The Tragedy, Shame and Failures of American Journalism: ‘Czar Putin’ and Christiane Amanpour as the Typical Bush Lapdog!
© By Professor Amechi Okolo, Ph.D.
© By Professor Amechi Okolo, Ph.D.
This article was a reaction to a report by Christine Amanpour on CNN in December 2007 titled, “Czar Putin”. The report was a good expose of the dictatorial practices and tendencies of President Putin of Russia. It showed the many things that Putin was doing to limit democracy in Russia and how the elections in Russia might not be free and fair. In all, I enjoyed watching it and wish she could do something like that on George Bush to be called something like, “King George Bush 1 of America”. Or does Ms. Amanpour not know that we Americans and the world need to know more about how Bush has trashed and is thrashing American constitution since his five criminal and shameless Supreme Court friends selected him to be our president in 2000[1]. Let me help by suggesting some areas “King George Bush 1 of America” could cover:
How Bush thrashed American Constitution and democratic electoral processes by stealing the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 in broad daylights. If you are not aware that those elections were stolen and/or fixed read these books:
1. Greg Palast, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (London: Pluto Press, 2002)
2. Vincent Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined Our Constitution and Chose Our President, (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press/Nation Books, 2001)
3. Alan M. Dershowitz, Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)
4. Mark Crispin Miller, Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They’ll Steal the next One Too -- Unless We Stop Them, (New York: Basic Books, 2005).
5. Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman, How the GOP Stole America’s 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008, (Columbus, OH: Free Press, 2005).
6. Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman, eds. Did George W. Bush Steal America’s 2004 Election? Essential Documents – Includes the Conyers Report, (Columbus, OH: Free Press, 2004).
7. Tracy Campbell, Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, An American Political Tradition, (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2005).
8. Also see, Stealing America: Vote By Vote. (A DVD by Concentric Media Production by Dorothy Fadiman; Narrated by Peter Coyote. Also visit http://www.stealingamericathemovie.org/)
Tracy Campbell’s book (#7 above) is a chilling/shocking history of electoral frauds in America which every journalist who reports on election fraud in other countries must read. The problem is that most journalists do not read or research their topics well or they are just interested in massaging Bush ego, thereby feeding thrash and propaganda to the American public. Journalism to be useful must be critical and introspective, which many of you lack.
I think that Ms. Amanpour’s academic preparation for the job is inadequate, which is the problem with many journalists in America. Without doubt, there are many topnotch journalists in America. Paul Krugman is just one of the many very good journalists in America, but many are mediocre and ill prepared for the job. For example, I do not think that a BA degree in journalism, which is what Ms. Amanpour has, is adequate preparation for CNN to hire and throw her into the world to pollute the world with half-baked propaganda and punditry masquerading as journalism. To worsen things, they shower her with accolades, awards, fattest paychecks, etc., as evidence of her superb journalism, which is a farce and façade to mask her role as an apologia, guard and defender of the orthodoxy. She must therefore do the, “King George Bush,” report to complement her, “Czar Putin” so as to salvage her reputation as a journalist, otherwise she is nothing but a political hack. That she is knighted by the Queen or that she is the highest paid journalist does not impress those of us who know what good journalism is. To us, Ms. Amanpour or anyone is not a good journalist because she is knighted by the Queen or receives the fattest check but by the quality of her work. And this “Czar Putin” report is nothing but a political hack work, which is why she must follow it with a “King George Bush” report now that George Bush is still in office. If she does a “King George Bush” report later when Bush might have left office, it will not redeem her image and will not change our perception of her as a typical Bush lapdog journalist.
It should be noted that Christiane Amanpour is typical of American orthodoxy that is more comfortable examining and critiquing other countries and leaders while rarely applying the critical skills and focus on themselves. America has ingrained reluctance and resistance to self-critic which is obvious and manifests itself in many ways. You find the resistance in the press and the media, in the public and in classrooms where students are offended by any professor’s deviation from the sanitized and sterilized version of America the system feeds them.[2] Thus, in a speech on October 12, 1992, Russell Means, of American Indian Movement (AIM), said the following:
All my life, I’ve had to listen to rhetoric about the United States being a model of freedom and democracy, the most uniquely enlightened and humanitarian country, a “nation of laws” which, unlike others, has never pursued policies of conquest and aggression. I am sure you’ve heard it before. It’s official “truth” in the United States. It’s what is taught to school children, and it’s line peddled to the general public. Well, I’ve hot news flash for everybody here. It’s a lie. The whole thing ‘s a lie, and it always has been. Leaving aside the obvious points which could be raised to disprove it by Blacks and Chicanos and Asian immigrants right here in North America – not to mention the Mexicans, the Nicaraguans, the Guatemalans, the Puerto Ricans, the Hawaiians, the Filipinos, the Samoans, the Tamarros of Guam, the Marshall Islanders, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Cubans, the Dominicans, the Grenadans, the Libyans, the Panamanians, the Iraqis and a few dozens other peoples out there who’ve suffered American invasions and occupations first hand – there’s a little matter of genocide that’s got to be taken into account right here at home. I’m talking about genocide which has been perpetrated against American Indians, a genocide that began the instant the first of Europe’s boat people washed up on the beach of Turtle Island, a genocide that is continuing right now, at this moment. Against Indians, there’s not a law the United States hasn’t broken, not a Crime Against Humanity it hasn’t committed, and it’s still going on[3].
To many Americans, the noble and historically useful and cherished principle that genuine and useful criticism of others must start with critical self-examination sadly does not apply. An English adage says, that “charity begins at home.” And, like charity, criticism must also start at home. And I dare predict that our lives as human beings and as Americans will be much improved if we adopt this time-tested historical principle. Maybe, Ms. Amanpour does not know that George W. Bush has thrashed American laws and constitution in many ways, let me recommend a book where she can begin to learn the unprecedented damages the Bush gang has wrought to this country. She should read, Cowboy Republic by Margery Cohn[4] and I promise it will set her straight, or at least, set her on the correct path to truth about W. Bush.
I am not against CNN hiring Ms. Amanpour or anyone with BA in Journalism as a reporter but they must have a structure in place for their further training and education that would include a graduate degree in journalism. Just a bachelor’s degree in anything is hardly enough for any serious profession; and is certainly not enough to allow for her unfettered global operation as a journalist, which is why they feed us with the half-baked garbage, which they call investigative reports. Think of it, journalism must be the only serious profession where first degree or no degree at all is required to practice. Law, medicine, teaching, accounting and many others normally require higher degree and/or certification or accreditation before practice. Besides, many other top professions like journalism should still require on-going in-service professional development to qualify for continued service.
Let us take teaching as a typical example. To become a public school teacher in America, one must have a master’s degree plus many hours of professional development. A bachelor’s degree plus some professional development hours might secure a provisional and temporary position with continuing mentors for a lucky and well-connected candidate, but he must complete his masters to secure a permanent tenured teaching position. The point I am making is that it is because journalism has very low entry standard that accounts for its low performance in America of which Christine Amanpour is typical.
