Comment

The Inky Notes piece below is the latest in a long line on a web site run by Edward Herman, inkywatch.org, which is designed to monitor the Philadelphia Inquirer, the major paper in this large city. It was established in the belief that the web offers an opportunity to monitor and criticise a newspaper and even build up a critical web site as an alternative information source. While this has proved problematic as doing the job right takes a lot of time and energy and building the audience is also not easy, this is an idea worth considering and pursuing elsewhere as a means of dealing with a centralising media and institutions that frequently allow limited access to contesting voices. It could be a step in building an alternative institution.

The Philadelphia Inquirer Versus the New York Times, Now No Contest; The Sinking Inky Brings in Two More Right-wingers; Fumo Focus and Neglect of Almost Everything Else

Edward S. Herman

Several years ago a good friend of mine used to argue that the Inky was in some important ways better than the New York Times. He hasn't said a word along this line in the last two or more years, as the Inky has continued to sink, while the Times maintains a certain stability and in its editorials and opinion columns shows more guts in assailing the Bush-Cheney counter-revolution than the Inky. And with Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert, and less reliably, Maureen Dowd, the Times provides regulars who criticise the administration (and Democrats as well) with an intelligence and vigour that is not provided either by the Inky editorials or by any Inky regular columnist.

The Inky used to have occasional news items that the Times missed, but that has become much more rare with the loss of the old Knight-Ridder reporters (now with McClatchy) along with the steady cutbacks in news staff. Both the Times and Inky still suffer from their continuing front page featuring of official news releases and official claims, with no prior checking of veracity and with minimal balance and qualifications. They do this despite the spectacular administration and Pentagon record of deception and repeated use of phony terror alerts and claims of enemy misbehavior, clearly used as means of managing the public, to get votes or win acquiescence to a new round of violence. The professional liars in the Pentagon now say that Iran is supplying IED's to the Iraq insurgents, so this goes right onto the front page of the Times and Inky (February 10th), with the Inky actually borrowing the version from the Times by Michael Gordon. Gordon is a notorious administration conduit, who co-wrote with Judith Miller the classic piece of disinformation on Iraq's imported aluminum tubes supposedly designed for nuclear weapons, which was fed to Gordon-Miller by the Pentagon, with Rumsfeld and company then citing the 'evidence' provided by the New York Times on the following day! There is no mention in this article that this new release on Iran is unverified and possibly untrue, and that it might be part of an ongoing campaign similar to that on WMD and the 'aluminum tubes', here setting the stage for another war. The media didn't learn from their failures in the run-up to the Iraq war; they continue to fail because they are part of the war-making machinery. (See Greg Mitchell, '"NYT" Reporter Who Got Iraqi WMDs Wrong Now Highlights Iran Claims, Editor and Publisher, February 10th, 2007; Mark Weisbrot and Robert Naiman, 'People Without Names' (PWN) Using New York Times to Escalate).

On the opinion page of the New York Times we at least have Bob Herbert calling for exit from Iraq, and their editorials on Iraq are frequent and harsh. In the Inky, nobody calls for the exit within two years that a majority of the US populace supports, and the editorials on the subject are infrequent. Trudy Rubin wants us to stay to provide 'stability', although our presence has been closely correlated with growing instability, but she does want us to 'talk' with the Iranians, as the Baker-Hamilton group recommended. This is pretty feeble stuff.

The Right-Wing Additions (Bringing Coals to Newcastle)

So what the Inky really needs is somebody who would speak on behalf of a majority of US citizens. The Inky refuses to provide that. Instead, it now offers us two new right-wingers, Mark Bowden and Michael Smerconish. This is a now familiar Inky practice and reflects a steady trend to the right: they never introduce a new liberal (and they have never had a leftist as a regular columnist), but periodically they move to the right with a new right-winger or right-wing column space. In 1995 they brought in the far rightist Joseph Sobran, on the ground that the conservative readers wanted a purer conservative voice (although they had Krauthammer). He was soon replaced by Linda Chavez as a regular, and Chavez carried on for some years, with 78 columns between January 1998 and March 2001, columns that were straight Republican Party propaganda. Krauthammer had 50 columns in the same period.

