Focus 580; The Media and the War on Terrorism

Good morning this is Focus 5 video morning telephone talk show. My name is Jack Brighton sitting in for David inch. Glad you could listen today during this hour of the show. We'll be talking about the media democracy and the war on terrorism. Our guest is someone who studies in Media and Democracy for a living and has been writing a long time on these issues. Robert McChesney he is research professor in the Institute of communications research and the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at the University of Illinois here in champagne. From 1988 to 98 he was on the Journalism and Mass Communication faculty at the University of Wisconsin Madison and we were able to get him down here from Madison. He earned his Ph.D. in communications at the University of Washington in 1909. In his work concentrates on history and political economy of communication emphasizing the role media play in democratic and capitalist societies. He's the author of several books including telecommunications Mass Media and Democracy the battle for control of the U.S. broadcasting one hundred twenty eight thirty five a book that it is an excellent look at the early years of broadcasting how it is we ended up with the

dividing the spectrum and running broadcasting in the U.S. the way we do other books by Robert McChesney corporate media and the threat to democracy. And with Edward S. Herman the global media. The new missionaries of corporate capitalism and his newest books rich media poured him ocracy and with John Nichols it's the media stupid. We'll talk with Professor much as me during this hour about the media and the war on terrorism. And as we do so you are invited to join the conversation. You have questions and comments on the topic. You can call us around Champaign-Urbana at 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. That's 3 3 3 W I L L. If you match the letters with the numbers we also have a toll free line anywhere you hear us around the Midwest here and via the Internet or anywhere else around the world. 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Again around Champaign-Urbana to join us call us at 3 3 3 WRAL toll free elsewhere. 800 1:58 oil well Robert Mitchum Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here Jack. Glad to have you here. Let me start out with

your basic question. How has the media been doing in covering what's been going on since September 11. My grading on a curve or even I'm not sure of the grades pretty low. But you know the grades not good. And the reason I mean one way to think about it it's like this United States in the past century has engaged in several international wars wars overseas wars abroad and excuse me the track record there. You look at World War One World War Two Korea Vietnam Gulf War Central America in the 1980s and in each case we now know that the government wanted to engage in this war and the general population didn't want to engage in it and the government actively excuse me again and aggressively allied in the World War One. I mean in fact in 1916 1940 in 1964 Wilson Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson all won election on peace platforms. When we now know they were all actively planning to go to war after they won the elections they

deceive the population. This is sort of a long pattern and journalist Unfortunately the track record is of more or less going along with this deceit have not challenged effectively it's the darkest pages in journalism history when we teach journalism. These are the moments for most ashamed as we're journalism let the population down. I'd say with the exception of World War Two almost all these wars we now know had the truth been on the people been able to stop these wars. The human race to be much better off for a lot more people be living there be a lot less destruction in the world. The most striking recent documentation this came in the Pentagon papers during the Vietnam War where Secretary of Defense McNamara authorized a study by the Defense Department how we got into this war and they chronicled in 47 volumes how the government basically was lying to everyone. People who wanted to get into this war and using the press to manipulate public opinion to create support for a war the public would have no part of if they knew the truth and it was well understood. So with that as our background. Then you look at what goes on in this war and you would say the first thing you would hope from journalists is there would be tremendous skepticism towards claims that you would

challenge what you're being told. Demand evidence really get to the bottom and avoid emotionalism avoid hyperbole really try to be cold and sober get the facts be clear on this and challenge all the claims. That's what you would hope for if it didn't take place in those previous examples for the most part and unfortunately the lessons of the past were entirely forgotten. Journalism is really a repeat. More or less of what we've seen in the past in the journalism is more or less reflected the policies of the government and done a very poor job of challenge the MSM very elementary questions. How does international law fit into this isn't this a violation of international law. Why. Why is this the most effective way to get the perpetrators. Is this too high a cost to pay or should this be a global war. I mean all sorts of very elementary questions really fell from view. Now the reasons for this I'd argue are twofold it's not a conspiracy it's not that these are bad journalists do first of all the sort of problems build into the professional code of journalism and the professional code is a

