New Inquirer Financial Crisis; New Editorial Program of Local School Contributions; Contradiction between Ads That Feature Buying and the Appeal to Voluntarism; Surge to Nowhere; 935 Lies Not Newsworthy; Secrets and Rights; Inky Plus: Clarke on Bush Fear-Mongering

::::::::

The Inky is once again in a financial crunch, with publisher-part owner Brian Tierney warning the unions and staff of the probable imminent need of a further 10 percent staff cut to permit the paying of interest on the $350 million debt incurred by the local owners when the paper was acquired in May 2006. The newsroom suffered a 66 person cut, 16.7 percent of the total, in February 2007, and some more slashing there seems likely, because on the Tierney business model, as David Carr has pointed out in the New York Times, "the newsroom is no longer the core purpose of media, it's just overhead."

Of course, substantial economies could be obtained by canceling the contracts of the three uninspiring and unenlightening rightwingers hired since the Tierney takeover—Smerconish, Santorum and Bowden—which would still leave the Inky with solid rightwing representation with Kevin Ferris, Jonathan Last, Charles Krauthammer and the frequent ad hoc offerings of Steve Chapman, Claudia Rosett, Jonah Goldberg , Linda Chavez, Kathleen Parker, Victor Davis Hanson, Michael Barone, Frida Ghitlis, and lots of others. That is, there would still be a rightward tilt, but not as egregious as there is now with the Tierney additions. But Tierney had a political agenda that the addition of  Santorum, Bowden and Smerconish helped to meet, so the staff cuts in the news room will almost surely  take precedence.

The New "College Board" Opinion Piece Program

It is probably no coincidence that the enhanced financial pressures on the Inky are announced almost simultaneously with a new program of opinion pieces entitled "The College Board," to be authored "by writers from local colleges and universities." I suspect that these are unpaid offerings, so there may be a financial saving involved here. This is also in line with a long Inky tradition of getting reader participation as part of an Inky effort to stimulate community discussion or bring community members closer to the paper. I have always felt that this is a bad idea and one that allows the Inky to escape doing a first rate job on what a major newspaper is supposed to do—namely, to bring information and informed debate about central issues to its readers. Actually, "writers from local colleges and universities" have always been available to write commentaries for the Inky, but many of them who I know, and who are very well informed, have had trouble getting letters let alone commentary columns into the paper.

The first contribution in this new series, by a Bryn Mawr College sophomore, Rachel Tashjian, is entitled "Why don't we protest? We like our parents" (Jan. 26). The author claims that her fellow students are all very active—in the kind of community volunteer work that the Inky prizes—but that they don't protest the Iraq war because  "it would interrupt our own lives, yes, but it would also interrupt our relationship with our parents."  But why doesn't the volunteer work interrupt their lives?  And suppose the war is regarded as a moral issue? If it was in the midst of World War II and Jews were being pushed into gas chambers in Germany, would an unwillingness to offend parents be a proper basis for silence?

"The model of authority they present shows us that everything will work out," writes Tashjian. I would hope that she is not accurately representing her parents with this misguided deference to authority that is not very consistent with either democratic principles of citizenship or open-mindedness in thinking about public affairs.  She then ends her piece by suggesting that she and her fellow students won't become "Weathermen" any time soon, as if anti-war protest is commonly manifested in violent actions, a bit of a coput and mode of evasion on the issue.

Finally, can Rachel Tashjian speak for all students? Polls show that over 60 percent of  the adult population favors a withdrawal from Iraq within two years and presumably opposes the war, so how would "our" parents be offended by student war opposition?

In short, this opening  "College Board" opinion piece leaves a great deal to be desired; its biases fit too well the voluntarism emphasis of the editors and the hostility to antiwar activism of Kevin Ferris and perhaps others in the editorial room (is Ferris in charge of selecting these new contributions?). Pretty pathetic. 

Advertising/Selling Intensification Versus Appeals to Voluntarism and Sacrifice

In its editorials and Commentaries the Inky has long been keen on voluntarism and individual sacrifice in the public interest. (See their latest, an editorial on "King Day: Be of service," Jan. 29th). It features helping others, by being “citizen servants.” This includes the necessity of voting in elections, and certainly has its real merits; but it does not include the need for organized grass roots activity to contest the powerful, reverse the trend toward inequality, and make it possible to solve problems through state policy. In short, this emphasis is very much in keeping with the spirit of neoliberalism and the notion that the individual, and individuals' benevolent actions, along with markets, can do much if not all, and that a shrinking state is desirable.

What also strikes me is how this emphasis on individual and voluntaristic action is in contradiction with the drive to sell, which is so important in a commercial media and is so dramatically evident in the Inky today, led by advertising executive Brian Tierney.  The latest fashions, the newest goods to buy and the places where they may be acquired, the hottest restaurants—and featuring  "Always time to shop" (Melissa Dribben, Jan. 27th).  Gosh, if these goods and shopping  are really all that important to our welfare will we have the resources and time to do volunteer work for the less fortunate?  

Surge to Nowhere and Bombs Away

The Inky has followed the national party line in recently allowing the Iraq war to drop virtually out of sight, partly because the "surge" is allegedly working and U.S. casualties have dropped. But the surge is, as Andrew Bacevich points out in an op-ed column in the Washington Post, a "A Surge to Nowhere", solving no real problems and by arming fighting parties in Iraq contributing to intensifying civil war and further ethnic cleansing. As I've noted before, Bacevich, a conservative ex-military man as well as a scholar, has never been given commentary space or a book review in the Inky, although he towers over the Inky regulars in knowledge and sense.  

