posted on February 17, 2003 08:40:30 PM new
For those who don't get Parade Magazine ... the mostly apolitical-but-conservative-leaning publication known most for celebrity puff pieces printed a piece Sunday that is slowly seeping into the national political consciousness and starting to percolate in political message boards.
Somewhat simplistic but persuasively worded, the piece may have landed a stealthy but powerful blow to the Bush administration's depiction of Saddam Hussein as Public Enemy No. 1. He's actually Public Enemy No. 3, according to a rundown of the ten worst living dictators in the world, published in the Feb. 16 edition and authored by contributing editor David Wallechinsky (but clearly carrying the magazine's own stamp of editorial approval.)
The names at No. 1 and No. 2 are even more of an up-smack to the administration's collective head. The worst living dictator: Kim Jong Il of North Korea, whom Bush has been doing his best to pretend doesn't exist. The second spot is shared by King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, whom Bush is doing his best to depict as friends to the United States.
The story is not yet on-line but a press release that summarizes it can be found from this page.
The piece was apparently completely unanticipated by the regular pundit crowd or the White House, which is reportedly scrambling to frame a response. While Parade is not considered by many to be among the ranks of "serious" magazines, it is tops - by far - in U.S. circulation, boasting a total circulation of 37 million copies(which is more than Readers Digest, Time, People and TV Guide combined.)
posted on February 18, 2003 12:03:43 PM new
The terrorism of information...
It's Britain that's the real enemy--
"...a recent British poll ranked the U.S. as the world's most dangerous nation — ahead of North Korea and Iraq."
Whatever would Adams and Jefferson do with this dilemma?
A neoawakening?????????????????????????????
NYT....
Behind the Great Divide
By PAUL KRUGMAN
There has been much speculation why Europe and the U.S. are suddenly at such odds. Is it about culture? About history? But I haven't seen much discussion of an obvious point: We have different views partly because we see different news.
Let's back up. Many Americans now blame France for the chill in U.S.-European relations. There is even talk of boycotting French products.
But France's attitude isn't exceptional. Last Saturday's huge demonstrations confirmed polls that show deep distrust of the Bush administration and skepticism about an Iraq war in all major European nations, whatever position their governments may take. In fact, the biggest demonstrations were in countries whose governments are supporting the Bush administration.
There were big demonstrations in America too. But distrust of the U.S. overseas has reached such a level, even among our British allies, that a recent British poll ranked the U.S. as the world's most dangerous nation — ahead of North Korea and Iraq.
So why don't other countries see the world the way we do? News coverage is a large part of the answer. Eric Alterman's new book, "What Liberal Media?" doesn't stress international comparisons, but the difference between the news reports Americans and Europeans see is a stark demonstration of his point. At least compared with their foreign counterparts, the "liberal" U.S. media are strikingly conservative — and in this case hawkish.
I'm not mainly talking about the print media. There are differences, but the major national newspapers in the U.S. and the U.K. at least seem to be describing the same reality.
Most people, though, get their news from TV — and there the difference is immense. The coverage of Saturday's antiwar rallies was a reminder of the extent to which U.S. cable news, in particular, seems to be reporting about a different planet than the one covered by foreign media.
What would someone watching cable news have seen? On Saturday, news anchors on Fox described the demonstrators in New York as "the usual protesters" or "serial protesters." CNN wasn't quite so dismissive, but on Sunday morning the headline on the network's Web site read "Antiwar rallies delight Iraq," and the accompanying picture showed marchers in Baghdad, not London or New York.
This wasn't at all the way the rest of the world's media reported Saturday's events, but it wasn't out of character. For months both major U.S. cable news networks have acted as if the decision to invade Iraq has already been made, and have in effect seen it as their job to prepare the American public for the coming war.
So it's not surprising that the target audience is a bit blurry about the distinction between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. Surveys show that a majority of Americans think that some or all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11, a claim even the Bush administration has never made. And since many Americans think that the need for a war against Saddam is obvious, they think that Europeans who won't go along are cowards.
Europeans, who don't see the same things on TV, are far more inclined to wonder why Iraq — rather than North Korea, or for that matter Al Qaeda — has become the focus of U.S. policy. That's why so many of them question American motives, suspecting that it's all about oil or that the administration is simply picking on a convenient enemy it knows it can defeat. They don't see opposition to an Iraq war as cowardice; they see it as courage, a matter of standing up to the bullying Bush administration.
There are two possible explanations for the great trans-Atlantic media divide. One is that European media have a pervasive anti-American bias that leads them to distort the news, even in countries like the U.K. where the leaders of both major parties are pro-Bush and support an attack on Iraq. The other is that some U.S. media outlets — operating in an environment in which anyone who questions the administration's foreign policy is accused of being unpatriotic — have taken it as their assignment to sell the war, not to present a mix of information that might call the justification for war into question.
posted on February 18, 2003 12:19:56 PM new
I'm just amazed that the public is very much like my sister in law.
