No More Learning

We also noted the grad- ual displacement of family control by professional managers serving a wider array ofowners and more closely subject to market discipline.
All of these trends, and greater competition for advertising across media boundaries, have continued and strengthened over the past dozen years, making for an intensified bottom-line orientation. Thus, cen- tralization of the media in a shrinking number of very large firms has accelerated, virtually unopposed by Republican and Democratic admin- istrations and regulatory authority. Ben Bagdikian notes that when the first edition of his Media Monopoly was published in 1983, fifty giant frrms dominated almost every mass medium; but just seven years later, in 1990, only twenty-three firms occupied the same commanding position. 4
Since 1990, a wave of massive deals and rapid globalization have left the media industries further centralized in nine transnational con- glomerates-Disney, AOL Time Warner, Viacom (owner of CBS), News Corporation, Bertelsmann, General Electric (owner of NBC), Sony, AT&T-Liberty Media, and Vivendi Universal. These giants own all the world's major film studios, TV networks, and music companies, and a sizable fraction of the most important cable channels, cable systems, magazines, major-market TV stations, and book publishers. The largest, the recently merged AOL Time Warner, has integrated the leading Inter- net portal into the traditional media system. Another fifteen firms round out the system, meaning that two dozen firms control nearly the entirety of media experienced by most U. S. citizens. Bagdikian concludes that "it is the overwhelming collective power of these firms, with their corporate interlocks and unified cultural and political values, that raises troubling questions about the individual's role in the American democracy. "5
Of the nine giants that now dominate the media universe, all but Gen- eral Electric have extensively conglomerated within the media, and are important in both producing content and distributing it. Four ofthem- Disney, AOL Time Warner, Viacom, and News Corporation-produce movies, books, magazines, newspapers, TV programs, music, videos, toys, and theme parks, among other things; and they have extensive dis- tribution facilities via broadcasting and cable ownership, retail stores, and movie-theater chains. They also provide news and occasional inves- tigative reports and documentaries that address political issues, but the leaders of these pop-cultural behemoths are mainly interested in enter- tainment, which produces large audiences with shows like ABC TV's
INTRODUCTION xiii
XIV INTRODUCTION
Who ~nts to Be a Millionaire and CBS-TV's Survivor, or with movies like Disney's Lion King that also make possible the cross-selling "syner- gies" that are a focal point oftheir attention and resources.
Important branches of the media such as movies and books have had substantial global markets for many years, but only in the past two decades has a global media system come into being that is having major effects on national media systems, culture, and politics. 6 It has been fueled by the globali2ation of business more generally, the associated rapid growth of global advertising, and improved communications te<:h- nology that has facilitated cross-border operations and control. It has also been helped along by government policy :and the consolidation of neoliberal ideology. The United States and other Western governments have pressed the interests of their home-country firms eager to expand abroad, and the Intern<ltional Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have done the same, striving with considerable success to enlarge trans- national corpor<lte access to media markets across the globe. Neoliberal ideology has provided the intellectual rationale for policies that have opened up the ownership of broadcasting stations and cable and satellite systems to private transnational investors.
The culture and ideology fostered in this globalization process relate largely to "lifestyle" themes and goods and their acquisition; and they tend to weaken any sense of community helpful to civic life. Robert McChesney notes that "the hallmark of the global media system is its relentless, ubiquitous commercialism. "7 Shopping channels, "infomer- cials," and product placement are booming in the global media system. McChesney adds that "it should come as no surprise that account after account in the late 1990$ documents the fascination, even the obsession, of the world's middle class youth with consumer brands and products. "8 The global media's "news" attenrion in recent years, aside from reporting on crusades such as "Operation Allied Force" (the NATO war against Yugoslavia) and on national elections, has been inordinately directed to sensationalism, as in their obsessive focus on the O. ]. Simpson trial, the Lewinsky scandal, and the deaths of two of the West's supercelebrities, Princess Diana and John F. Kennedy, Jr.
