When Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele, recently said that Afghanistan is “a war of Obama's choosing” that is prone to fail according to “1,000 years of history,” the warfare state's usual apologists promptly responded by attacking him. Amid their superficial displays of political axe-grinding, they accused him of committing a “factual error” and a “gaffe.”*
Coming from neocons and others who are politically and financially vested in U.S. foreign policy, and who therefore openly support imperial U.S. aggression, such a reaction is predictable. Yet, in this case, it wasn't Max Boot who thus inverted reality in reacting to Steele's comments, but rather the “world's largest and most trusted source of independent news and information”: The Associated Press.
Take a look at the AP report on the subject. Although Steele's strongest argument is that previous imperial attempts to conquer Afghanistan have failed, The AP editor found no space in the lengthy report to either challenge or confirm this historical fact. Nothing appears about the grim assessments and the current crescendo of U.S. and Afghan casualties and financial debt incurred unto Americans. Nothing of substance about the moral, legal, or practical opposition to the policy. Far from an honest attempt at getting to the truth of the matter, the AP report is a thinly veiled exercise in state-worship.
Surprised? You shouldn't be: it's typical AP fare.
Following are some other things that should make you wonder from what The AP is “independent” and by whom The AP is “trusted.”
- The AP boasts over 240 bureaus in over 95 countries; the U.S. Pentagon runs an empire over 700 military bases in over 130 countries. Where do those bases and bureaus locally overlap, and what would happen to The AP's international operations should the U.S. empire be scaled back considerably? What if there were no wars and military occupations?
- Is it just a coincidence that The AP and the U.S. government always agree on whether and how the economy is recovering, and what the unemployment rate is? Or that there is nothing notably immoral, illicit, or insane about deficit spending, borrowing, and printing funny money? Or that there is nothing immoral or unconstitutional about forcing individuals to purchase health insurance for themselves and strangers? Why are pro-policy “experts” — many of whom having been thoroughly discredited — relied upon almost exclusively for testimonials?
- Why is The AP's political vernacular almost identical to that of the U.S. State Department? (Foreign and domestic foes are anti-U.S., radical, quixotic, fringe, state-owned, gunmen, extremists, insurgents, militants, terrorists, threats, violent, they tend to exaggerate, they have no motives, their motives are second-guessed, or they don't exist; meanwhile, the U.S. government and its pals are moderate, optimistic, pro-U.S., soldiers, experts, embattled, independent, troubled, compromising, peace-seeking, disappointed, their government-linked status is omitted, their motives are face-valued, or they don't exist.) Is this consistent with being “unbiased” or “fair”?
- While The AP won't let you forget that the U.S. State Department and its foreign partners consider Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be terrorist organizations, why is there never even a hint that vice versa is true?
- Next to the word Islamic, the word resistance (to Israeli occupation) is the heart of the Arabic acronym HAMAS. Why does The AP, instead, only refer to Hamas as the “militant Islamic group”? Why not refer to the Israeli government as the “aggressive occupying regime”? Why are the scales zeroed out at U.S. and Israeli sentiments?
- In AP reports concerning Hamas, there seemingly always appears a version of this apology for Israeli barbarism: “Hamas is sworn to Israel's destruction and has killed hundreds of Israelis.” No such narrative about Israel ever appears. Yet, has the Israeli state not stolen and destroyed Palestinian property, and killed not hundreds but thousands of Palestinians? Who is dedicated to the destruction of whom?
- If The AP is not acting as media organ for the Israeli government, then how to explain this? Why have they not reported this? (Perhaps the answer generally lies here, or specifically here.)
- If The AP is “independent” and “impartial,” then why is its website adorned with a flattering image of U.S. occupation soldiers carrying U.S. and Iraqi flags? Why do its annual luncheons have U.S.-NATO generals and foreign heads of U.S.-allied states as guest speakers? Are they there to question the morality, legality, or practicality of the policies they are devising and executing?
- In its periodic reports titled “Iraq: Key figures since the war began,” The AP continues to list the estimated number of deaths of U.S. military personnel and civilian government contractors, yet no longer lists the estimates of the deaths of Iraqi civilians. Why not? And why rely almost exclusively on official sources for those estimates? Who has a greater incentive to lie about (minimize) those figures?