Ms. Amanpour is therefore the typical example of the Bush ‘lapdog’ whom Eric Boehlert talked about in his book. She operate simply as Bush’s lapdog. Any journalist who ignores the fact that Bush is a rogue president – that he stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, illegally and criminally invaded Iraq and has continued to thrash our constitution through his various criminal acts – only to be ranting on the actions of far away Putin, is a Bush lapdog. As Americans, we need good journalists to expose Bush shenanigans and atrocities in America. Charity begins at home. Therefore, exposing bad, illegal, criminal, unjust and unfair governance must also start from here in America where Bush personifies everything that is bad, deplorable and awful about governance.
Ms. Amanpour also talked about how Putin destroyed Russia’s press. She must be very dishonest or completely naïve not to know that our press in America is a disgrace and lapdog to Bush. How journalists cover Bush is a shame to free press. Read, Eric Boehlert, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush (New York: Free Press, 2006).
Let me say a few more things on her jab at Russia’s judiciary under Putin. She also talked about how Putin destroyed or politicized Russia’s judiciary but said nothing about how the Supreme Court selected President Bush in 2000. The five audacious, criminal and shameless Supreme Court judges who voted to select Bush as the president on December 12, 2000 in violation of American constitution and their cardinal and preferred ‘states rights’ laws were Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor. According to Vincent Bugliosi:
The stark reality, and I say this with every fiber of my being, is that the institution Americans trust the most to protect its freedoms and principles committed one of the biggest and most serious crimes this nation has ever seen – pure and simple, the theft of the presidency. And by definition, the perpetrators of this crime have to be denominated criminals.[5] (Emphasis mine).
Continuing, he said:
Considering the criminal intentions behind the decision, legal scholars and historians should place this ruling above Dred Scott Case and Plessy v Ferguson in egregious sins of the Court. The right of every American citizen to have his or her vote counted, and for Americans (not five unselected justices) to choose their President was callously and I should say criminally jettisoned by the Court’s majority to further its political ideology. If there is such a thing as a judicial hell, these five justices won’t have to worry about heating bills in their future.[6]
US Supreme Court Committed the Twin High Crimes of the World Greatest Robbery and Obstruction of Justice:
For Vincent Bugliosi, the man who prosecuted Charles Manson and one of the biggest legal heavyweights of this country, to reach such dare and desperate conclusions, need to be taken seriously by CNN and the media. I am a dedicated CNN fan. I watch it always; and will like to see Amanpour or the CNN say something about that grand ‘theft’ rather than ranting about Putin, but she would not because she is Bush’s lapdog just like CNN, her organization . I will however, love Amanpour or CNN to prove me wrong here by doing a detailed incisive critical report of that grand theft of our presidency by Bush and the five criminal justices of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court justices did not only steal the presidency for their friend, George Bush, they also actively engaged in the biggest cover-up of their crime. Crimes are not only punishable, but their cover-ups are also equally offensive and punishable in this country. This is because successful cover-ups encourage crimes, which is why the system vigorously goes after crimes and their cover-ups.
Now the question is how did the Supreme Court Justices cover-up their crime of selecting George Bush as the president on December 12, 2000? The answer is simple. They also included in the ruling that the case should never be cited as a precedent in any future court case or ruling in any court in the country, not even in Supreme Court cases. Part of the ruling was that the Supreme Court limited the Case to Case only, which means that nobody is allowed to ever refer or reference the Case in any judicial proceedings in the country, even including in any future Supreme Court case. No body should ever refer or reference the Case, ever and ever and ever. The five justices, in essence, simply said,
“Yes, we did it, we have selected our friend George. That’s it. Damn the law or whatever we have been doing or said in the past about ‘state’s rights’; and we do not want anybody to ever talk about it. Moreover, since we are the Supreme Court, we make the law and we are the law. The law now is that nobody is permitted to ever talk about this Case. Get over it and move on.[7]”
Not only was the above a very arrogant posture, it was unprecedented in the history of judicial rulings that the principles of a case, let alone a Case of such gigantic importance should be limited to only the Case. Such limit does not make sense. Besides, it violates the principle of judicial proceedings and court arguments where both the prosecutors and the defendants often depend on immense citations of precedents to prove their cases.
The decision of the five judges to limit their ruling in the Bush v Gore to only the case is a criminal cover-up because it was a deliberate, conscious and planned attempt to forestall or impede any continued or future discussions of the crime. They therefore, deserve not just to be charged for the crime of stealing our presidency, but of covering their act and of pre-meditated cover-up. By outlawing its mention or use as precedents in courts, the five justices also guaranteed its non-use or mention in law schools since law professors and law students will not waste their times studying a case, which they will never use in court or in practice. Thus, according to the Harvard professor of law, Alan Dershowitz:
The majority ruling in Bush v. Gore market a number of significant firsts. Never before in American history has a presidential election been decided by the Supreme Court. Never before in American history have so many law professors, historians, political scientists, Supreme Court litigators, journalists who cover the high court, and other experts – at all points along the political spectrum – been in agreement that the majority decision of the Court was not only “bad constitutional law” but “lawless,” “illegitimate,” “unprincipled,” “partisan,” “fraudulent,” “disingenuous,” and motivated by improper considerations.[8]
He continued:
In addition to the remarkable expert consensus regarding this case, there is also widespread popular outrage at what the high court did. Though the level of this outrage tends to mirror party affiliation, it is safe to say that the degree of confusion over what actually happened is not limited to one party. There are millions of Americans who do not strongly identify with the Democratic Party – indeed, even some who voted for George W. Bush – but who cannot understand how five justices could determine the outcome of a presidential election. Moreover, the furor within the Supreme Court itself – among some justices and law clerks – is unprecedented in the annals of this usually harmonious institution.[9]
Alan Dershowitz, himself also a renowned law professor, was quoting the professional observations, conclusions and decisions of other law professors and other various other experts that the Supreme Court decision was bad constitutional law, lawless, illegitimate, unprincipled, partisan, fraudulent, disingenuous, and motivated by improper considerations. So where then does Bush derive the legitimacy of his presidency? Nowhere. He has none. His legitimacy is as strong as the robber who is clinging to his loot because he has the gun – because he controls the state power. In law, it is called force majeure, which is a principle that recognizes ones control of territory because his actual physical presence and control of the territory and not because of any legitimate principle. It is the same principle, which says that “possession is nine-tenths of law.” He is simply a rogue, lawless, illegitimate, unprincipled, partisan, fraudulent president. The other first for Bush therefore, is that he is the first modern American president with zero legitimacy.
George W. Bush is therefore our president with his gang not because they won the 2000 presidential election nor via our recognized legal instruments of presidential ascension but because of the various premeditated unconstitutional, lawless, illegitimate, fraudulent and partisan acts of his gang starting from his brother Jeb, the former Governor of Florida through the five Supreme Court justices. It is for all the above overwhelming evidence, that I call Bush, a rogue president for short. This is because the worst thing that we can do for this country is to concede our presidency to a rogue who stole it, which will be like agreeing that the guy who broke in and stole your property owns it just because he took it, and you cannot get it back from him.
