When the BBC's director general and editor-in-chief Greg Dyke says "Personally, I was shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war," he is far too kind.

How Strictly Does the White House Control TV "News?"

Examine this shocking report from Walter Storch of trbnews. A self-identified "mid-level executive with a major American television network" contacted trbnews with proof the "corporate headquarters in New York City [directed] the head of the network’s television news department" to suppress or play up news stories. This to aggrandize Bush and support right wing positions on the war, oil, corporate crimes, unemployment, and other issues.

According to Storch, "This individual claimed he was developing serious doubts about the strict control of media events and decided that he would pass this material along to someone who might make use of it. There was the question of his job security. If someone published his name, it would be certain he was not only fired but blackballed throughout his profession."

Examples of pro-right wing edicts predicted by this anonymous source which found their way onto the television "news" include:

(Jan 21, 2002) ...in any article on Enron collapse, it is not considered advisable to discuss role of K. Lay. Charges against lesser Enron executives to be stressed. Lay’s extensive gifts to President to be limited to "small campaign contributions" and shift emphasis to large gifts to Ashcroft for his presidential campaign. Mention A’s recusal from Enron investigations....

(Feb 10) ...It is not permitted at this point to use or refer to any film clips, stills or articles emanating from any French source whatsoever.

(Feb 26) It is expected that coverage of the forthcoming Iraqi campaign will be identical with the coverage used during Desert Storm. Shots of GIs must show a mixed racial combination...any interviews must reflect the youthful and idealistic, not the cynical point of view....

(March 2) further references to the religious views of the President are to be deleted....

(March 15) photo opportunities of the President and members of his cabinet, especially Secretary Rumsfeld, with enthusiastic GIs....

(March 10) ...pro-Government rallies are to be given the fullest coverage...if anti-Government demonstrations are shown, it is desired to stress either a very small number of "eccentrics" or shots of social misfits; i.e., with beards, tattoos, physical deformities, etc. Pro-Government supporters should be seen as clean cut with as many well-groomed subjects as possible....

(March 30) Friction between Secretary Rumsfeld and senior military field commanders in Iraq are to be strictly minimalized and used only when impossible to avoid....

(April 4) ...sharply rising unemployment numbers, this should be countered with official interviews stressing that the unemployment situation is now stabilizing and expected to fall soon.

(April 5) ...comments appearing in the left-wing British Guardian about the occupation and administration of a conquered Iraq by American military personnel are to be ignored. Pacification, liberation, freedom and gratitude towards US forces, and the President are to be stressed.

(March 29) The President’s goal, to achieve oil autarchy by the United States, is suggested as a future series. Congressional denial of drilling in various environmentally "sensitive" areas may be derided as foolish misunderstanding of America’s vital oil needs. The interdiction of oil shipments to the United States from Venezuela and Nigeria are not to be commented upon. The attitude of Chavez towards the United States is also considered a non-topic. He was removed from power once and it can happen a second time. File footage of large crowds of distressed and unhappy Venezuelans should be prepared against the time he is removed from power again....

(April 4) If possible, pictures of the President with a book or, better, actually reading, are suggested. Commentary about his extensive reading habits...stress important historical and economic works....

(April 7) Please arrange for photo ops of President visiting wounded GIs.... Use photogenic subjects w/good racial mix. Also try for pix of First Lady handing wounded subject a gift....

(April 7) ...no shots of GIs looting in Baghdad. Iraqi looters should be described as "joyful" at being liberated by US. Looting to be described as a "deprived people getting food for families"....

(April 4) Alliance casualties to be played down. The massive Iraqi civilian casualties also played down. Use the phrase, "most civilian casualties caused by vindictive Saddam supporters." Again, no pixs of dead women and children.

(April 6) Artillery targeting of several mosques to be deleted.....

(April 8) ...develop possible linkage between Iraqi mobs and US need to police the country for a "brief time" to prevent any attempt to stifle emerging democracy. Do not mention probability of continued large US military presence. Stress the words "restoring law and order" and "helping to make the transition to true democracy."