To be sure, The AP is not the only outlet guilty of empire-coddling; it is simply the largest and most prolific of all. And considering its reputation for being the “most trusted” and “independent” news source, The AP's body of work also is the most insidious and damaging to the cause of liberty.
In referencing other news outlets in less-free countries like North Korea and Iran, The AP uses terms like state-owned, state-run, state-controlled, official, and semi-official, which carry a negative connotation, implying an inherent lack of objectivity and credibility in those outlets.
But at least with North Korean and Iranian news media, which are openly state-connected, even a half-wit won't easily be duped into believing claims of independence. How should a shrewd observer refer to the status of The AP upon careful consideration of its coverage?
– – – – –
* As Eric Garris so well puts it, gaffe is “a technical term signifying that a politician has spoken the truth.”
Latest posts by Dan Alba (see all)
- Arrogant Press plays dumb on Afghan blowback - July 17, 2010
- The Shahram Amiri News Cycle - July 15, 2010
- The French Veil-Ban, Forced Equality, and Pollsters - July 12, 2010
- With news like this, who needs PR? - July 11, 2010
- Arizona Immigration Law and the Ahistorical Press - July 8, 2010
- Michael Steele's 'Gaffe' and What is is - July 6, 2010
- Q: What's worse than state-controlled news? - July 4, 2010
- AP Editorial: America founded on trust of govt. - June 8, 2010
- How the Press is not Free - March 3, 2010
- The AP’s Dubious Claims Against Iran and Syria - February 28, 2010
- US-NATO Aggression to ‘Win Hearts and Minds’ - February 14, 2010
- State-Controlled Media versus Debra Medina et al. - February 13, 2010
- Just Another Imperial Brick - February 5, 2010
- AP Conceals US Govt. Role in Haiti-Relief Plight - January 29, 2010
- Define: ‘Missing the Mark’ - December 29, 2009
- News Media and the State - December 29, 2009
- Why MSM Are Tanking: Two Examples - December 18, 2009
- AP: Tobacco-tax plunder is a good idea - March 31, 2009
- Ahistorical Parodists - March 12, 2009
- The Obama ‘Stimulus’ and the ‘Do Nothing’ Hoover - February 13, 2009
- AP: Maybe Israel is targeting women, children and mosques; but … - January 4, 2009
- Famous Last Contributions of an AP Editor - December 30, 2008
- Aristocratic Putsch - December 21, 2008
- MSM: ‘Hooray! Obama to be noble tyrant, like past Dear Leaders!’ - November 12, 2008
- Advocating Piracy - October 27, 2008
- AP on Iraq: News Reports or Editorials? - September 25, 2008
- Corporate News Media ‘Cover’ Police-Statism at the RNC - September 2, 2008
- ‘Russia v. Georgia’ and the Media Spin Machine - August 12, 2008
- Another Huge Reason Why Corporate Media Are Criminally Complicit - August 9, 2008
- UPI has officially reserved a spot in The Dock - August 9, 2008
- Think Tanks to Holding Tanks, Board Rooms to Gallows: Part 3 - July 28, 2008
- This Week in Apocalyptic Propaganda - June 3, 2008
- When Corporate Media Were Imperial Shills, or: Now and Always - April 23, 2008
- This Week in Apartheid Propaganda - April 20, 2008
- Petraeus’ Self-Demotion - April 11, 2008
- Video: ‘The High Tide’ - March 18, 2008
- Associated Propaganda - March 12, 2008
- Fig Leaves and Fuhrers - March 4, 2008
- The Irony of ‘Appeasement’ - February 23, 2008
- Another Defense of Ron Paul - January 23, 2008
- John McCain: Enemy of Liberty (and its crew) - January 20, 2008
- ‘NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist’ - January 13, 2008
- Ron Paul vs. FOX Debate Fraud - January 13, 2008
- Conjecture, Fallacy, Ignorance, and the Internet - January 4, 2008
- Ron Paul Fraud-Smashing, Made Easy - December 21, 2007
- Should Warmongering Corporate Media Be ‘Wiped Off the Map’? - December 6, 2007
- John McCain Is Terrified of Ron Paul - November 29, 2007
- Ron Paul vs. Flat Earthers (Again) - November 21, 2007
- Someone Like Ron Paul - November 13, 2007
- The Truman Show Campaign (Another Commentary on Media ‘Coverage’ of Ron Paul) - November 9, 2007