relatively recent phenomenon it's a hundred years old. It's obsessed with appearing neutral and not being controversial. And one of the ways it does that is by relying upon official sources. They're the basis of news stories. And what that means is that when official sources are in agreement on something base of the news is going to reflect that there will be debate on it. And when the official sources are arguing over something like abortion rights then journalists have a lot of room to play with and get contrasting views. There's a lot of room to operate. Well this is precisely the sort of story where official sources are elected leaders and our leading officials in the country have pretty much marched in lockstep. We're going to war this is a military event. And so a journalist who tried to question that framing almost from the moment of September 11th would be regarded as being not professional professionalism means you report people in power say you don't challenge it necessarily most other people in power do other official sources. So if a journalist has a question something that all the republicans democrats are in agreement look like they're trying to weigh in with their own opinion. They're trying to be subjective they're being partisan they're not being neutral. It's one of the core problems of professional

journalism is this innate bias towards basically people in power can set the tone if they're talking about something it's news if they're quiet on something for journalists to raise it without someone who's in power saying it is very difficult because you're accused of being unprofessional nonpartizan and that's clearly what's going on here. The sources have been pro-war. The experts on almost all the TV shows the main shows have come from the military establishment and you know one of the things the great issues that wasn't raised at all consider this what if this war it happened. These attacks are taking place on Russia or China or Pakistan and those governments that said the only response this is a world war we have to go all over the world to kill our clean up terrorists. The payback for blowing up the Hermitage or the Kremlin. Our journalist would have rightly said wait a second you guys have a huge military and that country is desperate for an excuse for something they do doesn't want to be downsized. That's got to be a factor let's investigate their self-interest and this isn't just a benevolent operation. But we in this country have an enormous military it's one third of all the military spending the religious by the United States that's been chomping on the bit for an excuse to survive

and grow for the next generation. And I think clearly that there is a tremendous impetus in our political economy to push for a military solution by very powerful sources in Washington that want a military framing of this debate because that means ample budgets less oversight and another generation of highly militarized economy. No peace dividend for the next 40 or 50 years. But that issue was almost a mess because that's not an issue being debated among our elites. It seems that you know I've heard a couple of you suggest this but as you say this is not the kind of thing that we talk about very openly but I think it's on the list true wars a chance for careers to be made. I mean there are certain incentives to go to war especially if you have a large military as you suggest a large military that really since the Cold War has not had a big mission to fulfill Yes we've you know we've done some things in Haiti and you know in Somalia and around the world obviously Bosnia even you know in Africa in a few small instances. But this really

is a chance for a lot of well not just military careers but even in the media awards to be won audiences to be won. And it seems that one of the things that happens when you know something like this although maybe there's never been something like this exactly but the packaging begins almost immediately when you watch CNN and MSNBC and they've got their theme songs and they've got their you know the graphic sort of you know packages that you know they do to promote what they're doing on the story. Well maybe it's purely a coincidence but you're right almost from you know 11 a.m. on September 11th Central time or eastern time it seemed like all the main networks were already into their sort of Hollywood Rambo framing. This is all we have to do is send Rambo and Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Marines in to find these bad guys kill them wave their heads on a post and the good guys going right off in the sunset and all live happily ever after it's a very simplistic way to analyze a problem and come up with a solution that

plays off the sort of same themes that their movie divisions have been making in Hollywood for the last 20 years. The large networks. But you know it also. That's just purely coincidence probably. But it does. There's fundamental issues about the relationship of our largest media companies and the government that calls into question their ability to really be a source of credible journalism for a free society. Consider for example that the US government globally is the number one lobbying arm for the largest media companies and trade deals are being negotiated when intellectual property laws and international deals and intellectual property be negotiated. It's the US government's going to bat always for AOL Time Warner for Disney for Viacom. When China's trying to get into the World Trade Organization one of the main issues that is being negotiated by the U.S. is the U.S. government's insisting they allow an increase in the number of Hollywood films that are exhibited in China a dramatic increase and they're going to bat for Hollywood. So these companies that own our television networks in our largest newspaper chains have

tremendous reliance upon the U.S. government as a close relationship there so they're not entirely neutral. Moreover you're in a situation where right now as we speak the Federal Communications Commission which regulates radio and television United States is in the midst of formal hearings to decide whether to deregulate ownership of television stations in this country and cable systems meaning that currently except in situations like Chicago where the situation's been grandfathered in with the new GM in the Chicago Tribune. But currently you're not allowed to own a newspaper or a television station in the same town. Currently you're only allowed to own TV stations that cover up to one third of the population of the country. Well those are the big media companies are desperate to get rid of those because they know their value of their companies will increase if they can get bigger. So you've got a real conflict of interest the same companies that are covering this war enthusiastically and the president enthusiastically are going before his Federal Communications Commission trying to get deregulation will make them all vastly wealthier. And something that I would argue also would be very bad for the