Globalization, along with deregulation and national budgetary pres- sures, has also helped reduce the importance of noncommercial media in country after country. This has been especially important in Europe and Asia, where public broadcasting systems were dominant (in contrast with the United States and Latin America). The fmancial pressures on public broadcasters has forced them to shrink or emulate the commercial systems in fund~raisingand programming, and some have been fully
~-
commercialized by policy change or privatization. The global balance of power has shifted decisively toward commercial systems. James Ledbet- ter points out that in the United States, under incessant right-wing polit- ical pressure and fmancial stringency, "the 90S have seen a tidal wave of commercialism overtake public broadcasting," with public broadcasters "rushing as fast as they can to merge their services with those offered by commercial networks. "9 And in the process of what Ledbetter calls the "mailing" of public broadcasting, its already modest differences from the commercial networks have almost disappeared. Most important, in their programming "they share either the avoidance or the defanging of con- temporary political controversy, the kind that would bring trouble from powerful patrons. "IO
Some argue that the Internet and the new communications technolo- gies arc breaking the corporate stranglehold on journalism and opening an unprecedented era of interactive democratic media. And it is true and important that the Internet has increased the efficiency and scope of individual and group networking. This has enabled people to escape the mainstream media's constraints in many and diverse cases. Japanese women have been able to tap newly created Web sites devoted to their problems, where they can talk and share experiences and information with their peers and obtain expert advice on business, fmancial, and per- sonal matters. I1 Chiapas resisters against abuse by the Mexican army and government were able to mobilize an international support base in 1995 to help them publicize their grievances and put pressure on the Mexican government to change its policies in the region. 12 The enlarged ability of Bolivian peasants protesting against World Bank privatization programs and user fees for water in 2000, and Indonesian students taking to the streets against the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia in 1998, to commu- nicate through the Internet produced a level of publicity and global attention that had important consequences: Bechtel Corporation, owner of the newly privatized water system in Bolivia that had quickly doubled water rates, backed off and the privatization sale was rescinded; the pro- tests and associated publicity, along with the 1998 fmanciaJ crisis, helped drive Suharto from office. 13
Broader protest movements have also benefited from Internet-based communication. \Xlhen the leading members of the World Trade Organi- zation (WTO) attempted in 1998 to push through in secret a Multilateral Agreement on Invesnnent that would have protected further the rights of international investors as against the rights of democratic bodies within states, the Internet was extremely valuable in alerting opposition forces to the threat and helping mobilize an opposition that prevented accept-
! ~TRODUCTlON XV
xvi INTRODUCTION
anct': of this agreement. l4 Similarly, in the protest actions against the W'TO meetings in Seattle in November 1999 and the IMF and World Bank annual gatherings in Washington, D. C. , in April 2000, communi- cation via the Internet played an important role both in organizing the protests and in disseminating information on the events themselves that countered the mainstream me-dia's hostile portrayal of these protests. lS
However, although the Internet has been a valuable addition to the communications arsenal of dissidents and protesters, it has limitations as a critical tool. For one thing, those whose information needs are most acute are not well served by the Internet-many lack access, its databases are not designed to meet their needs, and the use of databases (and effec- tive use of the Internet in general) presupposes knowledge and organiza- tion. The Internet is not an instrument of mass communication for those lacking brand names, an already existing large audience, andlor large re- sources. Only sizable commercial organizations have been able to make large numbers aware of the existence of their Internet offerings. The privatization of the Internet's hardware, the rapid commercialization and concentration of Internet portals and servers and their integration into non-Internet conglomerates-the AOL-Time Warner merger was a giant step in that direction-and the private and concentrated control of the new broadband technology, together threaten to limit any future prospects of the Internet as a democratic media vehicle.
The past few years have witnessed a rapid penetration of the Internet by the leading newspapers and media conglomerates, all fearful of being outflanked by small pioneer users of the new technology, and willing (and able) to accept losses for years while testing out these new waters. Anxious to reduce these losses, however, and with advertisers leery ofthe value of spending in a medium characterized by excessive audience con- trol and rapid surfing, the large media entrants into the Internet have gravitated to making familiar compromises-more attention to selling goods, cutting back on news, and providing features immediately attrac- tive to audiences and advertisers. The Boston Globe (a subsidiary of the New 10Tk Times) and the washington Post are offering e-commerce goods and services; and Ledbetter notes that "it's troubling that none of the newspaper portals feels that quality journalism is at the center of its strat- egy . . . because journalism doesn't help you sell rhings. "16 Former New York Times editor Max Frankel says that the more newspapers pursue Internet audiences, "the more will sex, sports, violence, and comedy appear on their menus, slighting, if not altogether ignoring, the news of foreign wars or welfare reform. "17
New technologies are mainly introduced to meet corporate needs, and
\
those of recent years have permitted media firms to shrink staff even as they achieve greater outputs, and they have made possible global distri- bution systems that reduce the number of media entities. The audience "interaction" facilitated by advancing interactive capabilities mainly help audience members to shop, but they also allow media firms to collect detailed information on their audiences, and thus to fine-tune program features and ads to individual characteristics as well as to sell by a click during programs. Along with reducing privacy, this should intensify com- mercialization.
In short, the changes in politics and communication over the past dozen years have tended on balance to enhance the applicability of the propaganda model. The increase in corporate power and global reach, the mergers and further centralization of the media, and the decline of public broadcasting, have made bottom-line considerations more influ- ential both in the United States and abroad. The competition for adver- tising has become more intense and the boundaries between editorial and advertising departments have weakened further. Newsrooms have been more thoroughly incorporated into transnational corporate em- pires, with budget cuts and a further diminution of management enthusi- asm for investigative journalism that would challenge the structures of power.
Over the past dozen years, sourcing and flak have also strengthened as mechanisms of elite influence. Media centralization and the reduction in the resources devoted to journalism have made the media more depend- ent than ever on the primary defmers who both make the news and subsi- dize the media by providing accessible and cheap copy_ They now have greater leverage over the media, and the public relations firms working for these and other powerful interests also bulk larger as media sources. Alex Carey, Stuart Ewen, John Stauber, and Sheldon Rampton have helped us see how the public relations industry has been able to utilize journalistic conventions to serve its-and its corporate clients'-ends. 18 Studies of news sources reveal that a significant proportion of news origi- nates in public relations releases. There are, by one count, 20,000 more public relations agents working to doctor the news today than there are journalists writing i1. 19
The force of anti-communist ideology has possibly weakened with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the virtual disappearance of socialist movements across the globe, but this is easily offset by the greater ideo- logical force of the belief in the "miracle of the market" (Reagan). The triumph of capitalism and the increasing power of those with an interest in privatization and market rule have strengthened the grip of market
INTRODUCTION XVII
XVlll INTRODUCTION
ideology, at least among the elite, so that regardless of evidence, markets are assumed to be benevolent and even democratic ("market populism" in Thomas Frank's phrase) and nonmarket mechanisms are suspect, al- though exceptions are allowed when private firms need subsidies, bail- outs, and government help in doing business abroad. 'When the Soviet economy stagnated in the 1980s, it was attributed to the absence of mar- kets; when capitalist Russia disintegrated in the 1990s, this was blamed not on the now ruling m. arket but on politicians' and workers' failure to let markets work their magic. 20 Journalism has internalized this ideology. Adding it to the residual power of anticommunism in a world in which the global power of market institutions makes nonmarket options seem utopian gives us an ideological package ofimmense strength.
