The New York Times' Media Bias

By Noam Chomsky, teleSUR

09 April 15

The media reflects, uncritically, the approved doctrine: that the U.S. owns the world, and it does so by right.

front-page article is devoted to a flawed story about a campus rape in the journal Rolling Stone, exposed in the leading academic journal of media critique. So severe is this departure from journalistic integrity that it is also the subject of the lead story in the business section, with a full inside page devoted to the continuation of the two reports. The shocked reports refer to several past crimes of the press: a few cases of fabrication, quickly exposed, and cases of plagiarism (“too numerous to list”). The specific crime of Rolling Stone is “lack of skepticism,” which is “in many ways the most insidious” of the three categories.

It is refreshing to see the commitment of the Times to the integrity of journalism.

On page 7 of the same issue, there is an important story by Thomas Fuller headlined “One Woman’s Mission to free Laos from Unexploded Bombs.” It reports the “single-minded effort” of a Lao-American woman, Channapha Khamvongsa, “to rid her native land of millions of bombs still buried there, the legacy of a nine-year American air campaign that made Laos one of the most heavily bombed places on earth” – soon to be outstripped by rural Cambodia, following the orders of Henry Kissinger to the U.S. air force: “A massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves.”

A comparable call for virtual genocide would be very hard to find in the archival record. It was mentioned in the Times in an article on released tapes of President Nixon, and elicited little notice.

The Fuller story on Laos reports that as a result of Ms. Khamvongsa’s lobbying, the U.S. increased its annual spending on removal of unexploded bombs by a munificent US$12 million. The most lethal are cluster bombs, which are designed to “cause maximum casualties to troops” by spraying “hundreds of bomblets onto the ground.” About 30 percent remain unexploded, so that they kill and maim children who pick up the pieces, farmers who strike them while working, and other unfortunates. An accompanying map features Xieng Khouang province in northern Laos, better known as the Plain of Jars, the primary target of the intensive bombing, which reached its peak of fury in 1969.

Fuller reports that Ms. Khamvongsa “was spurred into action when she came across a collection of drawings of the bombings made by refugees and collected by Fred Branfman, an antiwar activist who helped expose the Secret War.” The drawings appear in the late Fred Branfman’s remarkable book Voices from the Plain of Jars, published in 1972, republished by the U. of Wisconsin press in 2013 with a new introduction.

The drawings vividly display the torment of the victims, poor peasants in a remote area that had virtually nothing to do with the Vietnam war, as officially conceded. One typical report by a 26 year-old nurse captures the nature of the air war: “There wasn't a night when we thought we'd live until morning, never a morning we thought we'd survive until night. Did our children cry? Oh, yes, and we did also. I just stayed in my cave. I didn't see the sunlight for two years. What did I think about? Oh, I used to repeat, ‘please don't let the planes come, please don't let the planes come, please don't let the planes come.'"

Branfman’s valiant efforts did indeed bring some awareness of this hideous atrocity. His assiduous research also unearthed the reasons for the savage destruction of a helpless peasant society. He exposes the reasons once again in the introduction to the new edition of Voices. In his words:

“One of the most shattering revelations about the bombing was discovering why it had so vastly increased in 1969, as described by the refugees. I learned that after President Lyndon Johnson had declared a bombing halt over North Vietnam in November 1968, he had simply diverted the planes into northern Laos. There was no military reason for doing so. It was simply because, as U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission Monteagle Stearns testified to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in October 1969, ‘Well, we had all those planes sitting around and couldn't just let them stay there with nothing to do’.”

Therefore the unused planes were unleashed on poor peasants, devastating the peaceful Plain of Jars, far from the ravages of Washington’s murderous wars of aggression in Indochina.

Let us now see how these revelations are transmuted into New York Times Newspeak: “The targets were North Vietnamese troops — especially along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, a large part of which passed through Laos — as well as North Vietnam’s Laotian Communist allies.”

Compare the words of the U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission, and the heart-rending drawings and testimony in Fred Branfman’s cited collection.