(April 9) ...in coverage of rebuilding of Iraq’s infrastructure, mention that American firms have expressed willingness to "assist Iraq people to build a new, democratic nation." No mention, by name, of Halliburton or Bechtel.

There are dozens of similar examples of strict control, verified by trbnews. As Storch explained: "It was both shocking and gratifying to note that this proved to be the case in a preponderance of cases and so we began to put these up, either in toto or, more often, in excerpt and watch as ordained news was created before our eyes."

So what happened when "tbrnews put up the first two pages?" Storch noted, "there were two basic forms of public response. One was to thank us for exposing something many people believed; that the American media was controlled and not free."

We knew that already, as Storch explains: "That much can easily be ascertained by reading the websites of various reputable foreign publications such as the Swiss NZZ, the British Guardian, the Canadian Toronto Globe and Mail, Reuters News Service and the Jerusalem Post. What any viewer can see on these sites is certainly not reflected in the American media."

Storch concludes, "The establishment does not worry about the lone man with a website that, as in our case, reaches perhaps 100,000 people at a time when they have control over NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN that can, and do, reach millions a day."

Verifying the thesis of this media bias series, Storch reports, "It is fairly obvious that the average Americans get their news either from TV, mostly, or from the print media. If someone in East Peoria, Illinois sees something on CNN, the Voice of the White House, they have no reason to question it. And don't." See Controlling the News, Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4, In-House Memos on Television News Presentations, trbnews: http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a308.htm

Coverage of Bush's Iraq War

The media coverage of Bush's Iraq war reminds any objective observer of a pompom squad cheering for their team. The mass media claim - and therefore many Americans think - this war was not about oil or revenge or geopolitical power games. At various times, Bush and his hired liars told us, and the media parroted to us:

This was about protecting us from Al Queda, although there remain no 9/11 links to Iraq. This was about weapons of mass destruction, although none were found. This was about freedom and democracy in Iraq, although Bush hates both here.

These and various other excuses to attack a weak and helpless nation came and went without the slightest critical mass media examination. The most clever of all the rationales seems to be: This was about removing a brutal dictator who killed and tortured people. If so, then why this dictator and why this destructive, violent way? And why now?

There are many such dictators. Why depose this one by invasion when sanctions had already crushed Saddam's military capacity? Why when the inspections were working to mop up the rest of Iraq's degraded weaponry? Why after Reagan, Bush I, and Rumsfeld sent American weapons and $billions of tax dollars to Iraq? Why after Cheney did business with this "brutal dictator" as recently as 1999?

Why war? Why after the top Republicans supported this "brutal dictator?" Why no mention in the mass media that the Republicans are at best only cleaning up messes they made in Iraq and elsewhere? We should demand Bush's pompom squad answer those questions before letting them cheer to us, but cheer they do.

Bush is "The Man Who Wasn't There"
The "Liberal Media" Just Don't Care

Bush went AWOL. He was declared "unobserved" by his superiors in the Texas Air National Guard for several months. Although a few papers reported on this, most of the media - including every television network - helped Bush cover up this disgrace. See: http://www.awolbush.com/.

After relentlessly attacking President Clinton for "draft dodging," the mass media still refuse to discuss Bush's missing months. A UAW Legislative Conference featured a panel discussion on "taking back the media," at which "[D]elegate Charlie Cox from UAW Local 2162, who is a Vietnam veteran, set the tone by asking why George W. Bush got a free ride from the media regarding reports that he was AWOL during most of the time he served in the National Guard during the Vietnam war."

"Let me give you some statistics," responded panelist Paul Begala, "I worked for Bill Clinton in 1992 and ... in anticipation of this very question, I looked this up on Nexis. There were 13,641 stories about Bill Clinton 'dodging the draft' ... and there were 49 stories about Bush and the National Guard," Begala said." See UAW CAP Conference Delegates Engage in Lively Discussion with Media Panel: http://www.uaw.org/cap/01/news/day3media.html

The media harped on President Clinton's Vietnam Era activities over AWOL Bush's writing more than 270 stories against Clinton for every 1 about Bush. Keep in mind every one of those 13,641 stories linking Clinton to "draft dodging" was an attack.

