home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!daemon
- From: jaske@abacus.bates.edu
- Subject: Chomsky (LOOT-9/92): Letter from Le
- Message-ID: <1992Sep4.132851.7703@mont.cs.missouri.edu>
- Followup-To: alt.activism.d
- Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
- Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu
- Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
- Organization: ?
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:28:51 GMT
- Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
- Lines: 345
-
-
- From: jaske@abacus.bates.edu (Jon Aske)
- Subject: Chomsky (LOOT-9/92): Letter from Lexington
-
- (338 lines)
-
- The following letter by Noam Chomsky was published in:
-
- LIES OF OUR TIMES (LOOT), September 1992
-
- as part of a regular column (_Letter from Lexington_) and is
- reprinted here with the magazine's permission.
-
- _Lies of Our Times_ is a magazine of media criticism. "Our Times"
- are the times we live in but they are also the words of the _New
- York Times_, the most cited news medium in the United States,
- our paper of record. Our "Lies" are more than just literal
- falsehoods; they encompass subjects that have been ignored,
- hypocrisies, misleading emphases, and hidden premises - all of
- the biases which systematically shape reporting.
-
- Published by Sheridan Square Press, Inc. Produced and distributed
- by Institute for Media Analysis, Inc. Subscription rate: $24
- (US); $32 (Canada, Mexico, W. Europe); $36 (Other). Payable to
- the order of Sheridan Square Press. 11 issues a year (combined
- July-August issue) of 24 pages each, except December issue is 28
- pages -- includes yearly index. Lies Of Our Times, 145 West 4th
- Street, New York, NY 10012, (212) 254-1061, Fax: (212) 254-9598
-
- =================================================================
-
- Letter from Lexington
- =====================
-
- August 6, 1992
-
-
- Dear LOOT,
-
- The front page of the _New York Times Book Review_, July 23,
- features the headline: "You Can't Murder History" -- a curious
- thought as we approach the anniversary of 500 years that have
- offered some lessons to the contrary. We might ask, for example,
- how the intellectual community has dealt with the fate of the
- native population (as for the _Book Review_, see my "Letter,"
- May). Or the Atlantic passage and its aftermath. Or our record
- in Latin America, culminating in the Pol Pot-style terror of the
- past decade. Or the wars in Indochina. Or a few other questions
- that come to mind when thoughts about the murder of history are
- expressed in the Newspaper of Record, particularly at this
- historical moment.
-
- No fear, however. The article, by Frederick Starr, keeps to a
- safely narrowed perspective: "History in the old Soviet Union was
- like cancer in the human body, an invisible presence whose
- existence is bravely denied but against which every conceivable
- weapon is mobilized." He recalls "those all-powerful Soviet
- officials whose job it was to suppress the public's memory" of
- each "grisly episode" of "the cancer of history," but who, in the
- end, "could not hold back the tide." Unfortunate commissars,
- whose power base collapsed.
-
- The guardians of history in every society are acutely sensitive
- to the faults of officially-designated enemies.
-
- The crude way to murder history is to lie. A more effective
- device is to set the bounds of permissible discourse. In
- coverage of contemporary affairs, the practice is a virtual
- reflex, as has been extensively documented. It is also standard
- in media critique, ensuring that unacceptable truths are banished
- from the mind. Thus, it is child's play to demonstrate the
- docility of the media with regard to US depredations in the Third
- World. Accordingly, the question we must ponder is whether they
- went too far in their anti-establishment zeal. Typical is an
- academic study of the media on Central America and the Middle
- East, which focuses on a single question: Was the anti-US,
- anti-Israel bias of the media utterly uncontrolled, or kept
- within tolerable bounds? (Landrum Bolling, ed., _Reporters
- Under Fire_; see my _Necessary Illusions_ for a review). The
- technique requires lock-step loyalty, rarely a problem.
-
- An enlightening example is a recent book by Jim Lederman, who has
- reported from Israel for NPR for many years: _Battle Lines: the
- American Media and the Intifada_ (Holt, 1992). The _Times_
- reviewer, Trudy Rubin, opens by noting that the book offers "some
- thoughtful insights" into the fundamental question: "whether
- American news media cover Israel impartially," or whether they
- are too critical and pro-Palestinian, perhaps even anti-Semitic
- (_NYT Book Review_, March 1, 1992). The bounds having been
- properly set, there is no fear that the real world will intrude.
