Good Job Ricks!

... on second thought, maybe not.

Last week, Washington Post reporter Thomas E. Ricks wrote an article that could definitely build up some contention in the following weeks. He reported on a "super-secret" meeting within the Joint Chiefs of Staff in which they decided on a course for Iraq. There were a few plans on the drawing board. One was to send in many more troops in a short amount of time; two was to send in more troops, but in a long-term fashion; and three was complete withdrawal.

"The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said."

That is what the MSM reported that the government is planning to do. The Post was acting in the neutral adversary role of media, according to the criteria of Jan Leighly: "In this model, the primary role of the press is to discover 'truth' and act as a check on government (pg. 10)." This is clearly what Mr. Ricks did.

Is what Mr. Ricks did wrong? For this I would like to turn to Steven Aftergood. Although he has not published anything on his site as of yet relating to this leak, I would like to hypothesize as to what he would say. I wrote in an earlier entry relating to the talk Mr. Aftergood delivered at Yeshiva University, "His primary point and the basis for which he conducts his work, is what he called “proportion”; that there does exist a boundary between what we should know, and what we shouldn’t know..." Mr. Aftergood categorized different levels of secrecy. One of those level he termed, "Genuine National Secrecy". I believe this secret meeting among the Joint Chiefs falls under that category and should not have been revealed. What would happen if an Iraqi were to read it and tell his friends? Let's see, since Mr. Ricks tells us directly: "That combination plan, which one defense official called 'Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Go Long,' could backfire if Iraqis suspect it is really a way for the United States to moonwalk out of Iraq -- that is, to imitate singer Michael Jackson's trademark move of appearing to move forward while actually sliding backward. 'If we commit to that concept, we have to accept upfront that it might result in the opposite of what we want,' the official said."

If I were the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I would probably be incensed about this leak to the press. "The Pentagon group's proceedings are so secret that officials asked to help it have not even been told its title or mandate (Ricks Article)." And for the reason as to why Mr. Ricks felt he was entitled to reproduce the information: "...in recent days the circle of those with knowledge of its deliberations has widened beyond a narrow group working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff." Ok, so the circle of knowledge was widened to a few more senior intelligence officials - with clearence - and ok - you've already won the Pulitzer Prize, but what gives you the right to reproduce such sensitive information!?

What will happen? Only time will tell, and of course, government bureacracy.

Lapdogs? You Bet They Were

I had a hard time finding specifically negative reviews about Eric Boehlert's book, Lapdogs (May, 2006). I came across many positive reviews and interviews with Mr. Boehlert from numerous sources all acclaiming him, but not so much criticism. For me, this could be for one of two reasons. One, he is right - the press, throughout the Bush Administration generally, and at the approach to the war in Iraq specifically, were lacking in the charcteristic of courage and in it's stead, placed timidity. Boehlert cited an interview from Harball with Chris Matthews with Jim Lehrer as saying that it was not possible for journalists to forsee the messy aftermath of the Iraqi Liberation Operation. He claimed as well that its not fair to charge reporters with the mishap since the rhetoric coming out of the White House (which according to Ms. Leighly is the primary source for official news) kept referring to the upcoming war as "Liberation" and not "Occupation":

Lehrer: I do. The word "occupation," keep in mind, Chris, was never mentioned in the run-up to the war. It was "liberation." So as a consequence, those of us in journalism never even looked at the issue of occupation.

Matthews: Because?


Lehrer: Because it just didn't occur to us. We weren't smart enough to do it. I agree. I think it was a dereliction of our -- in retrospective.

The second reason there is not much negative reviews on Lapdogs could be found in the review written by Michael Getler (who Boehlert actually quotes as a protagonist) for the Washington Post:

"Unfortunately, Lapdogs may be easy for some to write off: It has flaws that too often overwhelm the valuable research and provocative analysis that Boehlert has assembled...


One obvious failing is that a book by a journalist attacking the press ought to have included some responses from editors and reporters who disagree with Boehlert's conclusions. There is basically none of that here. "Another defect is that Lapdogs too frequently appears overtly political; the book is written as though a cadre of Bill Clinton's defenders were its editors."

