MEDIA BEAT
The Disturbing Eagerness for a Bloody Attack
BY Norman Solomon
After Saddam Hussein's pledge of full cooperation with U.N.
weapons inspectors led President Clinton to cancel air attacks at the last
minute in mid-November, a strong wave of frustration swept through American
news media. The pattern was all too familiar, the refrain went. Yet again,
the U.S. government ended up taking yes for an answer from Iraq's cunning
despot.
Many commentators griped about the cost of mobilizing and then not attacking.
Each time the United States sends a fleet to the Persian Gulf, the buildup
costs another $1 billion or so. What good is repeated deployment of enormous
firepower if it isn't used?
Quite a few pundits sounded very disappointed-as if a long-desired ice cream
cone was near their lips and then went splat on the sidewalk. Two days after
President Clinton proclaimed that "Iraq has backed down," the
most influential newspaper in the nation's capital-The Washington Post-filled
its opinion page with caustic reactions from three prominent syndicated
columnists.
Clinton again proved that he's a wimp, George Will observed from the front
lines of his word processor. The commentator warned against restraint: "U.S.
forces should quickly destroy any site, such as a presidential compound,
that inspectors are prevented from examining."
Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer wrote that "Clinton was given an extraordinary
opportunity to strike a massive blow against Saddam. He flinched."
Krauthammer briefly noted that "the military's estimate of casualties
from an initial strike" was "10,000 Iraqi dead"-but who cares?
Uncle Sam should strive to "disarm, disrupt and destroy Saddam's regime.
A relentless air campaign had a good chance of doing that."
Liberal Richard Cohen was not to be outdone in the blood-thirst department.
"Both countries backed down-one the world's only superpower, the other
a Third World country, short of everything but gall," he declared.
"Something is out of balance here. The Clinton administration waited
too long to act. It needed to punch out Iraq's lights, and it did not do
so."
Hypocrisy abounds, but never mind that. With U.S. support, Israel has violated
numerous U.N. resolutions while maintaining its occupations of the West
Bank and Gaza as well as Southern Lebanon. Running weapons facilities that
have produced about 200 nuclear warheads, Israel still refuses to allow
any international inspection.
The United States invokes the sanctity of the United Nations when useful
but ignores that world body whenever convenient-and reserves the right to
unilaterally attack Iraq whether the U.N. likes it or not.
Often, the paramount U.S. media concerns have been framed in macho terms.
Recent news coverage focused on a question that led off a front-page New
York Times article: "Who blinked?" Many American journalists lamented
that Clinton did not entirely stare down Saddam Hussein. The New York Post
scornfully editorialized that Clinton had not been able to "act like
a man." The newspaper, owned by Rupert Murdoch, added that "whenever
circumstances have demanded that this president rise to the occasion and
really be president, he has failed the United States and the world."
Frustrated as they were by the lack of military consummation, cable TV networks
and other media outlets were soon able to replace the faded specter of a
bloody high-tech assault with audio recordings of Linda Tripp and Monica
Lewinsky. Of course, the telephone tapes couldn't quite be touted as new-the
printed transcripts had been released several weeks earlier-but more nuances
were available. The Associated Press echoed the widespread hype by reporting
that the 22 hours of tapes "gave America its first chance to hear Ms.
Lewinsky's voice." AP explained that "what was new Tuesday was
the emotion and inflection."
And so it goes. "Emotion" is supposed to matter greatly in some
contexts. In others, such as past and future U.S. missile attacks on Iraq,
the emotions-in fact, the lives-of people at the other end of U.S. missiles
are unimportant. As consumers of media images, we're offered one insulated
kick after another. We easily slip into spectator mode, vicarious and detached.
The euphemisms are wrapped in smug bravado and playground posturing. "A
relentless air campaign" is needed. The president should order the
Pentagon to "punch out Iraq's lights."
If necessary, don't spare them. But spare us the grisly details.
"Coporate Welfare": A Media Issue at Last?