for the people of this country. But they want to ram this through so there's a real conflict of interest here. If any other country had this our journalists be quick to say this is a conflict of interest you can't trust that media they're conflicted by this government. We would always say that about other governors the first thing a good journalist looks at in our country was a sort of passes right by. It's a swell just assume that's not the case. Well it is the case. We have a call to include a conversation I'll get to them in just a minute but a quick follow up on that. Isn't it also true though that while there is this consolidation of ownership in the media there are also many alternative voices that people can turn to and perhaps more so now that there is the Internet so that in many ways people do have better access to you know more information and a diversity of views. Absolutely and it's one of the striking features and one of the best features of the Internet has been the access to international press. And one of the ways you can sort of critique our own limitations of our press is to see how other countries are covering same or where they don't have quite the same reliance and our U.S. official sources. So even countries that are sympathetic to us politically. Overall

it was sympathetic to our war on terrorism robbing up the people who committed these crimes. They look at this in a far different way because they don't rely on the same sources and it gives you a perspective on our journalism. It's been one of the great developments but I would argue I mean we shouldn't say OK that's fine we don't have to worry them. That's a very good sign but there's limits to that. The dominant journalism that's being expressed that most people have access to relatively easily is in fact the journalism that is far too much serves the needs of the governed governed governors not the governed as you go black. But it OK. We have a couple calls to talk with the let me just mention again our guest during this hour focus 580 is Robert McChesney. He's a professor in the Institute of communications research here at the University of Illinois. Also with the Graduate School of Library information science. We're talking about the media and the war on terrorism talking about how the media has done is doing and covering it. The issues involved. And if you'd like to join our conversation you can call us around Champaign-Urbana at 3 3 3

9 4 5 5. Toll free elsewhere. 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5. I should also mention that our guest Robert McChesney will be giving the Friday forum lecture today at the university YMCA. One thousand and one south right street in Champaign on the campus here. He'll be speaking about probably many of these things that we're discussing but also the title of the talk the role of the media in sustaining conscience and compassion. So that's at noon today and it's free and open to the public if you'd like to attend. Let's talk with some callers. We have someone first on line reform in Lafayette. Good morning you're on focus 580. Hi. I had read rich media poor democracy back in January and I just want to say that I enjoyed it very much is very enlightening. I guess I have some questions regarding the current conflict and the current state of media. Obviously the kind of elevation of the media is a big deal and the FCC being in the hands of Colin Powell on as you had written before and in various forums about that particular issue. I wonder if you might

address one of the things that has been I guess irking me lately at least in terms of coverage in the media. Regarding the president and his presumed presidential qualities nowadays and the idea of the NORC report the election or recount study that has effectively been sidelined indefinitely it was originally targeted for release I think September 17 by various media groups and then they decided that they're not going to pursue that I know that there are a few groups that are trying to pressure to get that report released. But at the same time people the media groups are saying this is not the time and the place. Can you address that at all or explain that if you're familiar with that at all. It be my pleasure in fact I am quite familiar with it. Your first point worth mention repeating I guess I didn't make this my comment about the Federal Communications Commission the current chair of the Federal Communications Commission appointed by President George W. Bush. Is

Michael Paul son of Secretary of State Collin Paul. So this is the person who will be the deciding figure on industry deregulation and so once again the conflict of interest the appearance of conflict of interest whether there is an actual b exercise. We can't say but the appearance is clearly there. Now the point the caller made the second point is absolutely central it's really crucial. You know we have mounting evidence that in the 2000 election Al Gore. Certainly the majority of people went to the polls that day in Florida were going to vote for Al Gore that that is not debated. A lot of them didn't get to vote and the ballots were thrown out. It also now appears quite clear from the all the evidence I have seen that a systematic recount will show that Al Gore actually won the state of Florida. If that's the case he not only won the presidency he wanted by a wider margin than two or three of our other presidential races in the last 25 years. And it wasn't like this is a razor close when they stole this is when the stall was actually sort of like there was a gap between Gore and Bush even.