These changes, which have strengthened the applicability ofthe prop- aganda model, have seriously weakened the "public sphere," which refers to the array ofplaces and forums in which matters important to a demo- cratic community are debated and information relevant to intelligent cit- izen participation is provided. The steady advance, and cultural power, of marketing and advertising has caused "the displacement of a political public sphere by a depoliticized consumer culture. "21 And it has had the effect of creating a world of virtual communities built by advertisers and based on demographics and taste differences of consumers. These consumption- and style-based clusters are at odds with physical commu- nities that share a social life and common concerns and which participate in a democratic order. 22 These virtual communities are organized to buy and sell goods, not to create or service a public sphere.
Advertisers don't like the public sphere, where audiences are relatively small, upsetting controversy takes place, and the settings are not ideal for selling goods. Their preference for entertainment underlies the grad- ual erosion of the public sphere under systems of commercial media, well exemplified in the history of broadcasting in the United States over the past seventy-five years. 23 But entertainment has the merit not only of being better suited to helping sell goods; it is an effective vehicle for hidden ideological messages. 24 Furthermore, in a system of high and growing inequality, entertainment is the contemporary equivalent of the Roman "games of the circus" that diverts the public from politics and generates a political apathy that is helpful to preservation of the sta- tus quo.
It would be a mistake to conclude from the fact that the public buys and watches the offerings of the increasingly commercialized media that the gradual erosion of the public sphere reflects the preferences and free choices of the public either as citizens or consumers. The citizenry
l
was never given the opportunity to approve or disapprove the wholesale transfer of broadcasting rights to commercial interests back in 1934,25 and the pledge made by those interests, and subsequently by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) itself, that public service offerings would never be buried in favor of the entertainment preferred by adver- tisers, was never fulfilled. 26 The public is not sovereign over the media- the owners and managers, seeking ads, decide what is to be offered, and the public must choose among these. People watch and read in good part on the basis of what is readily available and intensively promoted. Polls regularly show that the public would like more news, documentaries, and other information, and less sex, violence, and other entertainment, even as they do listen to and watch the latter. There is little reason to believe that they would not like to understand why they are working harder with stagnant or declining incomes, have inadequate medical care at high costs, and what is being done in their name all over the world. Ifthey are not getting much information on these topics, the propaganda model can explain why: the sovereigns who control the media choose not to offer such material.
UPDATING THE CASE STUDIES
In the case studies presented in chapters 2 through 6, we examine the dif- ferences in treatment of situations broadly similar in character, except for the political and economic interests at stake. Our expectation is that news as well as editorial opinion will be strongly influenced by those interests and should display a predictable bias. We would anticipate, for example, that an election held by a client-state government favored by U. S. offi- cials would be treated differently by the media than an election held by a government that U. S. officials oppose. It will be seen in chapter 3 that in the important elections analyzed there this dichotomous treatment and bias was disp1ayed to an extraordinary degree.
Worthy and Unworthy Victims
In chapter 2, we compare the media's treatment of victims of enemy states and those of the United States and U. S. client states. Our predic- tion is that the victims of enemy states will be found "worthy" and will be subject to more intense and indignant coverage than those victimized
INTRODUCTION XIX
r
XX I~TRODUCTION
by the United States or its clients, who are implicitly "unworthy. " It is shown in chapter 2 that a 1984 victim of the Polish Communists, the priesT Jerzy Popieluszko, not only received far more coverage than Arch~ bishop Oscar Romero, murdered in the U. S. client-state El Salvador in 1980; he was given more coverage than the aggregate of one hundred reli- gious victims killed in U. S. client states, although eight of those victims were U. S. citizens.
This bias is politically advantageous to U. S. policy-makers, for focus- ing on victims of enemy states shows those states to be wicked and deserving of U. S. hostility; while ignoring U. S. and client-state victims allows ongoing U. S. policies to proceed more easily, unburdened by the interference of concern over the politically inconvenient victims. It is not a credible reply that difficulty in getting evidence on "unworthy" victims can account for the application of such a gross double standard, as an alternative press with meager resources has been able to gather a great deal ofmaterial on their mistreatment from highly credible sources, such as major human rights organizations and church representatives. 27 Fur- thermore, only political factors can explain the differences in quality of treatment of worthy and unworthy victims noted throughout this book, illustrated in chapter 2 by the more antiseptic reporting of the abuse of unworthy victims (even U. S. women raped and murdered in El Salvador) and the greater indignation and search for responsibility at the tOP m the case of worthy victims.
