February 18, 2005
The questions not asked
You can tell more about the sorry state of the mainstream news media by the kinds of questions that are not asked as by the questions that are.
Take for example the news this week that North Korea publicly acknowledged having nuclear weapons and withdrew from the six-nation talks, saying that it wanted bilateral discussion with the US. The news communiquÃ© from the North Korean government said that the reason it had developed nuclear weapons was to defend itself from possible attack by the US.
In response to this announcement, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said that â€œThe North Koreans have no reason to believe that anyone wants to attack them,â€?
Really? Letâ€™s see now. The Bush administration famously created the â€˜axis of evilâ€™ that consisted of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. The first country (Iraq) has since been invaded by the US, and the second country (Iran) now has US forces on two of its borders (Iraq and Afghanistan), with the bellicose language and arguments that preceded the attack on Iraq being now reprised against Iran
Then there is the fact that there are nearly 40,000 US troops in South Korea, along the border with the North.
Given all this, I think a person might reasonably conclude that the North Koreans have grounds for being concerned about an attack.
So when Rice pooh-poohâ€™s North Koreaâ€™s fears about an impending strike, you might think that a reporter might question her about these past statements and ask her why she expects the North Koreans to believe her. But as far as I can tell, it did not happen.
Or as another example, take the case of the recent horrific bombing in Beirut that killed the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. In response to this event White House spokesman Scott McClellan is quoted as saying that the United States will consult with other members of the U.N. Security Council about how to restore Lebanon's independence by ending what he termed foreign occupation.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher went further and said that the killing undercuts Syriaâ€™s stated reason for keeping 14,000 troops in Lebanon which was to maintain the multiethnic countryâ€™s stability.
Mr. Boucher also said that this â€œshows the distortions of Lebanese politics that are created by the Syrian presence that shows that the excuse, the reason, the rationale, that's given for the security -- for the Syrian presence really doesn't work. It has not provided internal security for Lebanon, and therefore, in light of that kind of event, we need to look at the whole range of issues that we've had, including Syrian presence in Lebanon.â€?
Now when statements like this are made, the adage about glass houses immediately jumps to mind. How can these spokespersons say that one bombing in Lebanon, however major, underscores the need for the removal of 14,000 foreign troops there since no security has been created by them, when just down the street in Iraq there are more that ten times that many US troops present, yet civil war seems a possibility, bombings on the scale of what happened in Lebanon are almost routine daily occurrences, and lawlessness is so rampant that even the road to the Baghdad airport is now a no-go zone?
The reason that these spokespersons can make these statements is that they know they will not be pressed on the awkward contradictions.
The point is not that there may not be good reasons that explain away the contradictions. The interesting question is why these people are not even expected to make the case.
These are not isolated instances, and in future postings we will look at further examples and pose the question of why it is that reporters who have access to these spokespeople do not seem to ask the obvious questions.