I am powerless to get the presidency back from the Bush gang, but like the baby, whose priced possession was forcibly taken away by an inconsiderate, recalcitrant and charging mindless bully, I will continue to cry and lament my stolen treasure simply because it is mine and I treasure it. I love democracy. It is my pride, our pride and America’s most valuable treasure. Therefore, when Bush stole American democracy, he stole my most cherished property. He stole America’s heart and America’s essence. Democracy is the raison d’être for our existence and I remain profoundly saddened by the great loss, and will continue to grieve for America and for the great loss.
The Supreme Court’s decision Bush v. Gore of December 2000 that handed our presidency to George W. Bush was the greatest political theft, robbery and heist of all ages. United States is the most powerful nation that ever existed. The world has never created a nation that is a powerful as the United States of America. The American presidency is therefore the most powerful institution on earth. The American presidency controls the biggest, the most powerful economic, military and political power and force on earth. Hence, whoever steals American presidency, as Bush did with the help of the Supreme Court, has committed the greatest world robbery and heist. What Bush did with his stolen presidential powers – his unprovoked attack and devastation of Iraq can only be caused by and with American power – attesting to the unsurpassed overwhelming enormity of American power.
Not only did the high court help George Bush steal America’s presidency, it also ruled that its shameful and criminal decision to hand over the presidency to George W. Bush is specific to the case, and therefore, must never be cited, quoted or used as a precedent in any American court. Thus the decision has been rarely discussed in academic circles, in classrooms or even in public and never cited in American courts because of the equally Supreme Court’s unprecedented decision to limit the decision to the case. Hence, CNN and Christine Amanpour who are so keen to expose the judicial transgressions of Putin’s Russia should devote their energy at exposing the world’s greatest judicial heist -- the daylight hijacking and robbery of America’s presidency by the Bush gang in 2000.
Hence, if Christine Amanpour was looking for judicial overreach in Putin’s Russia, if she was looking judicial corruption and crimes in the ‘dictatorial, controlling’ Putin’s Russia, there is no better evidence of judicial corruption, crimes and cover-up in ‘democratic’ America than the Supreme Court’s 2000 Bush v Gore decision to hand US presidency over to Bush, and its decision to cover it up.
It need to be noted that by lashing out at Putin’s Russia while refusing to look at America’s judicial system, Ms. Amanpour is only practicing quintessential American journalism that investigates, lashes out and pontificates and lectures other countries and foreign leaders in self-righteous modes while cozying with, cuddles and covers up for some American leaders with whom they are embedded and in-bed with. Thus, while the Clintons rave up all the aggressive critical, investigative modes in America’s journalistic DNA and fibers, the Bush gang raved up their cozy, cuddling, embedded, in-bed and copulation modes.
America is not perfect and we should never claim to be. In fact, no country is perfect, which is why there are journalists as watchdogs for the society. Actually, if countries were perfect there would have been no need for journalists. There would only have been Information Officers (IOs) whose job is to publicize what the government is doing. In the United States, they are called, Press Secretaries, or Spokesman, Spokeswoman or Spokesperson, etc. We see them in the White House, in the State Department and other government agencies and departments. For example, James Rubin, Christine Amanpour’s husband was the Spokesman for the State Department under President Bill Clinton. Most large Corporations have Public Relations Departments and Public Relations Officers (PROs) to sanitize their public images. Every society is full of dirt that needs to be exposed and cleaned, which is what good journalism is all about. Journalists are not supposed to be lapdogs like Christine Amanpour and CNN and others, they are supposed to be watchdogs – also called members of the fourth estate.
While the job of the PROs, IOs, Press Secretaries, Spokesman or Spokesperson is to project their bosses and the policies of their bosses to the public in ways that will ensure maximal positive acceptance and consumption, the role of the journalist is essentially the opposite. The journalist is fundamentally skeptical and critical. He/She is and should therefore be skeptical and critical of governments – their policies, pronouncements and policies. In short, the journalist is the systems’ watchdog. He/She must exist in uncomfortable symbiotic relationship with the systems bosses because he is there to pry and question their actions and policies for the public. The bosses must therefore, be sore, itchy and nervous with the journalist because he is there to expose what the bosses are doing. He is there to ask them uncomfortable questions about their policies and actions – essentially to investigate and expose those issues the bosses would normally not want the public know about, to ask those questions the bosses would not want to be asked, and to pull out answers and facts they would normally not want to make public.
The tragedy and shame of America’s journalism, which is the tragedy and shame of Christine Amanpour is that she has become too cozy with the Bush administration. Thus, she has abandoned her watchdog role to become Bush’s lapdog. Embedded journalism, Bush’s overt strategy of journalist’s control, ensures that America’s journalists are in-bed with the Bush gang and copulating with them – and since people rarely aggressively go after those they are in-bed and copulating with – America’s journalists have lost sense and essence of their mission. Thus, most American journalists have become a bunch of jellyfish, suckering and pandering to the bosses they are supposed to monitor and report for the public. Christine Amanpour, Dan Rather, Wolf Blitzer and many other media mainstream bigwigs are part of this unabashed, pathetic bunch that abandoned their patriotic service to the society and country, and jumped into bed, naked, shameless and unadulterated with the Bush gang.
Dan Rather as the Quintessential Lost American Journalist:
I just want to say a few things about Dan Rather who is now suing CBS for seventy millions dollars because they fired him and “tarnished” his reputation ‘as a journalist’ according to him. Of course, CBS has dismissed his suit as a joke and without merit, which I completely agree with. First, Dan Rather has no reputation as a journalist so there is no way anyone can damage his reputation as a journalist. Dan Rather was clearly the dominant modern face of America’s television as the Anchorman of CBS Evening News for decades from late 1970s, after he took over the position from the venerable Walter Cronkite. I still remember the in-fights within CBS and with Rodger Mudd about who would succeed the retiring Walter Cronkite, which Dan Rather became the surprise winner when Walter Cronkite backed him with his now famous quote, “Dan Rather was a damn good reporter.” Hence, Dan Rather replaced Walter Cronkite and became CBS public face for decades since then. I was however shocked at the media and Dan Rather’s response to the Bush administration in general, and especially towards his Iraq war policies. I still remember twitching with shock and wonderment, the day Dan Rather announced that he must support “my President” when George Bush illegally invaded Iraq in March 2003 with his most brutal and barbarous “shock and awe” strategy.