And it raises fundamentally troubling problems in our political culture right now because what the caller alluded to is you know we've always said that when you get one of these crises a war a crisis situation like this that there's a script that anyone who's in the White House. Anyone who's in the White House follows. And it'll make you look good you say the right things and no matter who's in there if you've had a chimpanzee in the White House as long as they mouthed the right lines they're going to be a hero in their approval ratings to go through the rough. And I think this is probably a good test of that theory because his ratings have gone way up. It is discussed and Lincoln esque tones the same person who you know was a standing gag for his lack of seriousness and his lack of stature prior to September 11th. Now what happened is that the leading new news media along with the University of Chicago's research group the NRC put together a comprehensive recount of all the ballots in Florida. With all sorts of people to have to come up with the best possible information it's taken months to do and it was going to be released

as the caller said in late September and it was quietly and indefinitely postponed. Richard Burke in The New York Times said it quite clearly said if we release this it will stoke partisan passions and that wouldn't be healthy for our society. And I think it really is a clear sign of precisely how undemocratic the press is in a democracy to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. You don't have to spoonfeed the people because they can't handle the truth. You tell the truth they run the country. They should be entitled to know everything the people in power know. And if we had a Democratic journalism one fiercely committed to it that information would have been right out there in the front part of the reason though I think that journalists are also hesitant to make that information about the Florida race known as Aside from not wanting to undermine the war effort. Is that also cast a very dark light on journalism if in fact Al Gore did win the race in Florida if in fact the wrong person is in the White House is a spectacular indictment of our news media that the most important story they covered up to this war in this generation. They completely blew that their mission from that from

election day to December to get the truth out. They failed it. We have another call to talk with let's do that. And as someone in south eastern Illinois on one number one Good morning on focus 580 And yes I had a couple of couple of points I'd like to make but I'd like to comment just a little bit on what you've been saying I think that whole business in Florida and indicated why Al Gore would have made a very good president that he was maybe he moved too quickly I mean somebody on the radio said on TV said Go Bush is one silly cause of Bush appen concedes. I want to be Van Gaal as in This Is No they haven't won and they haven't won yet. So they call it blaze up and takes it back I mean he was he was moving like a leaf in the wind and also in the. And the babbling that thing he was a bad choice for president because he couldn't count he couldn't count the divorces that were for him winning that controversy in the forces against

him winning the controversy and unless some of the people who were against him winning and I say the Supreme Court not because they had an A and a death due to Bush being appointed by spotted the simply because there was a conservative majority on the Supreme Court more or less and they didn't want to see them themselves. Replaced by man made the minority buy by Gore So I mean if it was a self-interest in the Supreme Court it was self-interest in this and that to get good that are the points that I want to make. I think you're right in the fact that the media is drumming up the war drums but I don't think it's at the behest of the government in fact I've been disappointed because Bush was originally talking about patients and then not to expect anything to happen that that would be a quite a while before anything happened and if there had been that the country had

to show patience and the the war drums in the media are the drums that are intrinsic in the media itself they they thrive on conflict. I mean they it it's difficult for example for a president and a Congress to to compromise on a matter because they the press thinks that in terms of a fight I mean Congress takes a dive or the president vanquished you know I mean it's and again any of them compromises made as a say mean everything is it is in the media and in terms of the battle and the not so you saying the media is spoiling for a good fight. They are like that and a schoolyard that gather around yelling Fight fight fight and when a couple of kids get into it. OK well we think and I've got another point I'd like to make in Uganda.

OK well let me just comment first on the question of Gore in the election in Florida. It's really whether Al Gore should be president or would be a good president is almost beside the point. The question is whether he won the election in a democracy ever gets the most votes should win and I would feel the same way no matter who it was and whoever gets the most votes should win period it's a matter of principle and it's not like it's OK to go back and say OK well he didn't get he didn't win. But as President it's good things he'd be a better president they did win the election that's not how it works. You know whoever gets the most votes wins period. It's not a principle. Secondly I think that you know we well there's a lot of uniform coverage in the news media of the war. There is a debate. I mean this is not a pure lockstep where everyone agrees on everything among early if there is a debate that's emerging between those who want a full bore military solution and those who want to sort of win the hearts and minds to do humanitarian stuff and develop more of a multilateral approach and that's the debate we're getting reported in our news media now. But going back to what I said

earlier we should understand that that debate is very much a debate within elite parameters. Certain things are clearly off limits still can't be reported. One both positions in that debate are fully in favor of a huge military presence is just whether you use it. But the idea that military plays a central role. It is not debated both sides of the debate are curdle the debate or both. All aspects of current elite debate and that we're getting our news coverage. Acknowledge the US has a sort of double O 7 right to invade any country it wants in and no other country has this in us we deputize them like Israel but only the US has this right to invade any country wants without any explanation even if it violates international laws or current campaign in Afghanistan clearly does in these sort of things that will always remain offline is because our leaders aren't debating them so that's the limitation again so the coverage we get is as strong as the political debate among those in power or out of our Afghanistan but me that might be considered a very enterprising very hot pursuit but I don't have a brain about America about the media here and that is print

