Politics and Press

The interaction of the press and politics; public diplomacy, and daily absurdities.

Jeff

Putin’s Russia and Terrorism

By

Anne Applebaum has published an excellent piece on the deterioration of Russian democracy – and more serious issues – in today’s Slate. Beginning with the recent nuclear murder of Alexander Litvinenko, Applebaum looks backward through other murders of critics of Russian President Putin, considers the enormous corruption of state resources taken by old KGB friends of Putin, and remembers the suspicious bombing of Russian apartment buildings which led to Putin claiming to join the so-called war on terrorism, which gave him carte blanche to wage war on Chechnya. And then there is the matter of the first known act of nuclear terrorism that just might have been committed by our Russian friends.

Rather than repeat here Applebaum’s impressive list of what is wrong with Russia in 2006, I refer you to her piece.

George Will: Miss Manners to the Political Stars

By

I have always been puzzled by the notoriety of George Will. His writing is pompous, self-important, obtuse, and almost always off in defense of whichever Republican is in or near the white House. He has a history of dishonest journalism, kissing up to Republican presidents and slapping down anyone suggesting there are wrongs to be righted. He once wrote a speech for President Reagan and then complimented Reagan on the speech in a TV news broadcast – forgetting to mention that he was its author; he writes silly, yuppie sports columns on his adorable Chicago Cubbies, and he is one of the last defenders of the current President. Recently he turned into a Miss Manners, commenting on the egregious sins of Senator-elect Webb who refused to follow the George Will Book of Polite Suck Ups in dealing with President Bush.

I am grateful to one John Hanchette for alerting me to a recent Will column. Hanchette’s aptly-named piece, PRISSY PANTYWAIST GEORGE WILL POUTS OVER WAR HERO’S OFF-THE-CUFF REMARKS, appeared in a weekly, the Niagara Falls Reporter, and is a wonderful and entertaining description of Will’s foibles as a journalist, analyst and writer. Read it and laugh.

It is unfortunately symptomatic of the state of American journalism that a solid criticism of Will appears in a small weekly while the big boys and girls of media go about the business of slapping each other on the back. Will pontificates in sanctimonious terms in Newsweek, the Washington Post and on Sunday morning TV talk shows. He is a triple threat polluter.

Iraq Reality vs. President Bush

By

In an earlier posting to this blog the point was made that as a lameduck president George W. Bush has nothing to lose other than whatever shreds of dignity might cling to him. We now await the Baker-Hamilton report which is widely reported to include recommendations for phased withdrawal of American troops as well as direct negotiations with Iran and Syria. But we are in the Bush universe and President Bush will commit to neither while his pal Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, says he is ready for both and Iraqi President Talabani has just concluded a visit to Iran where he received a commitment of $1billion for reconstruction.

The only point here is that we have a president who simply refuses to recognize reality. Indeed, he is reminiscent of President  Nixon when he went bonkers in the aftermath of Watergate. So the danger is real that as leader of the free world, Bush will stay the course in Iraq, bomb Iran and ignore Syria while Lebanon burns.

Since a strike at North Korea’s nuclear sites would risk the death of hundreds of thousands of South Koreans Bush is unlikely to act there – but he is equally unlikely to open direct one-on-one negotiations without getting some concessions in advance – which is not really negotiating at all.

Some, including most of the press, ignore the fact that leaders have psychologies and that these can drive actions. Stubborn commitment to failed policies, an unwillingness to recognize or address reality, an inability to hear differing points of view, a refusal to admit mistakes – these are all characteristics of a person we would not trust with a business let alone an entire nation.

From Russia, With Love

By

There was much glee in the West in 1989 as the Soviet Union imploded and the Cold War came to its supposed end. There was considerable optimism a few years later regarding the future of democracy in Russia when Boris Yeltsin stood on a tank and successfully resisted a takeover by old-style communist apparatchiks. The conversion appeared complete to President Bush when he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul. His strange friendship – or is it a kinship? – with Putin continues in the face of clear evidence that Russia is heading down a far different road than we had once hoped.

Journalists critical of the Putin regime are attacked and not infrequently murdered (42 journalists have been killed in Russia since 1992), foreign–based NGOs are restricted by obscure licensing requirements, Radio Liberty and Voice of America are being forced out of long-standing re-broadcast agreements with Russian radio stations, and the Russian press has been cowed into a quiet acquiescence;  or risk an unfortunate accidental death by poison or gunshot.