That the same massive political bias displayed earlier in the coverage of Popieluszko and the hundred religious victims in Latin America con- tinues today is suggested by the media's usage of the word "genocide" in the 1990S, as shown in the accompanying table. "Genocide" is an invidi- ous word that officials apply readily to cases of victimization in enemy states, but rarely if ever to similar or worse cases of victimization by the United States itself or allied regimes. Thus, with Saddam Hussein and Iraq having been U. S. targets in the 1990s, whereas Turkey has been an ally and client and the United States its major arms supplier as it engaged in its severe ethnic cleansing of Kurds during those years, we find former U. S. Ambassador Peter Galbraith stating that "while Turkey represses its own Kurds, its cooperation is essential to an American-led mission to protect Iraq's Kurds from renewed genocide at the hands of Saddam Hussein. "28 Turkey's treatment of its Kurds was in no way less murder- ous than Iraq's treatment of Iraqi Kurds, but for Galbraith, Turkey only "represses," while Iraq engages in "genocide. "
L
I. NO. OFTIMES WORD APPLIED TO SERBS, TT. . :RKS, ETC. z
COUNTRlESrDA TES 1. SerbsJKosovo
2. NO. OF EDS,r OP-EDS DOING THE SAME
3. NEWS ARTICLES PAGE
INTRODUCTION xxi
Mainstream Media Usage
of "Genocide" for
Kosovo, East Timor, Turkey, and Iraq I
4. FRONT
t
1998-1999 220 59 "8 41 2. IndonesialEast
33 7 14 2 132 51 18 1
Timor, 1990-1999
3. Turkey/Kurds, 1990-1999
4. IraqJKurds, 1990-1999
5. Iraq Sanctions, 1991-1999
17 4 8 I 66 24 10 1
1. Mainstream media used in this tabulation, based on a Nexus database search, were the Los Angeles Times, the New rvrk Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, and Time.
2. The numbers in columns 2 and 3 do not add up to the total in column 1, which also includes letters, "World Briefmgs," and summary items.
The table shows that the five major print media surveyed engage in a similar biased usage, frequently using "genocide" to describe victimiza- tion in the enemy states, but applying the word far less frequently to equally severe victimization carried out by the United States or its allies and clients. We can even read who are U. S. friends and enemies from the media's use ofthe word. Thus, with the United States and its NATO alfies warring against Yugoslavia in 1999, aHegedJy in response to that country's mistreatment of the Kosovo Albanians, official denunciations of that mistreatment flowed through the media, along with the repeated designation ofthe abuses as "genocida1. " The same pattern applies to the Iraqi regime's abuse ofits Kurdish population-after it had ceased to be a U. S. ally29-an enemy state, official denunciations, harsh sanctions, and parallel media treatment.
xxii Il'TRODUCTION
On the other hand, Turkey and Indonesia have long been U. S. allies and client states and recipients of military and economic aid. In conse- quence, and Just as the propaganda model would predict, the media not only gave minimal attention to the severe abuse of the Kurds by Turkey throughout the 1990s, and to the Clinton administration's lavish help to Turkey's implementation of that ethnic-cleansing program, they rarely applied the word "genocide" to these Turkish operations.
Similarly, the word was not often applied to the Indonesian mistreat- ment of the East Timorese, who were subjected to another wave of terror as Indonesia tried to prevent or defeat a U. N. -sponsored referendum on independence in 1999. The United States, after helping Suharto take power in 1965 in one of the great bloodbaths of the twentieth century,30 and after supporting his dictatorship for thirty-two years, also gave him crucial military and diplomatic aid when he invaded and occupied East Timor from 1975. 31 In 1999, as Indonesia attempted to prevent the in- dependence referendum in East Timor by violence, the United States maintained its military aid programs and refused to intervene to stop the killing, on the ground that what is happening "is the responsibility of the government of Indonesia, and we don't want to take that responsibility away from them" (as stated by Defense Secretary William Cohen in a press conference of September 8, 1999). This was long after Indonesia had killed thousands and destroyed much of East Timor. Shortly there- after, under considerable international pressure, the United States in- vited Indonesia to leave the devastated country.
We have shown elsewhere that in 1975 and later the U. S. media treated the East Timorese as unworthy victims, saving their attention and indig- nation for the almost simultaneous killings under Pol Pot in Cambodia. The victims of Pol Pot, a Communist leader, were worthy, although after he was ousted by theVietnamese in 1978, Cambodians ceased to be wor- thy, as U. S. policy shifted toward support of Pol Pot in exile. 32 The East Timorese remained unworthy in the 1990S, as the table suggests.
As the leader of the faction insisting on harsh sanctions against Iraq following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United States itself was respon- sible for a very large number of Iraqi civilians deaths in the 1990s. John and Karl Mueller assert that these "sanctions of mass destruction" have caused the deaths of "more people in Iraq than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction [nuclear and chemical] through- out all history. "33 A large fraction of the million or more killed by sanc- tions were young children; UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy pointed out that "if the substantial reduction in child mortality through- out Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children lUlder five in the country
as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. "34 However, as these deaths resulted from U. S. policy, and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declared on national television that these 500,000 child deaths were "worth it/'35 we would expect the U. S. media to find these victims unworthy, to give them little attention and less indignation, and to find the word "genocide" inapplicable to this case. The table shows that this expectation was realized in media practice.