Dan Rather, the supposed consummate journalist, the pride and public face of America’s journalism, proudly and publicly announced that it was his duty to support his President when he attacked Iraq in March 2003. That Dan Rather’s shameless declaration of support on CBS, for Bush’s unprovoked invasion of Iraq occurred when multiple questions about the war were being asked by millions of Americans and remain unanswered, when multiple millions of Americans were actively questioning and opposing the war with marches, posters, protests, etc.; and when most of the world was outraged about the war, was a height of journalistic sycophancy, idiocy, incompetence and ignorance. It was the watershed in the progressive decline and proclivity of America’s journalism decent into utter obsequiousness. If such a granddad and icon of America’s journalism, as Dan Rather, could publicly and proudly declare outright, in the face of such a major national contentious policy and debates, that it was his duty to support his President, what would younger minions and upstarts like Christine Amanpour do? The point is that Christine Amanpour’s journalistic sycophancy and adulation of power are deeply systemic, endemic and deeply rooted in America’s journalistic ethos.
It was therefore a joke for me to watch Dan Rather sue CBS for character defamation when he had none as a journalist. He had been a prostitute journalist in bed and in copulation with the Bush gang just like his CBS bosses. This means that neither the CBS bosses nor Dan Rather who was their public face has any claim to journalistic integrity – they are all journalistic prostitutes in the service of money, which the Bush gang provides them in abundance. The only problem was that the Bush gang ordered the CBS bosses to fire Dan Rather for his ‘little’ indiscretion of airing the uncomplimentary news about Bush’s non-military service even though the news was correct. The Bush gang had to do it to serve as a reminder and warning to other journalistic minions that they, as the ultimate big mafia boss, do not and could not tolerate any challenge to their authority or the dissemination of any unflattering, disparaging or unfavorable news about them – especially about Bush, the chief mafia boss, himself.
The ultimate mafia boss and the Bush gang therefore used Dan Rather to set the example that no one, who is in bed, in copulation with them and enjoying their patronages and largesse, should ever think of challenging them even in the slightest possible way. Simply put, the immediate firing of Dan Rather, the biggest, the most secure, the doyen of American journalism and the “most patriotic” of journalists (remember his ‘I must support my President’ speech) in America for airing correct but unattractive, unappealing and unflattering news about Bush’s nonmilitary military service announced the bosses policy of zero tolerance of journalistic free will. If the ‘mighty’ Dan Rather could be so easily, publicly and quickly disgraced, turned into a ‘bad journalist’; and easily booted with ignominy, what would happen to other minions who transgress and/or deviate from their embedded, in-bed roles? Hence, others must immediately comply, and not just the journalists -- other media organizations, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc rushed to comply. This was how Christine Amanpour and CNN lost their essence and focus, and became prostitutes for the Bush gang.
There are many other things the “King George Bush” report could address, like FISA, Patriotic Act, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Destruction of CIA tapes, Mike Huckabee’s use of “arrogant bunker mentality” to characterize Bush’s foreign policy, and many others. It does not have to use all of the above, but these will provide more than enough materials to do a two-hour report of “King George Bush” to complement the “Czar Putin” report. Such will not only be good journalism but will also be good business for Amanpour, CNN and any other media that want to do it. Social Studies teachers in public schools and professors of social sciences and humanities, will like to show and discuss them in their classes; libraries will acquire them and the public will generally like to watch them. Moreover, doing a good, bold, critical expose of the Bush gang will be healthy for the system; for Christine Amanpour, for CNN and for America’s journalism.
More importantly, the report will improve America’s national interests and national image abroad. It will let the world know that there are critical Americans who do not agree with everything that Bush is doing. Presently America’s world image is at an all time low, which Karem Hughes could not even improve. Our very low global image is caused by two reinforcing facts and false perceptions about America. The first is because the world is disgusted with Bush’s criminal actions in Iraq and around the globe and the second is the world’s wrongful perception that all Americans support Bush. The first reason is a fact and cannot be changed, but the report will shatter the second reason. It will show that there are deep cleavages, and serious contentions about Bush’s actions within the US. It will show that all Americans are not zombies who blindly agree and follow Bush’s bad and horrible governance. So our global image is now very low because the world sees the horrible things Bush is doing and thinks that all Americans blindly agree, support and follow him. The report is therefore, very important because it will shatter the false perception.
I liked Christine Amanpour when she first started reporting for CNN because she was young, dynamic, objective and like a breath of fresh air on America’s journalism. I was also proud to see a minority female with her exotic slight foreign accent doing good reporting on America’s mainstream media. However, over the years, I am saddened to watch her degenerate and become a mere mouthpiece, propaganda agent and lapdog of Bush and western media, which is a shame because she has the capacity to do better.
I know that her husband worked for the State Department but that is no reason why she should not do objective and critical journalism on Bush administration like she did on Putin or is she afraid of Bush and his gang? If she wants to work for Bush administration or for the government like her husband did, she should then come out and take a job with him. I am sure he will be very glad to offer her a job now that there are many vacant propaganda jobs available in his administration. I will recommend Ms. Amanpour to replace Karen Hughes who is leaving her propaganda job at the State Department after fruitless efforts to change minds in the Middle East. I feel that Christine Amanpour would do a better job for Bush than Karen Hughes, so I will gladly recommend her to switch to working directly and openly for George Bush instead of continuing to operate undercover for Bush.
The late Tony Snow was a typical example of what I am recommending for Christine Amanpour. For years, Mr. Snow was at Fox News masquerading as a journalist while he was actually a Bush operative and propagandist, advocating and proselytizing for Bush. However, when Mr. Snow realized that his cover could no longer be masked, he came out of the closet and took a job as Bush’s Press Secretary. Therefore, what I am urging Ms. Amanpour now is to come out of her own closet and become an open Bushie[10] or become the real journalist, which she pretends to be.
Again, Amanpour’s report, “Czar Putin” is a good and bold expose of Putin’s Russia. She must now also do an equally good and bold expose of “King George Bush 1 of America,” to salvage her reputation as a journalist, which is now zero. Or she might want to sue me or somebody else for imputing her reputation as a journalist – to which I will retort that she has no credible reputation as a journalist just like Dan Rather. Christine Amanpour, Dan Rather and many other ‘top’ journalists and the organizations are journalistic prostitutes in the service of big money, in bed and in copulation with the Bush mafia gang for all the money, largesse and accolades they can get.
I am a social science professor, and will discuss this paper in my class with my students, where I hope it will evoke and generate critical reactions. If CNN, Christine Amanpour, other journalists, and/or others respond to this article, I will also gladly share it with my students for our further critical discussions and reactions. All I know is that I firmly believe that a report titled something like, “King George Bush 1 of America,” is long overdue. I am offering this suggesting to Christine Amanpour, CNN or any other media organization with adequate national and global reach.
In Conclusion: The Three Structural Modes of American Journalism:
It should be noted that there are three structural modes of journalism, which I will name as follows:
The Supreme Court justices did not only steal the presidency for their friend, George Bush, they also actively engaged in the biggest cover-up of their crime. Crimes are not only punishable, but their cover-ups are also equally offensive and punishable in this country. This is because successful cover-ups encourage crimes, which is why the system vigorously goes after crimes and their cover-ups.