Chavez and Krauthammer are actually not even real journalists. They are propagandists. Eric Alterman noted recently in regard to William Kristol, that this right-winger, editor of Murdoch's Weekly Standard, has this interesting characteristic, he is quite smart, but makes huge errors, always in support of a propaganda theme (like his forecast that the Iraq invasion would spread 'the principles of liberty and justice in the Islamic world'). Alterman explains this in these terms: 'what may look like journalism to the naked eye, and is passed along as such by his editors and producers, is something quite different…For Kristol is less interested in being correct than in advancing his side's interests. He's not a journalist; he's an apparatchik working undercover as a man of the press'. ('Kristolizing the (Neoconservative) Moment, Nation, Feb. 12th, 2007). This point holds for Chavez, Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, Mona Charen and Claudia Rosett, among others: they are completely predictable, and it would be easy to fill in the words for their party line pronouncements. But what kind of newspaper would carry this propaganda on a regular and extensive basis? Surely not one trying to enlighten its readership and to produce a public sphere that will help bring into being an informed electorate!

After Chavez, the Inky decided to offer a 'Right Stuff' column to supplement their existing right-wing offerings, although these were already lavish. Then they brought in as a regular the right-wing Jonathan Last. Now today they follow with Bowden and Smerconish. In introducing these two, editor Chris Satullo tells us that Bowden is the greatest, offering 'must reading for anyone interested in terrorism, Iran or torture'. This is baloney. When Bowden left the Inky several years ago, many of us sighed with relief, to be free of his windy rhetoric and pro-war vacuities. Readers may be interested to read his little masterpiece on Powell's famous speech at the UN that helped get us into the invasion-occupation, which Bowden placed on National Review Online, Feb. 5th, 2003:

'Powell Has It Down
A concise, persuasive presentation.
By Mark Bowden

The Secretary of State's presentation before the UN Security Council was powerful, concise, detailed, and persuasive. All the more so because of the integrity of Colin Powell, who has been publicly at odds with President Bush's intentions of waging war with or without UN approval. Revelations of Al Qaeda's active presence in Baghdad, the existence of unmanned aerial vehicles that can deliver chemical and biological weapons over hundreds of miles, efforts to evade inspectors, intimidate scientists, and develop nuclear weapons... Powell made a compelling case that Saddam is in stark violation of the UN mandate. Those opposed to forcibly disarming the Baath regime will find it hard to argue anything other than an unwillingness to accept the risks and costs of doing so. Taking that position will, as Powell reiterated, render the UN Security Council irrelevant, and it will mean accepting the likelihood of terror attacks on America, Israel, or Europe far worse than any in recorded history'.

As is well known, Powell himself later acknowledged that he had offered false and misleading claims, and while many outside the mainstream were very much aware that he was lying, Bowden swallowed the lies. So let's welcome this 'ahead-of-the-curve' (Satullo) analyst to the Inky!

Bowden's opening column this past Sunday, entitled 'Despite its pious hypocrisy, Iran must be consulted' (February 11th) also tells us what we are in for. The article features the hypocrisy of Iran's complaint about the seizure of some of its diplomats in Iraq by the US. This is hypocritical because the Iranians forget about their seizure of hostages, an event that apparently will justify any US action decades later. But what is striking about this awful article is how this supposed expert on Iran forgets about an earlier and more shattering event, the US organisation in 1953 of a coup overthrowing a democratic government of Iran and installing the dictatorship of the Shah. How about the hypocrisy of 'bring democracy' to the Middle East with that important background fact, and how about the dishonesty of stopping history with the hostage crisis and not looking behind that? There is also the important background story that the Shah installed a regime of torture, with CIA and Mossad aid. Satullo tells us that Bowden is an expert in torture as well as Iran, yet he somehow missed both a key element of Iranian history and the opportunity to discuss a major case of organised torture.

You can see that Bowden is going to be a big asset to public understanding. I discussed Smerconish in the last issue of Inky Notes, (see www.inkywatch.org) where Dave Lindorff showed that his discussion of Mumia was a laugher of bias and I indicated that Smerconish was a defender of torture and would put up little opposition to a further gutting of the US Constitution. I'll deal with him in another Inky Notes, but it is clear that with Bowden and Smerconish the Inky has taken a plunge downward and to the right.