The case for severe media bias suggested by the usage of genocide shown in the table is strengthened by the fact that, despite the great media attention to and indignation over the abuse of the Kosovo Albani- ans by the Serbs in 1998-1999, this mistreatment was almost certainly less severe than that meted out to the Kurds in Turkey in the 19905 and to the East Timorese by the Indonesian army and paramilitary forces in East Timor in 1999. Deaths in Kosovo on all sides in the year before the NATO bombing were estimated by U. S. and other Western sources to number no more than 2,000, and the Serb assault and expulsions that followed and accompanied the NA TO bombing campaign also appear to have resulted in deaths in the low thousands (an intensive postwar search for graves had yielded some 3,000 bodies by August 2000, not all ofthem Albanian civilians or necessarily victims of the Serbs). 36 Deaths in the Turkish war on the Kurds in the 1990S were estimated to be 30,000 or more, a large fraction Kurdish civilians, with refugee numbers running to 2 to 3 million. In East Timor, where the Indonesian military organized and collaborated with a paramilitary opposition to a U. N. -sponsored in- dependence referendum held on August 30, 1999, an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 East Timorese civilians were slaughtered even before the referen- dum vote that rejected Indonesian rule, which unleashed a furious In- donesian army-paramilitary assault on East Timorese. 37
The double standard reflected in the politicized use of "genocide" is applicable to the treatment of news events more broadly, with the media regularly focusing on the abuse of worthy victims and playing down or neglecting altogether the plight of unworthy victims. As an illustration, we may consider the contrasting media treatment of the alleged killing of some forty Albanians by the Serbs at Racak, Kosovo, on January 15, 1999, and the Indonesian army-militia killing of"up to 200" East Timo- rese at Liquica in East Timor on April 6, 1999. 38 The former was seen as useful by U. S. officials,39 who were trying to ready the U. S. and Western publics for an imminent NATO attack on Yugoslavia.
Although the facts in the Racak killings, which occurred in the course of fighting between the Serbian military and Kosovo Liberation Army insurgents within Yugoslavia, were and remain in dispute-and recent evidence raises fur- ther doubts about the NATO-KLA account ofevents there40-the deaths
INTRODUCTION XXlll
XX1V INTRODUCTION
were immediately denounced and featured by U. S. and NATO officials as an intolerable "massacre. " The U. S. mainstream media did the same and gave this reported massacre heavy and uncritical attention. 4! This helped create the moral basis for the NA TO bombing of Yugoslavia that began on March 24, 1999.
The Liquica killings of East Timorese seeking refuge in a Catholic church by Indonesian-organized militia forces were indisputably a "mas- sacre;' apparently involved many more victims than at Racak, and it took place in a territory illegally occupied by a foreign state (Indonesia). It was also neither a unique event nor was it connected to any warfare, as in Kosovo--it was a straightfonvard slaughter of civilians. But U. S. officials did not denounce this massacre-in fact, active U. S. support of the In- donesian military continued throughout this period and up to a week after the referendum, by which time 85 percent of the population had been driven from their homes and well over 6,000 civilians had been slaughtered. The U. S. mainstream media followed the official lead. For a twelve-month period following the date of each event, the mentions of Racak by the five media entities cited in the table exceeded mentions of Liquica by 4. 1 to I, and mentions of "massacre" at the two sites was in a ratio of 6. 7 to I. The greater length of accounts of the Racak event elevates the ratio to 14 to 1 as measured by word count. Newsweek, which mentioned Racak and its "massacre" nine times, failed to mention Liquica once.
Thus, with the cooperation ofthe media, the Racak killings were effec- tively used by U. S. officials to ready the public for war, not only by their intensive coverage but also by their taking the official allegations of mas- sacre at face value. In the same time frame, the media's treatment of the indisputable massacre at Liquica was insufficient in volume or indigna- tion to mobilize the public, in accord with the U. S. policy of leaving the management of events in East Timor to the U. S. ally Indonesia.
Legitimating Versus Meaningless Third World Elections
In chapter 3 we show that the mainstream media have followed a govern- ment agenda in treating elections in client and disfavored states. In El Salvador in the 1980s, the U. S. government sponsored several elections to demonstrate to the U. S. public that our intervention there was ap- proved by the local population; whereas when Nicaragua held an election in 1984, the Reagan administration tried to discredit it to prevent legiti-
mation of a government the administration was trying to overthrow. The mainstream media cooperated, fmding the Salvadoran election a "step toward democracy" and the Nicaraguan election a "sham," despite the fact that electoral conditions were far more compatible with an honest election in Nicaragua than in EI Salvador. We demonstrate that the media applied a remarkable dual standard to the two elections in accord with the government's propaganda needs.
This same bias is apparent in the press treatment of more recent elec- tions in Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Kenya, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, and Uruguay. Cambodia and Yugoslavia were the only two of these seven ruled by a party strongly objectionable to U. S. policy-makers, and it is in these cases that the New }Ork Times warned of serious problems: As re- gards Cambodia, it asserted that "flawed elections are worse than none," and that "the international community must proceed cautiously, lest a rigged election give Iv1r. Hun Sen a veneer oflegitimacy. "42 In reporting on the Yugoslavian election of September 2000, in which US. officials intervened openly to prevent the reelection of Slobodan Milosevic, the Times and media in general repeatedly warned of the possibility of fraud and a rigged election. 43 In the case of Kenya, where US. policy toward the ruling government was ambivalent, here also the Times was skeptical of election quality, noting that "holding elections is not enough to assure democratic government" and stressing the need for "an independent electoral commission less bound to political parties" and "independent broadcast media, allowing opposition voices to be heard outside election periods. "44
But in the other four elections, organized and won by governments strongly favored by the US. State Department, there were no suggestions that "flawed elections are worse than none" and no featuring of the threat of fraUd; the importance of an independent electoral commission and broadcast media was not pressed, and in each case the election was found to be a step toward democracy and hence legitimizing.