True, the reporter has a source: U.S. propaganda. That surely suffices to overwhelm mere fact about one of the major crimes of the post-World War II era, as detailed in the very source he cites: Fred Branfman’s crucial revelations.

We can be confident that this colossal lie in the service of the state will not merit lengthy exposure and denunciation of disgraceful misdeeds of the Free Press, such as plagiarism and lack of skepticism.

The same issue of the New York Times treats us to a report by the inimitable Thomas Friedman, earnestly relaying the words of President Obama presenting what Friedman labels “the Obama Doctrine” – every President has to have a Doctrine. The profound Doctrine is “‘engagement’, combined with meeting core strategic needs.”

The President illustrated with a crucial case: “You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren’t that many risks for us. It’s a tiny little country. It’s not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there’s no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies.”

Here the Nobel Peace laureate expands on his reasons for undertaking what the leading US left-liberal intellectual journal, the New York Review, hails as the “brave” and “truly historic step” of reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. It is a move undertaken in order to “more effectively empower the Cuban people,” the hero explained, our earlier efforts to bring them freedom and democracy having failed to achieve our noble goals.

The earlier efforts included a crushing embargo condemned by the entire world (Israel excepted) and a brutal terrorist war. The latter is as usual wiped out of history, apart from failed attempts to assassinate Castro, a very minor feature, acceptable because it can be dismissed with scorn as ridiculous CIA shenanigans.

Turning to the declassified internal record, we learn that these crimes were undertaken because of Cuba’s “successful defiance” of U.S. policy going back to the Monroe Doctrine, which declared Washington’s intent to rule the hemisphere. All unmentionable, along with too much else to recount here.

Searching further we find other gems, for example, the front-page think piece on the Iran deal by Peter Baker a few days earlier, warning about the Iranian crimes regularly listed by Washington’s propaganda system. All prove to be quite revealing on analysis, though none more so than the ultimate Iranian crime: “destabilizing” the region by supporting “Shiite militias that killed American soldiers in Iraq.”

Here again is the standard picture. When the U.S. invades Iraq, virtually destroying it and inciting sectarian conflicts that are tearing the country and now the whole region apart, that counts as “stabilization” in official and hence media rhetoric. When Iran supports militias resisting the aggression, that is “destabilization.” And there could hardly be a more heinous crime than killing American soldiers attacking one’s homes.

All of this, and far, far more, makes perfect sense if we show due obedience and uncritically accept approved doctrine: The U.S. owns the world, and it does so by right, for reasons also explained lucidly in the New York Review, in a March 2015 article by Jessica Matthews, former president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “American contributions to international security, global economic growth, freedom, and human well-being have been so self-evidently unique and have been so clearly directed to others’ benefit that Americans have long believed that the U.S. amounts to a different kind of country. Where others push their national interests, the U.S. tries to advance universal principles.”

Defense rests.

Living the High Life After Congress

By Michael Winship, Moyers & Company

09 April 15

s the latest chapter in the curious saga of Congressman Aaron “Fly Me” Schock recently came to an end, there was an unintentionally, darkly comic moment. It happened just after the Downton Abbey fanboy announced his resignation from the House of Representatives.

In an interview, his father, Dr. Richard Schock, told a Chicago TV station, “Ten years from now, whatever he’s doing, he’ll be successful at it. I promise you that. Two years from now, he’ll be successful… if he’s not in jail.”

Now that’s a proud dad for you — assuming my boy’s not in the slammer, he’ll be on top of the world. But Papa Doc may have a point. In fact, what do you want to bet that if Aaron Schock’s not in jail, he’ll soon be back on Capitol Hill, a success once again, pulling in an even heftier paycheck — not as an elected official but as a privileged member of the lobbying class — pressing the flesh, making deals, and facilitating fat campaign contributions for the GOP the same way he did while a congressman, plying the rich with concert tickets, fancy dinners and other assorted perks?

