Greenwald writes: "Aside from the glaring demographic homogeneity - all
middle-aged-or-older white people who have spent their careers in
corporatized Washington establishments - there is a suffocating ideological
and viewpoint homogeneity on this panel as well, particularly when it comes
to foreign policy."
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Occupy.com)
What Foreign Policy "Debate" Means on "Face the Nation"
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
29 November 15
CBS' Face the Nation is the most-watched Sunday morning news television show
in the U.S., attracting roughly 3 million viewers each week. On this Sunday
morning, the show is focused on foreign policy, as it interviews Ben Carson,
Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham on the issues of ISIS and refugees. As it always
does, the program has assembled a panel of "experts" to discuss those
matters; one of them, Jeffrey Goldberg, proudly announced its composition
this morning:
In addition to host John Dickerson and Goldberg himself, the rest of the
panel is composed of former Bush 43 speechwriter and current Washington Post
columnist Michael Gerson, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, and
former Bush 41 speechwriter and current Wall St. Journal columnist Peggy
Noonan.
Aside from the glaring demographic homogeneity - all middle-aged-or-older
white people who have spent their careers in corporatized Washington
establishments - there is a suffocating ideological and viewpoint
homogeneity on this panel as well, particularly when it comes to foreign
policy. All of the panelists, for instance, were vocal, aggressive advocates
of the invasion of Iraq (as were all three GOP presidential candidates
featured on this morning's show).
Goldberg, in a 2006 profile of Gerson, wrote that "Gerson, like Bush, has
never wavered. 'The people of the Middle East are not exceptions to this
great trend of history, and, by standing up for these things, we are on the
right side of history,' he said." Ignatius repeatedly used his Post platform
to argue for the war: eight months after the invasion, he wrote a gushing
profile of Paul Wolfowitz ("a rare animal in Washington - a genuine
intellectual in a top policymaking job") and decreed: "this may be the most
idealistic war fought in modern times"; in 2004, he proclaimed: "I don't
regret my support for toppling Hussein." Noonan, in February, 2003, told
Slate: "I have come to the conclusion that we must move. I do not imagine an
invasion will be swift and produce minimal losses. But I believe not
stepping in is, at this point, more dangerous than stepping in."
Other than Tom Friedman, Goldberg himself was probably the journalist most
responsible for tricking Americans into supporting the war by circulating
blatant falsehoods under the guise of "reporting," using his New Yorker
perch to legitimize claims of the non-existent Saddam/Al Qaeda alliance
(which he continued to tout as late as 2010) and the Iraqi nuclear program.
The Face the Nation host, John Dickerson, was a reporter for Time Magazine
at the time and therefore pretended not to express opinions about Iraq, but
he disseminated "objective" reporting like this:
TIME headline covering former President Bush's adminstration.
Many have observed that no American journalists or pundits (let alone
political officials) other than Judy Miller paid any career price whatsoever
for their dissemination of falsehoods about Iraq and the use of their
platforms to vocally cheer for one of the worst, most destructive crimes of
their generation. That's true, but it's worse than that.
To this day, being regarded in establishment circles as a serious and
credible foreign policy expert for a journalist or pundit all but requires
that one have supported the Iraq War along with subsequent military actions.
The few public figures who opposed the war and are admitted to such circles
are admitted despite that opposition, and a requirement is that they opposed
the invasion on pragmatic and strategic grounds, not moral or legal ones.
This dynamic is particularly thriving right now in the U.K., as scores of
political and media figures who cheered Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq malign
Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed it, as an "extremist." In order to be a serious
"moderate" in western imperial capitals, one must endorse the right of your
government to invade, bomb and attack countries which haven't attacked
yours; only an "extremist" would oppose such a radical precept (anger at
Corbyn is currently at its peak because he opposes UK bombing of Syria
against ISIS). To see how this mentality works, watch this amazing 2003 BBC
program as one of the UK's most despised-among-the-establishment figures,
George Galloway, debated the invasion of Iraq with numerous still-respected
pro-war pundits; virtually everything Galloway said in opposition to the war
proved prescient and virtually everything the war cheerleaders said proved
utterly false, and yet they are still regarded as credible and serious while
he is loathed and dismissed as an extremist.
