A blogger's criticism of Robert Fisk
author: redpill8
|
Robert Fisk is one of the greatest reporters of all time. He has written some of the most insightful, biting criticisms about U.S./Israeli/British foreign policy and provided readers, in vivid detail, a vision of of the plight of people living in war torn areas of the Middle East. I have nothing but sincere gratitude to him for putting his life on the line to give us these excellent stories. But, having said this, I think he is doing a disservice to his readers by claiming his contempt for the Internet and also by his refusal to look critically into the events of 9/11.
|
As far as Fisk's distain for the Internet, here is what he had to say about it in his latest article published in The Independent:
Robert Fisk: No wonder the bloggers are winning:
I despise the Internet. It's irresponsible and, often, a net of hate. And I don't have time for Blogopops. But here's a tale of two gutless newspapers which explains why more and more people are Googling rather than turning pages.
news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2788619.ece
With such a broad, sweeping dismissal of the vast expanse of scientific research, political articles, commentaries, and important videos that one would never see on prime time news, calling the Internet "irresponsible" is the epitome of irresponsibility itself.
And, as far as his comment that the Internet is a "net of hate". Yes, we know that the Internet will connect people to hate-spewing Nazi propaganda web sites, as well as Zionist ones, but the internet doesn't even come close to being a organ for hate -- with its captive audience to millions -- as traditional media.
For example, Fisk should spend some time watching Glenn Beck as he gives his nightly "two minute hate" speeches on CNN. For those who don't know Beck. His job is to tell Americans how much Muslims hate us and are itching to drop a nuclear bomb on one of our cities. This vile speech often runs simultaneously with a visual of a nuclear bomb going off in the background.
Sometimes the scenarios on Beck's program don't always culminate in a mushroom cloud but are more mundane, though horrifying just the same. For instance, just the previous night Beck had on his program fiction writer and DHS terrorist-scenario creator, Brad Thor, telling American parents that their kids are in jeopardy from a Beslan-like school hostage crisis from depraved, fanatical Muslims. (So much for the notion of corporate responsibility -- this raving lunatic is given a soapbox to voice his hate courtesy of the Time Warner company who are owners of CNN).
And, if you don't get your hate from that bastion of liberalism, CNN, you could always go to Fox New's Bill O'Reilly who hates everything liberal, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough who ran one of the most vicious campaigns to get Rosie O'Donnell fired from The View -- right at a time that she was educating people about 9/11.
Broadcast news and radio oozes hate and fear to millions daily, but, just because it is corporate-sponsored does that make it any less reprehensible than what one can read on the Internet?
Granted, these organs are not Fisk's beloved print media but the print media was just as instrumental in selling the Iraq war to the American people as broadcast media. After all, who can forget Judith Miller's role in marketing the Iraq War to the American people under the aegis of the New York Times.
And, Miller's case was not an isolated one as biased, pro-government stories like the ones she filed were a constant in the months leading up to the war and after. Newspapers from around the country almost unfailingly goose-stepped along with the administration's versions of reality word-for-word, neglecting to do their perceived jobs as acting as watchdogs for the citizenry of this country by holding public officials accountable; and, that is the main point, print media is perceived to be unbiased, but it is not. It is highly controlled and manipulated by corporate and political interests.
All Americans should know about Operation Mockingbird. Here's a description of the program as reveal through details of the Church Committee of 1976:
"The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
One can only imagine the control the CIA has over the media today when our administration has overtly given them carte blanche to disseminate propaganda favorable to the war effort. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Relations gives us some idea of how persuasive these programs are today (see:
 http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp?ID=150
Let's face it, people are leaving print and cable news for the Internet because they are tired of being lied to -- incessantly. They have been lied to on such issues as food safety and election fraud to the rationales for the Iraq War and 9/11.
And, speaking of 9/11, this brings me to my second criticism about Fisk. I spoke with him after a event last year in which he was speaking about his latest book, "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East." I asked him if he would look critically and skeptically into the events of 9/11. I felt that this was important to mention as Fisk's central thesis in his talks and books is that 9/11 was blowback in response to the aggression by imperialistic forces in the Middle East. I suggested to him that if he was going to make such assertions then it is incumbent for him to find out if this was indeed true as there is a body of evidence that indicates that 9/11 was an inside job.
