The article below is interesting reading.
Funny how many of us justify our positions based on where our pay check and our future promotions come from.
For example, I have long been opposed to state government contracting work that should be provided by state employees. But after all the pros and cons have settled, it is cheaper to contract than to add FTE's to the public employee roles.
But here I am, contracting with the state to provide a service that once was provided by a state employee. And I am now preparing documents and information packets to take to our legislature in an attempt to defend the very system I do not personally support. I can justify it by saying, "If we lose our contract money we will no longer be able to provide services to older blind and vision impaired folks". But at the same time I am fighting to maintain my own level of living. Should I be defending contract work, or should I be fighting for state government to shoulder its responsibility and hire enough workers to do the job, with proper benefits and the ability for these workers to join the state employees union?
If I were the young Carl Jarvis with nothing to lose, I'd be storming the legislative halls demanding more FTE's. But old Carl Jarvis has a very personal stake in this game.
And the very same is true with the many journalists who are quick to tell us just how wonderfully well our government is doing in foreign diplomacy. They are not about to bite the hand that feeds them.
Curious Carl
******
Media Advisory:
What We Learn From WikiLeaks
Media paint flattering picture of U.S. diplomacy
12/16/10
In U.S. elite media, the main revelation of the *WikiLeaks* diplomatic
cables is that the U.S. government conducts its foreign policy in a largely
admirable fashion.
Fareed Zakaria, *Time *(12/2/10):
"The WikiLeaks documents, by contrast [to the Pentagon Papers], show
Washington pursuing privately pretty much the policies it has articulated
publicly. Whether on Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan or North Korea, the cables
confirm what we know to be U.S. foreign policy. And often this foreign
policy is concerned with broader regional security, not narrow American
interests. Ambassadors are not caught pushing other countries in order to
make deals secretly to strengthen the U.S., but rather to solve festering
problems."
David Sanger, *New York Times* (12/5/10):
"While WikiLeaks made the trove available with the intention of exposing
United States duplicity, what struck many readers was that American
diplomacy looked rather impressive. The day-by-day record showed diplomats
trying their hardest behind closed doors to defuse some of the world's
thorniest conflicts, but also assembling a Plan B."
David Brooks, *New York Times* (11/30/10):
"Despite the imaginings of people like Assange, the conversation revealed in
the cables is not devious and nefarious. The private conversation is similar
to the public conversation, except maybe more admirable."
*New York Times* editorial (11/30/10):
"But what struck us, and reassured us, about the latest trove of classified
documents released by WikiLeaks was the absence of any real skullduggery.
After years of revelations about the Bush administration's abuses--including
the use of torture and kidnappings--much of the Obama administration's
diplomatic wheeling and dealing is appropriate and, at times, downright
skillful."
Christopher Dickey and Andrew Bast, *Newsweek* (12/13/10):
"One of the great ironies of the latest WikiLeaks dump, in fact, is that the
industrial quantities of pilfered State Department documents actually show
American diplomats doing their jobs the way diplomats should, and doing them
very well indeed. When the cables detail corruption at the top of the Afghan
government, the Saudi king's desire to be rid of the Iranian threat, the
personality quirks of European leaders or the state of the Russian
mafiacracy, the reporting is very much in line with what the press has
already told the public. There's no big disconnect about the facts; no
evidence--in the recent cables at least--that the United States government
is trying to deceive the public or itself."
Bob Garfield, *NPR*'s *On the Media* (12/3/10):
"The stories so far have been revealing but unsurprising, it seems to me,
and not especially indicting. It's made me wonder whether WikiLeaks is a
legitimate whistleblower in this case or just a looter. Has Julian Assange
shed light here with the release of 253,000 cables or has he just smashed a
very big store window?"
Anne Applebaum, *Washington Post* (12/7/10):
"By now, I think we have learned that Julian Assange, the founder of
WikiLeaks, has vast ambitions. Among them is the end of American government
as we know it. On his website he describes the leaked U.S. diplomatic cables
in dramatic and sinister terms, evoking the lost ideals of George Washington
and claiming that they demonstrate a profound gap between the United States'
"public persona and what it says behind closed doors." Alas, the cables
don't live up to that promise. On the contrary--as others have noted--they
show that U.S. diplomats pursue pretty much the same goals in private as
they do in public, albeit using more caustic language."