The basic premise here is that the book was written not so
much as a professional criticism of the media, but more of a polemic. Getler goes on to say that the claims that Boehlert make assume that he knew what was going on in the minds of the journalists and their supervisors. Getler retorts and says that those editors may not have had any deliberate motives in mind, but could have just made honest mistakes:

"One big problem, however -- especially at this newspaper -- was that these challenging stories were far too often run inside the paper rather than on the front page. Other stories that challenged the whole premise of an invasion were simply missed or minimized.

"So does that mean that the editors who made those calls were pro-Bush or cowed by the aftermath of Sept. 11, fiery right-wing bloggers, conservative broadcasters and a mean White House press strategy? Or did some editors simply exercise poor news judgment or lack the experience or determination to make sure that nothing was left unsaid, unchallenged or uncovered? Or were they convinced that a war with Iraq was coming and were too focused on getting ready to cover it? "


He adds to this the fact that the general atmosphere at the time was that the Iraqi Administration under Hussein was something insidious and was thought dangerous for over a decade. Reporters might have went along with it because they were not ready to start trying to push off the inevitable war with Iraq.

At the end, though, Getler praises the book and says that "maybe something else was indeed going on in America's newsrooms. If so, Boehlert's book will prove to be the most well-researched and well-argued one I've yet seen about the darker side of why the press failed."

A Time for War and a Time for Peace

To answer the question of what limits, if any, should be placed on free speech during wartime, I think it would be appropriate to go back to the beginnings of modern philosophic discussions as to what the makeup of a society is and take it from there.

John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jaques Rousseau of the 17th and 18th Centuries were all fascinated with the concept of a "social contract". The idea behind a social contract is that a certain group of people have "moral and/or political obligations [that] are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." They band together to form a society and create social norms. They elect a leader, or in Hobbes' terms, a Leviathan, and live content and secure; the latter being of the utmost importance. If security is lacking, there is no contentment, and revolution is inevitable. If the group finds it in their best interest to go to war against a foreign state, they have every right. If there are those among them that disagree with the objective of the state, they have that right as well, and their dissent goes against the social contract only to the extent that that they don't support a certain objective of the state, but they still are faithful to the regime. It would be a hard argument to make that by their dissent of the government during wartime, they are endangering national security.

Can the government place limits on free speech? "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech (Bill of Rights, Amendment I)." This applies to everyone, even immigrants. Expressing dissent with the government is part of the fabric of democracy. Senator Fulbright even goes so far as to say: "To criticize one's country is to do it a service and pay it a compliment. It is a service because it may spur the country to do better than it is doing; it is a compliment because it evidences a belief that a country can do better than it is doing." I mean, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote a whole book criticizing American Democracy!

For the sake of comparison, when we compare the reactions to a skirmish between Islamic-run governments and Democratic ones, we find a notable difference. Islamic governments never dare to criticize the way they fought the battle, for in their eyes, they will eventually win, and they might even consider a loss as a win. There is virtually no criticism. In democratic countries, on the other hand, regimes fall because of a mishandled battle. The surprise of the Yom Kippur War forced out many senior officers and advisors. 9-11 had the effect of creating a new department to house the many disparate branches of the Intelligence Community. These were reactions to a failed strategy and they are good for society.

Getting to wartime, I would like to make a few distinctions to clarify the parameters of limitation on free speech. If the battle is being fought overseas and the domestic population is not in immanent danger, I do not see any problem with finding disfavor with the government. If we look back to the social contract, ostensibly, the war should be fought for our interest. If we, or some of us, do not agree, we have the constitutional right to dissent. To take the current war in Iraq as an example; seemingly, being that it is far off our shores, it has little immanent danger, so Americans don't have to worry about the disfavor of their views. Just like we didn't agree with the Vietnam War, and therefore, we left. For "clear and present danger", no limitations should be placed. A war which wages on our shores, on the other hand, should be dealt with carefully. The nation is in danger and therefore, certain measures must be taken to protect it.

