Wednesday, 20 February 2013

US Media Yet Again Conceals Newsworthy Government Secrets


The US media, over the last decade (at least), has repeatedly acted to conceal newsworthy information it obtains about the actions of the US government. In each instance, the self-proclaimed adversarial press corps conceals these facts at the behest of the US government, based on patently absurd claims that reporting them will harm US national security. In each instance, what this media concealment actually accomplishes is enabling the dissemination of significant government falsehoods without challenge, and permitting the continuation of government deceit and even illegality.

One of the most notorious examples was in mid-2004 when the New York Times discovered - thanks to a courageous DOJ whistleblower - that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on the electronic communications of Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law. But after George Bush summoned to the Oval Office the paper's publisher (Arthur Sulzberger) and executive editor (Bill Keller) and directed them to conceal what they had learned, the NYT complied by sitting on the story for a-year-and-a-half: until late December, 2005, long after Bush had been safely re-elected. The "national security" excuse for this concealment was patently ludicrous from the start: everyone knew the US government was trying to eavesdrop on al-Qaida communications and this story merely revealed that they were doing so illegally (without warrants) rather than legally (with warrants). By concealing the story for so long, the New York Times helped the Bush administration illegally spy on Americans.

The Washington Post's Dana Priest, in a superb act of journalism, reported in 2005 that the CIA was maintaining a network of secret "black sites" where detainees were interrogated and abused beyond the monitoring scrutiny of human rights groups and even Congress. But the Post purposely concealed the identity of the countries serving as the locale of those secret prisons in order to enable the plainly illegal program to continue without bothersome disruptions: "the Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior US officials."

In 2011, the New York Times along with numerous other US media outlets learned that the American arrested in Pakistan for having shot and killed two Pakistanis, Raymond Davis, was not - as President Obama falsely claimed - "our diplomat", but was a CIA agent and former Blackwater contractor. Not only did the NYT conceal this fact, but it repeatedly and uncritically printed claims from Obama and other officials about Davis' status which it knew to be false. It was only once the Guardian published the facts about Davis - that he was a CIA agent - did the Times tell the truth to its readers, admitting that the disclosure "pulled back the curtain on a web of covert American operations inside Pakistan, part of a secret war run by the CIA".

The NYT, as usual, justified its concealment of this obviously newsworthy information as coming "at the request of the Obama administration, which argued that disclosure of his specific job would put his life at risk". But as the Guardian's Deputy Editor Ian Katz noted, "Davis [was] already widely assumed in Pakistan to have links to US intelligence" and "disclosing his CIA role would [therefore not] expose him to increased risk".

And now, yet again, the US media has been caught working together to conceal obviously newsworthy government secrets. On Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that two years ago, the Obama administration established a base in Saudi Arabia from which it deploys drones to kill numerous people in Yemen. including US citizen Anwar Awlaki and, two weeks, later his 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman. The US base was built after the US launched a December, 2009 cruise missile/cluster-bomb attack that slaughtered dozens of Yemeni women and children.

But the Post admitted that it - along with multiple other US media outlets - had long known about the Saudi Arabia drone base but had acted in unison to conceal it from the US public
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/saudi-arabia-drones-media-concealment

The US 'liberal' media helps control and keep secrets of the establishment. The mainstream media are corporate entities that should never be trusted because of their record and conflicts of interest.


[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, February 20th, 2013.]

2 comments:

steven andresen said...

spook,

First, why would you say that the U.S. media is "liberal?" I could say that German papers talking about the righteousness of Hitlers domestic policies or how he had finally made the trains run on time as "liberal" papers, of a "liberal" press, but that wouldn't make them so.

The argument is made, to deny this characterization, that all the media is owned by and controlled by an ever fewer number of large conservative corporations, and you don't do what your bosses don't want you to do in those corporations. So, why call it a "liberal" media?

Well, the papers don't come right out and call for the enslavement of blacks and the genocide of homosexuals...that might make them "liberal," I suppose.

But, the effect of calling trhe media "liberal", is the same as calling the President "liberal," or a socialist, it is to state falsely that we should think what they are, or what he is, as liberal, thereby destroying the meaning of the words.

It's like saying that if the President does it, it can't be illegal. You destroy the meaning of the words, "law," "legal," and "justice."

s.

SpookyOne said...

S,

The 'liberal' media tag is slapped on by right leaning politicians and pundits when they are 'attacked' by the media. I was using that label to underline the fact that the press are not critical or independent of the establishment.

I guess using the term was not necessary. I can simply say that the mainstream media is a corporate entity that is basically operating in cahoots with the Government and big business in a great many instances.

Spook.