Tag Archives: Journalism

A face to launch a thousand protests. Leak your trophy footage you cowards

Young Iraqi watching as US soldiers raid her home
This is a still from John Pilger’s THE WAR YOU DON’T SEE, recently blocked from its US debut in Santa Fe. Why? Because such images will stop war. In particular this shows a terrified Iraqi girl held at gunpoint as her home is searched. I wonder how many such scenes have been captured by embed cameras or GI cellphones. Western eyes are being inoculated to violence and gore, our victims dehumanized, foreign civilians reduced to collateral, but it appears our media managers worry Americans cannot yet resist the ordinary tears of children. Imagine such scenes of heartbreak gone viral across the web. Never mind atrocity or war crime, show us emotional responses with which we can identify. The mass of digital records could doubtless overwhelm Wikileaks. These are not top secret, yet nearly any have been leaked. My appeal to the cowardly US soldier, or the damnable media embed, leak the footage which haunts you already, your PTSD may be the contagion to end public support for our state sponsored terrorism.

John Pilger – The War You Don’t See

We call it the Iraq War, as we did the Vietnam War, but America’s wars aren’t so-named in the host countries. It’s the Iraq Invasion, not War, and Afghanistan Invasion really, now Occupation, Decimation and Holocaust. Journalist filmmaker John Pilger subscribes to the theory that if a public is let to see the horrors of war, it will refuse to participate. His new documentary THE WAR YOU DON’T SEE traces US and UK efforts since WWI to propagandize war. Amid interviews with news bureau chiefs who he holds culpable for hyping war, Pilger shows censored footage which could have turned public opinion. I have to wonder if a simple sequence of an Iraqi home subjected to a US raid, in particular the focus on a young daughter’s anxiety, would not have broken just enough American hearts.

With Daniel Pearl Act, US warns others to respect press freedoms, of WSJ only

President Obama signed off on the Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act, surrounded by friends and colleagues of the former WSJ reporter who was slain in pursuit of al-Qaeda, while infiltrating Pakistan as if working for one of America’s loudest War-on-Islam propaganda drummers wasn’t pushing it. Taking the theme of don’t-kill-journalists at face value however, are there provisions in the act to exclude the US and its allies?

Because our forces have intimidated or outright killed I think what amounts to the high score of journalists in our war zones. If we’re concerned exclusively with reporters who’ve been decapitated, I’m sure those victims of our high caliber overkill outnumber Daniel Pearl too.

No, I suppose we’re only talking about protecting our journalists, the embeds, the only ones of which we approve. What have embeds proven to be but the new Army Press Corps? This is the same indemnity we claim for our soldiers. Try to shoot one of those and we obliterate entire clans based on rumors of who did it. If we capture someone alive, we put them on trial for combating us illegally. We dismiss laws of war that spell out that belligerents may only shoot at opponents shooting back. If they’re unarmed, or surrendering, or leaving the battle unarmed, or eating dinner with their family, they are not fair game. But we do it, and when journalists try to document our crimes we kill them.

Daniel Pearl worked for the WSJ. It’s the leading Neocon pro-war mouthpiece, only just ahead of the NY Times and the Washington Post, among newspapers with authority. If Pearl’s tracking of al-Qaeda didn’t help US intelligence outright, his reports were certainly serving the war propaganda machine.

When the Jewish community highlights the plot line that Pearl was killed because he was a Jew, it unveils a purposeful vaguarity the Israeli lobby likes to pretend is a distinction between American Jews and Zionists. The argument has it that all Jews may or may not support Israel, and yet critics of Zionism are accused of being anti-Semitic. Because, I’ll assert, AIPAC, the ADL and Simon Wiesenthal are determined to behave as if they have everyone’s support. Was Daniel Pearl a Zionist, he worked for it, and aimed to assail its declared arch-enemy under the pretext of journalist objectivity.

You can’t make the same accusation of the independent journalists being silenced wherever our military is operating. In our own country America is even keeping its own photo-journalists from being able to document the oil spill in the gulf.

The Daniel Pearl Act mandates that reports of inhibitions to journalists, especially if they are suspected of being systemic, be investigated and condemned with all the ensuing world police bells and whistles. I think that language smacks of the mandate to label “genocide” only where the US sees it.

Darfur, for example. Or the Balkans. Examples with which few fellow nations agree. To justify our interviention. Never Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and of course I could go on.

This ACT is a political weapon of semantics to pretend right is on our side, Orwellian doublespeak to ordain preemptive drone attacks.

If President Obama had meant this legislation to address freedom of the press sincerely, he would have appended the names of all the journalists who we’ve killed, ourselves or by proxy. The list would have run into the footnotes, and it would have meant investigating ourselves. Not going to happen.

Wrong color?

black baby“Some three dozen public school students have been murdered since the school year began, most of them shot to death. These children and teenagers have been killed in a wide variety of settings and situations while riding a city bus, playing in parks, sitting in the back seats of cars, in gang disputes, in robberies, in the crossfire of sidewalk shootouts. Which is why we’ve heard so little about an awful story out of Chicago.” What Color Is That Baby? What color indeed?

Israel targets Gaza’s press like the Clinton regime once targeted Yugoslavia’s press

Gaza wounded journalistNot only is Israel targeting children, civilians, hospitals, mosques, and schools, it also is targeting Gaza’s journalists. They don’t want any information to get out to counter Israeli propaganda. Journalist Rights Group: Israel deliberately attacked Palestinian journalists

The Israelis didn’t get the idea of attacking journalists from Bush’s use of terrorism against Al Jazeera reporters in Iraq, but from much earlier when Bill Clinton used Pentagon terrorism to attack Yugoslav television stations in Belgrade, the capital of that country. Now that Barack Obama has stacked his new government with Clinton retreads, we can’t consider that this is something that he will ultimately condemn and reject at all, but rather a policy of the US and Israeli governments that will continue to be used.

There is absolutely nothing about what Barack Obama is doing that leads one to intelligently believe that he will reject the use of torture and terrorism in US foreign policy. Has anybody noticed that al jazeera TV is kept off America’s tv screens, despite being a better source of information than CNN or Fox. That’s due to US government censorship efforts, not to the so-called free market. In the case of Israel’s attacks against the press, the US government can call for an end to Hamas’ lobbing a few tin cans over the border into Israel, but refuses to call for and end to murdering civilian reporters in Gaza. The reason? It is simply because this sort of thing is US Pentagon policy against civilians and journalists now being used by its junior partner Israel.

(The journalist shown in the picture was actually wounded by Israeli troops while covering a protest in November 2006 within Gaza. Shooting down journalists is a long standing Israeli policy and was in use in that previous attack on Gaza, too. It is from Getty Images.)

Targeting the reporters

video reporterThe police in the US are targeting reporters. At the Democratic Party Convention they went after the ABC reporter, and now in Minnesota at the Republican Party Convention, they have gone after the news team from Democracy Now. It is getting just plain dangerous for any citizen to hold a camera in their hand these days, especially while exercising your Right to Free Speech and filming the police as they go about their daily duty of terrorizing people.

In Iraq, the Pentagon went after al jazeera’s reporters, as they had done previously in Yugoslavia when they bombed the Yugoslav television station during that war. In the West Bank, Israel targets those who do the reporting there about the Jewish abuse of Palestinians. Israeli army targets family over brutality film

Isn’t it always the same with dictatorships? In Mexico, they do the same, also, as in Colombia and all the other US Empire’s stooge states. Is there any real difference between the US government and the Chinese government in how political dissidence is targeted by the police for elimination? Especially when there is a camera in hand alongside a pen.