She had a husband that ran around on her and lied and was selfish and lying time after time - yet she could ignore it time after time and believe the best about him and plan on him being what he never was - devoted and kind.
The American public has been lied to administration after administration and most of them could not even name a half dozen of the worst - stuff like the Gulf of Tonklin lie. I even see people refering to that one like it really happened long after anyone connected has given up on it.
If the public loves being treated like chumps and screwed the politicians will be plenty willing to accomadate them.
posted on February 18, 2003 12:30:56 PM new
Krugman rocks.
He pretty much isolated the reason I'm concerned about the entire war issue, by identifying the fact that it's the electronic media that are really spinning what's happening in the United States, a spin that's not reaching the rest of the world (because it's spin, not honest journalism. I don't care how you slice it, dismissing millions of people who turned out for rallies as "serial protestors" is biased reporting.)
Even though it's distributed via newspapers, Parade reaches out to the same kind of audience that TV news does. And the article was just readable enough that it might have grabbed the attention of people who have been ignoring more complete, balanced coverage in their newspapers on their way to the comics and the coupon insert.
As far as "ranking" dictators goes ... we live in a relative world. You have to evaluate any action in terms of its cost and the given alternatives. Every reason the Bush administration has given for singling out Iraq is equally or even more applicable to other nations out there, stripping away the moral justification for going to war in Iraq while leaving worse abuses unchecked elsewhere. I don't need articles like this one to tell me that - and people like REAMOND, who base their conclusions on different beliefs but who have clearly done their homework, don't need it either. But maybe it will reach those people who just flip on the news while they're gulping down their microwave pizza and believe every biased word they hear.
posted on February 18, 2003 12:34:31 PM new
And that wasn't the first time that happened. The Spanish-American War started the same way--though in that case the war was engineered by Hearst & his newspaper. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 18, 2003 02:47:24 PM new
News Flash- Iran backed pro-democracy troops have entered Northern Iraq !! You "peace lovers" haven't a clue about the politics of the region. The Saud family will have no choice but to move towards democracy, along with Kuwait. Iran will have no choice but to move towards democracy.
posted on February 18, 2003 05:43:29 PM new
>News Flash- Iran backed pro-democracy troops have entered Northern Iraq !! You "peace lovers" haven't a clue about the politics of the region. The Saud family will have no choice but to move towards democracy, along with Kuwait. Iran will have no choice but to move towards democracy.
REAMOND, you really are demostrating just how little you understand things in this area. To call the Irannians "pro-Democracy" is like the term "Freedom Fighters" Ronald Reagan used to use to describe the Fascist Butchers in Central America at the time.
If anything, Islam is made up mostly of moderate Sunni muslims and the Sheitte musilm fanatics in charge right now will likely fall and if they do, it will be to a Sunni muslim-type modern Islamic country. Democracy? Not in THIS century!
>THESE "PEACE" ORGANIZERS ARE COMMUNISTS AND ANARCHISTS THAT HATE DEMOCRAY AND CAPITALISM.
Are you done spewing? Here -- let me wipe the spittle off of you face . . . there!
Now, I wouoldn't care if Stalin and Mao themselves organized the protest. The 6 MILLION PEOPLE who marched were not "COMMUNISTS AND ANARCHISTS THAT HATE DEMOCRAY AND CAPITALISM."
posted on February 18, 2003 09:31:34 PM new
Borillar says: Now, I wouoldn't care if Stalin and Mao themselves organized the protest. The 6 MILLION PEOPLE who marched were not "COMMUNISTS AND ANARCHISTS THAT HATE DEMOCRAY AND CAPITALISM."
Well YOU may not care if those who are anti-America are the sponsors or not, but it does matter to others. People need to be aware of what 'programs' their supporting by demonstrating/protesting with such groups. Protesting the war is one thing, supporting Communism, etc. is quite another, imo.
And before I again get accused of 'calling names' go the the ANSWER website. Click on their Coalition button, then view the list of their 'steering committee' and see how many Communist organizations supported/financed that rally. Many group names on there too that don't have the word Communism in them. For those interested...just to a search of what some [most] of the groups represent. Then decided if it matters to YOU or not. A LOT of them would like nothing better than to see our form of government changed.
posted on February 18, 2003 09:40:10 PM new
Well, those protestors are a pretty agile bunch. Not only are they anti-war, but they're pro-Saddamn Hussein and pro-Communism, and pro-Anarchy, all at the same time.
posted on February 18, 2003 10:09:16 PM new
donny - Always good to see you here.