media and to accept as reality PR images are that certain. And for a time my adversaries are enemies and I don't know what does you sounds like you might be there of a young are you when you are trying to get my will where you began around where you were around during a battle of Hirst's to kidnap Oh yes I was there I wasn't there but I was I was here. You may remember that she was kidnapped at the Symbionese Liberation Army. And it was discovered not too long after that and then and in time that the Symbionese Liberation Army consists to three punks and their girlfriends. Or if you want gender equality for punks. But the media continued to refer to them as the Symbionese Liberation Army and shit for punks as they were and it seems to me that the media and I really am not talking so much about that the factual media as with these guys

in media often tends to take jabs then lad and that is News and PR and major I mean this is basic grammar and as I can as I see it who is I in the first place he is a coward because he I mean he stands brave man vapid dialogue he hides in dark corners like a frightened woman. And I. I think that he should be portrayed as bad. I mean if you say Well naturally he's going to hide because that reasonable thing to do. Look at the. Reaction to Bush when security people were keeping him out of harm's way for right. I think we I think we take your point. Let me just to you know also add to that you know our track record in sort of demonizing and personalizing these conflicts I remember when Panama was in the news when you know the United States invaded Panama on going after Manuel Noriega. And even on National Public Radio he was always referred to as

the Panamanian strongman. Yeah. You know like he's got big muscles or something and maybe he does but I mean this characterization the sort of the well. Caricature race zation of people and movements so that we have some easy quick simple mental image of them that can then be used to essentially manipulate behavior seems to be pretty much you know par for the course. That's right I mean all war foreign policy is a lot the most important part of it now is propaganda whipping up the suitable support for worst the most extreme case of Noriega for example was a strongman when we invaded to capture him 10 years earlier when he was on our payroll he was a moderate leader. Saudi Arabia is called a moderate power in the Middle East even though it's highly corrupt authoritarian society very repressive. But if they go against us like Saddam Hussein did the government being a moderate government to being a militant wacko government a threat to human rights you know nothing will change in that country. All that will change is they're used to our leadership politically

or economically or militarily and it's very much the use of these terms these buzzwords that are known that will evoke a certain response in the population. Isn't there was sponsibility on the part of individuals and you know that I always come back to this that we have. As citizens you know an obligation or necessity to get beyond these sort of simplicity simplistic descriptions of the problem. To educate ourselves and to really understand the depth and yuans is involved. Absolutely and this is also we're journalism so important. I mean you and I are personal some of this program doesn't have the capacity to like you know take a month off fly over to the region study it revokes That's why we have journalists that's why we have journalism and of journalism doesn't do that for us or doesn't attempt to do that or does a poor job of that. We all suffer as a result the quality of the decisions we make in our society suffers as a result in you know the most important decision any society can make is whether to go to war

or World War I mean thousands perhaps millions of people will die. Resources have to be shifted from peaceful uses to militaristic uses. And it's one therefore that journalism needs to be at its best. I mean that's where we need the hardest examination. That's really the least amount of hysteria the most sober analysis presentation of all the rich context. For example in this case really understanding how that region actually works the history of the relationship of the United States to that region. So we can actually make sense of these issues to come up with policies that are going to be most effective. And to me there are some of our aims are very just. But we should isolate those from Ames that might not be that just but we don't know that unless there's journalism which goes after pursues and investigates. We have a couple callers waiting we'll get right to them we're well past our midpoint in our conversation with Robert McChesney He's a research professor in the Institute of communications research here at the University of Illinois. And we're talking about the media and the war on terrorism. We have two people waiting and probably time for some others if you'd like to join us. The number around Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3