-
- The media have afforded the PLO many victories, Lederman writes.
- One "tribute to the PLO's early media successes" is that
- Palestinian nationhood is "virtually unquestioned today" apart
- from "far right" extremists, while the US media refused to be
- "co-opted" into Israel's "nation-building enterprise." "Many
- journalists who met [Arafat] were mesmerized,...and bought [his
- secular democratic state] as a viable idea," though it "died a
- slow death" in the media. But Arafat's moderate image "has
- remained part of the media's vocabulary" -- an absurdity, as
- demonstrated by the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, Lederman notes
- with derision (in contrast, Shimon Peres is a true moderate,
- unsullied by the slaughter of 75 people when he bombed Tunis a
- week earlier). In the early '70s, Golda Meir tried "to entice
- the media...at least to carry the Israeli version of events
- _alongside_ that of the Arabs" (his emphasis). But it was a
- lost cause. By 1976 Palestinians in the territories became "a
- focus for foreign journalists' interviews," and the US media were
- soon succumbing to the "Palestinian system of press co-optation."
- The pro-Palestinian stance came naturally to journalists who "had
- matured during the period of the civil rights struggle in the
- United States," and hence viewed Palestinians "as the Middle East
- equivalents of the blacks in the United States," Israel being an
- Alabama sheriff. By the mid-'80s, "the foreign press was
- standing by, waiting to report, ready to become the Palestinians'
- communications pipeline to the world."
-
- Israel's efforts to gain at least some media attention had
- suffered a further blow in 1977, when Sadat travelled to
- Jerusalem, revealing an interest in peace for which Israeli
- officials were "totally unprepared"; they had "merely scoffed"
- when Lederman "told Israeli officials of my findings" after a
- visit to Egypt in 1974, learning "to my surprise" that Egyptians
- "wanted some sort of long-term political settlement with Israel."
- After 1977, "Israel had to compete more than ever before for
- newspaper space or broadcast time, for the privilege of having
- its positions relayed to the world by the foreign press." When
- the Intifada broke out in 1987, Israel was no longer even in the
- competition, as the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel passions of the
- media hurtled out of control.
-
- This grim story of media bias includes some real horror stories,
- for example, the "favored technique" of ABC's Bill Blakemore, who
- regularly "took a classic Israeli symbol and either debunked its
- traditional meaning or used it to create a visual false analogy."
- Thus, he contrasted the living conditions of the Israeli settlers
- in the Gaza Strip with those of the local populace in one of the
- most miserable and oppressed corners of the world. And he
- revealed that "Israel's `redemption of the land' was predicated
- on the destruction of Arab villages and the dislocation of Arabs
- from their homes" 40 years earlier (not to speak of massacres).
- "One must question whether the intent was not to delegitimize the
- entity for which these symbols collectively stood -- in this
- case, the State of Israel." Such journalistic dishonesty
- illustrates the inveterate hatred of the media for the State of
- Israel, and their long-standing sympathy for the oppressed
- victims.
-
- We now understand why the media have so insistently proclaimed
- their enthusiasm for Arafat and a Palestinian state (if not a
- "secular democratic state"), focused laser-like on the denial of
- elementary rights to Israel's non-Jewish citizens and the racist
- repression in the territories, denounced Israeli terrorism while
- extolling Palestinian righteousness, and now revile the
- Bush-Baker "peace process" for rejecting the national rights of
- the Palestinians as a point of departure and barring their chosen
- representatives.
-
- Despite this somber record, Lederman urges a more nuanced view.
- Israel has not been entirely without resources: "Both the
- Israelis and the Palestinians had vocal supporters in Washington
- with easy access to the media [and] active media watch groups..."
- Furthermore, "A careful study of the nightly newscasts in the
- United States proves fairly conclusively that there was no
- universal, overt anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism in the
- coverage...," and Israeli charges "that some camera crews
- actually staged events never have been substantiated." "There is
- no evidence of collusion or conspiracy by the television
- networks." Though some journalists, notably Peter Jennings, used
- the TV "medium to pursue personal political agendas" (pro-Arab,
- anti-Israel), others, like John Kifner, were just "unprepared"
- (which accounts for his exposure of the truth about Beita, for
- example). And some journalists are capable of real "insight,
- analysis, and nuance," particularly _Times_ correspondent
- Thomas Friedman.