Look at former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor – an even bigger Republican money magician — defeated in a primary in his Virginia home district by an upstart who made the incumbent’s obeisance to the financial industry a central issue of his campaign. Remember The Wall Street Journal’s headline? “Eric Cantor’s Loss a Blow to Wall Street.”

Turns out it was a glancing blow at best. Eric’s back and Wall Street’s got him. As The New York Times’ Mark Leibovich wrote, just weeks after his primary fiasco, Cantor was “the latest example of Washington’s upward-failing, golden-parachuted, everybody-wins calculus.”

Sure enough, September came and with it news that Cantor was joining the boutique global investment bank Moelis & Company. The Times commented when the announcement first appeared in The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Cantor has no previous experience in high finance or investment banking. But the reason for his new job is clear: The Moelis founder Ken Moelis told the Journal that he was hiring Mr. Cantor in part for his ability to open doors — an admission that Mr. Cantor will now be paid to trade on the influence and friendships he developed as a House leader.

As if to prove that last point, just a few weeks ago, Cantor threw a party to open the new Washington office for Moelis, and the hobnobbing fun was intense. There they all were, toasting their boy Eric: House Speaker John Boehner; the new House majority leader, Kevin McCarthy; Majority Whip Steve Scalise; Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry and chair of the House Republican Conference, Cathy McMorris Rodgers – not to mention, according to Politico.com, “a few House Democrats and a handful of GOP senators.”

A fellow former member of the Virginia congressional delegation, Tom Davis, told Politico, “Eric will find very quickly that you don’t have to be a member of Congress to be an influencer. He’s got one of the best Republican Rolodexes in the country…” To that end, Cantor already has held a meet and greet for Chris Christie in Richmond and given advice to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

This is what ex-members of Congress and their staffs do nowadays. Rarely do they follow the example of ancient Rome’s Cincinnatus and go back to the farm – or take that teaching job at the local university or join a hometown law practice. They stay in DC to reap the bountiful harvest that comes from Capitol Hill experience and good old fashioned cronyism.

As a result of November’s midterm elections and retirements, at the beginning of the year nearly 50 members of the House and a dozen senators got the old heave-ho but competition for their services within the Beltway was, as The National Law Journal reported, “hot.”

The legal newspaper observed, “Firms usually want big names from leadership of industry regulation-focused committees, but with collegial, bipartisan reputations.” Washington headhunter Ivan Adler told the paper that bidding starts at a million for a retired senator, $500,000 or more for a former House member. And three years ago, investigative journalist Lee Fang found that when they join the lobbying world, “Lawmakers increased their salary by 1,452 percent on average from the last year they were in office to the latest publicly available disclosure.”

A quick look at a few February and March editions of the congressional newspaper The Hill tells the tale:

February 24 – “Recently retired Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) is headed to K Street. Waxman Strategies, a consulting firm owned by his son Michael, announced the move on Tuesday. The veteran congressman will serve as the chairman of the firm… Waxman served 40 years in Congress, including high-profile roles on the House Energy & Commerce Committee and the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform… He will focus on clients in the healthcare, environment, energy, technology and telecommunications arenas, including helping those involved in congressional investigations.”

February 27 – “Former Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) will be joining the K Street ranks at law and lobby firm Venable, a partner at the firm confirmed to The Hill on Friday. Pryor lost his Senate seat in last year’s elections after a bitter battle with Republican Rep. Tom Cotton. Immediately after, headhunters began sizing him up for potential private-sector positions.”

March 11 – “Former Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Georgia) has popped up on K Street. Law firm Drinker Biddle & Reath announced on Wednesday that he would be joining the government and regulatory affairs practice as a senior advisor… Gingrey, a doctor specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, served on the House Energy and Commerce Committee in addition to the panel’s health subcommittee… At the firm, he will work on issues not just in the healthcare space, but also trade, education, energy and telecommunications.”

March 12 – “The former chairman of the powerful tax panel, ex-Rep. Dave Camp (R-Michigan), is the latest to join K Street. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) announced on Thursday that Camp would become a senior policy advisor within the firm’s Washington national tax services practice. He retired at the end of the last congressional session, after serving 12 terms. Before his departure, however, Camp released draft legislation that would overhaul the nation’s tax system.”

