Inanity Still Rules the Airwaves

It's 2008 -- five years after the major news media in USA "learned its lesson" about failing to report the truth on the justification for the invasion of Iraq -- and inanity still rules the airwaves on the evening news.

On every evening since Benazir Bhutto's assassination on Dec 27, I zapped through one television news show or channel after another, waiting -- praying -- for some newscaster to speak of the likelihood that the assassination was the work of President Pervez Musharraf's administration as well as (if not more than) the work of Al Qaeda. I zapped and I watched and I waited in vain.

From the conservative news channels to the moderate-minded evening shows to even the best liberal shows, our major news outlets tiptoed gingerly around the facts, facts that were widely known from day one on the Pakistan streets. "Musharraf is a dog!" they shouted in Lahore and Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Every five year old kid in Pakistan knows that Musharraf is a dog, that it's highly likely Musharraf helped to arrange the murder of the politician who was about to win an election. So why aren't Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams and Katie Couric and Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann saying this? Why on earth do our television reporters refuse to report to American viewers what everybody else in Pakistan and around the world believes to be true?

I don't know the answer to this question, but I believe the problem has more to do with conformity than with conspiracy. USA news media is always eager for an Al Qaeda terrorist story. This one came rolling in, bullets and bombs and blood, and the evening news shows ran with it. They're still running. They should do less running and more thinking.

Many reporters are even giving credulous treatment to the Musharraf government's ridiculous shaggy dog stories (an incriminating phone call from the shadowy Baitullah Mehsud, a medical report that Bhutto died a coward's death from ducking into her limousine). Where are the hard-hitting journalists here? Is anybody even paying attention to this story, or are they all suffering from Iowa fever?

It's not just Pakistan that's getting junior varsity coverage; our top television journalists have been no more incisive on the horrifying and genocidal crisis currently ravaging Kenya. Brian Williams sleepily assured us last night that "it's a tribal conflict." Thanks a lot, Brian. Maybe we ought to send some CARE packages over.

The American public must demand more aggressive and more skeptical journalism from our top news providers. Or else we have learned no lessons since the days of the smoking mushroom cloud in 2003.

Comments

[bronceye]

Why doesn't this story die as quickly as bush's Burma moment? Burma must be democratically controlled by now, huh?

[jdm58]

We may never know the "who" regarding the assasination of Bhutto. But after some reflection, the "how" is apparent: she exposed herself to her public, those who adored her as well as those who disliked her, with little care to her personal safety. She spoke from a podium where previous assasinations had occured, lingered at the end of her speech to wave to the masses, and stood up in her car as it slowly left the rally, at which time she was shot. All this, even after more than 150 people were killed during a previous attack on her life a month earlier, and none of which would have been recommended behavior. She was well aware of the risks associated with her return. She did not exist in a "bubble" of false security, and spoke often of the risks she was taking. Musharref himself has faced many assasination attempts, but he takes precautions to prevent falling victim to them. Would he have behaved as she did, in the same circumstance? Hardly. But that fact alone does not make him guilty of plotting her assasination. In fact, I can't think of a dignitary either foreign or domestic who has taken such risks to their personal safety. Bhutto's death was a great loss, but tragically one that could have been avoided.

[serialcoma]

The US media is the last place I expect to find honesty, integrity or ethical behavior ... well, besides the White House and the church.

[reedmaker]

Just a few days after Bhutto's assassination, McClatchy reported on a story that Bhutto was poised to hand over a document about the Musharraf regime's plans to fix the election. She was going to turn the report over to visiting U.S. Senators rather than the Bush administration, assuming that the Bushies would spin or burry it.

This could be an important link between Musharraf and the assassination, but as far as I can tell (though I'll admit, I don't watch the evening news), the MSM, other than McClatchy, does not seem to be reporting on it. As far as I'm concerned, this story is huge in more ways than one--not only that Musharraf is 100% crooked but that Bhutto did not trust Bush.

WHY NO COVERAGE?

[ibivi]

Why does her murder have to be a conspiracy? Islamic radicals made it clear that they would not tolerate a westernized woman as the leader of Pakistan. Musharraf just had to wait for them to carry out her murder. It came pretty quick.