The apparent murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB spy, in London is only the latest in a series of alarming events. The Committee for the Protection of Journalists has reported that 42 journalists have been murdered in Russia since 1992 but this apparent murder has implications of  future nuclear terrorism.

Meanwhile the Bush administration shows no interest in supporting international broadcasting into Russia at a time when its people depend on outside sources for its news. The budget for Radio Liberty, the premier American Russian language broadcaster has been seriously reduced which serves Mr. Putin’s interests. Since the money is a small issue perhaps the kinship between gut-level authoritarian leaders calls the shots.

The Québécois, A Nation, Sort Of

By

While our own MacKenzie Brothers are hanging out in Munich’s Bier Gartens their home country has decided to make one of its provinces more special than all the others. The Quebecois has been named a nation within a more-or-less unified Canada. What next? A seat in the UN for Quebec? A separate Olympics hockey (the ice variety) team? Foie gras fighting it out with sweetbreads for national food of the Quebecois?

Apparently Michael Ignatieff started all of this by suggesting such a move on a French language TV station in Quebec province that he figured no one outside of Quebec would tune in to. Till now, Ignatieff was viewed as the reincarnation of Pierre Trudeau and at least one of the MacKenzie brothers suggested he was smarter than all of the U.S. cabinet put together. The jury is still out on that claim – probably a close call – but this move does not provide much support for it.

“Civil War” or “Faith-Based Melee”?

By

The Bush administration is wrangling with the press over whether to call whatever is happening in Iraq a “Civil War”. While Jon Stewart has come up with “Faith-Based Melee” as a possible reference, President Bush spends more time trying to define it as something it is not than figuring out how to stop the bleeding. Bleeding which he started; by choice, not necessity. When the discussion moves into these kind of surreal details it is clear that the game is up and that we are watching the death twitches of a miserably failed operation. The next step will be to announce that the operation was a success but – alas – the patient died of his own hand. For a short but sweet discussion of the great Iraq War Terminology Debate go to the American Journalism Review website for Rem Reider’s take on it all, which includes this straight-forward advice to America’s journalists:

“At any rate, the Bush administration isn’t the nation’s copy desk chief, at least the last time I checked. America’s newspapers and TV stations and news Web sites should start calling the Iraq war what it is, not what someone wishes it were.”

Run-up to Iran??

By

Seymour Hersh reports in this week’s New Yorker that while VP Cheney (and presumably the President) are seriously considering preemptive bombing of nuclear facilities in Iran, they are sitting on a report from the CIA indicating that there is no evidence that Iran is actually moving toward production of nuclear weapons. Hersh is careful to point out that the CIA report is not definitive in terms of eliminating the possibility, but he maintains that the report is being purposely ignored by the administration.

Hersh then morphs into a discussion of a range of issues around the decision-making apparatus in the Bush White House during a time of lame duck presidency, control-freak vice-presidency, and Geroge H.W. Bush bringing in his troops to salvage junior’s presidency. It is not a pretty sight and is full of real-world ambiguities. Read the Hersh piece for a look into the surreal world of the Bush Presidency.

Also – ask yourself why I can find discussion of the Hersh piece in the press in Germany, Turkey, China, and France – but virtually nothing in the U.S. mainstream press. When Bob Woodward, the Bush Court Stenographer, publishes his notes form conversations with the powerful the press is all over it. When Sy Hersh, perhaps the last of the great investigative journalists in America breaks a story everyone waits to see what the competition says about it before they even describe it, let alone comment on it.

For what it is worth the Bush White House commented that the Hersh story had no merit. Pretty much what they said when he broke the Abu Ghraib story.

“Never Again”? OR, “Only Occasionally”?

By

The linked story from the BBC updates the naïve reports in major Western media to the effect that Sudan had agreed to a joint United Nations/African Union peacekeeping force. The stories that appeared in major U.S. papers including the NY Times and Boston Globe (see earlier post on this blog) reported Kofi Annan’s comments to the effect that an agreement had been reached. Alas, some deals are not real, after all. According to the BBC report, immediately after Annan’s comments, Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol said that “there should be no talk about a mixed force” and that there would be no UN troops in Darfur. Mr. Akol said that the UN would simply provide technical support.”
There are reports today that Sudanese forces are once again on the attack, working with Arab Janjaweed militia in destroying villages. UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland has been forced to leave Darfur by veiled threats from the Sudanese government and is publicly wondering why the world is watching while Darfur burns.