Many of the Bush / National Guard stories praised his pretense at service, and ignored Bush's missing months, failed drug test, etc. The mass media credit and amplify every attack against Clinton and other Democrats. Whenever anyone questions Bush or the right wingers, the media attack the questioner.

A Tale of Two Sittings: "Bias" Doesn't Begin
to Describe the Media Double Standards

There are various versions of the Clinton Haircut story, but most parallel this one: "In 1993, if you recall, two runways in Los Angeles were shut down and some commercial flights reportedly delayed while a Beverly Hills stylist gave Bill Clinton a $200 haircut on board Air Force One." See: Presidential Priority? by Phil Williams, Weekly Wire, Nashville Scene, October 19, 1998: http://weeklywire.com/ww/10-19-98/nash_cl-lede.html

Like every right wing version of the debunked story, "Investigative reporter Phil Williams" has innocent people sitting around waiting while President Clinton enjoys a high-priced haircut. Like the rest, Williams blames Bill Clinton for a "reported" delay which - if it even happened - was caused by someone else's decision.

However this version is perhaps the most disgusting as Williams tacks the "Haircutgate" to a sensational and groundless accusation that Bill Clinton endangered lives. This without any reason to claim the President requested or even knew about another person’s decisions which may have violated protocol.

As with the supposed LAX delay-causing haircut, President Clinton never asked for special treatment, nor did he benefit personally. As usual, the right wing-dominated media twists the facts to place a Democrat in the harshest light possible.

Contrast this petty media frenzy about "Haircutgate" against non-stop media cheerleading for AWOL Bush and other right wingers. The mass media relentlessly reran the political commercial of a lifetime, but refused to critically examine Bush’s recent publicity stunt - flying by jet to deliver a speech from the deck of a ship at sea, delaying war-weary personnel.

The Washington Post conceded: "Pentagon officials said Wednesday the USS Abraham Lincoln tarried all night off the coast of San Diego last week while President Bush slept aboard instead of heading straight to port after a record 10 months at sea." The Post quoted "A Pentagon official [who] said the aircraft carrier made 'lazy circles' 30 miles out to sea and took 15 hours to cross a distance that could have been covered in one hour."

However the Post made its agenda clear with this passage: "Bush was asked about Democratic contentions that he had engaged in 'flamboyant showmanship,' He responded cheerfully that it had been 'a really good landing.'" Bush is cheerful. How about his critics?

The supposedly arch-liberal Washington post dismissed Bush's critics using terms including "Democrats alleged," "Democrats tried to exploit" and "Democrats complained." The Post admitted the media is gushing over Bush: "the commander in chief's landing aboard in an S-3B Viking jet produced huge headlines labeling him 'Top Gun' [in a] photo opportunity of a lifetime."

The Post cleverly mocked Democrats' objections to Bush's shameless hypocrisy. The media should be questioning Bush, not belittling any who dare to question him. The media - especially the Washington Post - should be ashamed of cheerleading for the "White House that has been reveling in the rout of Saddam Hussein." Especially after subserviently participating in Bush's rush to war.

Note this contrast: The Post quoted "One Democrat [who] moaned yesterday as he watched cable news programs replay hours of footage of Bush on the carrier, with audio about Democratic complaints." Meanwhile, "A Republican leadership aide on Capitol Hill said the questions being raised by Democrats were 'uncomfortable,' but noted that the discussion 'at least means they're not talking about Medicare or the economy.'"

See: Ship Carrying Bush Delayed Return, Carrier That Spent Night off San Diego Could Have Gone Straight to Home Port, by Mike Allen
The Washington Post, May 8, 2003; Page A29: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27574-2003May7.html.

Unlike President Clinton in the "Haircutgate" story - which hit the airwaves for the sole purpose of bashing a Democrat - Bush and his self-serving decisions actually delayed the aircraft carrier’s return up to 21 hours or longer.

Bush forced the USS Abraham Lincoln to circle aimlessly as veterans of action in Iraq and Afghanistan were sitting around waiting for Bush to use them for partisan political purposes.