[beebop]

Don't most news programs now fall under the entertainment division at the networks? Seriously though. No one in the MSM does or says much to irritate The Bush. As long as this country is still depending on Mushy to 1) contain their nuclear weapons and 2) keep saying (but not actually doing) that they are looking for Osama it serves The Bush's needs met until he packs up The Wife, The Dogs and his personal belongings and trucks back to Tejas. Say nothing too bad about Mushy because (typically) there was no plan B and plan A wasn't that well thought out .....

[mamacat]

We keep expecting the MSM to perform up to the high standards of the past. Its not likely to happen, at least not in the United States. The conglomeratisation (is that a word?) of the news media today means that news will only get reported on the MSM if it is what the owners controlling the talking heads want reported.
We stand a better chance of getting useful news on the English language editions of Der Spiegel or Al Jazeera than on Fox or CNN.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I think the lesson here is that the 'news' is
pretty well doctored up. Somebody's always selling something, whether it's 'defense' or dish soap or vying for your vote, someone's got a sales pitch and they're trying to get your
support for something.

Personally, I think it'd be an awesome idea
if they just packed up everyone and everything
that said 'US Army' on it and dragged it back
to the United States, and put it down in
writing that that part of the world is just
plain going to have to figure out how to resolve
their differences, and that instead of burning
all that money on 'defense', instead invest it
seriously and earnestly into getting OFF THE STUPID OIL. It's either that, or 10 years from
now we'll keep hearing some kind of soap opera sob story about the Further-Hitheronians somewhere in their valiant struggle for something-or-other and how, of course, again, the United States is wholly at fault for their
duress, and callously something-something-sales pitch something something etc.
Did you ever stop to ponder how fast the 'war on terror' might end if everyone just shut the
TV off for a month? Gotta wonder...stay tuned!
(Or don't)

[Manx]

I've been very irritated by the remarks of CNN's Peter Bergen, reporting from Pakistan. He is adamant and certitudinous that Bhutto was killed by Al Qaeda although he doesn't offer any evidence. He won't even entertain the idea that Musharraf might be responsible.

[Butterstick]

They don't say it because they don't feel comfortable saying something so libelous, inflammatory and damaging without at least a few concrete facts, such as leaked information from a credible investigation or some separate kind of smoking or near-smoking gun. The mob is not a judge and jury; who the mob convicts often turns out to be innocent. I'm not saying Musharraf is innocent or that the mob was wrong in this case. But there is a threshold, generally speaking, for entree to the MSM that doesn't always exist for blogs. That's not to set one over the other, it's just how it is. You can't expect a toaster to make coffee.

Go to blogs for speculation and the MSM (and blogs) for items that have at least some level of evidence and confirmation. In the end, you were able to hear that the Pakistani "street" thought Musharraf was a "dog," correct? So the information got to you somehow - I wouldn't complain.

[Merlin7]

So what else is new? The news networks have a responsibility to educate the public. They don't. They easily could produce excellent programs comparing health care around the world; exploring energy issues and related options; exposing the influence of lobbyists on government; wasteful government spending; and many other topics. They refuse to do so.
Instead, they fill their air time with fluff, establishment press releases and Britney Spears updates. They are a disgrace, and the print media aren't much better.

[RepublicanBrain]

I've seen plenty of talk that Musharaf could be involved. Don't know where you get it from. I saw a big old caucus about it on Fox News just the other day.

As a media guy, there is some truth to the whole Al-Qaida theory. It's a household name synonymous with 9/11, which most people remember.

If you ask me, though, people still have Dan Rather and the CBS News debacle in their mind. They are worried about "making up" stories because of possibly fraudulent evidence, and being asked to prove things.

Maybe they are waiting for some more hard-hitting medical evidence, or another video, or something. But part of me thinks it's a lack of decisive evidence. Musharaf's tale may be incredulous and downright silly, but in and of itself, is not evidence of criminal activity.

[MNinWI]

You speak the truth. I have written to networks complaining about their low quality of journalsim. They don't care, they don't respond. Ever try to write to MSNBC? You use their links & the emails bounce right back as undeliverable. All of them bounce back. So if they don't listen, who do you talk to?

[Nommo]

Takes some kind of insight or foresight to concoct a conspiracy. That, alone, eliminates the names in your blog.