-
- Lederman's delivery is ex cathedra, untroubled by evidence except
- of the kind just illustrated -- a wise move, given what the facts
- would reveal; for example, about Friedman, whose record is
- particularly astonishing (for a review, see _Necessary
- Illusions_).
-
- Sometimes, a ray of light breaks through. Thus, before the
- Intifada journalists had "dismissed or ignored...charges of
- harassment or brutality by the Palestinians in the occupied
- territories." That is not quite true; when brutality reached
- extremes, as in 1981-2, there was some media attention,
- occasionally at other times. But this comment is essentially
- correct. To learn the facts, one had to turn to the Israeli
- press (which Lederman falsely claims was more of an Israeli
- government "partner" than the US media), human rights reports,
- and other sources. Lederman does not indicate how this brief
- flash of insight conforms with the rest of the story just
- outlined.
-
- Facts are not part of this game. The purpose, rather, is to
- shift the burden of proof, in the manner of the man who cries
- "Thief!, Thief!" when caught with his hands in your pocket. The
- importance of the task is illustrated by Lederman's tales about
- the "peace process." The officials who scoffed at his 1974
- revelations were well aware that three years earlier, Sadat had
- proposed a full peace treaty to Israel (with nothing for the
- Palestinians); out of history for Lederman and his colleagues,
- because the US backed Israel's rejection of it. Also out of
- history is the January 1976 Security Council resolution calling
- for a two-state settlement, backed by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, the
- PLO, and virtually the entire world, flatly rejected by Israeli
- Prime Minister Rabin who stated that there would be no
- negotiations with any Palestinians on political issues, and
- vetoed by the US. Also murdered are the PLO initiatives in later
- years for negotiations with Israel leading to mutual recognition,
- inconsistent with US-Israeli rejectionism and therefore largely
- blanked out of the media. And a host of other examples.
-
- Keeping to the rules, Lederman offers us a "history" in which the
- US earnestly seeks political settlement, Palestinians insist on
- violence, and Israelis advocate "land for peace" -- which
- Lederman identifies with "Israeli withdrawal from the occupied
- territories"; in reality, the phrase refers to the Labor Party's
- rejectionist Allon Plan and its descendants, which leave Israel
- in control of the resources and useful land of the territories.
- The PLO, he tells us, held firm to their "rejectionist positions"
- and "unwillingness to compromise" or to put forth any "political
- agenda," insisting on "snatching all of the cake" as all other
- "constants in the Middle East" became reasonable, and silencing
- any local voice by terror. The facts are dismissed to the proper
- oblivion.
-
- The PLO bombings of Israel in 1981-2 were in part "a war of
- attrition against the Israelis," but even more, "a military
- campaign against an idea," the idea of peace. Given doctrinal
- requirements, it is irrelevant that it was Israel that was
- regularly breaking cease-fires with heavy bombing while the PLO
- observed them, leading finally to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon
- to shut down the irritating PLO pursuit of peace -- as one can
- readily learn from mainstream Israeli sources. Lederman's
- account does have one merit: it reflects most US media coverage,
- then and since.
-
- Lederman tells us that the media missed the real story of the
- Intifada. True, Palestinians threw stones at Israelis, but that
- was only because they were there. They were "symbols of
- authority"; the real target was the PLO and the traditional
- society. Furthermore, the PLO "strangled" the Intifada and rang
- its "death knell" with its violent suppression of local
- organizations and initiatives and "old and bankrupt"
- rejectionism. This war between the Palestinians and the PLO (and
- traditional authority generally) is the real story, missed by the
- media.
