Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (2 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   1 comment

OpEdNews Op Eds

Suppressing Truth and Promoting War: A New York Times Tradition

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 2   Supported 2   Interesting 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 4/10/11

Become a Fan
  (191 fans)

Suppressing Truth and Promoting War: A New York Times Tradition - by Stephen Lendman

According to media scholar/critic Robert McChesney, today's corporate journalism is co-opted, corrupted, gutted, and virtually worthless as a source of real news, information and analysis. 

As a result, a free and open society is at risk because fiction substitutes for fact. News is carefully managed. Dissent is marginalized, and supporting wealth and power interests replace full disclosure and accurate reporting. No wonder imperial wars are called liberating one. Civil liberties are suppressed for our own good, and patriotism means going along with lawless governments. America's under both parties certainly qualifies.

A previous article explained that for many decades, The Times has been America's closest equivalent to an official ministry of information and propaganda, masquerading as real news, commentary, analysis and opinion.

Its long history reveals a record of suppressing truth, supporting powerful interests, backing corporate predators, and endorsing imperial wars, no matter how much killing, destruction, and human misery they cause, let alone why they're waged. 

In Times logic, America's are legitimate, liberating and just when, in fact, they're lawless, brutal, exploitive wealth and power grabs, intolerant of democratic values, including at home.

As a result, an April 7 editorial headlined, "Keeping Ahead of Qaddafi" doesn't surprise, saying:

America should use A-10 Warthogs to attack tanks and armor and AC-130 gunships to escalate killing on the ground, explaining they "can fly slow enough and low enough" to destroy targets better than "highflying supersonic French and British jets." American ones as well still participating.

In fact, AFRICOM's General Carter Ham, commanding the Libyan war, not NATO, said these and other strike aircraft are deployed and available to provide close air-ground support. Recent bad weather and threats from Gaddafi's mobile surface-to-air missiles restricted their use so far, he explained.

Claiming this will avoid civilian casualties, Times reasoning ignores the historic record that democratic and authoritarian governments willfully kill large numbers of civilians strategically to win wars at all cost, especially imperial ones to colonize conquered foes, control their resources, and exploit their people ruthlessly for profit. 

During and since WW II alone, America killed millions of mostly civilian Japanese, Germans, Italians, Koreans, Southeast Asians, Central Americans, Africans, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and now Libyans. 

In fact, its rules of engagement (ROE) stress one strategy only - win without restraint. All targets are fair game to defeat adversaries. In other words, civilian lives are of no consequence, and at times become strategic targets.

"Wars are messy business," said The Times, a disdainful comment mindless of the cost as long as not to Americans, at least not enough to make headlines.

To remove Gaddafi and control the entire Mediterranean Basin, expect a future Times editorial to endorse ground troops, suggested by General Ham before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Asked if deploying them was planned, he said:

"I suspect there might be some consideration of that. My personal view at this point would be that that's probably not the ideal circumstance, again for the regional reaction that having American boots on the ground would entail."

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

I was born in 1934, am a retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The McCain-Lieberman Police State Act

Daniel Estulin's "True Story of the Bilderberg Group" and What They May Be Planning Now

Continuity of Government: Coup d'Etat Authority in America

America Facing Depression and Bankruptcy

Lies, Damn Lies and the Murdoch Empire

Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccine Alert

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Yep, the Times has its own agenda.Turning a blind ... by martin weiss on Sunday, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:34:33 PM