Fumo and the Evasions

With Prince Charles and Camilla having left town, the poor Inky was left bereft of really important news. But they have come through with a series of reports plus editorial on Democratic State Senator Vincent Fumo, recently indicted on charges of misusing state money. This is a worthy topic, but it doesn't deserve the multi-day front-page attention and extensive coverage the Inky has given it. It is interesting that it is a Democrat to whom the Inky gives such intense focus. It is true that he is a local, and is newsworthy, but how about Dick Cheney, a far more important figure even in terms of impact on Philadelphians, clearly the power behind the Bush throne and responsible for many of the disasters the Bush administration has inflicted on this country and the world. Cheney is a world-class liar, and a fine article could be written just on his fabrications. He is an open spokesperson for an aggressive 'projection of power' without regard to international law, and he is a crude advocate of an upward redistribution of wealth and income because 'we' won the election. Currently he is getting publicity as it is revealed that he played a key role in the Plamegate scandal. But the Inky has had no in-depth article on Cheney and his record, and nothing on the editorial pages analysing his sinister record and role.

The Inky commentary page focuses heavily on local issues, venturing only occasionally and gingerly into the big national and international issues that feed back so powerfully on the welfare of Philadelphians. Let me list and comment on a few of these:

War against Iran: The Bush administration and its ally Olmert in Israel have been threatening to attack Iran, the Bush administration has moved a new fleet of ships into the Mediterranean in position to fight, and there are numerous reports of plans to attack. (See 'US Sending Third Carrier Strike Group to Persian Gulf': www.truthout.org).

Both Olmert and Bush are on the political defensive, and it is a not uncommon view of analysts that both may want to widen the fighting in the Middle East to cover their own failures. This could be catastrophic. (See also 'Hegemony and Appeasement: Setting Up the Next U.S.-Israeli Target (Iran) For Another "Supreme International Crime"', Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, January, 2007.)

The Los Angeles Times saw fit to run a piece by Leonard Weiss and Larry Diamond, 'Congress must stop an attack on Iran', Los Angeles Times, February 5th, 2007. Pat Buchanan is to the left of the Inky editors on this issue, and is more responsible and attuned to the public interest and public opinion: 'Bombing Iran: Is it Bush's Call?' (www.antiwar.com).

Other worthy pieces are: John Pilger's 'Iran: The War Begins' (www.countercurrents.org); Tom Engelhardt, 'Over the Cliff With George and Dick?' where the author writes, 'After all, to anyone not delusional - which leaves out you-know-who and his vice president - a massive air assault on Iran, surely involving bunker-busting missiles with staggering explosive power, would seem to be an act of madness. The decision to attack Iran would be the equivalent of setting off an advanced IED directly under the main highway of what's left of global order' (www.truthout.org). Marie Woolf writes in the Independent that 'Israel has plan for nuclear strike on Iran' (http://news.independent.co.uk).

The Inky has not had a single editorial or Commentary column describing and assailing this plan and threat of attack, truly irresponsible newspaper work.

The Bush Budget: The Bush budget for fiscal 2008 is amazing in its reactionary character, failure to recognise the election results of 2006, and fraudulence. It pretends to be moving toward a budget balance, but naturally the balance will come after Bush leaves office, and only on the basis of completely unrealistic assumptions. The Inky editorial on the budget is typical editorial 'balance' in treating Our Leader, as on social security, giving Bush credit for trying while criticising it in mild terms ('Headed the right way', Feb. 6th, 2007). It doesn't stress the cuts on the benefits of the weak, but even starts out with his trivial increases in Pell grants and boost in spending on high poverty public schools. What is more, although the Inky editors claim a great concern for children, this feeble editorial is not supplemented by fuller commentary analyses of the impact of the Bush budget on poor people in general, including children. (See, e.g., 'Mayors: More Americans Hungry, Homeless in 2006' for relevant context www.truthout.org - and Randy Shaw, 'Bush Declares War on Homeless, Low-Income Tenants: (www.beyondchron.org), for a more focused critique of this new phase of Bush-Cheney class warfare).

There is of course no comment or criticism in this editorial of the further massive increase in the Pentagon budget, and the trade-off this entails in the welfare of ordinary citizens, as is described in the article by Ewen MacAskill in the Guardian, entitled 'Bush Slashes Aid to Poor to Boost Iraq War Chest (www.truthout.org).