In the case of Mexico, long subject to one party (PRJ) rule, but sup- ported by the U. S. government over the past several decades, the Times has regularly found the Mexican elections encouraging, in contrast with past fraudulent ones which, at the time, the editors also contrasted favor~ ably with those in the more distant past! It has featured expressions of benevolent intent and downplayed structural defects and abuses. Thus, in its first editorial on the 1988 election t. . '1at brought Carlos Salinas de Gortari to power, the Times noted that prior elections were corrupt (the PRI "manipulated patronage, the news media and the ballot box"), but it stressed that PRI candidate Salinas "comends" that political reform is urgent and "calls for clean elections,"45 The editors questioned whether
INTRODUCTION XXV
xxvi INTRODUCTION
"his party" will "heed his pleas," a process of distancing the favored can- didate from responsibility for any abuses to come. In the editorials that followed, the Times did not suggest possible ongoing electoral fraud, ""manipulated patronage," or media controls and bias, although this elec- tion was famous for a convenient "computer breakdown" in the election aftermath, which turned Carlos Salinas from an expected loser into a winner. Just three years later, however, at the time of the 1991 election, the editors stated that "as long as anyone can remember, Mexican elec- tions have been massively fraudulent" as it prepared readers for new promises of a cleanup. 46 But all through this period and later, the Times (and its media rivals) did not focus on fraud or call these elections rigged; in both news stories and editorials they portrayed these deeply flawed elections as steps toward democracy and legitimizing.
In the 1983 Turkish election, held under military rule, with harsh censorship and only three parties "led by politicians sympathetic to the military government" allowed to run, the Times found that "Turkey Ap- proaches Democracy. "47 Similarly, in Uruguay's 1984 election, under another military regime that jailed the leading opposition candidate and also refused to allow a second major candidate to run, but organized by a government approved by the U. S. State Department, the Times once again found that "Uruguay is resuming its democratic vocation . . . the generals are yielding to the infectious resurgence of democracy in much of Latin America. "48
The Russian election of 1996 was important to the United States and its allies, as Boris Yeltsin, the ruler who was carrying out their favored policies of privatization and the integration of Russia into the global financial system, was seriously threatened with defeat. The Yeltsin gov- ernment had presided over a 50 percent fall in national output and large income declines for 90 percent of the population, while the hugely corrupt privatization process provided windfalls to a small minority, in- cluding an important criminal class. The social welfare and health care systems had disintegrated under Yeltsin's rule, contributing to a startling rise in infectious diseases and mortality rates. Just before the 1996 elec- tion campaign, Yeltsin's popularity rating was 8 percent That he could win reelection in such circumstances suggests-and reflects-a seriously flawed election.
However, with the Yeltsin regime strongly backed by the U. S. govern- ment and its Western allies, the New YOrk Times once again found this election "A Victory for Russian Democracy," and so did the U. S. main- stream media in general. For that paper of record, electoral flaws were slighted or ignored, and its editors declared the very fact of holding an "imperfect" election "a remarkable achievement. "49 The same bias
INTRODUCTION xxvii
was evident in reporting on the March 2000 Russian election, won by Yeltsin's anointed heir and former KGB operative Vladimir Putin. Putin had built his popularity by conducting a brutal counterinsurgency war against Chechnya, and his electoral success rested heavily on the fact that the powerful state TV and radio stations campaigned furiously on his behalf and denigrated and gave no broadcasting time to his opponents. A September 2 0 0 0 expose of the Putin election campaign by the expatri- ate Moscow Times, based on a six-month investigative effort, uncovered compelling evidence of election fraud, including ballot stuffing, ballot destruction, and the creation of 1. 3 million "dead souls" inflating the election rolls. 50 The U. S. mainstream media, however, never found any evidence of fraud at the time of the election, and they have been reluctant to report the findings of the Moscow Times study. 5l Putin is another "re- former," like Yeltsin, supported by the West, so that it follows once again that for the mainstream media a flawed eIection~hardly admitted to be flawed~remainsbetter than none. 52
The KGB-Bulgarian Plot to Assassinate the Pope
During the Reagan era (1981-88), there was a concerted effort to demo- nize the Soviet Union, in order to support a major arms buildup and a new, more aggressive policy in the Third World and globally. The Soviet Union was described as an "Evil Empire" and accused of sponsoring in- ternational terrorism as well as abusing its own and client-nation peo- ples. 53 \Vhen the would-be assassin Mehmet Ali Agca shot Pope John Paul II in Rome in May 1981, this provided the basis for one of the most successful propaganda campaigns of the Cold War era.
Although the pope's assailant was a Turkish fascist and member of a violently anti-left party in Turkey, after a seventeen-month stint in an Italian prison Agca "confessed" that he had been hired by the KGB and Bulgarians. This confession was convenient, fitting well the interests of the dominant Italian parties anxious to discredit the powerful Italian Communist party as well as the Reagan administration's "Evil Empire" campaign. It was extremely suspicious for other reasons, coming so belat- edly, and after numerous visits to Agca by Italian secret service represen- tatives, judges, and papal agents, all with a political ax to grind, and with the secret service notorious for ideological extremism and willingness to doctor evidence. 54
But the mainstream media accepted this story with astonishing gulli-
xxviii INTRODUCTION
bility-the possibility of coaching and pressure on Agca to name the KGB and Bulgarians, much discussed in the Italian media, was almost never mentioned as even a theoretical possibility. And the weakness of the alleged Soviet motive, the sheer stupidity of the enterprise if Soviet- based, and the complete lack of confirmatory evidence was almost en- tirely ignored by the media (as described in chapter 4). W'hen the case was lost in an Italian court in 1986, despite a substantial Italian govern- ment investment and effort, for the U. S. mainstream media this merely reflected the peculiarities of the Italian system of justice; the continued absence of hard evidence led to no reassessment of the case or reflections on their own role.