What bothers me the most with the anti-war protestors is this: Almost NO signs about the wrong Saddam has done. NO signs about how he's not cooperating...etc. They could have done a much better job, imo, if their signs had read something along the lines of..."NO WAR...Saddam - disarm". Anything to let Saddam and the world see that at least the protestors disagree with something he's done. Those might have done more towards stopping a war if Saddam wasn't seeing the support from the US protestors and the world. He believes the people of the US are on HIS side. And it appears about 1-2% are.
posted on February 18, 2003 10:18:52 PM new
Yep, and he sits there (in his royally tacky furniture) and laughs his a** off, saying 'Look at those stupid Americans, they don't want anyone to hurt me'
Your right, a more to the point sign would be. No War, Saddam Disarm
But instead you see: I don't need Oil, I ride the Bus
What was that about? LOL, you have to wonder if these anti war people really know what they are protesting
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on February 18, 2003 10:25:43 PM new
Oh yeah, this was on the local news today, I don't really call this a 'Peace' protest. They blocked traffic on a bridge here during commuting hours, trying to make a pyramid banner thing, 8 were arrested. Today
http://www.kirotv.com/news/1986119/detail.html
'nite
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on February 18, 2003 10:39:31 PM new
I sure do, NTS. On this oil issue ALWAYS being brought up. Like we [the US] didn't have an interest in oil for the 8 years Clinton was in office? Sure we did. That's what our country thrives on. They want us to quit worrying about oil but are they willing to see their ecomony get worse, more people out of work, and a tremendous change in the life-styles? Are they willing to sacrifice to do with less oil? Haven't seen many who are doing so as of late.
On the protesting, for me, I think it's that most have put their hatred of President Bush ahead of all else. Otherwise, I don't understand how they could hear the words of a president they supported, saying the exact same thing Bush is, and think ANYTHING has changed.
Nothing's changed. And that's all this administration has been calling for, the same thing Clinton did. Keeping these weapons out of his hands. But now it's different, to them because it's Bush. Now Saddam doesn't [or probably doesn't] have these weapons. "Let the inspectors go in and see IF he has them". Clinton said he did....and he was believed. Bush, Powell, etc. say they still do....or need to prove to the UN they don't...but hey...that's different.
posted on February 18, 2003 10:57:15 PM newLinda, please explain in detail how marching against this War equates to promoting Communism?
In detail [Yes, teacher]
Americans have a right to protest anything they want to. It gives good 'balance' to our form of government, imo. That's not what I object to, so be clear on that.
Where I have a problem is when people protest with groups who's every wish is to destroy our form of government, in the name of their own cause. I'm not just speaking of the communist organizations. I'm speaking to all the one's I put on my 'protest sign' in ferncrestmotel's thread. On this thread I used the word Communist so that others could go to the A.N.S.W.E.R website and see who the financial supportors are. There are also many other anti-American groups on that list. OT - Some progressive, as I believe you've stated you are.
If you believe these same groups don't travel around the world organizing protest rally's so they can further their own beliefs and causes...then you're not being honest, imo.
When protestor going in with these groups to protest, for their own reasons, then they are supporting the growth of these organizations. I would bet most would be surprised at who even organizes these rally's. Most are unaware. But, say if there are protestors who were organized by groups that weren't anti-American, but rather just wanted to protest the war....to me, that would be different.
I'm not going to debate the benefits, or lack thereof, for the Stalinist, Marxist, Communists, Anarchists, Socialists, etc. groups. For all my life, I have enjoyed the way our government has been run....on capitalism.
posted on February 19, 2003 06:10:32 AM new
Linda, I have absolutely no fear that protests against war, or any protests, for that matter, will lead to the fall of Democracy in our country and turn our system of government to Communism. Is this what you think could happen?
Anyway, if the majority of people in this country did decide tomorrow - Let's have a Communistic system of government, I'd say what I always say - the system of government should reflect the peoples' wishes. Isn't that the way it should be?
posted on February 19, 2003 09:42:21 AM new
donny - I'm saying we need to be AWARE of who supports whom and their intentions/beliefs.
[Putting on my flame retardant suit on here]
I haven't liked the Clinton's for a lot of reasons. One being my concern for just HOW far left they really lean. I've read that Hillary Clinton made a $15,000 contribution to the National Lawyer's Guild - an organization founded as a branch of the Communist Party USA, while they [the group] were chairing the New World Foundation. If she ever runs for president, I would hope those facts/accusations would be put out on the table. I've also read she worked for a known Communist Lawyer, while at Yale law school. I think that would also matter to some. It does to me. There have been accusations that she also has given assistances to various Marixt-inspire causes, from the Black Panthers to the CISPES group - a front for Central American Marxist terrorists.
