Questioning the coverage of Iraq and presidential candidates
It appears that perhaps this industry has forgotten what it is supposed to do when a multi-year congressional investigation concludes that a sitting president sent the U.S. military to kill hundreds of thousands of people, create irreparable environmental damage and cause millions to flee to neighboring regions, in addition to the thousands of Americans who lost their lives and the tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of wounded troops whose lives will never be the same.The media doesn't seem to think this is one of the biggest stories in modern history.
By Mike Green
It appears to me there is a dearth of questions from reporters covering this presidential election regarding the ongoing storyline of the connection between oil in Iraq and America's military goals in the region.
The evidence is continuing to mount that reveals a seriously flawed message given by the current administration leading up to the 2003 invasion. Thus, there must've been an ulterior motive for sending troops in 2003. So, what was it? As the media covers the election of the incoming Commander in Chief, it seems that the elephant in the room is lumbering about without notice by reporters.
Scott McClellan's blockbuster announcement that the entire culture in the White House and Washington is enveloped and mired in deception implies virtually no one can be trusted, including the Commander in Chief, Pentagon officials (have we forgotten the Pentagon's planted pundits?), the CIA, etc. But that shouldn't have come as a surprise to any reporter.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's conclusion after five years of investigation appears to have fallen upon deaf ears, as the Washington Press Corps and other reporters at national media continue to ignore the enormous implications that conclusion reveals.
The House responded recently by voting 261 to 166 in favor of articles of impeachment, which is slightly more votes than what was needed to push through articles of impeachment on Clinton, yet again, reporters, not Congress, have mostly ignored this momentous crossroads in American history. The amount of coverage it has garnered couldn't fill a newsletter. But if they had all given each other fist-bumps and high-fives after the vote, it would be in every newspaper and on every newscast across the nation.
It appears that perhaps this industry has forgotten what it is supposed to do when a multi-year congressional investigation concludes that a sitting president sent the U.S. military to kill hundreds of thousands of people, create irreparable environmental damage and cause millions to flee to neighboring regions, in addition to the thousands of Americans who lost their lives and the tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of wounded troops whose lives will never be the same.
The media doesn't seem to think this is one of the biggest stories in modern history. So, I guess I'm the only one. And it appears to me that the story has widespread implications. It ought to, especially for black Americans, many of whose graduating youth find themselves looking at the military as a viable opportunity and stepping stone toward college, or at the least a marketable skill.
The House Judiciary Committee, which has been deliberately sitting on previously submitted articles of impeachment (perhaps yet another leg of deception?), continues to make excuses why it will not pursue the will of the people. The latest is that it is too late to pursue impeachment — in spite of the millions of people represented by the 261 members of the House supporting impeachment and in spite of the Senate's revelation that Bush deliberately deceived the American people, and in spite of the president's own former press secretary revealing the broad entrenched methodology of wholesale deception of the American public to push forward a clandestine agenda fueled by ulterior motives. (What else is being hidden behind a curtain of deceit?)
The House Judiciary Committee's excuse to basically ignore the impeachment articles is BIG news in the face of the deaths continuing daily in Iraq, where the Commander in Chief maintains American troops and extends their assignments, even involuntary retainment of soldiers at the end of their enlistment contracts. Has ANY journalist or news organization done a poll of the U.S. military to find out if THEY want their Commander in Chief impeached? Why do John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi stand in defense of a president by deliberately obstructing the will of the American people? Is their political agenda a higher priority than the lives of those who will be wounded or killed between now and January, when we can begin all over again with a new Commander in Chief who will say the blame lies with the former?
I don't know where journalists get the notion that they can and should dismiss legitimate stories because they subscribe to the sentiment that the president ought not be impeached ... for whatever reasons they may have. If the American people indicate he should, and their representatives in Congress vote that he should have articles pushed forth against him, why would the media not write about it as the historic event it is? Is it not an historic event for 261 members of the House to vote to impeach a president the Senate concludes is a liar who sent our military to war under false pretenses?
There's no outrage from the media and thus none from the American public. But if Rev. Jeremiah Wright were to say something off-color, you can bet his face will be filled with mics in a micro-second and editorials would be written alongside columns and front page stories in virtually every newspaper and broadcast from hundreds of major market TV stations from coast to coast. But, what's a little vote to impeach a president? Nothing. What's a little burial of those articles by a ranking black Democrat and white female Speaker? No big deal. Who cares if Bush lied and sent folks to their deaths? Apparently, not this media industry.