The last fifteen years have seen two major genocides preceding the one in Darfur. The Rwanda genocide was more efficient: 800,000 to 1,071,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus killed in 100 days. Individual nations, including the Western powers did not find it in their interest to intervene and the UN maintained that it had to follow its rigid rules of engagement, which were in reality rules of nonengagment. The leader of the U.N. mission, Canadian General Romeo Dallaire suffered major depression and was hospitalized over the failure to act and wrote movingly of the Rwanda genocide in his book, Shake Hands With the Devil (read an excellent interview with Dalliere here).

The Bosnia Genocide was less efficient but equally ghastly – it took from 1992-95 for the Serbs to kill over 200,000 Bosnian Muslims. A watershed of sorts – perhaps “bloodshed” should be the term – occurred at Srebrenica when the UN’s 400 Dutch peacekeepers watched as over 8000 Bosnian males were systematically murdered over a period of ten days in July 1995. Once again, the UN forces asked for permission from UN headquarters to use force to resist the genocide and permission was denied.

These examples seem likely to predict the future for Darfur – and the lessons from them do not lead to optimism. Based on recent history and the quality of current leadership, the major powers are unlikely to intervene until it is far too late for effective action (what is too late? 200,000 lives? 500,000?, one million?); some countries (esp. China) will assist Sudan in resisting UN force implementation; and if and when UN forces are there they are likely to be ineffective. Hope I am wrong.

International Broadcasting News

By

Al Jazeera International (AJI) begins broadcasting in English from studios in Washington, DC today with a staff that includes former “Nightline” anchor Dave Marash.  It is unlikely that AJI will attract a large listenership in the U.S. for reasons both ideological and practical.  The station will not be carried in the U.S. by cable giant Comcast and, in fact, it is difficult to find out just who will carry it. This is unfortunate since it seems worthwhile for Americans to have an opportunity to assess the network on its own merits and to learn something about the Arab world and its views on events. The U.S. administration, especially the Defense Department has been highly critical of its Arabic broadcasts and for its willingness to broadcast Osama Bin Laden videotapes. But a country that can put up with Rush Limbaugh and the O’Reilly Factor ought to be able to listen to Al Jazeera without losing its collective marbles.

In an unrelated story…President Bush has renominated Ken Tomlinson as Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and for a term on the Board expiring in 10 months.  The Board oversees Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio and TV Marti and several emerging broadcast initiatives in the Middle East. Tomlinson has been criticized for financial irregularities, but most likely these are in part a smokescreen for more substantive issues related to the declining quality of U.S. international broadcasting. More on the general topic of U.S. international broadcasting later.

LA Times Reporters Warn of Dems’ Seeking Action

By

Well, on the 12th of November the dust had settled and it was time to begin warning of the impending disaster of the Democrats believing they had actually won the election. In a piece of journalism designed to bring the great press critic A.J. Liebling back from dead, the LA Times warns: “…Some of the very activists who helped propel the Democrats to a majority in the House and Senate last week are claiming credit for the victories and demanding what they consider their due: a set of ambitious — and politically provocative — actions on gun control, abortion, national security and other issues that party leaders fear could alienate moderate voters and leave Democrats vulnerable to GOP attacks as big spenders or soft on terrorism….”

We just went through a period of Republican rule that has given us an untenable, counterproductive war, tax breaks for the very very wealthy, a prescription drug program that is a gift to big Pharma, a deficit that mortgages the country to China, faith-based initiatives aimed at eliminating the division between church and state, the demise of habeas corpus, illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens, use of torture to get questionable information, a refusal to use diplomacy to attack serious challenges abroad, the loss of allies’ trust and faith in the U.S. – the list goes on.

And what do we have from the LA Times? Omigod, the people who won the election actually believe they won the election! They might actually try to use that fact to change the direction of the country. The Times article warns of attempts to reduce health costs, to force the executive to follow constitutional law and to find a way out of Iraq.

The Democrats won the election and it is their turn. And while they certainly have the capacity to screw it up it is very difficult to imagine a more incompetent, venal Congress that the one that is currently embarking on a lame duck flurry of unpleasant and unwanted actions.

We can expect more of this kind of thinking (sic) in the press; the view that the Democrats must be careful and not fulfill the promise of their victory. We need a more competent press and it is papers like the LA Times that need to serve that role.