought the NYT had decided that playing such roles was a mistake. But, as this summer's sequel heads toward the theaters, it appears I was wrong. Maybe, as with the Ocean's Eleven/Twelve/Thirteen films, the money is OK, and being a part of the cast is just too much fun to turn down.
The same gang is back in action, with a few cast changes to keep it interesting, but the same plot that previously brought in millions of dollars for the investors. It's implausible, and the plot machinery is obvious, but none of that matters when it can be marketed and is sure to sell.
The New York Times has a front page story today titled Iran Strategy Stirs Debate at White House. Once again viewers are treated to the familar story of a Secretary of State feverishly trying to steer policy toward a diplomatic and internationalist approach, while hawks in the Vice President's office demand military solutions.
There is, as with the original blockbuster, a 'growing threat': a rogue regime in the Mideast that must be dealt with. Many of the familiar faces are back in their original roles, including Dick Cheney as the dark Vice President and Joe Lieberman as the warmongering 'moderate' Senator. In a clever twist, the producers have moved femme fatale Condoleeza Rice from her warhawk role as National Security Adviser into an ironic casting as the 'cooling rod' Secretary of State, the role previously played by Colin Powell.
Since I don't read the Hollywood trades, I was very surprised to see that they were able to sign up the New York Times to reprise its role in the original, as the 'credible' paper that happily prints incomplete and misleading stories to build support for the war. (How long, I wonder, will it be before this article gets used by Dick Cheney to support his position?)
As Glenn Greenwald describes in detail, the Times article is written in a way that takes the Iranian threat as proven fact. In the phrasing and arrangement of details, there is an ominous undertone, a subtle background soundtrack meant to cue the audience to the presence of danger, and predispose them to believe the actions of the characters. Once again, we see sentences crafted to encourage the readers toward one assumption: the threat is real, and something must be done.
For example:
In the year since Ms. Rice announced the new strategy for the United States to join forces with Europe, Russia and China to press Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, Iran has installed more than a thousand centrifuges to enrich uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency predicts that 8,000 or so could be spinning by the end of the year, if Iran surmounts its technical problems.Hard numbers? I saw one approximate quantity (more than a thousand), and one rough prediction with no supporting level of confidence. How likely is it that Iran will surmount the technical problems so casually tucked into that final clause? Wouldn't that be good to know?
Those hard numbers are at the core of the debate within the administration over whether Mr. Bush should warn Iran’s leaders that he will not allow them to get beyond some yet-undefined milestones, leaving the implication that a military strike on the country’s facilities is still an option.
Also good to know would be that the centrifuges currently in place enrich uranium only to the level used by power plants, and more enrichment would be required to obtain bomb-grade material. So, in fact, centrifuges do not automatically mean bomb-grade material, and bomb-grade material does not mean they have a working bomb. Do the authors of this article choose to bring this information to their readers?
No, having finished planting the image (with "hard numbers") of a thriving nuclear program which requires some response from the President, they move on to this paragraph:
Even beyond its nuclear program, Iran is emerging as an increasing source of trouble for the Bush administration by inflaming the insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and in Gaza, where it has provided military and financial support to the militant Islamic group Hamas, which now controls the Gaza Strip.What!? Not only are they enriching uranium, they are increasingly inflaming insurgencies all over?? Those scum!
But wait. Do they, as objective journalists, give us any facts that allow us to see that Iran is actually doing that? Or is the international insurgency work of Iran now so widely documented and accepted that it can be used in passing, like a mention of gravity?
What comes right after the paragraph about the 'fact' that Iran is up to no good?
Even so, friends and associates of Ms. Rice who have talked with her recently say she has increasingly moved toward the European position that the diplomatic path she has laid out is the only real option for Mr. Bush, even though it has so far failed to deter Iran from enriching uranium, and that a military strike would be disastrous.Even so? Even so? As in, Despite the fact? As in Despite the fact that Iran is doing this, Ms. Rice is moving toward that 'European' diplomatic path? How about that path? Notice that the 'failure' of such a path is pointed out, before we see, once again tucked into the final words in a short clause, mention that a military strike could be disastrous?
Might the idea that a military strike could be a disaster actually be important? Not, apparently, as important as the idea that diplomacy is a failed European idea that Condi is supporting even though Iran is (somehow) well known to be causing trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere.
Those expecting that the Times reporters might have actually bothered to do any fact-checking or independent research of their own, or might provide us with information about a larger context on the Iran situation shouldn't hold their breath.
The accounts were provided by officials at the State Department, White House and the Pentagon who are on both sides of the debate, as well as people who have spoken with members of Mr. Cheney’s staff and with Ms. Rice. The officials said they were willing to explain the thinking behind their positions, but would do so only on condition of anonymity.Anonymous sources, defining 'both' sides of the debate.
The Times reporters chose to grant that anonymity. Was it necessary in order to provide vital information to the public? Because anonymity has often been used as a way to promote one's own biased policy position in the press without accountability, and to pre-define the limits of public discussion of an issue. But independent reporters from the august New York Times would never be complicit in that, would they? Of course there are only two sides to the debate on Iran, the bomb-them-now vs. the talk-to-them-before-we-bomb sides!
To be fair, I must acknowledge that not all the information in the article comes from people in the administration. In fact, some of the longest quotes are from outside.
“Regime change or the use of force are the only available options to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapons capability, if they want it,” said John R. Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations.Well, OK, he used to be in the administration. But here's another longer quote:
In a June 1 article for Commentary magazine, the neoconservative editor Norman Podhoretz laid out what a headline described as “The Case for Bombing Iran.”(Here's a hint for novice readers: When one of the longest direct quotes in an article is a claim of truth that includes a Hitler analogy, and that goes without explanation by the reporters, you should wonder about that.)
“In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force — any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938,” Mr. Podhoretz wrote.
Finally, toward the end of the article, there is a quote from someone not connected to the administration.
On Thursday, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the international nuclear watchdog agency, warned anew that military action against Iran would “be an act of madness.”Some might want to point out that, in the run-up to Iraq, Mohamed ElBaradei was right and Norman Podhoretz was collossally, bloodily wrong, and arrange their quotes correspondingly, but the writers of this piece managed to resist that temptation.
In the run-up to Iraq, the supposedly liberal New York Times published a series of articles based on information fed from the White House as part of a propaganda campaign to sell the country on an invasion. Sometimes those articles published as fact things that were not. Often, they used turns of phrase or arrangement of information to shape the opinion of the unskeptical reader in support of the war.
In the years since, much has been written on how the Times got it so wrong, when others, particularly Knight-Ridder, got it right. Along the way, the Grey Lady has even made some small apologies for its failures. Still, it played a vital role in a massive manipulation of the American people.
I'd thought the NYT had decided that playing such roles was a mistake. But, as this summer's sequel heads toward the theaters, it appears I was wrong. Maybe, as with the Ocean's Eleven/Twelve/Thirteen films, the money is OK, and being a part of the cast is just too much fun to turn down.
posted by Paul at 9:29 AM |
|
email this
