Television Spares Viewers Insight
Dave Pinero
Our government recently persuaded several major television networks
to not broadcast speeches and statements given by Osama bin Laden.
Critics called this censorship and I agree.
I believe it's tactical censorship but censorship that acclimates us
nonetheless. Even the individual network anchors had worried and
defensive looks on their faces during their various 'highly
reasonable' explanations for caving into this kind of pressure. That
the networks were asked to cooperate with this to potentially prevent
the wider distribution of "secret codes" is an outright lie disguised
as spin - and they know it.
Osama's speech the other day openly and directly ordered the
immediate death of every single American. He whipped up a call for an
outright Jihad against the United States and did so unapologetically.
Are we to assume that somewhere at intelligence headquarters a group
of men and women are standing around a television set with clipboards
straining to decipher the secret message? You know, maybe when he
declares that all Americans should be killed it's really code for
'kill all Americans'. Puh-lease.
The government didn't "suggest" our profit-conscious media dominants
not air Osama Shows because they're worried about secret messages. Oh
don't get me wrong, I'm sure that's a concern - even one big enough to
lead the spin with as it did. The reality is that it had more to do
with the fact that Osama, to any good military and intelligence
officer's take, is charismatic, compelling, and eerily rationale, even
though he truly represents an evil, embittered, logic. It only takes
one excellent military or intelligence strategist to understand that
his speeches should never, ever, be broadcast again in the interest of
psychological control. Obviously someone somewhere was that good.
Yes, I think we all know military leaders want lots of things.
Better weapons, a bigger budget, faster jets, the freedom to arrest
dissent on sight, the stamp of approval to torture during
interrogations, the ability to bribe foreign officials, and whatever
else might make the job, somehow, easier. Some things we as Americans
allow, and some we don't. For example, genocide ain't cool no matter
how helpful it might be in meeting the military objective. Dealing
with seedy underworld informants, an occasional assassination or two
... well maybe. Whatever our democracy allows its fighters to do in
its name isn't without conflict and debate and the military doesn't
always win because we don't necessarily want everything at all costs.
However, it takes a hallow introspectless conglomeration of soulless
media houses to say "Sure! - You got it man!" at the first
presidential conference call. As one article I read about this put it,
this is unprecedented. Spokesfolks for the networks reminded everyone
they weren't coerced, which is probably to say that no one is ever
REALLY coerced if they "get" the secret code to "play ball or else" as
rendered by a personal "suggestion" by the president in the first
place.
American media took a dive to assist in debatable strategic
convenience. It agreed to perceptual irrigation and in the process
legitimized that only news in the framework of absolute patriotism is
all the news there is, or matters. One supposes that the values we've
been instilled with all our American lives cannot be left up to
objective witness, even when, in fact, that does reinforce the battle
cry.
I offer up my own story as an example of that. In some other
critique of the media I offered years ago I mocked our nation's
obsession with Osama. Back then, and until recently, he was an
eccentric desert cowboy, to me, who had for mysterious reasons earned
the American cross hairs. I'm cynical so I reasoned it was some dirty
underworld international political deal gone bad. Some American
general only made 100 million bucks instead of 200 million, and Osama
was somehow responsible. A few calls here and there and before you
know it he's CNN's poster boy for evil.
Fast forward to September 11, 2001. 6,000 people killed and killed
in slow motion right before our eyes. That's mind boggling, shocking,
and cause for terminal, national, anguish. But really, c'mon, one guy
doing all that? Who could be so capable and so driven to do something
so precisely inhumane and malicious? Yeah, yeah, yeah Osama bin
Blowhard. I'm in shock and pain as much as anyone, but I'm not buying
the party line that Osama Poster Boy For Evil is that logistically or
emotionally capable. I only hope they execute a search for the 'real
killers' and just let me know when they start dropping bombs so I can
be sure to tune in. (yawn)
Then I happened to the see the Osama bin Laden Hell speech. And I
will tell you that the moment I finished watching it, a speech
presented in its entirety, in its unfettered, unedited, absolute total
breadth, that THAT careless naiveness ended then and there. No speech
by any headline figure as I had ever witnessed before was so chilling
and so downright horrifying as THAT one. If you chalk this guy up to
anything but sheer determination and hatred, cynical motivations or
otherwise, you didn't see that speech. Maybe you were watching the
football game on FOX, or the race on CBS. In time maybe you read a
'transcript' (the networks tell us they'll have no problems in
presenting us with those). You saw a 'summary' (the networks tell us
they'll provide them in lieu of the real deal from now on). You saw a
headline quote or two (ah yes, you can always get it in print, reminds
CNN), or perhaps you replayed a jerky slice of it on streaming video
(I see Steve Case nodding in the back there).