Fisk told me that he does not have time to look into it as he is too busy reporting on events on the ground in the Middle East. I found this odd to say the least. If the central theme of Fisk's beliefs might be based on a lie, and he is promoting that lie to millions, then isn't it his responsibility to look into the veracity of that claim? After all, Fisk is quoted as saying that journalism must "challenge authority — all authority — especially so when governments and politicians take us to war" -- Miles, Oliver (2005-11-19). The big picture. Guardian Unlimited.
If Fisk is going to challenge authority, he must also challenge authorities' claims. After all, the administration uses 9/11 as the rationale for all their crimes -- preemptive war, torture, destroying the Bill of Rights. Since Fisk truly cares about the people of the Middle East, it's incumbent that he spend some time on the issue.
|
homepage: http://redpill8.blogspot.com
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion
view discussion from this article
|
Why does the occurrence of "9/11" mean that the entire "world has changed," when similar atrocities of the same or even greater scale (e.g, Chile's "9/11" (1973), when Pinochet seized power, bombing the Presidential Palace and overthrowing the elected government while slaughtering thousands of civilians) did not "change the world"? Does it really require an elaborate conspiracy theory to explain this? Or is it instead just simply because the US can kill a lot more people a lot quicker, so when it finds a useful pretext (which, historically, doesn't take much at all) the world is forcibly "changed" at the point of a gun? But Americans can't quite accept this level of simple and absurd brutality, the fact that on a grand scale our human relations are only slightly more evolved than the level of schoolyard bullies. Hence the urgent need we have to "explain" these phenomena by attributing them to elaborate causes.
People who subscribe to "9/11" conspiracies are not so very different from people who subscribe to the "official story." Both are elaborate attempts to explain and rationalize the fundamentally extremely simple, absurd brutality of the situation. A great quote from a Counterpunch article (my favorite "9/11 conspiracy" panning website) was: "Power does not depend on subtlety." Indeed. This is the "secret" of power. Power is very simple for the most part, and very brutal. It does not need to engineer elaborate conspiracies: It suffices to engineer elaborate PR campaigns to convince people of things that they are already inclined to and are looking to believe.
In short, the problem is not with "people who believe the official explanation" of any particular thing, so much as "people who WANT to believe the explanation," and even with "people who are desperate to find an elaborate explanation" of any kind, or anyone who seeks "an explanation" that attributes the basic pattern of events to something more convoluted and outside their control than the dynamics of the simple schoolyard bully. Complicated explanations for things DON'T somehow suddenly "enlighten" people, or radicalize them, or do anything for them beyond just making them yet more cynical, disempowered and, ultimately, COMPLACENT. And that is quite understandable: why should I get worked up about anything so complex, ingenious, and beyond my ordinary experience that I could never hope to have the slightest influence over it??
Thus, the desperate need that SOME people have to push "9/11 conspiracy" is merely another variant on the same theme: Some people, almost invariably people who are already against the government anyways without any need of a "9/11", feel better about themselves and their sense of powerlessness if they can believe that they are at least engaged in the very minor act of personal defiance consisting of "disbelieving the government's story." It doesn't actually right any wrongs, save any small children in Iraq, stop any more American soldiers from killing or dying, but it's something that, however small, can act to buoy their own sense of personal autonomy and self-worth, amidst a general feeling of powerlessness and hopelessness not dissimilar from everyone else, whether they "buy into" particular details in the "official narrative" or not.
In both cases, however, the larger narrative is the same: "You are powerless. Everything is far more complicated and ingenious than you could ever fully hope to fathom or control."
When, on the other hand, someone fully recognizes the simple, absurd brutality of it all, one feels not a sense of being lost at sea, overpowered by dark and unfathomable forces, which leads to either cynicism, complacency, or misdirected anger. But instead, a straightforward sense of outrage. Which is not necessarily empowering in and of itself, but is at least not actively disempowering.