The editorial even compliments Bush for 'making an effort to reach out to the new Democratic majority'. This is baloney. Economist Dean Baker writes: 'While bipartisan progress would be encouraging, it is very difficult to see any evidence of compromise from President Bush in key areas of public policy. In fact, in almost every important area, the positions he has adopted since the November election have been more extreme than those he had previously advocated. Most of the public has probably failed to recognise President Bush's sharp turn to the right, because the media has chosen to place more emphasis on his public gestures toward the Democratic leadership than his policy proposals' (Dean Baker, 'Bring Back the Old George W. Bush: www.truthout.org).

Katrina and New Orleans: Just as the Inky goes very lightly in criticising Bush's economic policies and treatment of the poor (and civil society in general), so it continues to scant the New Orleans disaster and the Bush administration's scandalous neglect and mishandling of that ongoing crisis. Editorials and Commentaries on this subject have been extremely rare and lightweight. I trace it back to the Inky's fear of going after Bush, its constant genuflection to the right now reinforced by the new ownership.

The New York Times hasn't focused on this a great deal, but more than the Inky, and Bob Herbert had a series of five op-ed columns on New Orleans that were devastating (See Herbert's 'America's Open Wound', NYT, December 21st, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com. See also, Bill Quigley, 'New Orleans: HUD Policies Limiting Housing for Poor', http://www.truthout.org).

Stolen Money in Iraq: The Inky editors were really gung-ho and had several indignant editorials on the UN oil-for-food scandal, which involved some sleazy dealings and under-cover payments in Iraq's sale of oil. Here they had an easy target, the UN, Kofi Annan, and Saddam, although the US was involved also in failing to oppose contracts that were dubious, a matter the Inky editors naturally downplayed. (As one analyst pointed out, 'On no occasion did the United States block or delay the contracts to prevent the kickbacks from occurring. Although the United States, citing security concerns, blocked billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts--$5 billion were on hold as of July 2002--it never took action to stop kickbacks, even when they were obvious and well documented'.)

But there has been really big-money theft in the US management of its occupation, involving sums vastly larger than those in the UN-Iraq, and with evidence of staggeringly large cash flows from the US taxpayer into unknown hands in Iraq. (See David Pallister, 'How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish', The Guardian, February 8th, 2007). What a wonderful basis for an editorial or Commentary column, but the Inky has not taken advantage of this opportunity. No easy target here.

Opinions of Karen Kwiatkowski, Anne Wright, and Jan Karpinski: The Inky editors have been very generous in allowing Bush administration officials like Gale Norton, Michael Chertoff, and Donald Rumsfeld commentary space. Also military personnel who have peddled the official and pro-war positions. But military dissidents are kept out of the Inky. Kwiatkowski, Wright and Karpinski were all high ranking women military officers who turned against the administration and war and have been eloquent dissidents. It shows the bias and cowardice of the Inky editors that they have never offered a single commentary entry by any of these women. (See Karen Kwiatkowski's 'The New Pentagon Papers', for a very enlightening take, but too much for the editors http://dir.salon.com).

The Ehren Watada Case: I've noted earlier how the Inky ignores or downplays the dissent within the military that continues to grow. The officer Ehren Watada has refused to go to Iraq on principled antiwar grounds, and was subjected to a court-martial trial that was recently ended in a mistrial. This would have made for an enlightening Commentary column or editorial as the case raised fundamental questions about the legality of the war. But this is a subject that Trudy Rubin and the Inky editors have carefully avoided, so their failure to touch the case and the issues at stake on the editorial page follows accordingly. (See Norman Solomon,'Making an Example of Ehren Watada': http://www.truthout.org)

The Imperial Presidency: The Bush administration has been tearing the constitution and checks and balances system to shreds. The Inky editors have opposed this, but not very strenuously or with any real urgency; certainly not with the passion with which they assailed Clinton for his moral failings or for his end-of-term pardons. They have never suggested that the 'war on terror' is a fraud whose main purpose is enhancement of the power of the imperial presidency. Dahlia Lithwick does this in the Washington Post, in a column that the Inky editors chose not to pick up. See 'The Imperial Presidency', Washington Post, January 14th, 2007.