These conclusions represent an extraordinarily narrow reading of the
*WikiLeaks* cables, of which about 1,000 have been released (contrary to
constant media claims that the website has already released 250,000 cables).
Some of the more explosive revelations, unflattering to U.S. policymakers,
have received less attention in U.S. corporate media. Among the revelations
that, by any sensible reading, show U.S. diplomatic efforts of considerable
concern:
--The U.S. attempted to prevent German authorities from acting on arrest
warrants against 13 CIA officers who were instrumental in the abduction and
subsequent torture of German citizen Khaled El-Masri (Scott Horton, *
Harpers*.org, 11/29/10 [ http://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831 ];
*New York Times*, 12/9/10 [
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/world/europe/09wikileaks-elmasri.html ]).
--The U.S. worked to obstruct Spanish government investigations into the
killing of a Spanish journalist in Iraq by U.S. forces, the use of Spanish
airfields for the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program and torture of
Spanish detainees at Guantánamo (*El Pais*, 12/2/10; Scott Horton,
*Harpers*.org, 12/1/10 [ http://harpers.org/archive/2010/12/hbc-90007836 ]).
--*WikiLeaks* coverage has often emphasized that Yemeni president Ali
Abdullah Saleh reassured U.S. officials that he would claim U.S. military
airstrikes in his country were the work of Yemeni forces. But as Justin
Elliot pointed out (*Salon*, 12/7/10 [
http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/wikileaks_show_state_official_lied ]
), the United States has long denied carrying out airstrikes in the country
at all. The secret attacks have killed scores of civilians.
--According to the cables, U.S. Special Forces are actively conducting
operations inside Pakistan, despite repeated government denials (Jeremy
Scahill, *Nation*, 12/1/10 [
http://www.thenation.com/blog/156765/not-so-secret-anymore-us-war-pakistan ]).
--The U.S. ambassador to Honduras concluded that the 2009 removal of
president Manuel Zelaya was indeed a coup, and that backers of this action
provided no compelling evidence to support their legal claims (Robert
Naiman, Just Foreign Policy, 11/29/10 [
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/774 ]). Despite the conclusions
reached in the cable, official U.S. statements remained ambiguous. If the
Obama administration had reached the same conclusion in public as was made
in the cable, the outcome of the coup might have been very different.
--The U.S. secured a secret agreement with Britain to allow U.S. bases on
British soil to stockpile cluster bombs, circumventing a treaty signed by
Britain. The U.S. also discouraged other countries from working to ban the
weapons, which have devastating effects on civilian populations (*Guardian*,
12/1/10 [
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-cluster-bombs-britain ]
).
--The U.S. engaged in an array of tactics to undermine opposition to U.S.
climate change policies, including bribes and surveillance (*Guardian*,
12/3/10 [
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord ]
).
--U.S. diplomats in Georgia were uncritical of that country's claims about
Russian interference, a dispute that eventually led to a brief war (*New
York Times*, 12/2/10 [
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/europe/02wikileaks-georgia.html ]).
U.S. officials "appeared to set aside skepticism and embrace Georgian
versions of important and disputed events....as the region slipped toward
war, sources outside the Georgian government were played down or not
included in important cables. Official Georgian versions of events were
passed to Washington largely unchallenged."
--U.S. officials put forward sketchy intelligence as proof that Iran had
secured 19 long-range missiles from North Korea--claims that were treated as
fact by the *New York Times*, which subsequently walked back its credulous
reporting (FAIR Activism Update, 12/3/10 [
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4209 ])
All of these examples--an incomplete tally of the important revelations in
the cables thus far--would suggest that there is plenty in the *WikiLeaks*
releases that does not reflect particularly well on U.S. policymakers.
In its "Note to Readers" explaining their decision to publish stories about
the cables, the *New York Times* (11/29/10) told readers that "the documents
serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes,
compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy."