After the ending of our class today, I figured it would be appropriate to continue with the point. In Judaism, there are two types of wars. There is a "Commanded War" and there is an "Permissitory War". In a commanded war, everyone must defend the nation and no one has a right to protest - it is a matter of immanent danger. A Permissitory War, eg, a war for territory, is in the hands of the government and army to decide the proper course of action while the citizenry could say whatever they want.

As is the case here, the Iraq War is a war based on the hegemonic ideals of the United States, it is a "Permissitory War" and therefore, we have the freedom to dissent. We, according to Robert Yates, are the "fount of all power".

So it seems feasible to draw the line where there is no immanent threat. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" so long as that speech does not pose a direct danger to national security. Collaboration, where there are citizens contacting obscure, war torn, locations, they should be monitored. For this "War on Terror" has fronts all over the world, even here in the USA. As John McCain recently expressed:
"The consequences of failure are so severe that I will exhaust every possibility to try to fix this situation. Because it's not the end when American troops leave. The battleground shifts, and we'll be fighting them again," McCain said. "You read Zarqawi, and you read bin Laden. ... It's not just Iraq that they're interested in. It's the region, and then us."

This suggestion is simplified of course, since I am writing in the proverbial "ivory tower" and there are probably thousands of various cases that come up that would entangle themselves in this issue. But its a start.

Anything But Al Jazeera

After reading through some of the O'Shaughnessy, I was getting looking foreward to the assignment to go onto the infamous Al-Jazeera's website and seeing for myself the horrible, despicable, and worst of all, biased reporting that, in my mind, would so contrast with the reporting in our country that would make our reporting look Toquevillian in comparison. Needless to say, I was greatly disappointed. The website looks very much like a regular, state-of-the-art news site with fading pictures, and black and whites, it looks calm and modern. As does the "English Al-Jazeera live". The reporting seemed unbiased to me and I couldn't help but questioning the reality of this so called, "propaganda war".

Ok, so they do quote some of Bush's less intelligent remarks, such as when he was questioned by reporters, afterwards remarking: "I was impressed by the questions they asked. They want us to succeed in Iraq, just like I want us to succeed. So we had a really good discussion." But other articles, especially the one about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I was surprised to read a quite unbiased report.

This was a little surprising, but not really. If you think about it, President Bush and his administration have apparently been thinking for quite some time as to what kind of utopia would arise after the downfall of Al-Jazeera. In the article by Jeremy Scahill, he quotes the editors of The Nation who write in respnse to the debate over whether the leak by President Bush as to his intention of blowing up Al-Jazeera's base in Qatar, "...because if a President who claims to be using the US military to liberate countries in order to spread freedom then conspires to destroy media that fail to echo his sentiments, he does not merely disgrace his office and soil the reputation of his country. He attacks a fundamental principle, freedom of the press--particularly a dissenting and disagreeable press--upon which that country was founded."

Now, I'm not yet fluent in Arabic, but while looking through Al-Jazeera's website in its original language, I had a funny feeling I was not looking at the same unbiased reporting that was going on on the other side of the language barrier.

Rising Through Propaganda

I would just like to post a few comments about some propaganda material from the Nazi era. Based on the criteria of O’Shaughnessy, there was an enormous amount of propaganda released during the Third Reich. From dramatic posters engraving into the minds of people an image of a powerful leader; to videos that contain no words, but an array of propaganda techniques; to speeches which have that eerie effect to be able to change the viewpoint of the listener if delivered in a certain way.

There seemed to be many posters circulating in the Nazi era. To pinpoint one dominant feature these posters had, I would look at the way color was used. For example, red backgrounds were used to excite and individuals or people they desired to exalt were iron-tinted. Color could have a powerful yet sub-conscious effect. Two scientists, Russel Hill and Robert Barton, published an article in a 2005 issue of Nature (435). They compared results of various sports of the 2004 Olympic Games at Athens and concluded that the contestent wearing red was more likely to win that the one wearing blue. They explained this conclusion using the theory that red increases the emotions of passion (anger, love, hate) and blue is a more cooling and relaxing color. In addition, observing the political ad that Professor Pimpare had on his blog, the creator uses color cleverly as well. When portraying his opponent, he uses a purple background – purple is a color that could represent guilt. But in the end, it is red – as a sign of “pay attention – go and vote!”

