|
Why
some lies are fit to print
By
Gary Wilson (The New York Times shakeup)
The
sudden announcement that two top editors of the New
York Times resigned June 5 was greeted with both
cheers and jeers.
Right-wingers
were cheering. But many progressives also probably
didn't mind seeing the biggest national daily
newspaper in the United States taken down a peg or
two. Its offenses are many and its air of
self-importance pervasive.
But
much of what happened at the Times remains hidden.
The official story is that this is all about a young
reporter who had made up facts and plagiarized his
way through some 30 articles published in the
newspaper.
That
might only be a small part of what the fuss is
about. The shakeup at the New York Times comes at a
time of social crisis for the U.S. ruling class.
Despite the Pentagon's apparent military victory in
Iraq, that country is in a state of resistance. The
whole of the Middle East is a cauldron nearing a
full boil. At the same time, the global capitalist
economic crisis is deepening as the U.S. economy
shows many signs of further decline and rising
joblessness.
Hidden
just below the surface is a story of
inter-capitalist rivalries that have become
dangerous and unstable.
There
are many levels to what is happening at the Times.
The official story about the young reporter, Jayson
Blair, is no more sensational in its detail than
other stories of liars and plagiarizers in the
corporate media, but none have received anywhere
near the attention this one did.
By
focusing on Jayson Blair, a Black reporter who
admits he was suffering from mental illness and
substance abuse, the right-wing-dominated media have
used the incident to further their attacks on
affirmative action. Howell Raines, who resigned from
his post as executive editor, was faulted because of
his openly stated support for affirmative action.
And Gerald Boyd, the managing editor and one of the
few Black editors in a top executive position at any
news organization in the U.S., was forced out simply
because he is Black. He had not covered for Blair in
any way.
What
is left out of almost all the media reports is that
not only are there almost no Black executives at any
of the corporate media in any position, but there
are few Black journalists at any of the big
business-controlled media conglomerates. They make
up only 5.3 percent of the professional news staffs
across the U.S., according to the National
Association of Black Journalists.
Thus,
statements attacking affirmative action are coming
from one of the most segregated industries in the
whole country.
The
crisis at the Times was never really about Jayson
Blair. "One clue," reported Jack Shafer on
Slate.com on May 13, "...can be found in the
story of fabricator Christopher Newton. Last fall,
the Associated Press fired Newton after learning he
invented sources and quotations in at least 40
stories, an act of journalistic malfeasance
equivalent to Blair's. Who called for the
resignation of the editor of AP or the heads of
Newton's editors? (Can you name the editor of the
AP? I can't, either.) Nobody cried for blood, as far
as I know, even though the AP is as important a
journalistic institution as the New York
Times."
The
shakeup at the Times is supposed to give the
impression that there was just this one breach of
honesty and it won't happen again. The reader is
supposed to conclude that everything else printed in
the Times is the unvarnished truth.
Lies
reported as fact
Of
course, the Times is full of stories that rely on
unnamed, unverifiable sources. Most often these are
cited as "high-ranking Washington
officials." These lies are then reported as
fact.
Many
think the all-time expert at these kinds of stories
filled with officially sanctioned lies and
fabrications is Judith Miller. Miller co-wrote with
Michael Gordon a Sept. 8, 2002, front-page report in
the Times that purported to reveal an Iraqi effort
to purchase aluminum tubes to be used for nuclear
weapons. Was the story coordinated with the needs of
the White House? That same day Vice President Dick
Cheney pointed out the story when he was being
interviewed on Meet the Press. He implied it proved
the need for a war on Iraq.
When,
months later, the United Nations weapons inspectors
conclusively refuted all aspects of the story and
said it was based on outright lies and fabrications,
the New York Times did not print even a word of
clarification, let alone any kind of public disgrace
for Miller or Gordon.
Instead,
the Times followed that with another front-page
story by Miller. On April 21, just as it was
becoming clear to all that even under total U.S.
military occupation no "weapons of mass
destruction" could be found in Iraq, Miller
wrote a story quoting an unnamed Iraqi scientist
with alleged knowledge of a secret Iraqi weapons
program.
Slate's
Jack Shafer wrote on May 15 about Miller's apparent
piece of fiction, pointing out that it is not all
that uncommon for the New York Times to print
falsehoods:
"Other
equally dubious Times stories go uncorrected to this
day, such as the ones about the Saudis' agreement to
allow the United States to use Saudi bases to fight
Iraq, the plans for long-term military bases in
Iraq, and Czech President Vaclav Havel's alleged
phone call to President George W. Bush about
Mohammed Atta."
At the
root of the shakeup at the Times is the social
crisis of capitalism. V.I. Lenin, in his guide to
imperialism, noted that the imperialist stage of
capitalism is not just about taking control of
foreign countries. It involves monopolization and
the concentration of finance capital, as well as
inter-imperialist and inter-capitalist rivalries.
Like imperialist countries, capitalist monopolies
rival each other, and internecine battles take place
that are usually hidden from public view.
As the
economic crisis deepens, these rivalries become more
desperate and dangerous. Twice in the last century,
inter-imperialist rivalry led to world war.
In the
U.S. ruling class, bitter rivalries for control are
taking place. They could be seen in the Florida coup
that put George Bush into the presidency. Among the
backers of the Bush clique are two of the most
powerful media conglomerates in the country, both
very big and powerful businesses: Clear Channel and
Fox.
Is it
just a coincidence that Clear Channel and Fox are
the main beneficiaries of a recent decision by the
Federal Communications Commission to ease what few
restrictions there are on monopoly ownership of the
media?
Generally,
the New York Times, a pillar of the Democratic
Party, is seen by the right-wing as a liberal
opponent of the Bush administration. Fox News
chairperson Roger Ailes had particularly targeted
the Times and Howell Raines for giving less than
lock-step support to the Bush administration's war
on the people of Iraq.
As
Lenin noted, imperialist capitalist rivalries tend
to become bloody. This is not something that can be
ended by reform, but rather is built into the
system. The only cure is a total makeover.
Reprinted
from the June 19, issue of Workers World newspaper
|