March 16 – “Former Rep. Tom Latham has joined a boutique consulting and lobbying firm, Hecht, Spencer & Associates, adding his name to the shop. Rebranding the firm as Hecht, Latham, Spencer & Associates, Inc., the Iowa Republican who retired at the end of the last congressional session will serve as a partner.”

Latham was chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, among other assignments. Meanwhile, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Georgia Republican and former House member Jack Kingston “has launched his post-Congress career at the powerhouse lobbying firm Squire Patton Boggs… As an 11-term veteran and high-ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Kingston’s experience and contacts made him a sought after prize in Beltway circles.”

You get the picture: In the words of the Times’ Mark Leibovich, each of these fellows is, “in some sense, living proof of the thing that most voters loathe about Washington: the notion that membership in its political class guarantees a win-for-life lottery ticket.” He quoted these statistics from The Atlantic magazine: In 1974, three percent of retiring members became lobbyists; now it’s half of all senators and 42 percent of House members.

Legally, there is an official cooling-off period: departing senators have to wait two years to become a registered lobbyist and do business with their former colleagues; representatives a year. Some have suggested making the bans longer, perhaps as much as six years. Not a bad idea, but the reality is, many of them don’t bother registering at all, getting away with calling themselves consultants or advisers — a lobbyist in all but name.

Certainly the money’s just as good. Take former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, also the former Senate majority leader and non-lobbyist supreme. At The Intercept, Ken Silverstein reports that in 2003, a year before he lost his bid for re-election, Daschle’s net worth was listed as between $400,000 and $1.2 million. Then he began “consulting” and presto: “During the two years prior to his failed nomination to head Health and Human Services he netted $5.2 million, mostly from healthcare, energy, private equity and telecommunications companies.” Last fall, Daschle and his wife – who’s a highly successful and wealthy DC insider herself – sold their seven-bedroom, seven-bathroom DC home for $3.25 million. And they’re building a South Carolina vacation home on land they bought for $1.3 million.

All this without Tom Daschle ever signing up as an official lobbyist (Although he has recently said he will register with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act – he’s working for the government of Taiwan).

Thus, the plutocrats continue buying government by picking up ex-members of Congress like so many players in fantasy baseball, using them to keep smashing up what’s left of both democracy and a middle class nurtured by organized labor and decent wages. “The corporate campaign created a political consensus that churns out business-friendly policies no matter which party is in power,” Ken Silverstein writes. “It also changed the nature of government employment. Fifty years ago, people came to Washington drawn by a sense of public service, however they defined it, and they often stayed in the public sector over much of their careers. Now working in government is a brief way station on the road to better things. Many of those who come to DC with little wealth leave in a position to become rich, and those who come rich are able to become richer.”

And that’s one more reason why this stinks. For not only have the monied interests captured our representatives with their campaign contributions and assorted favors, they have lassoed them in before they even leave office with the promise of massively profitable jobs when the incumbents exit. Forget about the interests of the average voter; elected officials are already thinking about the next gig and how to please the billionaires who will be signing their future paychecks. Let’s face it: a new tax break or government contract always makes a nice thank you gift.

What a breath of fresh air if a legislator’s attitude was more like the one expressed by soon-to-be-departing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Asked if he’d go into the lobbying trade, last week he told The New York Times, “I’d rather go to Singapore and have them beat me with whips.”

A worthy sentiment, but hang on. In 2013, Reid’s net worth was estimated by the Center for Responsive Politics at a little more than $4.5 million. The Washington Post estimates that, “in the last campaign cycle, lobbyists gave his political and leadership committees $1.3 million.” His sons and son-in-law have all worked in the lobbying industry. And The Hill reports, “More than two-dozen prominent K Streeters used to call Reid their boss on Capitol Hill.”

Lest we forget, after cold hard cash and influence-peddling, hypocrisy is Washington’s currency of choice.