Now the question is how did the Supreme Court Justices cover-up their crime of selecting George Bush as the president on December 12, 2000? The answer is simple. They also included in the ruling that the case should never be cited as a precedent in any future court case or ruling in any court in the country, not even in Supreme Court cases. Part of the ruling was that the Supreme Court limited the Case to Case only, which means that nobody is allowed to ever refer or reference the Case in any judicial proceedings in the country, even including in any future Supreme Court case. No body should ever refer or reference the Case, ever and ever and ever. The five justices, in essence, simply said,
“Yes, we did it, we have selected our friend George. That’s it. Damn the law or whatever we have been doing or said in the past about ‘state’s rights’; and we do not want anybody to ever talk about it. Moreover, since we are the Supreme Court, we make the law and we are the law. The law now is that nobody is permitted to ever talk about this Case. Get over it and move on.[7]”
Not only was the above a very arrogant posture, it was unprecedented in the history of judicial rulings that the principles of a case, let alone a Case of such gigantic importance should be limited to only the Case. Such limit does not make sense. Besides, it violates the principle of judicial proceedings and court arguments where both the prosecutors and the defendants often depend on immense citations of precedents to prove their cases.
The decision of the five judges to limit their ruling in the Bush v Gore to only the case is a criminal cover-up because it was a deliberate, conscious and planned attempt to forestall or impede any continued or future discussions of the crime. They therefore, deserve not just to be charged for the crime of stealing our presidency, but of covering their act and of pre-meditated cover-up. By outlawing its mention or use as precedents in courts, the five justices also guaranteed its non-use or mention in law schools since law professors and law students will not waste their times studying a case, which they will never use in court or in practice. Thus, according to the Harvard professor of law, Alan Dershowitz:
The majority ruling in Bush v. Gore market a number of significant firsts. Never before in American history has a presidential election been decided by the Supreme Court. Never before in American history have so many law professors, historians, political scientists, Supreme Court litigators, journalists who cover the high court, and other experts – at all points along the political spectrum – been in agreement that the majority decision of the Court was not only “bad constitutional law” but “lawless,” “illegitimate,” “unprincipled,” “partisan,” “fraudulent,” “disingenuous,” and motivated by improper considerations.[8]
He continued:
In addition to the remarkable expert consensus regarding this case, there is also widespread popular outrage at what the high court did. Though the level of this outrage tends to mirror party affiliation, it is safe to say that the degree of confusion over what actually happened is not limited to one party. There are millions of Americans who do not strongly identify with the Democratic Party – indeed, even some who voted for George W. Bush – but who cannot understand how five justices could determine the outcome of a presidential election. Moreover, the furor within the Supreme Court itself – among some justices and law clerks – is unprecedented in the annals of this usually harmonious institution.[9]
Alan Dershowitz, himself also a renowned law professor, was quoting the professional observations, conclusions and decisions of other law professors and other various other experts that the Supreme Court decision was bad constitutional law, lawless, illegitimate, unprincipled, partisan, fraudulent, disingenuous, and motivated by improper considerations. So where then does Bush derive the legitimacy of his presidency? Nowhere. He has none. His legitimacy is as strong as the robber who is clinging to his loot because he has the gun – because he controls the state power. In law, it is called force majeure, which is a principle that recognizes ones control of territory because his actual physical presence and control of the territory and not because of any legitimate principle. It is the same principle, which says that “possession is nine-tenths of law.” He is simply a rogue, lawless, illegitimate, unprincipled, partisan, fraudulent president. The other first for Bush therefore, is that he is the first modern American president with zero legitimacy.
George W. Bush is therefore our president with his gang not because they won the 2000 presidential election nor via our recognized legal instruments of presidential ascension but because of the various premeditated unconstitutional, lawless, illegitimate, fraudulent and partisan acts of his gang starting from his brother Jeb, the former Governor of Florida through the five Supreme Court justices. It is for all the above overwhelming evidence, that I call Bush, a rogue president for short. This is because the worst thing that we can do for this country is to concede our presidency to a rogue who stole it, which will be like agreeing that the guy who broke in and stole your property owns it just because he took it, and you cannot get it back from him.
I am powerless to get the presidency back from the Bush gang, but like the baby, whose priced possession was forcibly taken away by an inconsiderate, recalcitrant and charging mindless bully, I will continue to cry and lament my stolen treasure simply because it is mine and I treasure it. I love democracy. It is my pride, our pride and America’s most valuable treasure. Therefore, when Bush stole American democracy, he stole my most cherished property. He stole America’s heart and America’s essence. Democracy is the raison d’être for our existence and I remain profoundly saddened by the great loss, and will continue to grieve for America and for the great loss.
The Supreme Court’s decision Bush v. Gore of December 2000 that handed our presidency to George W. Bush was the greatest political theft, robbery and heist of all ages. United States is the most powerful nation that ever existed. The world has never created a nation that is a powerful as the United States of America. The American presidency is therefore the most powerful institution on earth. The American presidency controls the biggest, the most powerful economic, military and political power and force on earth. Hence, whoever steals American presidency, as Bush did with the help of the Supreme Court, has committed the greatest world robbery and heist. What Bush did with his stolen presidential powers – his unprovoked attack and devastation of Iraq can only be caused by and with American power – attesting to the unsurpassed overwhelming enormity of American power.
Not only did the high court help George Bush steal America’s presidency, it also ruled that its shameful and criminal decision to hand over the presidency to George W. Bush is specific to the case, and therefore, must never be cited, quoted or used as a precedent in any American court. Thus the decision has been rarely discussed in academic circles, in classrooms or even in public and never cited in American courts because of the equally Supreme Court’s unprecedented decision to limit the decision to the case. Hence, CNN and Christine Amanpour who are so keen to expose the judicial transgressions of Putin’s Russia should devote their energy at exposing the world’s greatest judicial heist -- the daylight hijacking and robbery of America’s presidency by the Bush gang in 2000.
Hence, if Christine Amanpour was looking for judicial overreach in Putin’s Russia, if she was looking judicial corruption and crimes in the ‘dictatorial, controlling’ Putin’s Russia, there is no better evidence of judicial corruption, crimes and cover-up in ‘democratic’ America than the Supreme Court’s 2000 Bush v Gore decision to hand US presidency over to Bush, and its decision to cover it up.
It need to be noted that by lashing out at Putin’s Russia while refusing to look at America’s judicial system, Ms. Amanpour is only practicing quintessential American journalism that investigates, lashes out and pontificates and lectures other countries and foreign leaders in self-righteous modes while cozying with, cuddles and covers up for some American leaders with whom they are embedded and in-bed with. Thus, while the Clintons rave up all the aggressive critical, investigative modes in America’s journalistic DNA and fibers, the Bush gang raved up their cozy, cuddling, embedded, in-bed and copulation modes.
