Thursday, July 23, 2009

The New York Times: All the News that is Fit to Forget

As my friend Jonathan Versen has so appropriately pointed out on more than one occasion the state of the mainstream news is responsible for much misunderstanding regarding reality and that alternative news outlets ought to be supported.A New York Times article regarding Hillary Clinton and her latest spate of threatening Iran provides an example of why Jonathan is correct.

What continues to amaze me, though it shouldn’t, is how the New York Times erases history by amputating whole limbs of it. The article is ridiculous on many levels so where to begin? Hillary speaks of providing an umbrella, protection from Iran, for those nations in the vicinity of Iran. Once again we are asked to believe the unbelievable. Iran hasn’t threatened anyone in their region yet Hillary is determined to protect everyone from a non-existent threat. These are tactics employed by any bully looking to start a fight. And one would think -- knowing that the NYT is the cornerstone of democracy and the guardian of the flame of truth -- that surely they would point out any little problem with Hillary’s comments but astonishingly the people who write for the NYT don't even read their own newspaper! And rather than pointing out problems we find the following.

Link

It also signified increasing concern in Washington that other Middle East states — notably Saudi Arabia and Egypt — might be tempted to pursue their own nuclear programs for fear Iran was growing closer to realizing its presumed nuclear ambitions.


The NYT is clearly saying that Iran has presumed nuclear ambitions yet it does not state anywhere the source of this intelligence. Where did it come from? Did they just pull it out of their …hat? No, it comes from Obama and his administration. This isn’t just bad reporting because this statement is clearly meant to mislead anyone reading the article into assuming Iran is not only developing nuclear weapons but that Iran is also a regional threat. That is nothing but an out and out lie.

Hillary’s particular brand of “diplomacy” (read bullying) bears a strong resemblance to that employed by Junior George in the months preceding the invasion of Iraq. Bush made claims of trying diplomacy with Saddam and then stating that Saddam had not responded properly. And here is Hillary essentially doing the same thing except this time with Iran.

Link

Mrs. Clinton said she was trying to make even starker the choice Iran faced if it did not agree to abandon its program.


Here again Hillary is making a demand that cannot be met because how do you abandon something that you aren’t doing in the first place?

The entire article is based on a bedrock of lies which is used as a base to support more lies. Of course this is why people need to go beyond the mainstream news to alternate news outlets. People often ask well how do you know these alternate news outlets are reliable while the mainstream is not. I would suggest that to ask shows a healthy skepticism yet where is that same skepticism when it comes to the mainstream news? To see how bad the news is all you have to do is read it from a critical stance. You can see for yourself how facts are purposefully left out and history almost entirely erased. In the end you have to use your own judgment but if people never take the time or make the really rather small effort to go beyond the mainstream news then they have only themselves to blame if they find themselves brainwashed.

Again I do not believe that the news is at the root of America’s imperial ambitions and that even if the mainstream news was a bit more, shall we say, accurate it would not stop the bloodshed by itself. Yet it seems to me that having accurate reporting accomplished in an unbiased manner couldn’t hurt either. But to expect that to occur is to fail to realize what the function of the mainstream news is.

3 Comments:

At July 24, 2009 4:24 AM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

When people who know my politics ask me, as they occasionally do, "is there anything George W. Bush did that you do approve of?"

I tell them I appreciate that he refused to attack Iran, which is generally met with blank stares.(Of course maybe he was just being polite and saving an Iran attack for Obama, but I usually leave that part out.)

Anyway, here's
Paul Craig Roberts in Counterpunchy:

"Threatening Iran:
In an Impotent World Even the Bankrupt Can Prevail
"

 
At July 24, 2009 7:31 AM, Blogger Charles F. Oxtrot said...

About 1.5 to 2 years ago I read an essay that detailed our (US Fed Govt's) economic decisions regarding Iran, and the essay made a very convincing argument that through those foreign economic policy acts, we had essentially already declared war on Iran.

I'm the first to admit that the field of "economics" baffles me because I see in it nothing more than excuses for rapacious capitalism and/or fascism. So it's possible the essay I read was no more than propaganda, but I have a pretty good BS detector and it didn't even register on that thing.

I'm going to go look for it and see if it's still out there in the InterWebTubez world. It's worth reading as a background to what Swillary the Swine is up to these days.

My take on the scenario is that we're actually going to see a Third World War under Obama. I think it's going to begin through Israel's actions. Bee Bee Net & Yahoo is a proper asshole, a murderous thug, the equivalent of Cofer Black.

(research that Cofer Black cat if you don't know what I mean here)

The rest of Israel's leadership is of the same mindset, as is the vast majority of the Knesset. Israel is going to be the willing catalyst for WW3, and the stage will be the middle eastern nations who have oil & gas, and/or are located in an area where US/UK/Dutch oil interests want to run pipelines or other oil extraction & delivery infrastructure.

In their minds (oil companies, those who profit off the large-scale use of oil, and their governmental servants) this is an essential step to keeping the oil-based wealth flowing into the same few hands it's filled since WW2. As with all wars, this next one will be about wealth and power, not about "democracy" or the like.

 
At July 24, 2009 7:46 AM, Blogger Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Ahhh. Here we are, I found the references fairly quickly:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/03/us-declares-war-on-iran.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6730681.stm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/iran-f12.shtml

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/05/29/waging_economic_war_against_iran/

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/810-the-coming-war-against-iran-part-14.html

http://gnn.tv/headlines/13083/The_War_On_Iran_Has_Already_Begun

If you want to note the spin afoot in the web-news-world, do what I did... run a Google on the phrase

economic war on Iran

and you will find pro-Donkey spots like Democratic Underground saying that Iran (and Venezuela) is waging economic war on the USA.

Incidentelly... Democratic Underground is a place to note how deluded the Donkle really is.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home