Point is that a group doesn't necessarily say "We support Stalinist theories, or we support communism, but they may lean heavily in the direction of those beliefs. And to blindly support them may not really be the intent of those who aren't aware of what these groups and their agendas are all about.
And as you say...if the majority support those people...that's the way our country will go.
I remember once reading that a Soviet Leader was quoted as saying something along the line of 'feed them Socialism long enough and they won't notice the changes as they come. That has stuck with me.
posted on February 19, 2003 09:45:37 AM new
Guess no one is going to answer my question - PAUL KRUGMAN???? The same man who was an advisor to Enron?? hmmmm if it is.
___________
And Reamond, I owe you an apology. I started a thread on the Iran/Iraq connection when you had already done so. I had passed over your post about the breaking news yesterday. So... I'm apologize for the duplication.
posted on February 19, 2003 11:24:25 AM new
Yes, Linda, Krugman did accept a $50,000 consulting fee for sitting an advisory board for Enron in 1999. To read about it in his own words, click here.
For those who don't want to read the article, Krugman's consulting gig predates both the Enron scandal and his employment at the New York Times. Once he took the Times job, he quit the board. It's also clear that his allegiance wasn't "bought." He's been one of the harshest and most insightful critics of the entire Enron scandal.
Just to put it in perspective: Lawrence Lindsay, chief economic advisor to the White House, was also an Enron board member. President Bush received $500,000 in contributions from Enron. Karl Rove owned between $150,000 and $200,000 worth of Enron stock, which he sold (at a very good price) when he took the White House job. John Ashcroft recused himself from an active role in the Enron investigation because of conflicts of interest caused by business ties.
Several other journalists - The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, National Review Online columnist Lawrence Kudlow, and Sunday Times of London columnist Irwin Stelzer - have taken similar or bigger consulting fees from Enron. Kristol, who was posing as a journalist long before Krugman took the NYT job, accepted the most at $100,000. Stelzer spent years writing favorably about Enron WHILE he was taking money, and defended the company months after their shady accounting came to light.
Of all the media people mentioned, only Krugman and Noonan were up-front about their business ties with Enron and severed their business relationship when they accepted positions as journalists.
posted on February 19, 2003 12:30:35 PM newI can go on. Feel free to if you wish.
I appreciate those links and would ask you if you'd mind providing the link where Peggy Noonan speaks to her involvement in Enron. If you wouldn't mind, of course.
posted on February 19, 2003 02:29:04 PM new
Well, let's say I like Braves baseball, and Coco-Cola sponsors an exhibition game, so I go. I don't necessarily care for Coca-Cola, but I like the Braves and want to show my support. A hundred thousand people feel the same way as I do, so we're all in the stadium.
Now we're all there, and in the middle of the game a Coca-Cola guy stands up and says - Here we all are, let's storm the Governor's mansion and take over the state, drive out Pepsi and all competing soda manufacturers and install Coco-Cola as official state drink and Coca-Cola corp. as ruling body. Down with Democracy, up with Coca-Cola!
Is that going to be successful? We're all together in one place, for the moment, because we have one common interest, Braves baseball. When our one shared interest is done, we go our separate ways.
This example is no more a case of 'blindly supporting' an event organizer than anti-war protestors 'blindly supporting' the organizers of an anti-war rally. Most of us already know if we like Pepsi or Coke. I don't see any more danger that American Democracy will be overthrown through anti-war protests than that Pepsi will be banished from the state through a Coca-Cola organized event.
posted on February 19, 2003 03:23:54 PM newLinda_K, Whoops, I think you caught me on that one. I was relying on Peggy Noonan's own statement that she disclosed her relationship, as quoted by one of the columnists (Kurtz, I think, but not sure ... I couldn't find it again.) According to several articles I found, including this one, she didn't. So we're back to Krugman as the onliest one.
(which suits me fine, I think she's a good writer and sassy, but I rarely agree with her. She's smart enough, though, that I hold out hopes for her eventual Ariannaization.)
And instead of going on, I think I'll go to dinner.
posted on February 19, 2003 04:58:13 PM new
Linda, back to your theory of how the world works when concerning protest marches. The fatal flaw in your hypothesis is that while agents who you dislike may organize these protests, there is no one forcing anyone to get out of their homes and go do a protest march. This is Free Will on the part of people to go out and to express what they feel and to show support for others who share that common sentiment. That the Republican Fascists, American Nazi Party, or the Ku Klux Klan haven't come out to organize a War Protest march doesn't lay blame for their failure to do so at the feet of groups that you do not agree with, Linda.
[Yes, teacher]
