Scrubbing Dissent at PBS By Mike Whitney

Scrubbing Dissent at PBS

By Mike Whitney

Al-Jazeerah, November 24, 2004

PBS prides itself on appealing to a more educated “high-brow” crowd.
Unfortunately, there’s slight difference between the underlying message of public TV than that of commercial media. For example, the Jim Lehrer News
Hour uses longer segments to discuss the day’s topics; it’s a format that
appeals to liberals who enjoy a more ‘thoughtful analysis” of the news. In
truth, it’s just a way of soft-pedaling the same, pallid corporate ideology
in a different wrapper. The best that can be said of The News Hour is that
it covers American aggression in greater detail than its counterparts in
commercial media. As far as presenting an opposing point of view; liberals
are as unwelcome at PBS as the skunk at the office picnic. A typical match
up of interviewees will usually feature an anemic moderate fending off a
right wing zealot. This is extent of PBS’ commitment to “balanced” coverage.
Last Thursday night’s show provides an interesting case in point. News
Hour regular Ray Suarez interviewed two experts on allegations that Iran is
secretly developing nuclear weapons.( Nov 18 program) Here’s part of the
transcript:

RAY SUAREZ: “Inside the Islamic nation of 69 million people, and around the
world, questions swirled again this week about Iran's uranium enrichment
program, a key activity on the path to making nuclear warheads.” (“Swirled around”? Just two days earlier the BBC CONFIRMED that “Iran has
NOT diverted nuclear materials it declared to the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) to make weapons.”)

RAY SUAREZ: “At a news conference in Paris yesterday, a spokesman for the
National Council of Resistance of Iran, an exiled opposition group, said a
secret uranium enrichment site had been built just north of Tehran. They
also claim Iran has warhead blueprints and enriched uranium from A.Q. Khan,
the scientist who created Pakistan's atomic bomb.”
(The National Council of Resistance of Iran? Now, that sounds familiar. Ray
is referring to the Mojahedeen Khalq Organisation (MKO) a group that is on
the STATE DEPT’S LIST OF TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS. They have been compared to a cult similar to the Branch Davidians. Suarez is basing his investigation on information (hearsay) that has been procured from a terrorist
organization that is actively involved in trying to topple the theocratic
regime. )

RAY SUAREZ: They also claim Iran has warhead blueprints and enriched uranium
from A.Q. Khan, the scientist who created Pakistan's atomic bomb. IRANIAN SPOKESPERSON: Our sources about this facility and the Iranian regime
activities in the defense ministry and... this intelligence, this
information is 100 percent correct.

(Okay, so PBS is providing air time to a discredited terrorist group and
their spokesman to level “uncorroborated” accusations at Iran on national
TV. How different is this to the Chalabi fiasco that preceded the war in
Iraq?)

RAY SUAREZ: Iran denies those claims. En route to a summit in Chile,
Secretary of State Colin Powell (The same Colin Powell who presented 90
minutes of specious allegations to the UN prior to the Iraq war) told
reporters last night he had seen intelligence that confirmed what the
opposition group claims. “I have seen intelligence which would corroborate
what this dissident group is saying," Powell told reporters. "And it should
be of concern to all parties." Powell said the intelligence indicates that
Iran "had been actively working on delivery systems" capable of carrying a
nuclear weapon.

(We should note that in less than 24 hours Powell’s claims were debunked as
“unverified” in a report by the Washington Post. Powell obtained the
information from a single-source, “walk-in" who produced more than 1,000
pages of documents, including plans to modify Iranian missiles to carry
atomic warheads. One official told the newspaper the CIA was uncertain about
the authenticity of the documents and how the "walk-in" obtained them.” By the way, NPR covered this same story with a few striking differences. NPR
referred to the Mojahedeen Khalq Organisation (MKO) as the “Iranian
Resistance” (nice touch), and to the “walk in” single source for the suspect
Intelligence as a “new Intelligence asset” (good job, NPR). They also
alluded to the fact that anonymous military sources are “talking about
preemption”.)

“The Powell comments followed an agreement Sunday between Iran and three
European nations-- Britain, Germany, and France-- on the scope of Iran's
nuclear program. Iran reaffirmed its commitment to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, saying it will not seek to acquire nuclear
weapons. IRAN ALSO AGREED TO SUSPEND ITS URANIUM ENRICHMENT PROGRAM. And the
Europeans guaranteed Iran has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear
program.”