Every cable and broadcast television network ran "hours of footage of Bush on the carrier." The media docilely accepted Bush spokesperson Ari Fleischer’s various tortured explanations for why it was somehow necessary for Bush to fly in a jet and give a speech from an aircraft carrier at sea.

The media parrots the Bush line: "This was a gracious gesture to thank the troops!" Never mind this ship was set to dock in mere hours. It was already so close to San Diego, Bush's campaign advisors had him order the ship positioned to avoid showing the nearby coast. The carrier would have made port ahead of schedule if Bush's PR team hadn’t decided to use it as a set for his campaign commercial.

"How dare anyone question this wantonly political gesture by someone who went AWOL, lost the election even after cheating and enjoying the most favorable media ever imagined, and then stole the election in a crooked law suit!"

Maybe I’m too harsh, but time will tell. If Bush’s campaign planners and their media cheerleaders sincerely insist this was not a political stunt, we will not see any mention of this in Bush’s election campaign. The campaign which – as Dick Cheney announced will include him once more – has already begun.

However, if we see this footage at any time during the 2004 campaign, we will know beyond any doubt Bush abused his position and exploited our military for a cheap political stunt. I don’t think even Bill Bennett would lay odds against that.

Either way, the media hounding Clinton for a haircut while cheering Bush for delaying these troops' return to their loved ones crystallizes and exposes the gross right wing bias. This reveals an underlying shared campaign strategy: the right wing media and the Republicans want to discuss anything but the important issues facing Americans.

Because of over concentration of ownership, advertising power and the strategic use of money and "think tanks" Republicans and the media work together to deceive and confuse the American people.

After the sensationalization of Clinton's haircut, the media shamelessly defended Bush's use of troops as extras. Even worse, they blasted anyone who questioned this multi-million dollar tax-paid photo op as somehow petty.

The media castigated Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WVa) for daring to question Bush's stunt. Sen. Byrd called it an "affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq." Byrd decried Bush's abuse of an aircraft carrier as "an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan." The venerable Senator added, "I believe that our military forces deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and not used as stage props to embellish a presidential speech."

Why don't Bush and his crack campaign team agree to respect the military? Why won't the media ask about this or Bush's efforts to slash funds for our veterans? They're too busy attacking Democrats.

Tuesday May 6, Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe tried to discuss AWOL Bush's bogus bravado on WABC Radio's Curtis and Kuby show, only to face screaming abuse from Curtis (Sliwa) with little support from (Ron) Kuby:

McAuliffe: He's got to stop doing photo ops. All he does is photo ops. You know what happened in April? There were 400,000 people who watched George Bush land live on that aircraft carrier. They wished they'd seen it on the evening news. But you know what? They lost their jobs in the month of April.

Sliwa: Wait a second. No, no. Let's go back to that issue. Are you suggesting that the president should not have been on that aircraft carrier, should not have been meeting the naval personnel that fought so valiantly and should not have been addressing the nation and the world from that aircraft carrier?

McAuliffe: I though it was a blatant photo op. He can meet the troops anytime he wants. But to get off that plane and run around in his jump suit - I, politically, thought it was not smart for him because it opens up all those issues again of how he never fought in a war...

Sliwa: Where are the complaints coming from...?

McAuliffe: ... how he was in the National Guard in Alabama and was MIA for a year...

Sliwa: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a second, wait a second. He did National Guard service. Where was your guy, Bill Clinton - a draft dodger who went and protested against America in Moscow?

Kuby: John Kerry, I think, was a Navy combat veteran...

Sliwa: We're talking about Bill Clinton.Terry McAuliffe and Bill Clinton are gombarahcheeches [sic]. How do you answer that?

Kuby: Clinton isn't running.

McAuliffe: First of all, George Bush ran against Al Gore, who did, gentlemen, serve in Vietnam, was over in Vietnam. You know, at some point you've got to move on from Bill Clinton. In 2004, we will not have Bill Clinton on the ballot. We won't have Al Gore. We'll have someone new on the ballot. George Bush will be on the ballot. He opened it up, walking around with his flight suit. He was MIA in Alabama. His father [got him] out of trouble.