For Cmany years, across the United States, huge quantities of tax breaks
and subsidies have been going to corporations. Occasionally, the media spotlight
falls on an example of how government policies stand Robin Hood on his head-shaking
down the poor and middle class while handing over the proceeds to wealthy
individuals and big businesses. Sometimes called "corporate welfare,"
this pattern of legalized rip-offs has been widespread-yet little of the
story seems to emerge in major news outlets. Overall, the coverage is sporadic
at best. In mass media, the broader picture has been missing-until the last
few weeks.
November brought a series of breakthroughs, thanks to two gifted reporters
and a news weekly that allowed them to engage in rigorous journalism. All
month, beginning with a cover story on "What Corporate Welfare Costs
You," Time magazine featured extraordinary exposes by Donald Barlett
and James Steele.
Corporate welfare, they write, is "a game in which governments large
and small subsidize corporations large and small, usually at the expense
of another state or town and almost always at the expense of individuals
and other corporate taxpayers."
Barlett and Steele report that "the federal government alone shells
out $125 billion a year in corporate welfare." Meanwhile, "a different
kind of feeding frenzy is taking place" at the state and local level-where
"politicians stumble over one another in the rush to arrange special
deals for select corporations."
In theory, the giveaways create jobs. In practice, the theory is hogwash:
"Time's investigation has established that almost without exception,
local and state politicians have doled out tens of billions of taxpayer
dollars to businesses that are in fact eliminating rather than creating
jobs."Often, when localities roll out the gold carpet for firms, government
coffers shrink-and services for the public diminish. As Barlett and Steele
document in excruciating detail, one of the common results is health-threatening
pollution that goes unchallenged. The most vulnerable neighborhoods tend
to be where low-income people live.
The big hogs at the tax-funded trough include popular brands-Intel and Dow,
General Motors and Mercedes-Benz, Exxon and Shell, UPS and Procter &
Gamble, to name just a few. Some are the parent companies of media empires,
such as Walt Disney (ABC), General Electric (NBC) and-as the Time series
acknowledges-Time Warner. "The king of corporate welfare may be Archer
Daniels Midland," according to Time. "The global agricultural-commodities
dealer has artfully preserved one of the more blatant welfare programs-a
subsidy for ethanol that has already cost taxpayers more than $5 billion
in the 1990s. Some $3 billion of that has gone to ADM."
Year after year, Archer Daniels Midland has poured several million dollars
into the nightly PBS "NewsHour" television show hosted by Jim
Lehrer. ADM is also an underwriter of National Public Radio news. And the
savvy firm buys a lot of image ads on commercial TV network programs that
discuss political issues. Not surprisingly, ADM hasn't been subjected to
much tough reporting on the national airwaves.
Corporate welfare is an important issue. But it can easily be spun in dubious
directions. For instance, in an article addressed "To Our Readers,"
Time's editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine throws a wide curve that breaks
sharply downward and to the right.
"Ending corporate welfare as we know it is essential," Pearlstine
contends. But then comes the English: "Rather than give corporations
uneven and unfair exemptions, it may make more sense to simply do away with
both corporate welfare and corporate taxation."
Now there's an idea that Time Warner can get behind: Stop taxing corporations!
Another hazard is the temptation to put all forms of government assistance
in the same "welfare" category. It would be a big mistake to equate
government aid to dependent corporations with safety-net subsidies for children,
seniors and others struggling at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.
Government should not be using tax dollars to help the rich get richer.
But government has no business refusing to help Americans get the nutrition,
health care, housing and other basics that are everyone's human right. Welcome
as it is, the occasional blockbuster expose of corporate abuses-even in
a media outlet as influential as Time magazine-won't accomplish very much.
Without an "echo effect," these issues are likely to remain muted.
The need to speak up and take action is a burden that falls on people in
every community. Large corporations have been ripping us off for decades.
Our initial efforts to force restitution will not be televised.