America is not perfect and we should never claim to be. In fact, no country is perfect, which is why there are journalists as watchdogs for the society. Actually, if countries were perfect there would have been no need for journalists. There would only have been Information Officers (IOs) whose job is to publicize what the government is doing. In the United States, they are called, Press Secretaries, or Spokesman, Spokeswoman or Spokesperson, etc. We see them in the White House, in the State Department and other government agencies and departments. For example, James Rubin, Christine Amanpour’s husband was the Spokesman for the State Department under President Bill Clinton. Most large Corporations have Public Relations Departments and Public Relations Officers (PROs) to sanitize their public images. Every society is full of dirt that needs to be exposed and cleaned, which is what good journalism is all about. Journalists are not supposed to be lapdogs like Christine Amanpour and CNN and others, they are supposed to be watchdogs – also called members of the fourth estate.
While the job of the PROs, IOs, Press Secretaries, Spokesman or Spokesperson is to project their bosses and the policies of their bosses to the public in ways that will ensure maximal positive acceptance and consumption, the role of the journalist is essentially the opposite. The journalist is fundamentally skeptical and critical. He/She is and should therefore be skeptical and critical of governments – their policies, pronouncements and policies. In short, the journalist is the systems’ watchdog. He/She must exist in uncomfortable symbiotic relationship with the systems bosses because he is there to pry and question their actions and policies for the public. The bosses must therefore, be sore, itchy and nervous with the journalist because he is there to expose what the bosses are doing. He is there to ask them uncomfortable questions about their policies and actions – essentially to investigate and expose those issues the bosses would normally not want the public know about, to ask those questions the bosses would not want to be asked, and to pull out answers and facts they would normally not want to make public.
The tragedy and shame of America’s journalism, which is the tragedy and shame of Christine Amanpour is that she has become too cozy with the Bush administration. Thus, she has abandoned her watchdog role to become Bush’s lapdog. Embedded journalism, Bush’s overt strategy of journalist’s control, ensures that America’s journalists are in-bed with the Bush gang and copulating with them – and since people rarely aggressively go after those they are in-bed and copulating with – America’s journalists have lost sense and essence of their mission. Thus, most American journalists have become a bunch of jellyfish, suckering and pandering to the bosses they are supposed to monitor and report for the public. Christine Amanpour, Dan Rather, Wolf Blitzer and many other media mainstream bigwigs are part of this unabashed, pathetic bunch that abandoned their patriotic service to the society and country, and jumped into bed, naked, shameless and unadulterated with the Bush gang.
Dan Rather as the Quintessential Lost American Journalist:
I just want to say a few things about Dan Rather who is now suing CBS for seventy millions dollars because they fired him and “tarnished” his reputation ‘as a journalist’ according to him. Of course, CBS has dismissed his suit as a joke and without merit, which I completely agree with. First, Dan Rather has no reputation as a journalist so there is no way anyone can damage his reputation as a journalist. Dan Rather was clearly the dominant modern face of America’s television as the Anchorman of CBS Evening News for decades from late 1970s, after he took over the position from the venerable Walter Cronkite. I still remember the in-fights within CBS and with Rodger Mudd about who would succeed the retiring Walter Cronkite, which Dan Rather became the surprise winner when Walter Cronkite backed him with his now famous quote, “Dan Rather was a damn good reporter.” Hence, Dan Rather replaced Walter Cronkite and became CBS public face for decades since then. I was however shocked at the media and Dan Rather’s response to the Bush administration in general, and especially towards his Iraq war policies. I still remember twitching with shock and wonderment, the day Dan Rather announced that he must support “my President” when George Bush illegally invaded Iraq in March 2003 with his most brutal and barbarous “shock and awe” strategy.
Dan Rather, the supposed consummate journalist, the pride and public face of America’s journalism, proudly and publicly announced that it was his duty to support his President when he attacked Iraq in March 2003. That Dan Rather’s shameless declaration of support on CBS, for Bush’s unprovoked invasion of Iraq occurred when multiple questions about the war were being asked by millions of Americans and remain unanswered, when multiple millions of Americans were actively questioning and opposing the war with marches, posters, protests, etc.; and when most of the world was outraged about the war, was a height of journalistic sycophancy, idiocy, incompetence and ignorance. It was the watershed in the progressive decline and proclivity of America’s journalism decent into utter obsequiousness. If such a granddad and icon of America’s journalism, as Dan Rather, could publicly and proudly declare outright, in the face of such a major national contentious policy and debates, that it was his duty to support his President, what would younger minions and upstarts like Christine Amanpour do? The point is that Christine Amanpour’s journalistic sycophancy and adulation of power are deeply systemic, endemic and deeply rooted in America’s journalistic ethos.
It was therefore a joke for me to watch Dan Rather sue CBS for character defamation when he had none as a journalist. He had been a prostitute journalist in bed and in copulation with the Bush gang just like his CBS bosses. This means that neither the CBS bosses nor Dan Rather who was their public face has any claim to journalistic integrity – they are all journalistic prostitutes in the service of money, which the Bush gang provides them in abundance. The only problem was that the Bush gang ordered the CBS bosses to fire Dan Rather for his ‘little’ indiscretion of airing the uncomplimentary news about Bush’s non-military service even though the news was correct. The Bush gang had to do it to serve as a reminder and warning to other journalistic minions that they, as the ultimate big mafia boss, do not and could not tolerate any challenge to their authority or the dissemination of any unflattering, disparaging or unfavorable news about them – especially about Bush, the chief mafia boss, himself.
The ultimate mafia boss and the Bush gang therefore used Dan Rather to set the example that no one, who is in bed, in copulation with them and enjoying their patronages and largesse, should ever think of challenging them even in the slightest possible way. Simply put, the immediate firing of Dan Rather, the biggest, the most secure, the doyen of American journalism and the “most patriotic” of journalists (remember his ‘I must support my President’ speech) in America for airing correct but unattractive, unappealing and unflattering news about Bush’s nonmilitary military service announced the bosses policy of zero tolerance of journalistic free will. If the ‘mighty’ Dan Rather could be so easily, publicly and quickly disgraced, turned into a ‘bad journalist’; and easily booted with ignominy, what would happen to other minions who transgress and/or deviate from their embedded, in-bed roles? Hence, others must immediately comply, and not just the journalists -- other media organizations, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc rushed to comply. This was how Christine Amanpour and CNN lost their essence and focus, and became prostitutes for the Bush gang.
There are many other things the “King George Bush” report could address, like FISA, Patriotic Act, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Destruction of CIA tapes, Mike Huckabee’s use of “arrogant bunker mentality” to characterize Bush’s foreign policy, and many others. It does not have to use all of the above, but these will provide more than enough materials to do a two-hour report of “King George Bush” to complement the “Czar Putin” report. Such will not only be good journalism but will also be good business for Amanpour, CNN and any other media that want to do it. Social Studies teachers in public schools and professors of social sciences and humanities, will like to show and discuss them in their classes; libraries will acquire them and the public will generally like to watch them. Moreover, doing a good, bold, critical expose of the Bush gang will be healthy for the system; for Christine Amanpour, for CNN and for America’s journalism.
