I could see where he might have had a few people helping him.
Before the swamp can be drained the Pentagram had to be purged. Everybody from West Point has to do a combat simulation to see what the civilian body count would be. That can be their opening line in their campaign speech. People elect the Generals and they select the civilians who will be taking direction from them. You can have 10 political parties but if they are all taking orders rather than giving them it accomplished nothing, less than nothing really.
Just look at what the Russians are doing, that is so evil, Right??
There are certain rules you need to follow as a journalist if you are going to demonstrate to your editors, and the media owners who employ you, that you can be trusted.
For example, if you write about US-Iran relations, you need to ensure that your history book starts in 1979. That was the year Iranian students started a 444-day occupation of the US embassy in Tehran. This was the event that 'led to four decades of mutual hostility', according to
BBC News. On no account should you dwell on the CIA-led coup in 1953
that overthrew the democratically-elected Iranian leader, Mohammad Mossadegh. Even better if you just omit any mention of this.
You should definitely not quote Noam Chomsky who said
in 2013 that:
'the crucial fact about Iran, which we should begin with, is that for the past 60 years, not a day has passed in which the U.S. has not been torturing Iranians.' (Our emphasis)
As Chomsky notes, the US (with UK support) installed the Shah, a brutal dictator, described by Amnesty International as one of the worst, most extreme torturers in the world, year after year. That ordinary Iranians might harbour some kind of grievance towards Uncle Sam as a result should not be prominent in 'responsible' journalism. Nor should you note, as Chomsky does, that:
'When he [the Shah] was overthrown in 1979, the U.S. almost immediately turned to supporting Saddam Hussein in an assault against Iran, which killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians, used extensive use of chemical weapons. Of course, at the same time, Saddam attacked his Kurdish population with horrible chemical weapons attacks. The U.S. supported all of that.'
As a 'good' journalist, you should refrain from referring to the US as the world's most dangerous rogue state, or by making any Chomskyan comparison between the US and the Mafia:
As a reliable journalist, there is also no need to dwell on the shooting down
of Iran Air flight 655 over the Persian Gulf by the US warship Vincennes
on July 3, 1988. All 290 people on board the plane were killed, including 66 children. President Ronald Reagan excused
the mass killing as 'a proper defensive action'. Vice-President George H.W. Bush said
: 'I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are. ... I'm not an apologize-for America kind of guy.'
But 'balanced' journalism need not focus on the enhanced threat
of nuclear war, or the diplomatic options
that the US has ignored or trampled upon. Instead, journalism is to be shaped by the narrative framework that it is the US that is behaving responsibly, and that Iran is the gravest threat to world peace. Thus, BBC News reports
that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has:
A good reporter knows not to critically appraise, far less ridicule, the idea that the US is an exemplar of 'a normal country', rather than being an outlaw state that outrageously threatens to make another country's economy 'crumble' for refusing to obey US orders.
Don't Talk About The Israel Lobby
If you work for BBC News, it is especially important that stories have an appropriate headline and narrative framework: namely, one that promotes Israel's perspective and also obscures the agency involved when Palestinians have been killed by Israelis. Thus, a story about three young Palestinians, aged 13 and 14, killed in an Israeli air attack should be titled
'Gaza youths "killed planting bomb"'
And definitely not:
'Israel kills three Palestinian children'
Real journalists would be hugely concerned by the implications of someone publishing details of war crimes and corruption being targeted by a state and threatened with extradition and long-term imprisonment. But, as the Canadian writer Joe Emersberger
says, the 'Assange case shows support for free speech depends on who's talking'.
Independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone
notes that what 'empire loyalists' in corporate media 'are really saying when they bash Julian Assange' is that they can be trusted to protect establishment interests. Of course, it is all the easier to attack Assange knowing that he has essentially been silenced in the Ecuadorean embassy. He is also at serious risk of deteriorating health if he is unable to leave the embassy soon without the risk of being extradited to the US.
Another rule to abide by as a corporate journalist is to worship the global economy, excusing or even acclaiming the rise of extreme right-wing politicians because that leads to possible gains for big business. As Alan MacLeod, of the Glasgow University Media Group, observed in a recent piece for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, the financial press cheered the election of a fascist president in Brazil:
'Jair Bolsonaro was an army officer during Brazil's fascist military dictatorship (1964–85), which he defends, maintaining that its only error was not killing enough people.'
Responsible' journalism means providing a regular, amplified outlet for imperial-friendly 'analysis'. As Jonathan Cook pointed out recently, Bolsonaro is 'a monster engineered by our media'. In other words, in much the same way that the corporate media facilitated the rise of Donald Trump to become US president. Bury UK Responsibility for Yemen's Nightmare
Last edited by MHz; 4 weeks ago at 09:16 AM..