Both Vice-president Dick Cheney and his fellow hardliner, John Bolton,
under-secretary of state, are reportedly “frustrated that Britain, France
and Germany are still seeking a diplomatic deal with Teheran rather than
backing an immediate UN Security Council resolution condemning Iran and
threatening sanctions….They want to make Iran's alleged nuclear bomb
aspirations and support for Islamic terror groups THE FOREIGN POLICY
PRIORITY for the new administration.” (U.K. Telegraph) This proves that the
determination to attack Iran has not diminished by the unforeseen problems
with the insurgency in Iraq.

RAY SUAREZ: The European deal delayed and possibly derailed a Bush
administration effort to take the Iran nuclear issue to the U.N. Security
Council and possibly invoke economic sanctions.
(Actually, the US plan was derailed because there were no grounds for
sanctions and no violations to the NPT on the part of Iran. Sanctions cannot
always be applied at the whim of the US, although it normally works that
way.)

Momentary pause while Ray produces the typical PBS interviewees:
“Moderate” and “Super Hawk”.

“Super Hawk” PAUL LEVENTHAL: “I will say this, that the Council of
Resistance (re: terrorist group) has proven to be correct with regard to
major disclosures about the Iranian nuclear program that were not known to
the IAEA and perhaps not known to intelligence services either, -- I think a
lot of credence has to be put on this, and I think the IAEA should promptly
investigate it before the board meeting coming up.”
(Summary; Super hawk trusts everything the terrorist group says, although
the information is totally uncorroborated and debunked within a 24 hour news
cycle)

RAY SUAREZ: Let me get a quick comment from you on the implication of the
timing. We're right after the announcement of a deal to stop the enrichment
and out comes this new hint that Iran may be cheating. Was it an attempt to
scotch the deal with the European Union?

Super Hawk, Leventhal: “This information, the timing of it, is obviously
very dramatic because it comes only about a week before the IAEA Board is to
meet and effectively ratify the European agreement with Iran. So I think one thing should be very straightforward and obvious, and that is
that the IAEA should make it its business to go to Iran, to visit the site
that has been declared, to use the enhanced powers that it has under the
additional protocol to go wherever it wants, whenever it wants, however it
wants to do it and come back and report to the board as to what they found
or did not find, and if they found yet another clandestine operation, then I
think this European deal is in deep trouble, as it should be.”
(Let’s get this straight, Super Hawk acknowledges that the “timing” of
information is suspect, and perhaps politically motivated, but concludes
that it should justify another intrusive investigation? Incredible. By the way, the European deal already exceeds the requirements of the NPT.
Iran has agreed to abandon enriching uranium, which is guaranteed under the
NPT, to accommodate US demands. They’ve already gone the extra distance to
be a responsible member of the world community.)

Moderate, David Albright: “The Europeans are taking the approach let's try
to give them a set of benefits if they are willing to give up these
dangerous nuclear activities permanently, and I think the United States
hasn't reacted I think in a constructive way to that yet. I hope that they
change their policy to start working with Europe to try to not only find a
formula to give benefits to Iran but more importantly work out a better
strategy to apply sticks if Iran does not go along with this call for a
permanent cessation of its -- particularly its uranium enrichment
activities.”

(This is a reasonable approach that is consistent with US policy prior to
the Bush Administration. It does not, however, mention the double standard
that is rigorously applied to Iran as opposed to other US allies, like
Israel. It also fails to mention the new regime of nuclear weapons, “bunker
busters”, and space-deployed nukes that the Bush administration is currently
developing.)

Super Hawk, LEVENTHAL: I think the European deal is a bad deal. (Iran) has
been in violation of its safeguard commitments under the NPT for almost two
decades and the matter comes before the board of governors and the board of
governors then seeks to get into an extended negotiation with Iran where
only time can favor Iran, assuming it is pursuing a clandestine nuclear
weapons program, it's all misguided. They should have gone to the Security
Council promptly.

(This is intentionally misleading. Iran has not only complied with the
NPT, as we said earlier, it has made concessions it was not required to
make. Again, it is worthwhile to reiterate the findings of the IAEA which
stated: “All the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for,
and therefore such material has not been diverted to prohibited activities.”
There’s no justifiable reason for punitive action)

Super Hawk, Levanthal: The IAEA “is required to submit it to the Security
Council, and they're also required to consider punitive actions even in the
board of governors, like denying privileges of the IAEA to a country that
violates, like demanding the return of exported items, things like that,
none of which was done, and I think frankly we're being taken for a ride
here, and it's an extremely dangerous situation.