But this journalist is outraged. I have a sustained sense of incredulity observing the lack of interest, throughout our industry, in the enormous number of stories, editorials and columns that could be written regarding this matter that haven't been written. Do we think so little of the sacrifices of our military that we are willing to let them continue to be sacrificed upon an altar of political expediency? Not one more life is worth the excuses that I've heard from members of this media industry, including my own newsroom. As a veteran, I am ashamed to see brave people continue to do their jobs while those of us who now know they were sent into harm's way based upon propaganda, lies and deliberate deceit, sit idly by and wait for the liar-in-chief who sent our troops to kill and be killed to quietly step down in January. The same excuses I hear today of why this president isn't being impeached (despite 261 members supporting such an indictment) is the SAME excuse that was being used a year ago and the year before that. Could the media even report that? Apparently not.
Some journalists will claim they are not advocates and thus ought not use their pen as a tool of advocacy. I understand that. I am not pushing for the media to advocate for the impeachment of the president, nor seek public outrage as an extension of mine or their own. I am advocating the media to do its job and report the news. In comparison to the front page stories I've seen and the leading news on TV and radio, it is a travesty that the issues I speak of here should warrant even a single word of advocacy. It would seem that a highly esteemed media industry would recognize when history is being made and cover it accordingly.
The current state of political affairs is itself worthy of editorials and columns. Certainly, reporters could be asking tough questions of the current administration, the would-be incoming administrations and the House Judiciary Committee, as well as the Speaker. So who is informing the American people of the current state of affairs. Who is apprising them of the depth of the situation? How can there be a national debate if the issues and facts are squelched by the media commissioned to cover it all?
What's worse is that this monumental historic news (former White House official admits deception, Senate Committee reveals deliberate deception after investigation, and the House votes to send articles of impeachment to House Judiciary) has no legs in a media that is reluctant to analyze it, investigate it or even ask the relevant questions of the next would-be commander in chief.
Even now, as our national media looks the other way, the major American oil companies and BP are lining up for the land grab that was spoken of years ago when Bush sent the second American invasion of Iraq. The Oil Ministry and the Iraqi Oil Constitution have long been targets of U.S. political power. Yet, where is the press to make the link? Where is the media to cover the strategic alliances the U.S. made with Muqtada al-Sadr to get Nouri al-Maliki in power? How many Americans understand the implications of that alliance and why it was made? For that matter, how many reporters understand it? Where's the comprehensive coverage that reveals how the U.S. demonized Sadr, claimed victory for the "surge" that was done in concert with a cease-fire, brokered oil contracts in an effort to garner 25-year leases on land in Iraq for U.S. oil companies and manipulated the political structure of the Iraqi government in order to secure control of the Iraqi Oil Ministry?
Does any reporter recall the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie's transcribed conversation with Saddam Hussein just eight days before he invaded Kuwait? She said she was there for two purposes: to strengthen ties between Iraq and the U.S. and to talk about lowering the price of oil from $25 / barrel. Now, c'mon! With crude oil prices surging to new highs, how is it the media isn't talking about the history of the U.S. involvement in the Middle East? Has anyone even thought to talk to Glaspie? is she still alive? Oil is big news here, but apparently only if it involves long lines and high prices to pump gas at an American gas station. The largest U.S. oil companies can line up to secure long-term oil contracts with Iraq and the U.S. can be on the verge of signing a long-term contract with a puppet regime in order to secure U.S. military presence to protect the oil contractors and none of this seems worthy of front page news and TV coverage. None of it seems worthy of America's in-depth attention and media focus and investigation.
Looking at the premise of oil in Iraq, once finds a storyline that ahs remained uninterrupted, yet virtually unknown to the American public.
So what is a military vet and veteran journalist like me supposed to do from a foxhole at the bottom of Oregon? I guess from my current position all I can do is sound the alarm, then work to relocate.
Mike Green
Ashland Daily Tidings
Posting made on NABJ email forum 06/23/2008
Mike Green can be reached at: amikegreen2@yahoo.com
POLITICS
ECONOMICS/FINANCE
SOCIETY
ENTERTAINMENT
WOMEN
CONTACT US
©2003 The African Independent, Inc. All rights to republication are reserved.