The paper went on:
"But the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables
tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest
decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and
money. They shed light on the motivations--and, in some cases, duplicity--of
allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They
illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries,
like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing."
The "duplicity" of other countries can be illuminated by the cables, while
the U.S.'s secret wars are evidence of "diplomacy." That principle would
seem to be guiding the way many U.S. outlets are interpretating the
*WikiLeaks* revelations.
**We Support WikiLeaks--Sign the Petition! [
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5343
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to
everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
documented examples of media bias or censorship.
What We Learn From WikiLeaks
Media paint flattering picture of U.S. diplomacy
12/16/10
In U.S. elite media, the main revelation of the *WikiLeaks* diplomatic
cables is that the U.S. government conducts its foreign policy in a largely
admirable fashion.
Fareed Zakaria, *Time *(12/2/10):
"The WikiLeaks documents, by contrast [to the Pentagon Papers], show
Washington pursuing privately pretty much the policies it has articulated
publicly. Whether on Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan or North Korea, the cables
confirm what we know to be U.S. foreign policy. And often this foreign
policy is concerned with broader regional security, not narrow American
interests. Ambassadors are not caught pushing other countries in order to
make deals secretly to strengthen the U.S., but rather to solve festering
problems."
David Sanger, *New York Times* (12/5/10):
"While WikiLeaks made the trove available with the intention of exposing
United States duplicity, what struck many readers was that American
diplomacy looked rather impressive. The day-by-day record showed diplomats
trying their hardest behind closed doors to defuse some of the world's
thorniest conflicts, but also assembling a Plan B."
David Brooks, *New York Times* (11/30/10):
"Despite the imaginings of people like Assange, the conversation revealed in
the cables is not devious and nefarious. The private conversation is similar
to the public conversation, except maybe more admirable."
*New York Times* editorial (11/30/10):
"But what struck us, and reassured us, about the latest trove of classified
documents released by WikiLeaks was the absence of any real skullduggery.
After years of revelations about the Bush administration's abuses--including
the use of torture and kidnappings--much of the Obama administration's
diplomatic wheeling and dealing is appropriate and, at times, downright
skillful."
Christopher Dickey and Andrew Bast, *Newsweek* (12/13/10):
"One of the great ironies of the latest WikiLeaks dump, in fact, is that the
industrial quantities of pilfered State Department documents actually show
American diplomats doing their jobs the way diplomats should, and doing them
very well indeed. When the cables detail corruption at the top of the Afghan
government, the Saudi king's desire to be rid of the Iranian threat, the
personality quirks of European leaders or the state of the Russian
mafiacracy, the reporting is very much in line with what the press has
already told the public. There's no big disconnect about the facts; no
evidence--in the recent cables at least--that the United States government
is trying to deceive the public or itself."
Bob Garfield, *NPR*'s *On the Media* (12/3/10):
"The stories so far have been revealing but unsurprising, it seems to me,
and not especially indicting. It's made me wonder whether WikiLeaks is a
legitimate whistleblower in this case or just a looter. Has Julian Assange
shed light here with the release of 253,000 cables or has he just smashed a
very big store window?"
Anne Applebaum, *Washington Post* (12/7/10):
"By now, I think we have learned that Julian Assange, the founder of
WikiLeaks, has vast ambitions. Among them is the end of American government
as we know it. On his website he describes the leaked U.S. diplomatic cables
in dramatic and sinister terms, evoking the lost ideals of George Washington
and claiming that they demonstrate a profound gap between the United States'
"public persona and what it says behind closed doors." Alas, the cables
don't live up to that promise. On the contrary--as others have noted--they
show that U.S. diplomats pursue pretty much the same goals in private as
they do in public, albeit using more caustic language."
These conclusions represent an extraordinarily narrow reading of the
*WikiLeaks* cables, of which about 1,000 have been released (contrary to
constant media claims that the website has already released 250,000 cables).