More importantly, the report will improve America’s national interests and national image abroad. It will let the world know that there are critical Americans who do not agree with everything that Bush is doing. Presently America’s world image is at an all time low, which Karem Hughes could not even improve. Our very low global image is caused by two reinforcing facts and false perceptions about America. The first is because the world is disgusted with Bush’s criminal actions in Iraq and around the globe and the second is the world’s wrongful perception that all Americans support Bush. The first reason is a fact and cannot be changed, but the report will shatter the second reason. It will show that there are deep cleavages, and serious contentions about Bush’s actions within the US. It will show that all Americans are not zombies who blindly agree and follow Bush’s bad and horrible governance. So our global image is now very low because the world sees the horrible things Bush is doing and thinks that all Americans blindly agree, support and follow him. The report is therefore, very important because it will shatter the false perception.
I liked Christine Amanpour when she first started reporting for CNN because she was young, dynamic, objective and like a breath of fresh air on America’s journalism. I was also proud to see a minority female with her exotic slight foreign accent doing good reporting on America’s mainstream media. However, over the years, I am saddened to watch her degenerate and become a mere mouthpiece, propaganda agent and lapdog of Bush and western media, which is a shame because she has the capacity to do better.
I know that her husband worked for the State Department but that is no reason why she should not do objective and critical journalism on Bush administration like she did on Putin or is she afraid of Bush and his gang? If she wants to work for Bush administration or for the government like her husband did, she should then come out and take a job with him. I am sure he will be very glad to offer her a job now that there are many vacant propaganda jobs available in his administration. I will recommend Ms. Amanpour to replace Karen Hughes who is leaving her propaganda job at the State Department after fruitless efforts to change minds in the Middle East. I feel that Christine Amanpour would do a better job for Bush than Karen Hughes, so I will gladly recommend her to switch to working directly and openly for George Bush instead of continuing to operate undercover for Bush.
The late Tony Snow was a typical example of what I am recommending for Christine Amanpour. For years, Mr. Snow was at Fox News masquerading as a journalist while he was actually a Bush operative and propagandist, advocating and proselytizing for Bush. However, when Mr. Snow realized that his cover could no longer be masked, he came out of the closet and took a job as Bush’s Press Secretary. Therefore, what I am urging Ms. Amanpour now is to come out of her own closet and become an open Bushie[10] or become the real journalist, which she pretends to be.
Again, Amanpour’s report, “Czar Putin” is a good and bold expose of Putin’s Russia. She must now also do an equally good and bold expose of “King George Bush 1 of America,” to salvage her reputation as a journalist, which is now zero. Or she might want to sue me or somebody else for imputing her reputation as a journalist – to which I will retort that she has no credible reputation as a journalist just like Dan Rather. Christine Amanpour, Dan Rather and many other ‘top’ journalists and the organizations are journalistic prostitutes in the service of big money, in bed and in copulation with the Bush mafia gang for all the money, largesse and accolades they can get.
I am a social science professor, and will discuss this paper in my class with my students, where I hope it will evoke and generate critical reactions. If CNN, Christine Amanpour, other journalists, and/or others respond to this article, I will also gladly share it with my students for our further critical discussions and reactions. All I know is that I firmly believe that a report titled something like, “King George Bush 1 of America,” is long overdue. I am offering this suggesting to Christine Amanpour, CNN or any other media organization with adequate national and global reach.
In Conclusion: The Three Structural Modes of American Journalism:
It should be noted that there are three structural modes of journalism, which I will name as follows:
(a) Watchdog Mode;
(b) Lapdog Mode, and
(c) Yellow Journalism Mode.
(a) Watchdog Mode is the normal mode where journalists do intensive, investigative and critical duties for the public. Their job here is designed to push public policy towards public good. In this mode, journalists here are members of the fourth estate and the bosses are scarred of them because they represent the public good. American journalism rarely operate in this mode except very few on anecdotal basis.
(b) Lapdog Mode is the standard mode of American journalism. Here, they cozy up, cuddle with, embed, in-bed and in copulation with the administration and the bosses. In this mode, the American journalist derives his or her satisfaction, pride and sense of achievement by how close he/she is with the administration and the bosses. At times, they are even direct, undercover paid agents of the bosses like Juan Williams, the conservative black ‘journalist’ was uncovered to be paid by the Bush gang to promote their specific policies. However, in most cases, the American lapdog journalists are not paid any specific amounts to promote any specific policies, but they know what their bosses want and operate accordingly in ways that will keep the bosses happy. For complying, the lapdog journalists would be rewarded with enhanced professional promotion and recognition, more money and remunerations, bounty largesse, greater accolades and other benefits. In fact, the American journalist who waits to be informed or directed to please the bosses and the administration is not a ‘good’ journalist. Besides, he will soon lose his job because news organizations, media houses prefer ‘trained lapdog journalists’ whom they do not have to remind not to offend the bosses. Again, Dan Rather’s gross offense was that he put his CBS bosses in bad light with Bush, the chief mafia boss by portraying his in bad light. It showed that CBS bosses were lousy for not controlling their workers, otherwise how could they allow Dan Rather, their worker to air such ‘terrible truths’ about Bush, their ‘almighty boss’. Thus, the immediate summary dismissal of Dan Rather was an attempt by the CBS bosses to please and ingratiate themselves to the Bush mafia and did not need any specific instruction or directive from the fascist headquarters -- Bush White House – as some might expects or look for. Actually. A well-heeled fascist system like the Bush White House did not need specific instructions to carry out its wishes. Fascism depends on internalized anticipation and acceptance of the fascist aims and aspirations of the fascist boss and leadership by the fascist gatekeepers. This means that the fascist gatekeepers simply anticipate what the fascist bosses want and act accordingly. Thus, studies have shown that Nazi gatekeepers often acted accordingly even without reference or specific instructions from Adolf Hitler because they knew and accepted Hitler’s mindset. Whether during the run-up to iraq war or during the Iran-Contra years of Reagan regime, the lapdog journalists always wrapped themselves around the White House Communications Office for their operational juice and information. The lapdog journalists, thus became extensions of White House Communications Office. For more on the interesting concept of media lapdogs during the Bush regime, read Eric Boehlert, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush (New York: Free Press, 2006)[11]. Mark Hertsgaard’s book, On Bended Knee:The Press and the Reagan Presidency shows how Michael Deaver and David Gergen, the Director of Communications of Reagan White House turned the lapdog journalists into an extension of the propaganda machinery of the White House. Thus, according to Mr. Hertsgaard:
Drawn together by circumstances, Deaver and Gergen stayed together, and flourished, on the basis of their common appreciation of the supreme importance of good propaganda to a modern presidency. Neither man would put it quite that way, of course. The word “propaganda” had long ago been banished from respectable discourse in the United States (except when describing doings behind the Iron Curtain). “Public Relations,” a harmless-enough-sounding term, was one widely used substitute, and recently the even more innocuous concept of “communications” had gained great favor as well. Yet “propaganda,” despite the pejorative connotations acquired over the years, was still a perfectly good word, and aptly described the endeavor at which Deaver and Gergen labored. As defined by The Random House Dictionary of English Language, it referred to “information, rumors, etc., deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.” What did Deaver, Gergen and their White House colleagues do if not select certain information and deliberately spread it widely to help the government of Ronald Reagan?