"We chose red for our posters, since it is vivid and was the color that most aroused our opponents. It forced them to notice and remember us."

Who is talking? A congressional candidate or the Fuhrer of Germany?

One thing the Nazis were good at was re-shaping history. There was one poster I came across that quoted Grzesinski as saying that Hitler isn’t fit to lead Germany since he wasn’t German, but Austrian. And the text at the bottom “debunks” that myth and proves that he is now a dedicated German, high ranking in the Army.

The video on Professor Pimpare’s website is a great example of Nazi propaganda. It contains no words, and yet the meaning is extraordinarily powerful, enough to arouse even a non-German to the feelings of Germany at that time and their hope upon Hitler as “the savior”. The video is also a great example of the use of architecture as propaganda as was discussed in O’Shaughnessy. Many scenes in the first part of the film are of the grandeur of Nuremberg. The video also uses music in a very propagandistic way – as hailing Hitler. So that, combined with the scenes of cheering crowds and loving mothers and children (much more so than men), with the music is quite influential. There is also towards the end of the scene an image of an “iron-faced” soldier which gives the viewer a sense of security that all he is seeing can be backed up by a powerful and dedicated military force; it instills fear.

And moving to speeches:
"This is [an excerpt of a] speech delivered by Dr. Walter Groß, the head of the Nazi Party's Office of Racial Policy. He was speaking to a women's meeting at the Gau party rally in Cologne on 13 October 1934. The text was widely distributed. This is an interesting example of Nazi racial propaganda early on in Hitler's regime. It does not mention the Jews directly, but lays the foundation for anti-Semitism. Groß (1904-1945) in a later speech said: "As far as the historical appearance of the Jew in Europe is concerned, we believe that the hour of his death has irrevocably arrived."

“That is what made the movement strong, and great, and powerful from its first days. It is also that which the enemy on this side of the border and the other cannot understand, and which it hates with deadly strength. As this great and beautiful people's movement began, so too began a hard and bitter struggle between enemy and German forces, between an old world that is really long dead and buried, and the new world that is struggling to reach the light through us."

Just to focus on a few points of propaganda implicit in Dr. Grob’s opening paragraph; when he says “which it hates with deadly strength”, I believe he is, in effect, playing on the emotion of national loneliness and strengthening in-group solidarity. As O’Shaughnessy brought the example of Dr. Sigmund Freud that he would address his audience kindly at the outset, which is what every great speaker is supposed to do. So too here, Dr. Grob opens with, “As this great and beautiful people…”, he is talking to women, so they appreciate the comment “beautiful” more so than men. The symbolism, imagery and myth here are clearly apparent and we haven’t even gotten into the heart of the speech:

* “Deadly strength”
* “great and beautiful people”
* “hard and bitter struggle”
* “between an old world that is really long and dead”
* “and a new world that is struggling to reach the light through us”

The opening statement is littered with influential and imagistic comments:
“The world finds it difficult to understand that which is at the center of our endeavors:
the value of blood and race.”

One of the primary motivational tactics of the Germans was getting the people to believe that they were in some way inherently special and unique compared to the rest of the world. This of course, is duly false, and is just said to make people feel good about themselves, in this case, a little too good. Hitler thought that Germany was descended from the Germanic tribes, but that has been proven false. But it doesn’t matter because people believe what they wish to believe; and all the more so in a state of depression. Germany had reached an all time low when Hitler came to power, so, that fact combined with the power of persuasion and propaganda, infused the people with a love for Germany and Hitler.

The Art of Persuasion

"The concern of the propagandist is not how we think but how we feel." (O'Shaughnessy, pg. 41)
"Rhetoric is power." (ibid., pg. 83)

The book Politics and Propaganda is turning out to be a very enlightening and engaging book. What is interesting to question is the intent of the author in writing the book. Is it to degrade the use of propaganda and exalt the use of pure logic and reason in debate, or is it to merely open our eyes to the fundamental role propagnada, by which I mean rhetoric and myth and symbolism, play in our society, both micro and macro?