In the years that followed, two developments threw some light on the case. One is that the Soviet and Bulgarian archives were opened up, and Allen Weinstein of the Center for Democracy gained permission from Bulgarian authorities in 1991 for members of his investigative commis- sion to look at the Bulgarian Interior Ministry's secret service files. After a stint in Bulgaria, Weinstein returned home having failed to locate any confirmatory evidence of Bulgarian or KGB involvement. The Los Ange- les Times, New YcJrk Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, and Time, each of which had reported Weinstein's initiative and impending trip to Bulgaria in 1991, all failed to inform their readers of his negative fmdings. 55
Later in 1991, at Senate hearings on the confirmation of Robert Gates as head of the CIA, former CIA officers Melvin Goodman and Harold Ford testified that the CIA's analysis of the Bulgarian Connection had been seriously compromised and politicized in support of the Reagan era anti-Soviet propaganda campaign. Goodm<tn testified that not only had the CIA found no evidence of Soviet or Bulgarian involvement in the shooting, but that based on the CIA's "very good penetration of the Bul- garian secret services" its professionals had concluded that a Bulgarian Connection did not exist. 56
This testimony, which was a brutal coup de grace to the claims of a connection, put the media on the spot. It was now clear that in their enthusiastic support of the plot they had seriously misled their readers and performed badly as news purveyors and analysts, although serving well the propaganda needs of their government. But as in 1986, after the case against the Bulgarians was dismissed in an Italian court for in- sufficient evidence, none of them felt any obligation to explain their fail- ures and apologize to their readers. They reported the CIA revelations tersely, with some still claiming that while the connection had not been proved it had not been disproved either (ignoring the frequent impos- sibility of proving a negative). 5i But in general the mainstream media
INTRODUCTIO~ XXIX
moved quickly on without reassessing their performance or the fact that they and their media colleagues had been agents of propaganda.
The New Thrk Times, which had been consistently supportive of the connection in both news and editorials, not only failed to report Wein- stein's negative findings from the search of the Bulgarian files, it also excluded Goodman's statement on the CIA's penetration of the Bulgar- ian secret services from their excerpts from his testimony. The Times had long maintained that the CIA and the Reagan administration "recoiled from the devastating implication that Bulgaria's agents were bound to have acted only on a signal from MOSCOW . "58 But Goodman's and Ford's testimony showed that this was the reverse of the truth, and that CIA heads William Casey and Robert Gates overrode the views of CIA pro- fessionals and falsified evidence to support a Soviet linkage. The Times was not alone in following a misleading party line, but it is notable that this paper of record has yet to acknowledge its exceptional gullibility and propaganda service.
VIETNAM, LAOS, AND CAMBODIA
Vietnam: Was the United States a Victim or an Aggressor?
In chapters 5 through 7, we show that media coverage of the Indochina wars fits the propaganda model very well. The United States first in- tervened in Indochina immediately after World War II in support of French recolonization, after which it carried out a twenty-one-year effort (1954-75) to impose a government in the southern half ofVietnam that U. S. officials and analysts consistently recognized as lacking any substan- tial indigenous support, and in opposition to local nationalist-though Communist-forces that were understood to have a mass base. U. S. leaders operated on the belief that their overwhelming military might would not only enable them, but entitled them, to force submission to a minority government of U. S. choice.
By normal word usage this would make the U. S. effort in Vietnam a case of "aggression. " The mainstream media, however, rarely if ever found U. S. policy there to be other than highly moral and well inten- tioned, even ifbased on miscalculation ofits costs-to us (see chapter 5). The media readily accepted that we were protecting "SouthVietnam"-a
XXX INTRODUCTION
u. s. creation ruled by a dictator imported directly from the United States-against somebody else's aggression, vacillating in their identifica- tion of the aggressor between North Vietnam, the Soviet Union, China, or the resistance in SouthVietnam engaging in "internal aggression"! It is compelling evidence of the propaganda service of the mainstream media that throughout the war they accepted this basic propaganda assumption of the war managers, and from that era up to today, we have never found a mainstream editorial or news report that characterized the U. S. war against Vietnam, and then all of Indochina, as a case of aggression.
After the United States terminated the military phase of the war in 1975, it maintained and enforced an eighteen-year boycott of the coun- try that it had virtually destroyed. According to Vietnamese estimates, the war had cost them 3 million killed, 300,000 missing, 4. 4 million wounded, and 2 million harmed by toxic chemicals; and its land was left ravaged by bombs and Rome plows as well as chemical weapons. With 58,000 killed, the U. S. death toll from the war was under one-tenth of I percent ofits population;Vietnam's death toll was 17 percent ofits popu- lation, and only Vietnam's people were attacked by chemical warfare and had their countryside devastated.
Nevertheless, U. S. officials and the mainstream media continued to view the U. S. role in the war as creditable, the United States as the vic- tim. President George Bush stated in 1992 that "Hanoi knows today that we seek only answers without the threat of retribution for the past. "59 That is, the Vietnamese had done things to us that might justify retribu- tion on our part, but we only seek answers regarding our men missing in action. 60 New lOrk Times foreign affairs commentator Leslie Gelb justi- fied classifyingVietnam an "outlaw" on the grounds that "they had killed Americans. "61 This reflects the common establishment view, implicit in Bush's comment, that nobody has a right of self-defense against this country, even if it intervenes across the ocean to impose by force a gov- ernment that the people of that country rej ecl.
