A U.S. or U.S.-backed attack on Iran seems to be a foregone conclusion if we simply look at how the U.S. media covers the issue. FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) recently had this to report while looking at U.S. media, “Do TV Networks ‘Practice’ for War?”
02/13/2012 by Peter Hart
Alexander Cockburn’s latest piece at CounterPunch (2/10/12) included this from a tipster:
I was visiting ABC News the other day to see a friend who works on graphics. When I went to his room, he showed me all the graphics he was making in anticipation of the Israeli attack on Iran; not just maps, but flight patterns, trajectories and 3-D models of U.S. aircraft carrier fleets.
But what was most disturbing–was that ABC, and presumably other networks, have been rehearsing these scenarios for over two weeks, with newscasters and retired generals in front of maps talking about missiles and delivery systems, and at their newsdesks-–the screens are emblazoned with “This Is a Drill” to assure they don’t go out on air (like War of the Worlds).
Then reports of counter-attacks by Hezbollah in Lebanon with rockets on Israeli cities–it was mind-numbing. Very disturbing–when pre-visualization becomes real.
Does that kind of thing actually happen? Well, yeah.
CBS “practiced” covering a U.S. bombing of Iraq back in 1998–and the footage was apparently fed to a satellite (L.A. Times, 2/20/98):
CBS jumped the gun Friday on a possible U.S. attack on Iraq: The network inadvertently transmitted a practice news report via satellite that could be picked up by television stations and viewers with special equipment.
To try out new graphics for combat coverage in the event the U.S. goes forward with the threatened bombing of Iraq, CBS anchor Dan Rather was rehearsing with Pentagon correspondent David Martin over a closed line between CBS‘s New York headquarters and its Washington news bureau. The report was mistakenly sent up to a communications satellite.
More broadly though, Glenn Greenwald has made the case that the major U.S. media are in fact more eager for war than the U.S. government itself:
Many have compared the coordinated propaganda campaign now being disseminated about The Iranian Threat to that which preceded the Iraq War, but there is one notable difference. Whereas the American media in 2002 followed the lead of the U.S. government in beating the war drums against Saddam, they now seem even more eager for war against Iran than the U.S. government itself, which actually appears somewhat reluctant.
What happens to India, a supposed “friend,” for not going along with the Iranian oil embargo? It gets called out like this:
India’s decision to walk out of step with the international community on Iran isn’t just a slap in the face for the U.S. – it raises questions about its ability to lead.
Except this “international community” when one thinks about it actually doesn’t include India, China, Russia, and basically the majority of people on this planet!
As a reader recently commented on the blog, perhaps President Obama would have “no choice” when comes to election time later this year – that he is compelled by Americans to directly attack or to sanction Israel to invade Iran. After all, that’s what a democracy is about isn’t it? If the public wants war, the government better give it.
Below is a segment from Russia Today looking at U.S. media, and unsurprising also concludes cheer-leading for war:
Americans should really think. Is this truly what they want? Is it sustainable that America invade a new country every few years? Wouldn’t those war costs be better spent funding NASA, NSF, and education so Americans are more competitive in our globalized world?