Some of the more explosive revelations, unflattering to U.S. policymakers,
have received less attention in U.S. corporate media. Among the revelations
that, by any sensible reading, show U.S. diplomatic efforts of considerable
concern:
--The U.S. attempted to prevent German authorities from acting on arrest
warrants against 13 CIA officers who were instrumental in the abduction and
subsequent torture of German citizen Khaled El-Masri (Scott Horton, *
Harpers*.org, 11/29/10 [ http://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831 ];
*New York Times*, 12/9/10 [
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/world/europe/09wikileaks-elmasri.html ]).
--The U.S. worked to obstruct Spanish government investigations into the
killing of a Spanish journalist in Iraq by U.S. forces, the use of Spanish
airfields for the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program and torture of
Spanish detainees at Guantánamo (*El Pais*, 12/2/10; Scott Horton,
*Harpers*.org, 12/1/10 [ http://harpers.org/archive/2010/12/hbc-90007836 ]).
--*WikiLeaks* coverage has often emphasized that Yemeni president Ali
Abdullah Saleh reassured U.S. officials that he would claim U.S. military
airstrikes in his country were the work of Yemeni forces. But as Justin
Elliot pointed out (*Salon*, 12/7/10 [
http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/wikileaks_show_state_official_lied ]
), the United States has long denied carrying out airstrikes in the country
at all. The secret attacks have killed scores of civilians.
--According to the cables, U.S. Special Forces are actively conducting
operations inside Pakistan, despite repeated government denials (Jeremy
Scahill, *Nation*, 12/1/10 [
http://www.thenation.com/blog/156765/not-so-secret-anymore-us-war-pakistan ]).
--The U.S. ambassador to Honduras concluded that the 2009 removal of
president Manuel Zelaya was indeed a coup, and that backers of this action
provided no compelling evidence to support their legal claims (Robert
Naiman, Just Foreign Policy, 11/29/10 [
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/774 ]). Despite the conclusions
reached in the cable, official U.S. statements remained ambiguous. If the
Obama administration had reached the same conclusion in public as was made
in the cable, the outcome of the coup might have been very different.
--The U.S. secured a secret agreement with Britain to allow U.S. bases on
British soil to stockpile cluster bombs, circumventing a treaty signed by
Britain. The U.S. also discouraged other countries from working to ban the
weapons, which have devastating effects on civilian populations (*Guardian*,
12/1/10 [
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-cluster-bombs-britain ]
).
--The U.S. engaged in an array of tactics to undermine opposition to U.S.
climate change policies, including bribes and surveillance (*Guardian*,
12/3/10 [
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord ]
).
--U.S. diplomats in Georgia were uncritical of that country's claims about
Russian interference, a dispute that eventually led to a brief war (*New
York Times*, 12/2/10 [
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/europe/02wikileaks-georgia.html ]).
U.S. officials "appeared to set aside skepticism and embrace Georgian
versions of important and disputed events....as the region slipped toward
war, sources outside the Georgian government were played down or not
included in important cables. Official Georgian versions of events were
passed to Washington largely unchallenged."
--U.S. officials put forward sketchy intelligence as proof that Iran had
secured 19 long-range missiles from North Korea--claims that were treated as
fact by the *New York Times*, which subsequently walked back its credulous
reporting (FAIR Activism Update, 12/3/10 [
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4209 ])
All of these examples--an incomplete tally of the important revelations in
the cables thus far--would suggest that there is plenty in the *WikiLeaks*
releases that does not reflect particularly well on U.S. policymakers.
In its "Note to Readers" explaining their decision to publish stories about
the cables, the *New York Times* (11/29/10) told readers that "the documents
serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes,
compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy."
The paper went on:
"But the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables
tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest
decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and
money. They shed light on the motivations--and, in some cases, duplicity--of
allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They
illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries,
like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing."
The "duplicity" of other countries can be illuminated by the cables, while
the U.S.'s secret wars are evidence of "diplomacy." That principle would
seem to be guiding the way many U.S. outlets are interpretating the
*WikiLeaks* revelations.
**We Support WikiLeaks--Sign the Petition! [
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5343
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to
everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
documented examples of media bias or censorship.
No comments:
Post a Comment