Faux News Channel is at it again.

In an effort to out douchebag Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, John Gibson has started laying it on thick. In tonight's lovely episode of "The Big Story", he spends some time ranting about the fab Brit 3 part doc "The Power Of Nightmares, by Andrew Curtis. This documentary compares and contrasts the rise of two simultaneous radical groups, extreme Islamists and the Western neoconservative movements.

First, for those not familiar with the doc...
Power Of Nightmares

A part of the documentary talks about how selling the idea of radical Islamic states failed to ignite the passions of the people of the Middle East in the latter part of the last century, and how in the late 90s Osama bin Laden decided to take the battle to the perceived enemy.

The series says, in part, that the threat of al-Qaeda, as it's portrayed in the media, is a false nightmare, in that it is not a single group, organized in a top down hierarchy, with Osama bin Laden dictating it's every move. The series does talk about the very real threat of international terrorism, and how this Global War On Terror (GWoT) will just further polarize and further create more radicalized opponents to the western world.

One obvious example that isn't really touched on in the series is al-Zarqawi, who is widely reported as the "Head of al-Qaeda in Iraq". Of course, this is not the Islamic extremist mirror of the US Ambassador of Iraq, because Zarqawi doesn't take orders from bin Laden (who's presumably hiding out in a stealth dialysis machine). Until the Iraq Invasion got underway, Zarqawi was often seen as a RIVAL to bin Laden, not an ally.

And why Gibson is a douchebag...
The Big Story

On the 20 July 2005 episode of "The Big Story", Gibson implies that the series, as a whole says that radicalized Islamic terrorists don't exists. The series doesn't make that claim at all, as my quick summary above shows. He reports on Australian TV (SBS) decision to delay the broadcast of the documentary, due to the proximity to the London bombings. Then a "FNC contributor" and supposed expert from The Times of London is trotted out, and promptly agrees with all his ill-conceived points. Of course it's worthy to note that The Times of London is another pustulant organ of Murdoch. Special care is made to bash the BBC as much as possible. Do I really need to mention that the business relationship between Faux and The Times goes unmentioned?

Gibson's rant is deplorable, and riddled with blatant lies. It's clear he's never seen the series, or if so, chose to totally ignore it to make a few digs at his boss's competition.

For those interested in seeing "The Power of Nightmares", there are a number of internet options available to you. Look for it and watch it, then wonder why the fear monger monkeys of Murdoch's empire don't want people watching it.

And a blogger who's pissed off that SBS pulled it without warning...
12th Harmonic

Remember, do NOT deviate from the narrow thought tracks that are being laid out for us

Labels: politics

While the rightie bloggers fall in line with the RNC Talking Points, linked here...
RNC Talking Points
and the so called liberal press from the NY Times to the TV pundits bellyache about the loss of the "freedom of the press", they're totally ignoring a KEY point, and also providing a telling example of why the press isn't exactly "Free" anymore.

Everyone's talking about Judith Miller having to do time (I won't even talk about Robert Novak getting a free pass beyond speculating that maybe he's the one who provided the 8 pages of sealed documents that keep this case alive... once again, idle speculation)

Anyways, this "freedom of the press" thang is overrated, in this case. Time Inc, by handing over Cooper's notes, wasn't violating this time honoured tradition by a long shot.

The purpose of "confidential sources" is to protect the identity of whistleblowers revealing wrongdoings, whether they be gov't abuses or violations being committed by the corporation they work for. This is a noble and ethical endeavour, and has lead to the exposure of all sorts of criminal activiity in the higher echelons of power.

This protecting of sources is NOT extended when the journalist knows that the source is engaging in felonious crimes.

In the Rove/Plame case, the source passing on the information is the alleged criminal act, so this "journalistic freedom" is a red herring.

Rove's passing on of information is not the act of a whistleblower getting information out to expose criminal wrongdoing, but a potentially criminal act of an agent of the government, trying to EXTEND the power of the Executive branch through what is SUPPOSED to be a free and independant press. Miller, Cooper and Novak are being USED by the administration for petty political retribution, either knowingly or not.

To see the great majority of the press rally behind Miller, and chastize Time Inc., is a sad perversion of the idea of a "Free" press.

A long time ago, one of my favourite authors, Harlan Ellison, wrote about the state of journalism. At that time in the late 70's/early 80's, he was worried about the effect of having "Journalism Schools", as all the old school greats never had to attend an institution of higher learning to study journalism. Instead, they came from disparate backgrounds, some from the streets, some from Ivy League schools where they studied history, english, economics, or whatever, and applied their knowledge and life experiences to the task of writing.

He argued that the "new crop" of journalists coming out of journalism schools would be more isolated, and less free, as they become part of the very establishment they are meant to cover.

Over 20 years later, what he wrote seems more and more true. The majority of journalists these days are navel gazing, so wrapped up in the concept of "protecting sources" that they've forgotten what it really means. In the end, they're defending Miller, who is doing nothing more than taking a bullet for the potentially illegal act of leaking a covert spy's name to the press.

If that's the idea of a "Free Press" these days, it's a sad state of affairs indeed.

Labels: politics