Whatever you heard or saw, you DIDN'T see THAT speech and THAT
speech for any ambivalent nay-saying pocket-stuffing cynic, makes all
the difference. Oh - and if you already were a flag-waving
garden-style fund raising patriotic supporter?, well, unless you saw
that speech, you don't understand enough. Osama bin Laden's image,
and his eyes, in concert with the delivery of his maniacal words
leaves no room for doubt about what our military must do, and must do
quickly and with thoroughness.
Justify otherwise all they want, there isn't an ethical television
network anywhere that didn't, and doesn't, have a patriotic duty to
allow everyone to know the same thing through the honest and direct
presentation of events whenever possible; not simply be told that.
Dave
http://www.davidpinero.com
One article on this can be found at:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nyt/20011011/ts/at_u_s_request_networks_agree_to_edit_future_bin_laden_tapes_1.html
TomS
"Dave Pinero" <pub...@davidpinero.com> wrote in message
news:0ddjst812apfa2gml...@4ax.com...
You apparently have a lot to say but end up saying little or nothing.
In case you hadn't checked or noticed we are at WAR and during wartime some
things have to change. I say let the media err on the side of the presidents
request. Just because you don't see the value of self censorship during this
period of time obviously you have never been a student of past conflicts
where outright censorship of the media was imposed.
If it meant the possible saving of one American life at this time I say
censor the hell out of the media. They have been self censoring themselves
for years but just didn't make the American or world audience know that's
what they were doing. Now they can do it for a good cause, and save all the
analysis and crap your are putting forth here for a later date. After all
given time the truth always seems to out.
Dave Pinero
>You apparently have a lot to say but end up saying little or nothing.
>
>In case you hadn't checked or noticed we are at WAR and during wartime some
>things have to change. I say let the media err on the side of the presidents
>request. Just because you don't see the value of self censorship during this
>period of time obviously you have never been a student of past conflicts
>where outright censorship of the media was imposed.
I believe this self-censorship as you put it is regarded in perfectly
academic and experienced circles as unprecedented. That should make
it worthy of discussion in your book right now. But, in any event, if
you're waiting for only those who have all the experience and
education in the world to take over and snuff out all published
freelance commentary, you'll probably have a long wait ahead of you.
Most of the people making the decisions and to whom this 'war' must be
sold to for it to be successful do not share whatever depth of
understanding that perhaps you have, and are suggesting they must. My
personal feeling is that this is a well-motivated military arrest and
retaliation operation that may very well turn into a real war before
long. These days nothing makes me feel better at night than the
knowledge that we're bringing those who value death like we value life
a little closer to Allah. There will be 6,000 souls standing between
them and Allah's front door, all asking questions and demanding
answers.
>If it meant the possible saving of one American life at this time I say
>censor the hell out of the media. They have been self censoring themselves
>for years but just didn't make the American or world audience know that's
You're right and I do and have acknowledged that elsewhere. But don't
you think that shifting self-censorship to arbitrary policy rather
than keeping it a shameful underside of media crosses a line, even a
little? It's a milestone to not let pass lightly. When the big boys
of media jointly give in to a White House call, they make life harder
for more principled lower-budget freelance journalists who were never
asked. The big boys conversely define the values for everyone in the
field. How many self-initiated journalists will now be arrested for
videotaping a bombing behind enemy lines because some suit at CNN
decided that holding back, for them, was the right thing to do? At
some level this authorizes the persecution of non-accredited media and
reinforces the consolidation of media monopolies.