I would rank it comparable to the rise of Hitler in the 1930s. The potential
danger of Iran going nuclear, a state that actively not only supports but
sponsors terrorism through its intelligence service, that declare - that
feels pretty much about infidels as they call them as Hitler did about Jews
and other undesirables and parading their Shahab missiles with let's wipe
out Israel, those types of things, this makes it a very serious situation
and one that should not be subject to the usual minuet that you have in the
nonproliferation community.”

(Hitler? Be serious. Leventhal fails to cite one incident of territorial
aggression on the part of Iran since its inception at the fall of the Shah.
He also fails to mention that Iran is surrounded by four nuclear powers (US
in Iraq, Israel, Pakistan and Russia) two of which have openly demonstrated
their hostility to the present government.)

RAY SUAREZ: We're extremely tight on time. Do you think we're as close to
the precipice as your colleague does?

Moderate, ALBRIGHT: No, and I think, unfortunately, the strategy Paul has
laid out is probably a strategy doomed to failure and could actually
guarantee Iran gets nuclear weapons. And I think that trying to find a way
to create a system of sticks and carrots I think is a much more effective
strategy to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and if they do go down
that path, you'll have a united international community that is going to try
to sanction and take punitive actions against Iran. It may convince it to
change its mind.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Paul Leventhal and David Albright, thank you both. Albright’s comments are little more than a flimsy shield against the ravings
of Leventhal. PBS would never dream of allowing someone to actually defend
Iran’s sovereign right to protect itself from aggression. Instead the viewer
has to accept the underlying assumption that Iran is a threat to US national
security and that “something has to be done.” The reality, of course, is the
exact opposite. The Bush Administration has repeatedly conveyed its
belligerence towards Iran. They’ve included it in their “axis of evil”
rhetoric and in their battle strategies for redrawing the map of the Middle
East. The Iranian government has every reason to suspect that a war is
imminent.

Despite the accusations of liberal bias, The News Hour nurtures jingoism
in much the same way as commercial TV. By selecting guests who keep their
comments within well-defined ideological parameters, PBS makes sure that
dissenting views never get a fair airing. The omission of those contrary
points-of-view creates the impression that support for war is universal.
Now that the focus is on Iran, those opposing viewpoints are especially
important. Powell and Bush have both made inflammatory remarks in the last
week, suggesting that the administration is gearing up for another war. The
media should provide a format to counter their demagoguery and to present
another side of the story. Currently, the President or any of his team can
make whatever outrageous claim they choose and be sure it will be headlined
on the 6 o’clock news. With a bit of skill, they’ve been able to manipulate
this access to manufacture approval for their illicit plans.

The spurious charges being leveled at Iran won’t be dispelled without
forceful voices of protest. Open debate is the only way to clear the air of
unsubstantiated rumors and innuendoes. If the administration is building a
case for war, then let them argue their position before American people with
those who disagree. As it stands now the game is rigged in their favor;
increasing the likelihood of violence.

Iran’s defense is solid. They’ve met their obligations under the NPT and
haven’t diverted nuclear materials to make weapons. They’ve done nothing
that would warrant the imposition of “trigger mechanisms”, “punitive action”
or sanctions. They’ve not been guilty of any provocation, territorial
expansion or aggression. And, however repressive the present theocratic
regime may be, it is infinitely preferable to the chaos and loss of life we
see in Iraq. So, why are PBS and the rest of the commercial media so
reluctant to state the facts and let the American people decide for
themselves? Why does public television rule out the prominent intellectuals
from the Left who are most capable of offering viable alternatives to
perpetual war?

The probability of an unprovoked attack on Iran grows more certain by the
day, and yet, anti-war points-of-view are still barred from a (televised)
public forum. Their exclusion is a tacit endorsement of the administration’s
war mongering and a dismal admission of a failed media.

Earth, a planet hungry for peace

Apartheid Wall


The Israeli Land-Grab Apartheid Wall built inside the Palestinian territories, here separating Abu Dis from occupied East Jerusalem. (IPC, 7/4/04).

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, like a Python. (Alquds,10/25/03).

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.

editor@aljazeerah.info