Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

WTF MSM DSM ? An Alternate View of US MSM Non-Reporting

by GraceReid Sun Jun 26th, 2005 at 10:25:02 PM EST

For the Period May 1 through June 26, 2005

I've got almost as many op-eds in my files with theories as to why the MSM does not report on the DSM, as those that do report.  There are more letters to the editor demanding coverage, as there are letters by informed citizens with good advice for action to take (i.e. Congress, the Senate, and Coalition efforts)

But there are very few articles, op-eds and letters to the editor that address the basic problem of WHY there is so little, or almost NO coverage in the US Main Stream Media about the Downing Street Documents, the RAF bombing, the pre-war bombing, etc.

Here follows four theories.  You might not like this.



Branzburg v. Hayes is a court case from 1972 that addresses the journalist's rights to protect his/her sources.  The passage from the judge's ruling that has bearing on the US non-reporting of the DSM is here:

There remain those situations where a source is not engaged in criminal conduct but has information suggesting illegal conduct by others. Newsmen frequently receive information from such sources pursuant to a tacit or express agreement to withhold the source's name and suppress any information that the source wishes not published. Such informants presumably desire anonymity in order to avoid being entangled as a witness in a criminal trial or grand jury investigation. They may fear that disclosure will threaten their job security or personal safety or that it will simply result in dishonor or embarrassment.

Now in this situation we are dealing with reporting on the illegality of the war in Iraq is made almost impossible by journalists in the Main Stream Media because of what is contained in Branzburg v. Hayes.  We are talking about criminality at the very highest level of US government, and an involvement that is all encompassing... nearly every branch of government is involved.  Congress, too, I'm sorry to say.  The October Resolution was not Constitutional.


You will not believe me when I tell you that the top reporter on the story of the illegal war in Iraq for the last three years, was told by his managing editor not to write stories that reported the truth of the situation because it was unpatriotic and would lead to non-support for the President's policies.  Yet, it happened.

On what basis can this be considered allowable within First Ammendment protections of the freedom of speech?

Well, there's this:

Types of censorship

Censorship can be explicit, as in laws passed to prevent information being published or propagated (as in Australia, or Saudi Arabia where certain Internet pages are not permitted entry), or it can be implicit, taking the form of intimidation by government or even by popular censure, where people are afraid to express or support certain opinions for fear of losing their lives, or their jobs, position in society, or in academia, their academic credibility. In this latter form it is similar to McCarthyism.

These two forms (explicit and implicit) can be generalized to represent laws and government authority (explicit) and social forces or social persuasion (implicit).

During wartime, censorship is carried out with the intention of preventing the release of information that might be advantageous to the enemy  Typically it involves obfuscation of times or locations, or delaying the release of information (e.g. the objective of an operation) until it is of no possible use to enemy forces. Mention of weapons and equipment (especially if newly introduced) is another favourite area for censorship.

The moral issues here are somewhat different as release of the information carries a high risk of increased casualties among one's own forces and possibly loss of the overall conflict.

Censorship is regarded as a typical feature of dictatorships and other authoritarian political systems. Democratic nations usually have far less institutionalized censorship, and instead tout the importance of freedom of speech

Some thinkers understand censorship to include other attempts to suppress points of view or ideas such as negative propaganda, media manipulation, spin, disinformation,  or "free speech zones" (ghettoizing or containing speech). These methods, collectively, tend to work by disseminating misleading information or by preventing other ideas from obtaining a receptive audience

Wikipedia Encyclopedia

Now it is possible that the US government has imposed censorship on the fourth estate using as its argument that during wartime, accurate reporting of bombing campaigns, US casualties, and battle/attack figures would be aiding and abetting the enemy.  But in our situation, the only enemy that would have been aided by reporting the truth are those enemies to tyranny and Empire that have been trying to correct the excesses and abuses of power of this administration.


Is it possible that the truth HAS been reported, but the people, in their stupor did not recognize it?

Certainly.  Case in point, my hero, Bob Woodward.  There has been so much Woodward slamming around dKos ever since the outing of "Deep Throat" that I had to give up defending him.

One of the avenues of attack was Woodward's book "Plan of Attack."  The following passage is from Shakespeare's Sister, at: THE DAILY HOWLER

PIMPING WISE LEADER! Amazing! When Plan of Attack first appeared, the press said it proved Bush's honesty!

Yes--Woodward's book does show the Bush Admin "fixing the facts and the intelligence." And yes, it does show them starting to do this shortly after the Downing Street memo appeared. But when this fascinating book first appeared, it wasn't used by the Washington press to batter the Bush Admin on this score. Quite the contrary--the book was used to praise Wise Leader Bush for the great depth of his honesty! How did this odd transaction occur? Let's go back to the front-page report with which the Post introduced this new book--a front-page report which took us straight to the book's most ballyhooed passage.

"Plan of Attack" was released in April 2004. On Saturday morning, April 17, the Post ran a front-page report on its contents, written by reporter William Hamilton. In his second paragraph, Hamilton cited the puzzling anecdote which became the book's most famous passage. Surely, you recall that "slam dunk:"

HAMILTON (4/17/04): Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to a new book on the origins of the war.