There is, needless to say, an enormous amount of viewpoint, experience and
mentality homogeneity among these Face the Nation panelists extending far
beyond their vocal enthusiasm for the attack on Iraq. The fact that the
nation's most watched Sunday morning news TV show convenes such similar
"experts" to comment on foreign policy illustrates how illusory is the
supposed "free debate" which establishment media outlets permit.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Occupy.com)
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/29/what-debate-means-on-face-the-nation/htt
ps://theintercept.com/2015/11/29/what-debate-means-on-face-the-nation/
What Foreign Policy "Debate" Means on "Face the Nation"
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
29 November 15
BS' Face the Nation is the most-watched Sunday morning news television show
in the U.S., attracting roughly 3 million viewers each week. On this Sunday
morning, the show is focused on foreign policy, as it interviews Ben Carson,
Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham on the issues of ISIS and refugees. As it always
does, the program has assembled a panel of "experts" to discuss those
matters; one of them, Jeffrey Goldberg, proudly announced its composition
this morning:
In addition to host John Dickerson and Goldberg himself, the rest of the
panel is composed of former Bush 43 speechwriter and current Washington Post
columnist Michael Gerson, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, and
former Bush 41 speechwriter and current Wall St. Journal columnist Peggy
Noonan.
Aside from the glaring demographic homogeneity - all middle-aged-or-older
white people who have spent their careers in corporatized Washington
establishments - there is a suffocating ideological and viewpoint
homogeneity on this panel as well, particularly when it comes to foreign
policy. All of the panelists, for instance, were vocal, aggressive advocates
of the invasion of Iraq (as were all three GOP presidential candidates
featured on this morning's show).
Goldberg, in a 2006 profile of Gerson, wrote that "Gerson, like Bush, has
never wavered. 'The people of the Middle East are not exceptions to this
great trend of history, and, by standing up for these things, we are on the
right side of history,' he said." Ignatius repeatedly used his Post platform
to argue for the war: eight months after the invasion, he wrote a gushing
profile of Paul Wolfowitz ("a rare animal in Washington - a genuine
intellectual in a top policymaking job") and decreed: "this may be the most
idealistic war fought in modern times"; in 2004, he proclaimed: "I don't
regret my support for toppling Hussein." Noonan, in February, 2003, told
Slate: "I have come to the conclusion that we must move. I do not imagine an
invasion will be swift and produce minimal losses. But I believe not
stepping in is, at this point, more dangerous than stepping in."
Other than Tom Friedman, Goldberg himself was probably the journalist most
responsible for tricking Americans into supporting the war by circulating
blatant falsehoods under the guise of "reporting," using his New Yorker
perch to legitimize claims of the non-existent Saddam/Al Qaeda alliance
(which he continued to tout as late as 2010) and the Iraqi nuclear program.
The Face the Nation host, John Dickerson, was a reporter for Time Magazine
at the time and therefore pretended not to express opinions about Iraq, but
he disseminated "objective" reporting like this:
TIME headline covering former President Bush's adminstration.
Many have observed that no American journalists or pundits (let alone
political officials) other than Judy Miller paid any career price whatsoever
for their dissemination of falsehoods about Iraq and the use of their
platforms to vocally cheer for one of the worst, most destructive crimes of
their generation. That's true, but it's worse than that.
To this day, being regarded in establishment circles as a serious and
credible foreign policy expert for a journalist or pundit all but requires
that one have supported the Iraq War along with subsequent military actions.
The few public figures who opposed the war and are admitted to such circles
are admitted despite that opposition, and a requirement is that they opposed
the invasion on pragmatic and strategic grounds, not moral or legal ones.
This dynamic is particularly thriving right now in the U.K., as scores of
political and media figures who cheered Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq malign
Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed it, as an "extremist." In order to be a serious
"moderate" in western imperial capitals, one must endorse the right of your
government to invade, bomb and attack countries which haven't attacked
yours; only an "extremist" would oppose such a radical precept (anger at
Corbyn is currently at its peak because he opposes UK bombing of Syria
against ISIS). To see how this mentality works, watch this amazing 2003 BBC
program as one of the UK's most despised-among-the-establishment figures,
George Galloway, debated the invasion of Iraq with numerous still-respected
pro-war pundits; virtually everything Galloway said in opposition to the war
proved prescient and virtually everything the war cheerleaders said proved
utterly false, and yet they are still regarded as credible and serious while
he is loathed and dismissed as an extremist.
There is, needless to say, an enormous amount of viewpoint, experience and
mentality homogeneity among these Face the Nation panelists extending far
beyond their vocal enthusiasm for the attack on Iraq. The fact that the
nation's most watched Sunday morning news TV show convenes such similar
"experts" to comment on foreign policy illustrates how illusory is the
supposed "free debate" which establishment media outlets permit.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