Sliwa: You are so vile. You are so vile.

Kuby: Boys, boys. We have to move on.

This mass media double standard - hammering Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the Democrats while coddling Bush and Republicans - continues unabated. Right wing media bias helped Bush keep election 2000 close enough to steal, and helped Bush cover up his crimes and failures before, during and after this theft.

Burying the AWOL story is just one example, but it reveals the stark right wing bias Bush and other Republicans enjoy. As the Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn reported: "the LexisNexis database for the last seven months of the 2000 campaign found 114 stories referencing Bush, the Texas Air National Guard and Alabama."

Zorn contrasts the media coddling Bush versus constant, vicious, dishonest attacks against Al Gore: "Over that same span, nearly 10 times that many stories-1,076 to be exact-referenced Al Gore and the expression "invented the internet," an allusion to the bogus charge then haunting Gore that he had wildly inflated his role in the online revolution."

Zorn verifies, "During the presidential campaign of 2000, it started going around that Texas Gov. George W. Bush, then the leading Republican candidate, had significant gaps in his military record. Specifically, that Bush failed to report for duty for an entire year toward the end of his hitch with the Texas Air National Guard." Not only did the media disdain reporting these details, they remained silently respectful of "Bush in flyboy attire" as Zorn put it.

Zorn notes, "The only voices I encountered raising this issue were David Corn in the Nation; Newsday columnist Jimmy Breslin, who asked, 'Tell me if you ever heard of anybody with as powerful a resistance to shame as Bush'; and talk station WLS-AM's token progressives Nancy Skinner and Ski Anderson, who spent a full hour Sunday afternoon savoring the irony of it all."

After pulling strings and using family ties to skip ahead of the line to get into a safe National Guard slot, he broke his oath to serve his country. Still the media - so recently so obsessive about Clinton and Gore appear utterly uncurious.

"There was no relentless examination of the damning timeline on cable news outlets, no interviewing the commanders who swear Bush didn't show up where he was supposed to, no sit-downs with the veterans who have offered still-unclaimed cash rewards to anyone who can prove that Bush did anything at all in the Guard during his last months before discharge," Zorn observes before concluding:

"So much for the cynical distortion that has become conventional wisdom in many circles. So much for the myth of the 'liberal media.'" See: Media AWOL in noting irony of Bush's flight, Chicago Tribune, by Eric Zorn May 6, 2003: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcase/chi-0305060077may06.column

Mindless Support for Bush vs. Mean-Spirited
Media Attacks Against Democrats

The biased note by ABC's "The Note" claimed "In any event, it's pretty clear that a Democratic party, which still is trying to figure out what it does well with its current array of personnel, is exercising the same muscles that allowed it to score point after point in driving Trent Lott from the leadership."

By reducing Democratic defense of equal and civil rights against Republican hate and bigotry to a game, the Note's writers expose their own right wing bias. This bias pervades the "Simonized" media.

Encouraged by the right wing media, and specifically citing "The Note," a right wing emailer crowed to our editors: "The Democratic Party doesn't have a prayer unless things go to hell in this country and people turn to them, simply because there's nowhere else to go. They do not have one person or one idea that will make people turn to them for positive reasons."

I could not disagree more. Democrats won nationwide in 1992, 1996, and 2000 because most Americans know Democrats are better on the issues. A stolen election and ruthless Republican exploitation of 9/11 aside, Democrats will win again in 2004. Why? Look at what the two parties have to offer.

What can the Republicans offer?

The Republican Party always makes things go to hell in this world. They can't run the economy as shown by the Great Depression, all but one of the 10 recessions since then thanks to failed Republican trickle-down economics.

Just since AWOL Bush led the illegal coup against America and put his policies in place our economy lost millions of jobs. The stock market lost 2000 points in the past year. Bush squandered $trillions of surplus with failed policies and giveaways to his rich friends and campaign contributors.

Republicans can't keep us safe. They ran down the military and kept us isolationist leading up to W.W.I and W.W.II. They lost Vietnam, bungled and lied us into two Persian Gulf Wars, and - at best - let 9/11 happen.