U. S. Chemical Warfare in Indochina
It is also of interest how the media have treated the massive use of chemi- cals during the Vietnam War and the horrifying aftermath for the vic- tim country. In 1961 and 1962 the Kennedy administration authorized the use of chemicals to destroy rice crops in South Vietnam-in violation of a U. S. tradition as well as international law (Admiral William Leahy, in response to a proposal to destroy Japanese rice crops in 1944, stated that this would "violate every Christian ethic I have ever heard of and
all known laws of war"). 62 Between 1961 and 1971, however, the U. S. Air Force sprayed 20 million gallons of concentrated arsenic-based and dioxin-laden herbicides (mainly Agent Orange) on 6 million acres of crops and trees, besides using large quantities of the "super tear gas" CS and vast amounts of napalm and phosphorus bombs. "} An estimated 13 percent of South Vietnam's land was subjected to chemical attacks. This included 30 percent of its rubber plantations and 36 percent of its mangrove forests, along with other large forest areas, destroyed by toxic chemicals in programs that included multiple "large-scale inten- tional effon[s] combining defoliation with incendiaries to produce a forest fire in South Vietnam. "64 A 1967 study prepared by the head of the Agronomy Section of the Japanese Science Council concluded that U. S. anticrop warfare had already ruined more than 3. 8 million acres of arable land in South Vietnam, killing almost 1,000 peasants and over 13,000 livestock. 65 This policy of attempting to force enemy capitula- tion by destroying its food supply was not only contrary to the rules of war,66 it was notable in that it "first and overwhelmingly affected small children. ,,67
Laos was also subjected to chemical attacks in 1966 and 1969, directed at both crops, and vegetation along communication routes. And in Cam- bodia, some 173,000 acres of rubber plantations, crops and forests were heavily sprayed with Agent Orange in the spring of 1969. 68 The Cambo- dian government complained bitterly at the violation of its neutrality by this inhumane and illegal action, but Cambodia was too small and weak for its voice to be heard or for it to be able to mobilize a legal or other defense. Although the U. N. General Assembly did strongly condemn the use of chemical agents as contrary to international law by an 83-to-3 vote in 1969,69 it was powerless to act against the United States, and there was no "international community" mobilization to halt its use of chemical warfare in Cambodia or elsewhere in Indochina.
During the Vietnam war, the use of chemicals was reported and criti- cized in the U. S. media when first disclosed in 1966, but the subject was quickly dropped. The illegality of chemical warfare and a poljcy of star- vation, and their effects on the victim population, were virtually unre- ported. There were exceptions, such as Orville Schell, Jr. 's 1971 Look magazine article "Silent Vietnam: How we invented ecocide and killed a country," but they were rare indeed. After the war, because of the effects of Agent Orange on U. S. soldiers, there was some coverage of this chem- ical warfare campaign; but the vastly greater impact on the direct targets ofrbis warfare in South Vietnam remained close to invisible. Of 522 arti- cles in the New lOrk Times, the washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, and Time during the 1990S that mentioned Agent Orange and
INTRODUCTION xxxi
xxxii INTRODUCTION
Vietnam together, the vast majority focused on the hann done to u. s. service personnel; only nine articles acknowledged the targeting of food crops (thiry-nine mentioned forest cover alone as the target); only eleven discussed in any detail the impact on Vietnamese and the Vietnamese environment; only three characterized the use of Agent Orange as a "chemical weapon" or "chemical warfare;" and in only two articles was it suggested that its use might constitute a war crime.
The wall Street Journal did have a lead story on this topic in February I997, reporting that as many as 500,000 children may have been born with dioxin-related deformities and that birth defects in the South were
four times those in the North. 70 The article did acknowledge U. S. re- sponsibility for this disaster but contended that "the United States, emo- tionally spent after losing the war, paid no heed. " But the United States did pay heed to the flight of the "boat people" and was not too exhausted to enforce a vigorous boycott of the target of its aggression, even ifit took no responsibility whatever for the condition of its victims.
The large-scale application of chemical weapons, and napalm, in Viet- nam was confmed to the South. One reason for this was that NorthViet- nam had a government with links to other countries, so that the use of these barbarous and illegal weapons against it would have been widely publicized. South Vietnam was occupied by the United States and its client regime, so that the victimized people of the South were voiceless and could be treated with unlimited savagery. This of course contra- dicted the claim that we were protecting them against aggression, but the media not only underplayed the savagery, they failed to call attention to the contradiction and its significance. New 10rk Times journalist Barbara Crossette did report that the U. S. failure to get involved in studying the effects of chemical warfare in Vietnam had been unfortunate, because as this country had used it heavily in the South but not in the North, this madeVietnam a controlled experiment in the effects ofdioxin on humans from which much could be learned of benefit to ourselves. 71 But neither Crossette nor any other mainstream reporter had anything to say about the fact that the United States had used dioxin only on the ones it was allegedly protecting against aggression, nor did they suggest that this constituted a serious war crime, or that this country might have an obli- gation to help those it had victimized.
During the 1980s, the Reagan administration mounted a major propa- ganda campaign over alleged victims of "Yellow Rain" in Cambodia and Laos, claiming that chemical warfare had been employed there by the Soviet Union through its Vietnam proxy. This propaganda effort eventually collapsed following the U. S. Army's own inability to confirm this warfare and, more important, the fmding that the alleged Yellow
Rain was bee feces, not chemicals. 72 Nevertheless, this campaign re- ceived vastly more publicity than the real and large-scale chemical war- fare carried out by the United States in Indochina. The wall Street Journal, which had heavily featured Yellow Rain and expressed the great- est indignation at this display of Communist evil, never mentioned the U.