-
- In fact, every competent observer agrees that 20 years of
- Israeli repression and its "creeping annexation" were "what
- finally sparked the Intifada" (Israeli journalist Danny
- Rubinstein). But at least in this case there is an element of
- truth embedded in Lederman's useful tales. The Intifada was,
- indeed, a social revolution, crushed by Israeli violence that was
- motivated in part by long-standing fears of secular nationalism
- and moderation. The story was indeed missed in the mainstream,
- though covered in the independent media, another unstateable
- fact. As for conflicts between local elements and the PLO
- leadership, they are as "surprising" as the Egyptian interest in
- peace, though the same local leaders who quite freely denounce
- the PLO tell you that for better or worse, it remains the
- political representative of the Palestinians. The popular
- committees and other local initiatives were real and important,
- but they had been organized by the PLO and the Communist Party,
- and repressed by Israel (for serious discussion, see Joost
- Hiltermann, _Behind the Intifada_ (Princeton, 1991)).
- Throughout, the PLO continued to propose the "political agenda"
- that the US and Israel reject and that Lederman-Friedman, et al.,
- therefore cannot hear. To murder history, we must "mobilize
- every conceivable weapon" against the cancer of truth.
-
- The true commitments of the media are illustrated by the award to
- _Times_ columnist and former chief editor A.M. Rosenthal of the
- Defender of Jerusalem Award for his "extraordinary devotion to
- the protection of Jewish rights" as "a proud Jew, unafraid to
- speak his mind," serving "as a calm, reasoned and yet passionate
- voice on Jewish and Israeli affairs" (_Jerusalem Post_, Nov. 7,
- 1991). Or by the frank statements of its chief diplomatic
- correspondent, Lederman's hero Thomas Friedman, who tells us that
- "For me [Israel] is like an old flame... We're in love -- there's
- no two ways about it"; and his call for Israel to run the
- occupied territories by terror and repression, in the manner of
- South Lebanon, though if "Ahmed has a seat in the bus, he may
- lessen his demands" for national and human rights (_Jewish
- Post_, Dec. 18, 1991; see _Necessary Illusions_). Or by the
- casual contempt for "Palestinians...and other Third World
- detritus" (Joe Klein, _Esquire_, Nov. 1986), eliciting no
- comment. Or the regular use by quite witting journalists of the
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy to cloak Israeli
- propaganda as "objective reporting." But more significantly, by
- the actual practice, of which Lederman's constructions are
- typical.
-
- Lederman also offers a general theory of the media. "Free
- democratic societies" value the press "as a public watchdog...,
- raising issues for public debate" in a "competitive information
- marketplace." Americans "choose to buy their information" in
- "media department stores," so every niche is filled. As proof,
- he offers the debate over the Gulf war, when "dissenting voices"
- were freely heard and "a full-fledged national policy
- debate...carried out," ensuring that "most of the domestic
- political positions and points at issue had been brought to the
- fore for discussion before the final decision to go to war was
- made." "This slow, media-directed process played a critical role
- in unifying the vast majority of the American public around the
- war's aims and objectives." The miracle of the market could not
- be more wonderfully revealed.
-
- We see again the utility of confident pronouncement untroubled by
- disruptive fact. Clearly, the basic question was whether to
- pursue the peaceful means required by international law, or to
- resort to violence. The President had announced at once that
- diplomacy was excluded. Accordingly, the "media-directed
- process" simply suppressed the diplomatic options that had opened
- from mid-August 1990, lauding the President for rejecting
- negotiations because "there can be no reward for aggression," and
- barring discussion of the most crucial issue. Even the Orwellian
- invocation of High Principle, which should have evoked ridicule
- from a literate teenager, was greeted with awe and acclaim. As
- for "the American public," by about 2-1 its "choice" was the
- diplomatic option (negotiated Iraqi withdrawal with "linkage")
- rejected by the President, hence excluded by the media. One can
- only guess what the proportions would have been had people known
- that the position they advocated had been proposed by Iraq and
- rejected flatly by the US. The basic facts could be found in the
- independent media and Long Island _Newsday_, and there was
- occasional slippage elsewhere. But the public was effectively
- shielded from discordant facts or thoughts. In comparison with
- this episode of murder of history, the topics that dominate
- critique of media performance (Pentagon control, atrocity
- fabrication) pale into insignificance.
-
- Recall that this is the example that Lederman himself selects to
- demonstrate his free market theory of the media in a democratic
- society. History may Rest in Peace.
-
- Sincerely,
-
-
-
- Noam Chomsky
-
-
-