Similarly, the Inky has failed to stress that the "surge" and dropoff in U.S. casualties has been associated with a great intensification of the U.S. bombing war, with almost certain enlarged civilian casualties among Iraqis. In fact, Reuters reported on Thursday that one of Britian's leading polling groups conducted a survey which found that more than a million Iraqis have been killed as a result of the illegal invasion and occupation that so many of the Inky's columnists supported and still support. These numbers support The Lancet Report (largely attacked by Washington and the mainstream media) which estimated that over 600,000 Iraqi's were killed as of July 2006. This has been featured in the writings of  Patrick Cockburn, Dahr Jamail, and Tom Engelhardt, reporters and analysts whose work you won't find in the Inky. See Tom Engelhardt, "Bombs Away Over Iraq".

Bush Intends That the United States Will Stay in Iraq Indefinitely

The Inky editors and Trudy Rubin have long denied that the United States is in Iraq for the long term—they have accepted the official claim that we will stay only long enough to provide "stability"—although our stay there has been closely correlated with growing instability. But increasingly the political candidates and generals talk about a longer stay, some of them like McCain openly calling for a fight to victory. Bush has been negotiating with the U.S.-sponsored supposedly "sovereign" government of Iraq for a long stay in our bases, and he has recently declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill. Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued on January 28 after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008.

Longtime CIA analyst Ray McGovern writes ("Waking Up to the Human Costs: The Inequities and Inequalities of War," Feb. 1, 2008) that:

"Finally, the truth is seeping out. Contrary to how President George W. Bush has tried to justify the Iraq war in the past, he has now clumsily -- if inadvertently -- admitted that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was aimed primarily at seizing predominant influence over its oil by establishing permanent (the administration favors 'enduring') military bases.

"He made this transparently clear by adding a signing statement to the defense appropriation bill, indicating that he would not be bound by the law's prohibition against expending funds:

"’(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq," or

"(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.'

"….Moreover, it has become abundantly clear that the 'surge' of 30,000 troops into Iraq was aimed-pure and simple-at staving off definitive defeat until Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are safely out of office. Some, but not all, of those 30,000 troops are slated for withdrawal, but those who still expect more sizable withdrawals have not been reading the tea leaves. It is altogether likely there will still be 150,000 U.S. troops, and even more than that number of contractors, in Iraq a year from now.

"In the administration's view, the oil-and-bases prize is well worth the indignity of refereeing a civil war and additional troop casualties." Ray McGovern's analyses have never been published in the Inky.

Jennifer Van Bergen points out that "Bush's signing statements are unlawful and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled against line item vetoes. Bush's signing statements are just line item vetoes in disguise." And Theodore Lowi notes that "Congress by its silence and acquiescence to signing statements has, in effect, legislated their approval. This puts President Bush above accountability through congressional advocation." And the Inky, by not making a fuss over these outrages, has also helped along this lame duck's sabotaging of the U.S. Constitution and rule of law.

New List of Bush Lies

I've pointed out before how the Clinton lie about Lewinsky got great attention and indignation from the Inky editors. But the stream of Bush administration lies about consequential matters hasn't upset them very much. Now once again we have another piece of evidence on Bush lying that would be a fine peg for news or editorial comment, but the editors have other things on their minds. The Center for Public Integrity has just published a list of "935 False Statements by Top Administration Officials to Justify Iraq War".  As John Cory writes in his "By the Numbers":

"Nine hundred thirty-five false statements (lies) moved this nation into a war that has resulted in 3,391 [U.S.] deaths so far.... There have been 30,000 troops wounded in action; 39,000 have been diagnosed with PTSD; 84,000 vets suffer a mental health disorder; 229,000 veterans have sought VA care, and 1.4 million troops (active duty and reserves) have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan so far. Estimates run between $350 billion to $700 billion needed for lifetime care and benefits for veterans."

In short, these were important lies, and the Inky, having uncritically published a great many of them, should feel obligated to cover this story, but it hasn't done it.

Secrets and Rights

The Bush administration has committed numerous crimes of  kidnapping, rendition and torture that have been covered up by claims that legal efforts by the victims cannot be allowed because they would force disclosures that would harm "national security." As William Fisher points out, "Alarmed by the George W. Bush administration's increasing use of the so-called 'state secrets privilege' to keep politically embarrassing lawsuits against the government from ever coming before a judge, Congress is stepping in to help ensure that people with grievances can have their cases heard.

"A new bill sponsored by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, would provide a mechanism for protecting legitimate secrets while also permitting civil litigation to proceed. Both are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee ("Politics-US: Congress Seeks to Limit 'State Secrets' Privelege"). This is a very important civil liberties issue, and the New York Times gave it a lead editorial on Feb.2 ("Secrets and Rights" ),  saying that "Congress—which has allowed itself to be bullied on national security issues for far too long—may now be ready to push back." Wouldn't it be nice if the Inky also pushed strongly on this issue?

Inky Plus: Clarke on Bush Fear-Mongering

The Inky did provide a harsh criticism of the Bush administration by Richard A. Clarke on February 1, in his "Bush Legacy: Setting a Standard in Fear-Mongering". Clarke, the former head of counterterrorism on the NSC, uses strong but well deserved language, stressing the recklessness and dishonesty of Bush's "perpetuating fear for political gain."  He discusses specifically that in fighting the expiration of the Protect America Act, "the president misconstrued the truth and manipulated the facts." This kind of frankness and calling things by their right names regarding Bush is something we haven't often seen  on the editorial pages, and although it is compensated for on February 1 with another Kevin Ferris encomium to a fallen U.S. warrior in Iraq (at the top of the page, and with photos), this is an Inky plus that we can hope to see more of in the interest of  truth, morality, and "balance."

Submitter: Cyril Mychalejko

Submitters Bio:

Cyril Mychalejko is a writer, teacher, and mountain lover.