Huge payoffs to the idle rich and nothing but tax hikes and unemployment for the rest, attacks on freedom and the Constitution, international weakness and humiliation for all. That's all Republicans have to offer.

The best Republicans do is waste $billions and lives cleaning up their own messes. Case in point: Bush I and other top GOPs actually encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait - I think through arrogance, ignorance and bungling.

They told Saddam the US had no position on intra-Arab conflicts. Bush I sent Bob Dole to Iraq on a goodwill tour, and Cheney and Powell both laughed off intelligence reports warning Saddam was about to invade Kuwait. What a brain trust!

Many of these reckless Republicans who coddled Saddam are (mis)leading us into one more potential catastrophe after another. Look at the chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq. Consider Bush Republicans are spoiling for a fight with North Korea, Syria and Iran - with so much unfinished "nation building" left to do already!

What do Democrats offer?

Great liberal ideas and moderate, sane policies. Today and throughout history every good American idea is a liberal idea. This has not changed since liberals demanded and won independence from Britain. Liberals then founded the US. The Constitution and Bill of Rights came from liberals. Today, most liberals and moderates are Democrats.

Liberals fought right wingers every step of the way as we built the United States. Liberals in the 1860's Republican Party even had to win the Civil War to defend the Union against right wingers.

Now the Party of Lincoln - which once stood for proud progress - is a disgrace with nothing but failure, failure, failure, failure, failure, failure, failure, failure, failure, and more failure to offer. That's because today, most right wingers are in the GOP.

So why don't we read or hear much about Republican foreign policy failures and economic catastrophes? Because William Simon made his vision reality. The media is under the thumb of the corporate right hand.

We cannot rely on the mass media for anything other than right wing cheerleading. On matters as grave as war and peace, life and death, jobs and health they repeat the right wing press releases and turn to right wing "think tanks" for perspective.

Fair and Balanced Reporting is Extinct

As Ted Turner explained, a few corporations - run by right wingers - dominate everything we see and hear. The mass media won't do their job, so we - including you - must do it for them. What can we do?

MikeHersh.com and our partners are raising funds to buy ads exposing Bush's failures and crimes. Support our efforts. Click on our contribution button and donate generously. Buy important books through our links. Visit our friends at BushOccupation and buy protest items. Voice your dissent to Congress and the mass media using the links below.

Here are books and a DVD which explain just how biased and useless the mass media are. It's as if we have no media at all.

What Liberal Media? Eric Alterman

Hardcover: 322 pages; Publisher: Basic Books; (February 4, 2003)Amazon review: The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads. Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true.

Fools for Scandal: Gene Lyons

Paperback: 224 pages; Publisher: Franklin Square Pr; (September 1996) Amazon review: Originating in an article in Harper's, this is the anti-Whitewater book. There is no Clinton scandal in that unfortunate little real estate deal, according to Gene Lyons, a columnist with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. The scandal Lyons sees is in the media hype that elevated the Whitewater story to a level that threatens the Clinton Presidency. Indeed, in a defense that turns into a controversial direct attack on the integrity of the reporters for The New York Times and The Washington Post, Lyons alleges that the whole affair "rests on facts that are somewhere between highly dubious and demonstrably false." In scathing polemical detail, Lyons questions the competence and judgment of the journalists involved, concluding that the Clintons are victims of a deliberate smear campaign.

DVD Released 2002. Amazon review: Peter Wintonick and Mark Achbar made this penetrating documentary about the career and views of linguist and media critic Noam Chomsky. While the man is the subject of the movie, the filmmakers wisely and carefully choose not to make Chomsky more important than his insights into the way print and electronic journalism tacitly and often willingly further the agendas of the powerful. Format: Full-screen, Color, Rated: NR, Features: Noam Chomsky's reflections on the film and its impact, Extended excerpts from the 1969 Firing Line debate with pundit William F. Buckley, 1971 discussion with philosopher Michel Foucault, bios and production notes. Encoding: Region 1 U.S. and Canada.