9 4 5 5. And toll free anywhere you Harris 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Let's talk with a listener in Champaign on line number two. Good morning you're on thoughtless 580. Yes I have a question I'm not sure if this is an area of expertise but that won't stop me. It's something that I've been concerned about the idea that the media. Is often just dealing with issues that are important to men. I've seen that a lot recently and certainly when you get into a wartime state that increases you know we had anthrax threats before we've had them many many times. But no one in the media seems to care because they've all been at abortion clinics. Certainly women's voices about the war I don't think have been heard in the media. There are a lot of women who are pro-peace the war on women in the Taliban was never really dealt with in the media in a fair way. I'm just wondering you know what can be done about that or or what perspective you might have on this sort of idea of

you know getting a broader base to see whose issues are important in the media. And I'll hang up and listen. Thanks so much. That's a really good question. That's a really important point I think that you know war is traditionally sort of a masculine. Efforts are campaign in as highly gendered I mean a lot of the terminology is masculinist to put it mildly hyper masculine in fact. And I think there's traditionally been there is in this country there's traditionally been a much greater concern about war from women than men. I mean if we can generalize and to the extent that women's voices aren't being heard in any sort of representative manner it will skew the nature of our coverage and our understanding the war in this war and all wars in ways that aren't really healthy that those are voices that need to be heard. And it's a real problem. Now I think the second part of her question excuse me the second part of her question concerning the anthrax threat and the fact that anthrax has been

abortion clinics have been getting these anthrax mailings and been concerned about for years now that the terrorist groups that terrorized these abortion clinics have been using anthrax to sort of Halt there. Operations like wise the far right militia type groups have been involved with anthrax working with that McVeigh for many years this has been one of their operations and it's interesting that this aspect of the story gets some coverage but it's you know the assumption is that by definition anthrax is coming from the bad guys overseas Moslem militants and fundamentalists and I mean that might be we don't know but I think that the track record is there's a lot to be learned on the use of anthrax domestically by terrorist groups. Very interesting point. Well we have another caller waiting and let's talk with and this is someone in Milwaukee Wisconsin. Why number four. Good morning young folks 580 Milwaukee my God morning here. I'm good to put it mildly and disappointed that the American network caved in

to the Bush administration and now we can't hear bin Laden directly or be very censored in wonder form or another and associates it isn't really we don't know how widespread it's going to be the chilling effect of the impact of the Bush administration and the networks are caving in. At the same time we have. The European networks at least three of them I guess. Guy and I t n and the BBC when they were requested to censor those same spokespeople for the quote other side they didn't cave in. And I wonder what that says about us as a democracy and whether we have a you know a vibrant enough media that we're getting it we're going to ever get the information that we need to make decisions on our own about the war that's going on. I wondered what your what your feeling was about that Al-Jazeera

decision. Well I think it's as outrageous as you do that first that the government requests. Bin Laden not be shown on the air and second that the network would accede to that request and go along with it. Both instances are dreadful and I think they clearly relate to the FCC deliberations that are going on about deregulation and concerned to stay on the good side of this government and that sort of do anything controversial when you've got billions and billions of dollars in their net worth writing on the decision that Michael Paul makes in the next two three four months. I think though what's ironic about this too I mean if it's offensive in a democratic sense that we're not allowed to see this guy and hear what he has to say we should be allowed to hear this guy's rap. But it's also absurd to think that you know we're going to listen to bin Laden talk and then sort of say oh he's got a good point. I mean I would think if I'm Bush I'd want this guy I'd want to request they play this stuff. The more you. This guy they were convinced the guy's a lunatic. Well I thought it was hilarious that well maybe the hilarious tragically is hilarious maybe

that you know these administrations actually asked the networks not to air these statements on the basis that they might contain some kind of coded statement like you know kill all Americans you know there might be something hidden in there you know. Well that doesn't pass the giggle test that somehow this super sophisticated group of terrorists cannot manage this extraordinary attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon is going to have to send their messages in a coded message over network television that all the other forms of communication are not available to them when in fact there's this caller points out if they want it there's going to be television transmission available via satellite or the Internet from around the world so it's that that argument was patently absurd. OK thanks for thanks for the call. We have just about a little less than 15 minutes left with our guest Robert McChesney research professor in the Institute of communications research here at the University of Illinois author of many books about the media and democracy. And we're taking your questions if you'd like to join us in the time remaining. Let me also mention that he will be speaking at the YMCA University