Mark Hertsgaard continued:
As illustrated by Deaver’s pithy summary of contemporary American politics – “Television elects Presidents” – the men around Reagan saw television as the path to power, the ultimate technical fix, the modern American King Maker. More than most of their peers in the politics business, they appreciated that without a sophisticated knowledge of how to exploit television, any politician’s hope of wielding power on a national scale were doomed. Whether candidate or incumbent, a politician desiring a successful presidency had to be able to communicate to the electorate his goals and vision for the country; in that process, television was the unavoidable intermediary. But it was not enough merely to project one’s own message. Television was the proverbial double-edged sword, King Slayer as well as King Maker.
Mark Hertsgaard further continued:
As the Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart discovered to his dismay in 1987, when the press decided to go after a politician, the effects could be lethal. To men like Deaver and Gergen it was a truism that no man could gain the Oval Office or govern effectively once there without mastering TV. The corollary of that point was that television exercised something very close to veto power over the running of the presidency. If it could not out-and-out dictate the winner of an election or the agenda of an incumbent, it nevertheless could condemn would-be Presidents to oblivion and sitting ones to impotence. And while the networks’ normal posture is that of deference to established authority (especially the federal authorities in Washington who licensed them to operate and profit), their potential to influence what the populace thought about a given issue at a given time was so immense that on such occasions when they did break from routine, the consequences for those on the receiving end could be troublesome indeed.[12]
Mr. Hertsgaard was thus affirming the great influence of television in the system. According to him, television exercised “veto” power in presidential elections and in the operations of the presidency. He called television not only the king maker and the king slayer because any president that catches the wrath of television is doomed. According to Hertsgaard, Deaver and Gergen early understood the awesome power of television to presidential success and thus prepared the Reagan’s White House to sucker in the television and the news media as its adjunct – a model that has been used and intensified by White House since then. This means that the Bush lapdog model of American journalism, which was so shamefully exhibited by Dan Rather and Christiane Amanpour is a historical pattern that was formally initiated and launched during the Reagan presidency.
(c) Yellow Journalism Mode: It is also linked to and in many ways like the Lapdog Mode. However, the main difference between yellow journalism mode and lapdog mode is the emphasis of yellow journalism mode of war. Hence yellow journalism mode can also be called the War Mode because it is the mode that raves up the entire system (the bosses and the public) to war mode. The media bosses love this mode because it enhances their circulation and bottom line. The journalists love it too because it enhances their importance and readability. The political bosses also love yellow journalism mode because wars have always enhanced the popularity of political leaderships. Hence, we always hear of the great importance of yellow journalism in pushing America to the 1898 Spanish-American war, the run-up to Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 and during most of our wars. It is therefore funny, pathetic and self-denial for the society to blame the media for their enthusiastic support after many wars. For example, the media (Daily Times and others) had to apologize for not being critical of Bush in the run-up to his invasion of Iraq. The truth is that American media have always pushed, goaded and supported American presidents war efforts and will do so again tomorrow because wars help their bottom line and also enhance the political fortunes of presidents. Wars are therefore the all round enhancer for the bosses of the system – more profits for the economic forces and more political power for the political bosses. The only people that suffer during wars are the common man who make up the grunts who die while fighting. Of course, the common man does not matter because War is a Racket according to General Smedley Butler[13]
(c) Yellow Journalism Mode: It is also linked to and in many ways like the Lapdog Mode. However, the main difference between yellow journalism mode and lapdog mode is the emphasis of yellow journalism mode of war. Hence yellow journalism mode can also be called the War Mode because it is the mode that raves up the entire system (the bosses and the public) to war mode. The media bosses love this mode because it enhances their circulation and bottom line. The journalists love it too because it enhances their importance and readability. The political bosses also love yellow journalism mode because wars have always enhanced the popularity of political leaderships. Hence, we always hear of the great importance of yellow journalism in pushing America to the 1898 Spanish-American war, the run-up to Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 and during most of our wars. It is therefore funny, pathetic and self-denial for the society to blame the media for their enthusiastic support after many wars. For example, the media (Daily Times and others) had to apologize for not being critical of Bush in the run-up to his invasion of Iraq. The truth is that American media have always pushed, goaded and supported American presidents war efforts and will do so again tomorrow because wars help their bottom line and also enhance the political fortunes of presidents. Wars are therefore the all round enhancer for the bosses of the system – more profits for the economic forces and more political power for the political bosses. The only people that suffer during wars are the common man who make up the grunts who die while fighting. Of course, the common man does not matter because War is a Racket according to General Smedley Butler[13]
[1] Read, Bugliosi, passim.
[2] Watch Video by, Professor Ward Churchill, Sterilizing History: The Fabrication of Innocent Americans (New York City: WBAI 99.5fm, wbai.org, December 11, 2006); Also read, Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas – 1492 to the Present (San Francisco, City Lights Books, 1997), passim.
[3] Quoted in Churchill, op.cit .
[4] Read, Marjorie Cohn, Cowboy Republic ...
[5] Bugliosi, p. 48.
[6] Bugliosi. p. 61.
[7] This is an imaginary arrogant posture and statement of the five Supreme Court justices after their criminal ruling.
[8] Alan M. Dershowitz, Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 5.
[9] Ibid, pp. 5-6.
[10] A Bushie is a Bush sycophant or one of his minions who parade and masquerade themselves in the media, the academia and in many other professions who have shamelessly forfeited their professions and saw their jobs as defenders and propagandists for Bush.
[11] Eric Boehlert, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush (New York: Free Press, 2006)
[12] Mark Hertsgaard, On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency (New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1988), pp. 17-18.
[13] Read, General Smedley Butler, War is a Racket (New York: Round Table Press, 1935), passim.
[2] Watch Video by, Professor Ward Churchill, Sterilizing History: The Fabrication of Innocent Americans (New York City: WBAI 99.5fm, wbai.org, December 11, 2006); Also read, Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas – 1492 to the Present (San Francisco, City Lights Books, 1997), passim.
[3] Quoted in Churchill, op.cit .
[4] Read, Marjorie Cohn, Cowboy Republic ...
[5] Bugliosi, p. 48.
[6] Bugliosi. p. 61.
[7] This is an imaginary arrogant posture and statement of the five Supreme Court justices after their criminal ruling.
[8] Alan M. Dershowitz, Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 5.
[9] Ibid, pp. 5-6.
[10] A Bushie is a Bush sycophant or one of his minions who parade and masquerade themselves in the media, the academia and in many other professions who have shamelessly forfeited their professions and saw their jobs as defenders and propagandists for Bush.
[11] Eric Boehlert, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush (New York: Free Press, 2006)
[12] Mark Hertsgaard, On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency (New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1988), pp. 17-18.
[13] Read, General Smedley Butler, War is a Racket (New York: Round Table Press, 1935), passim.
No comments:
Post a Comment