It seems to me that a fine line (metaphor) spearates the two aims. Politics is propaganda; for what is politics other than a series of debates and compromises and interactions in which many people with different values compete for power. Senator Sam Brownback spoke at YU here this morning and he said that it is impossible for one not to bring his own personal values into the public square, religion included, for religion is a bastion of moral values. And to implement an action through ones value system in a Congress of people requires their consent as well. A great way to do this is through persuasion, or propagandising. NIcholas Jackson O'Shaughnessy describes the job of the propagandist as difficult since he must come across to the audience in a way that would pursuade them to agree, but at the same time paying attention to their pre-dispositions on an issue. For example, as was constantly brought up in class: the USA PATRIOT Act. This act was a call to expand the power of the executive branch. Objectively, however, it should have been controversial at the time instead of being placed on the desks of Congressmen and having to vote on it ASAP. It turned out ot be controversial. The title iteself was an act of rhetorical propaganda. The name "patriot" resonated with the Congress and it passed in the Senate 98-1. For who would not want to be a patriot?

O'Shaughnessy lists three essential components to propaganda, without which, it simply wouldn't work:
Rhetoric
Myth
Symbolism

What these basically do is compress meaning into symbols that excite emotions, and the propagandist can then leash the audience into following his lead. Rhetoric, specifically, when used powerfully enough, can convince people even without making an intelligeible argument. For example, the crisis in Darfur is not spoken about widely enough. But what does circulate for the most part are symbols, such as a crying African boy or the phrase, "not on my watch", these are methods of propaganda attemting to initiate action. They aren't arguments, but merely implications. They imply an end of an argument being: "we must act now".

Last year a CEO of an Attorney group came to speak at YU and said that the most important part of a case is the way it is presented. It's rhetoric and imagery. O'Shaughnessy discussed this when he brough up the case of someone being tried for pedophilia and the prosecutor compared him to Captain Hook. This imagery stuck with the jury. It's what Jon Stewart refers to as "theater", a mere show of connections and linkages that may not have anything to do with the case as it is. Imagery is extremely powerful.

We are just getting over the elections and have seen many political ads. These are propaganda, no doubt about it. Especially the attack ads. They play on emotions of people, such as fear and worry. They tap into these emotions via music, symbolism and rhetoric - primary ingredients of propaganda. We watched one where a candidate is talking to his viewers from a church with a cross inconspicuously in the background. He is talking in a soothing voice. This is giving a message to the viewers in and of itself. If he were to appear with a rock star, that would give another image, a baseball cap would be another. O'Shaughnessy discussed the effects symbols could have on different societies. For example, the baseball cap is an American, hedonistic and self-centered symbol respised in Europe.

O'Shaughnessy also discussed the concept of "reality structuring": that words construct reality. So, when the Bush Administration decided they wanted to go into Iraq, they didn't go about it by arguing that democracy is better than authoritarianism and that the people there aren't happy, or even by speaking to excess of the fear of WMDs. They simply linked Saddam Hussein with 9-11, itslef a loaded term of pain, filial grief and national revenge. This was enough to get people roused up for war. But what are the consequences of such false persuasion? Well, yesterday the Republicans lost the House and today Rumsfeld resigned.

With all the deception and cunning involved in propaganda, there is also an element of necessity in it. We live in a world of symbols, even different colors can represent diametric ideas (red and blue for example). Constant reading and cold argument may have intrigued and stimulated the minds of people in the past, but it has apparently lost its full effect now. We have to face reality and a way to move people to action is through tapping into their emotions. The difficult part is knowing where to draw the line. O'Shaughnessy also describes as one of the aims of propaganda is the seeking of paradise and utopia. Granted that it is probably not reachable, it is still a method of motivation. Another aim is coping. It would be very difficult for the American people to have to deal with waking up in the morning and reading in the paper that 450 loving souls were lost as they tried to help their families. But, this of course can easily be covered up by saying that "the US Army crushed the opposition of 450 insurgents yesterday". "The truth can be impossibly painful - and self-deception may thus be a necessary strategy for survival (pg. 47)."