YMCA at noon today just after noon so there's time to turn off your radio and dash over there if you'd like to attend it's free and open the public. He'll be speaking on the role of the media in sustaining conscience and compassion and probably some of the things that we're talking about as well. During this hour focus 580 And that's the Friday forum lecture at noon it will be basically what we've been talking about OK. Hopefully some more parents will say good. And also just to mention that his recent books Rich Media poor democracy published by the University of Illinois press in 1909 and a paperback version coming out by the new press actually it was. It is out by the new press and also with John Nichols. It's the media stupid. His two latest books we have one caller waiting in time for others if you like to join us let's go next to a listener in ur Banna on line number one. Good morning you're on focus 580. Yeah. What I don't really understand very well maybe you can help me with this is that. Why isn't it that that especially now with the Internet we don't

get it. We still don't get the kind of you know critical analysis that I know it's got to be out there. For example I've recently heard people discuss how the thing about harboring terrorists. I understand that the Cuban-American Orlando Bosch blew up a civilian airline a Cuban civilian airline. President Bush Sr. pardon the guy you know so that Jeb could get elected down in Florida. And and you know it's it that this to me is is very fruitful area to explore. And I would think you know

here we are pardoning terrorism harboring the fellow and yet the his son now is saying that Afghanistan is doing the same thing to bin Laden. And you know nobody nobody makes this kind of analogy and bringing up the past what what what is going on that are historians. First of all apparently can't think in terms like that or are somehow prohibited from thinking of terms like that or they can't say anything and then too there must be out there. Critics of the United States you could make comparisons like that which would kind of show up how how unprincipled we really are and how to double our double standards are so clear. Me I don't understand how I can surf the net for so long and not find you know stories like that time and time again.

I don't understand why there's such a paucity of such analysis. Can you explain that at all. Well I can certainly try for your first point which is a crucial one is that you know this instantly earth very quickly went from. And September 11 from an effort to capture the people guilty of this crime and bring them to justice to a global war on terrorism sort of were you know all the bad guys get linked together. Anyone who's committing terrorist acts is going to be cleaned up in the war for Enduring Freedom and infinite justice crusade. So speak. And once that happened once we went from OK here these bad guys who committed this crime to now we're setting ourselves up as the judge jury and executioner of terrorist worldwide certain fundamental questions need to enter the debate. What is terrorism. Who qualifies as a terrorist. Who makes that decision. Henry Kissinger in a piece he wrote just a couple days ago equated the terrorists in Afghanistan with the Colombians who are basically the rebel units there who have never done anything remotely close to blowing up the World Trade Center.

But there are opponents of the military backed government in Colombia we support. So in his view we should be in Colombia that the war on terrorism means even increasing our support in Colombia to get more active there to clean out the rebel forces in that country to make that a military solution. You know and you also write about his involvement in the end they overwhelm Chile this is well ironic because one of the things that happened two days before the September 11th massacre attack. What happened was that 60 Minutes did a really good show segment. Henry Kissinger now he's being sued by the children and grandchildren of general Rene Schneider who is the Chilean chief of staff who was assassinated after the socialist was elected president 1970 Muse's assassinated with Kissinger's clear approval and authorization because he would be replaced then by Pinochet who would lead a coup. SCHNEIDER refused to overthrow you and he would honor constitutional government. He was a Democrat. So he had to be assassinated. And this came out of this lawsuits going on the evidence is incontrovertibly Well it

has Kissinger is responsible for this death. But Dennis immediately forgotten he's been an expert again speaking about the threat of terrorism here he has authorized an assassination of a person because he wanted to uphold democracy. And ironically the Colombian government that he is so eager to support now in the war of terrorism has committed more human rights abuses than Pinochet's government did and Pinochet had been the leader in Latin American historically so he's been finally been beat out for that ignominious. Warden distinction. So the whole question of what terrorism needs to be out the table we should have one standard for terrorism and everyone who commits it's guilty and it's bad not one that we get to pick one when our guys do it it's not terrorism and their guys do it it is terrorism. So I think that's something that good journalism would be really adamant on such an important issue in the global war on terrorism. At the same time you know I know there have been a couple of columnists who actually been fired from their newspapers for raising some of these things. You know it's you know it's funny how that works. You're allowed to raise these sort of issues only

in the context if you're an avid supporter of the war. If you raise these issues and it sounds like you're also critical of this war you're in deep trouble. So you'll see this criticism rise in elite circles saying I'm totally for this war but you know we do have to this is a public relations problem for us. You know we're supporting human rights abuses and some of these countries. So it sort of undermines our credibility for trying to mobilize support at that level you can have the debate. But on the core principle to be hey this is wrong we shouldn't do it. We have one standard for everyone before we go invading other countries to clear out people who are unrelated to 9/11. We've got to have a coherent policy ourselves and clean up our own act. That's not permissible to be talked about in our culture right now. As for the Internet you get this last point he raised. There is some great stuff out there. We were talking about earlier and I mean I won't list a bunch of websites but they're available. A simple search will find it I think and most search engines and a lot of from overseas a lot of good stuff in the U.S. The problem with the Internet though is that while it gives you access it doesn't provide resources. I mean just being able to put up a website that's amusing actually because it takes time and money