The intensive war planning throughout 2002 created its own momentum, according to "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward, fueled in part by the CIA's conclusion that Saddam Hussein could not be removed from power except through a war and CIA Director George J. Tenet's assurance to the president that it was a "slam dunk" case that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.


For six weeks now, we have been examining the Downing Street Minutes.  Of all eight Downing Street Memos, this one continues to be the most damning.  And it is the phrase "intelligence was being fixed" to fit the policy of illegal war with Iraq that is smoking gun in that one.

The MSM in the United States has been and continues to be part of that system of "intelligence was fixed."  If you want to see this in action, follow the Newsweek story on the desecration of the Qu'ran.

How did that one go again? Newsweek reported the truth, as had the International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty before them. A massive amount of FBI emails released through the FOIA by the ACLU last December told the same story. Yet the US government stepped in and demanded that Newsweek retract, and blamed the press for the ensuing violence for having reported the truth. The Qu'ran was desecrated, but one was not to report it.

At a White House Press Conference one bold journalist asked Scott McClellan when he became the managing editor of Newsweek.  I don't think we have yet to get an answer to that one.

There's my four theories.  Of all of them, I would ask you to consider theory number one, Branzburg v. Hayes.  Put yourself in the place of the journalist who is more loyal to the pursuit of the truth than he is to his newspaper's editorial policy.  He is going to lose his/her job, his/her standing in the pecking order, or his/her mind.  (His/her)  What would you do?  Report, tone it down, or look for a new job?

I have found that it's job security that cuts right through the BS every time.  We all talk a good game, until we are looking at our last paycheck.  It takes courage of the very highest order to take on this story.  Courage I think very few of us possess.  I'll close now with a list of the most courageous Americans on my list at present.

Great People of Our Time

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

Bittler, Thomas, Training Coordinator, TSA-DHS
Carman, John, Former Senior Inspector, U.S. Customs
Chudson, Jonathan, Former
Special Agents, IG-Office, EPA
Cole, John M., Former Veteran Intelligence
Operations Specialist, FBI
Conrad, David "Mark", Retired Agent in Charge,
Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs
Connolly, Frank, Senior Screening Manager @
Buffalo, TSA
Copley, James, Project Manager, DOE Costello, Edward J. Jr., Former Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI
Cruse, Larry, Army Intelligence Analyst, DOD
Dzakovic, Bogdan, Former Red Team Leader, FAA
Edmonds, Sibel, Former Language Specialist, FBI
Ellsberg, Dan, Former Special Assistant to the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (ISA), DOD
Elson, Steve, Veteran Agent, FAA
Forbes, David, Aviation, Logistics and Govt. Security Analysts
German, Mike, Former Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI
Goodman, Melvin A., Former Senior Analyst/ Division Manager, CIA; Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy
Guagliardi, Ray, training coordinator, TSA-DHS Jenkins, Steve, Intelligence Analyst, NGIC, US Army
Kwiatkowski, Karen U., Lt. Col. USAF (ret.),
Veteran Policy Analyst-DOD
Larkin, Lynne A., Former Operations Officer, CIA Lau, Lok, Former Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI
Lipsky, John, Supervisory Special Agent, FBI
Mansour, Joe, Occupational Safety Specialist, Federal Bureau of Prisons
MacMichael, David, Former Senior Estimates Officer, CIA
McGovern, Raymond L., Former Analyst, CIA
Nunn, Sandy, Former Special Agent, US Customs
Pahle, Theodore J., Senior Intelligence Officer (Ret), DIA
Price, Paul, Language Analyst, NSA
Sarshar, Behrooz, Retired Language Specialist, FBI
Sculimbrene, Dennis, Former Special Agent, FBI Springmann, Mike, Foreign Service Officer-5; Second Secretary & Vice Consul, Department of State
Starns, Robert, Special Agent in Charge, Diplomatic Security Service, Department of State Stroup, Jay, Former Federal Security Director, TSA
Sullivan, Brian, Special Agent, Risk Program Management Specialist, FAA
Tice, Russ, Senior Intelligence Analyst & Action Officer, NSA
Tortorich, Larry J., Retired Naval Officer, US Navy & Dept. of Homeland Security/TSA,
Turner, Jane, Veteran Special Agent, FBI
Vincent, John, Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI
Walp, Glenn, PhD, Former Office Leader of the Office of Security Inquiries, Los Alamos National Lab, DOE
Woo, Robert, Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI
Wright, Robert, Veteran Special agent, Counterterrorism, FBI

Veterans Affairs Whistleblowers Coalition

Government Accountability Project

See Also:

What Did The American People Know?

Why Does The US MSM Not Report
. Chickenshit 33%
. Asleep At The Wheel 0%
. "Intelligence Is Being Fixed" MSM 66%
. They Do Report, No One Reads 0%
. If There's A Market, They Will Report 0%

Votes: 3
Results | Other Polls
please fill my tip jar so i can go back to college. please give me a recommend so i can get my passport renewed and find out what's become of America.
by GraceReid on Sun Jun 26th, 2005 at 10:26:39 PM EST

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]