I'll concede that there is probably SOME code in every transmission
released to the world at large. But I doubt that it's "make it or
break it code" which is the idea that supports this policy. These
fanatics aren't going to leave it up to one chance transmission into
the states to trigger their plans. I think on balance that the
ability to witness first hand what we're up against makes us safer and
actually saves lives more than otherwise. Read the article and you
will see that the executives who agreed to it also agree that security
was 'secondary'. They didn't buy it, and figured we wouldn't either.
To them, it's all about curbing propaganda.
>what they were doing. Now they can do it for a good cause, and save all the
>analysis and crap your are putting forth here for a later date. After all
>given time the truth always seems to out.
Oh yes, the ongoing tramping upon of our reputed ideals is a fact of
life. Now we can finally do it for a good cause. It sounds like
you're probably intelligent enough to wince at that one in hindsight
so I'll leave it alone.
I guess I can appreciate what you're saying but in the end, Mr. John
Wayne, I'm not buying it. This issue is more complex than simple
rah-rah flag waving, and is a separate issue. If you want to be what
America is all about, maybe you could be a little less personally
intimidating in your rebuttals so that others might express their
viewpoints more readily and even post more diverse opinions from yours
to usenet. You can't sit around expecting that laws and Constitutions
are going to protect free speech, you have to take the position that
you value it and that you're going to encourage and invite it every
chance you get.
Dave
Dave Pinero
>You apparently have a lot to say but end up saying little or nothing.
>
>In case you hadn't checked or noticed we are at WAR and during wartime some
>things have to change. I say let the media err on the side of the presidents
>request. Just because you don't see the value of self censorship during this
>period of time obviously you have never been a student of past conflicts
>where outright censorship of the media was imposed.
I believe this self-censorship as you put it is regarded in perfectly
academic and experienced circles as unprecedented. That should make
it worthy of discussion in your book right now. But, in any event, if
you're waiting for only those who have all the experience and
education in the world to take over and snuff out all published
freelance commentary, you'll probably have a long wait ahead of you.
Most of the people making the decisions and to whom this 'war' must be
sold to for it to be successful do not share whatever depth of
understanding that perhaps you have, and are suggesting they must. My
personal feeling is that this is a well-motivated military arrest and
retaliation operation that may very well turn into a real war before
long. These days nothing makes me feel better at night than the
knowledge that we're bringing those who value death like we value life
a little closer to Allah. There will be 6,000 souls standing between
them and Allah's front door, all asking questions and demanding
answers.
>If it meant the possible saving of one American life at this time I say
>censor the hell out of the media. They have been self censoring themselves
>for years but just didn't make the American or world audience know that's
You're right and I do and have acknowledged that elsewhere. But don't
you think that shifting self-censorship to arbitrary policy rather
than keeping it a shameful underside of media crosses a line, even a
little? It's a milestone to not let pass lightly. When the big boys
of media jointly give in to a White House call, they make life harder
for more principled lower-budget freelance journalists who were never
asked. The big boys conversely define the values for everyone in the
field. How many self-initiated journalists will now be arrested for
videotaping a bombing behind enemy lines because some suit at CNN
decided that holding back, for them, was the right thing to do? At
some level this authorizes the persecution of non-accredited media and
reinforces the consolidation of media monopolies.
I'll concede that there is probably SOME code in every transmission
released to the world at large. But I doubt that it's "make it or
break it code" which is the idea that supports this policy. These
fanatics aren't going to leave it up to one chance transmission into
the states to trigger their plans. I think on balance that the
ability to witness first hand what we're up against makes us safer and
actually saves lives more than otherwise. Read the article and you
will see that the executives who agreed to it also agree that security
was 'secondary'. They didn't buy it, and figured we wouldn't either.
To them, it's all about curbing propaganda.
>what they were doing. Now they can do it for a good cause, and save all the
>analysis and crap your are putting forth here for a later date. After all
>given time the truth always seems to out.
Oh yes, the ongoing tramping upon of our reputed ideals is a fact of