and skill to put out quality reports in the Internet won't magically create that for people so you'll get access to good opinion pieces and background pieces but you're not going to be. It doesn't magically produce great journalism in and of itself. It takes a lot of other ingredients. We have several callers in about five minutes remaining will try to get as many people as we possibly can before we run out of time. We'll go next to a listener and downs on one number four. Good morning on focus 580. Hi I just want to know what one can do to influence the FCC decision I think the scariest thing I've heard in a long time. Well I. Yeah I mean District quickly answer that one thing you should certainly do is contact your member of Congress and their senators and tell them this isn't acceptable. Most people would not approve of this. This is always done these sort of deals are done with almost no press coverage required. They're very quiet and they know that this is a perfect time to ram this through because you know who's going to be worrying about the FCC deregulating ownership of media during a war during a war on terrorism so you're absolutely right let members of

Congress know because most Americans wouldn't stand for this if they knew it. Raise holy hell also. Their relevant committees in the House and Senate to do interstate commerce that handle regulations for the FCC try to find members on that committee because those committees are really the way Congress works that's where the power is on issues like this to let them know that's not acceptable. And finally go to the FCC s website I think it's just FCC dot gov and register your concerns there. That CC should be flooded with the opposition to this or concerns to make sure it doesn't go through without a really legitimate hearing. I mean if the Supreme Court deciding that the money is speech and money being able to control vast media markets is just frightening. You know I think you're very right to be concerned. Thank you. Thanks very much for the call. We'll go right on to our next listener of the someone in Champaign on line or two. Good morning. Hi I've got a question about e-mail I think getting all kinds of e-mails. That looked like they actually have professional graphics to rally the support for the war.

Now I'm wondering if this is up. Is it possible that government resources could be used to create these you know interactive videos with songs. Are they trying to stir us all up so we are in this for the long haul. Well I don't know that's a really interesting question I've been getting those e-mails. I'd like to get them to see them but not too many if they get enough junk e-mail as it is. But a couple at least. But I mean the you're less afraid your question is clearly the case. I mean the Art of War nowadays is is as much a propaganda exercise as a military exercise the control of public opinion. That's why it's the toughest job for journalists to sort of get the truth out when they're facing a tidal wave of concerted propaganda coming from whatever government and it's not just ours but ours is every bit as implicated in this as in the other government trying to control people trying to get people to support the war that's what governments do. And journalists have to always be skeptical and force evidence and make claims and be sober. And so this would not be out of what you would expect

in that scenario. OK. Thanks thanks very much for the call we have one more listener waiting and will squeeze them in here. Someone in Charleston unlimber one. Good morning good morning. That's as quick you didn't mention the School of the Americas and the training that we've done of soldiers and Columbia and my more question is that I want to do if there was advice. Personally I could do and a lot of other people who feel like we've moved too fast as far as this war goes and feels like we aren't getting information that we should get and it's I think I'm more frightened than I've ever been in the way of what we aren't hearing because it's so it just seems to me it's a lobbyist itself Lionel. I happened to watch it.

Thanks the call. Well I think that's a very legitimate concern and I think the most important thing you do any citizen can do is concerned that we have not really had a legitimate debate and discussion this war is being exercised you know under really dubious an unexamined pretenses and that that's necessary. The most important thing to do is to stand up and register that opinion. Make that known because one of the problems of a certain hour is almost what scholars call a spiral of silence where people are intimidated that saying some things they're afraid they're going to get take heat for it and said no one talks and you're more and more committed they're absolutely there is no support for your opinion you're all alone you're the only one in Charleston who thinks that we're the only one and dones or wherever you are. When you stand up you guys are lots of people of the same concerns that there are lots of people say no we don't go to World War you know without a real serious debate discussion of what we're trying to accomplish our going accomplish it and how this is actually going to work if we win this thing. None of which to my knowledge has been presented at all in any credible manner it's just given you a furious flag waving and hyperbole and told to shut up.

Well at that we're going to have to shut up the words since we're here at the end of our time and I can only suggest for folks if you want to hear more from our guest you can do so in just a few minutes at the university YMCA. Friday for a lecture He'll be speaking I think at about 12:15 that begins one thousand and one south Wright Street in Champaign on the campus here. And our guest has been Robert McChesney and he's a research professor in the Institute of communications research at the University of Illinois. Thanks so much for being here. My great pleasure.