7/7: Crime and Prejudice
"None
are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free.
The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who
rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like
right in their eyes." -- Johann von Goethe
Repeat a thing often enough - whether true or not - and it becomes accepted as fact. Do it early on before opinions have formed and supported by authoritative sources it becomes a lasting prejudice. These known tools of psychology which have been proven effective time and again rely on the power of ego which dislikes being proven wrong or being shown up as gullible and also takes comfort in the safety of the herd, believing (falsely) that the consensus must be correct and the minority mistaken. These techniques have long been known to those who shape and rely upon public opinion, including advertisers and politicians. When the dimension of fear (alongside a misguided sense of patriotism) is included in the equation, then we see an almost pathological need to believe the official narrative.
The film delves into the ways in which journalistic media and popular TV shows tend to collaborate in painting a one-sided picture of those accused of being villains by the State - they foster a climate in which any possible charge of government collusion or coverup is swiftly dismissed as the rantings of wild-eyed 'conspiracy theorists' so that the likelihood of real justice becomes pretty much impossible. The articles reveal that such mindless support leads to a climate of double standards and prejudice.
The fundamental flaw with this approach is that it is unsustainable over the long haul. When the day finally arrives that the State's lies are exposed for all the world to see, every last shred of trust and credibility goes out the door. That day rapidly approaches and nothing will ever be the same again!
The
mainstream U.S. press corps is again pounding the propaganda war drums,
this time over dubious accusations of Iran’s secret work on a nuclear
bomb. It is a pattern of bias that Robert Parry calls the U.S. media’s
worst — and most dangerous – ethical violation.
Arguably,
the most serious ethical crisis in U.S. journalism is the deep-seated
bias about the Middle East that is displayed by major American news
outlets, particularly the Washington Post and the New York Times.
When
it comes to reporting on “designated enemies” in the Muslim world, the
Post and the Times routinely jettison all sense of objectivity even when
the stakes are as serious as war and peace, life and death. Propaganda
wins out over balanced journalism.
We
have seen this pattern with Iraq and its non-existent stockpiles of
WMD; with the rush to judgment about Syria’s supposed guilt in the
killing of Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri; with the false certainty about
Libya’s role in the Lockerbie bombing; and many other examples of what
everyone just “knows to be true” but often turns out isn’t. [For more on
these cases, click here.]
In
these cases, U.S. mainstream news media happily marshals sources with
histories of credibility problems; treats implausible scenarios with
utmost respect; jettisons crucial context; and transforms the grays of
ambiguity into black-and-white morality tales of good versus evil.
Then,
behind these war drums of the U.S. press corps, the American people are
marched toward confrontation and violence, while anyone who dares
question the perceived wisdom of the Post, the Times and many other
esteemed outlets is fair game for marginalization and ridicule.
An example
of this propaganda passing as journalism has been the recent writings
of Joby Warrick of the Washington Post about a vague but alarmist report
produced by the new leadership of the International Atomic Energy
Agency.
On
Monday, the Post put on its front page a story about Russian scientist
Vyacheslav Danilenko, a leading expert in the formation of nanodiamonds
who spent several years assisting Iranians develop a domestic industry
in these micro-diamonds that have many commercial uses.
But
Warrick’s story is fraught with spooky shadows and scary music that
suggest Danilenko is really part of an ongoing drive by Iranian
authorities to overcome technological obstacles for a nuclear bomb. Just
like in that spy thriller “Sum of All Fears,” a greedy ex-Soviet
nuclear scientist is helping to build a rogue nuclear bomb.
Warrick
wrote: “When the Cold War abruptly ended in 1991, Vyacheslav Danilenko
was a Soviet weapons scientist in need of a new line of work. At 57, he …
struggled to become a businessman, traveling through Europe and even to
the United States to promote an idea for using explosives to create
synthetic diamonds. Finally, he turned to Iran, a country that could
fully appreciate the bombmaker’s special mix of experience and talents.”
Now,
Warrick continued, Danilenko has been identified by Western diplomats
as the unnamed scientist cited in the IAEA report as advising Iran on
the explosive techniques to detonate a nuclear bomb. Warrick’s story
continues:
“No
bomb was built, the diplomats say. But help from foreign scientists
such as Danilenko enabled Iran to leapfrog over technical hurdles that
otherwise could have taken years to overcome, according to former and
current U.N. officials, Western diplomats and weapons experts.”
Slanted Tale
However,
Warrick crafts the story in a very misleading way, leaving out key
facts that would create a less ominous picture. For instance, the
article fails to mention that the U.S. intelligence community issued a
National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 that Iran had stopped its work on
a nuclear bomb in late 2003.
Danilenko,
who has insisted that his work was limited to advising Iranians on the
explosions used to manufacture nanodiamonds, last worked in Iran in 2002
and the explosive test that the IAEA associates with Danilenko – and
which supposedly might have nuclear implications – was conducted in
2003.
In
other words – even if one accepts that Danilenko is lying about his
work in Iran – nothing in the Danilenko story undercuts the U.S.
intelligence community’s NIE. To leave out this crucial context in the
Post’s article suggests an intention to frighten rather than to inform.
Indeed,
what is notable about the curious IAEA report is how much of it
predates late 2003. [For a contrasting view of the Danilenko evidence,
see Consortiumnews.com’s “Iran’s Soviet Bomb-Maker Who Wasn’t.”]
Warrick
also relies heavily on the expertise of discredited arms control
analyst David Albright, the founder and president of the Institute for
Science and International Security. Albright was a prominent voice in
promoting President George W. Bush’s pre-invasion case that Iraq
possessed stockpiles of WMD.
Yet,
from reading Warrick’s article, you would have no idea of Albright’s
checkered history. You would simply assume that Albright is an unbiased
expert who is bringing his analytical skills to bear to help us untangle
difficult questions about Iran’s nuclear research.
But
Albright and his ISIS actually have a pattern of imbalanced work
on nuclear proliferation and the spread of other dangerous weapons. For
instance, ISIS has essentially ignored Israel’s real nuclear arsenal –
with only a few brief items over the past decade – while obsessing over a non-existent nuclear arsenal in Iran with scores and scores of reports.
Albright
has continued this disproportional emphasis despite the fact that
Israel is arguably the world’s most notorious rogue nuclear state. It
has built up its undeclared nuclear arsenal after refusing to sign the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and keeping IAEA inspectors away
from its nuclear facilities.
By
contrast, Iran signed the NPT, has renounced nuclear weapons, and has
allowed IAEA inspectors to monitor its nuclear energy program. Granted,
Iran’s cooperation has been less than stellar but its record is far
superior to Israel’s. Yet, Albright and his ISIS have largely turned a
blind eye to Israel’s nukes and focused instead on Iran’s theoretical
bomb-making.
(On
Sunday, when non-mainstream journalists confronted Albright about the
disparity between ISIS’s concentration on Iran and neglect of Israel, he
angrily responded that he was currently working on a report about
Israel. If so, it would be Albright’s first substantive study solely on
Israel’s nuclear program since ISIS was founded in 1993, according to an examination of its Web site.)
No comments:
Post a Comment