Propaganda is also so widespread now because of "the uncertainties of our time [and] the lack of an inherited definiteness (pg. 69)." We are vulnerable becuase we live in a confused and fast paced world where security and values are thrown around. Another reason we are also enslaved to symbols is the role television and the media has played in our lives: "In television eloquence, visual moments have replaced words: such visualities bypass the critical faculty and we should not in fact look to television for much by way of explanation (pg. 81)."

Propaganda? Are you Kidding?

MEMRI TV
After watching this, I was scared stiff. After watching a Muslim Shia cleric preach to thousands of Iranians about the upcoming American elections, I was scared. It was eerily reminiscent of the speeches Adolf Hitler used to give to German citizens. Throughout the speech, whenever the cleric reached a rallying cue, the assembled audience, as if hypnotized, would all shout at once, much like the “hate-hour” in the opening of 1984, “Death to America! Death to Israel! Allahu Akbar!” I found while watching the short clip that words which we use to define certain groups of people are turned on their heads by this cleric. We refer to groups of people desiring the death of others as closed minded and intolerant, but I saw quite clearly through his words that simply by using terminology such as “open-minded” and “terrorist”, you can twist the truth of any reality. The cleric said, for example, that Bush is secretly collaborating with “terrorists” and has murdered about 600,000 Iraqis. Now, lets examine this. Unfortunately, we live in a very confused world, with unclear definitions. According to N.J. O’Shaughnessy, a terrorist has an agenda. His motive is not just to wreak havoc, but to make a political statement. I think a terrorist, in the American world-view is an individual or group of people who seek to intimidate using means of, not coercion, but force. To force their political ideology on others. Now, Americans also have a certain image of a terrorist. But, if we were to enter the mind of an Arab Muslim “terrorist”, he would have no idea who we are talking about – he would think it’s the US. In any event, getting away from the argument over who is right and who is the real bad guy, this speech by the cleric is a clear example of deception and persuasion to a certain attitude to people.
Another example comes from Germany. I don’t know the political state of Germany (we’re actually going to get into it in Professor Daves’ class today), but they seem to be having fun harping on the immoral state of American politics, particularly the medial campaign ads. They discuss the most extreme ads, but they do not say whether or not the ads were actually aired, which leads the readership to magnify the perceived stupidity of these ads. If there were any agenda behind these ads, I think it is pretty clear – to deride the American political leaders. But, as O’Shaughnessy stresses, the line between entertainment and propaganda is fine. This could very well be an article just to get people to laugh. But, regardless, to paraphrase, “any entertainment could be construed as propaganda (Media and Politics).”

I Don't Approve

According to surveyusa.com, the average approval rating for the president lies at 37%. This is incredibly low compared to what it was but a few years ago after 9/11 - near 80%. With midterms right around the corner, the overarching factor that could contribute to the Democrats taking over the US House of Representatives even while a Republican president sits, is the approval ratings. In other words, the less people like the president, the less they like the corresponding candidates for office from his party. I referred to this in an earlier blog in which I discussed how challenger Ron Klein (D) was trying to frame the race against Clay Shaw (FL-R-22) around the policies of the president.

I didn't have that much time to get a comprehensive outlook on how the MSM is framing the ratings versus the bloggers, but I would say that the reason the approval ratings of the president are so low is not so much due to the coverage the press provides, since they are hardly fit the "public advocate" model proposed by Jan Leighley (pg. 10). But rather to the perceived the job the president himself is doing, especially his failure to respond effeciently to Hurricane Katrina.

It must be stated as well, that the current views on the Iraq war are of major significance to the drop in ratings. First off, as Gershkoff and Kushner point out, the American public hate wars in which they have to sacrifice many troops. And harping on what Mr. Aftergood presented to us a few weeks ago about how the US military didn't want the media to take pictures of the coffins of killed soldiers, the Bush administration is being driven deep down the tube for all these years of deception and cover up. The public are seeing now how the Bush administration has messed up.