US journalist Amy Goodman and 'Democracy Now' never have appeared more like CIA assets than in the aftermath of the November 2nd, 2004 "election".
Bush Letterboxing
Larry Diamond
Amy Goodman Awed
Note: Thanks to the Webfairy for the images which are reproduced under Fair Use guidelines.
On November 3rd, 2004, John Kerry conceded the Presidential race to George Bush while hundreds of thousands of provisional ballots were still uncounted in Ohio. Either he quit believing that he could not win—or something more sinister happened. Specifically, I’m referring to the possibility that Kerry was never running, that his campaign was a charade. Technically this idea implies that something very similar to a coup d’etat has been executed in the US, since a political organization has retained power without an election.
#file_1#
Questions about Kerry’s lackluster “campaign” are natural when considering how lethargically he waged it. For example, his campaign simply skipped the March for Women protest in Washington, DC. (Held on 4/2/04, it drew 1.2 million, high-energy people many of whom enthusiastically supported him.) Many commentators have also noted that Kerry was swept into the role of Democratic front-runner after the mainstream media abruptly sabotaged Howard Dean’s effort. In addition, much has been said about Kerry and Bush’s similar station and ties to the same mysterious Skull and Bones fraternity at Yale.
We should also take note of Democracy Now!’s revealing programming on 11/3, 11/4, 11/5 and 11/8/04. (DN is an immensely popular hour-long daily news program which airs on Pacifica Radio and which is reportedly now owned by its leading figure, Amy Goodman.) At no point during this period did DN have someone mention that a single company had counted sixty million votes. While DN provided some useful information during this period it provided no single fact (like Christopher Bollyn’s claim) that would galvanize the dejected Left into action. In addition, I will argue that DN served a propaganda function for the pending US assault of Fallujah. Not bad for a news resource that many anti-war activists regard as a treasure.
All of the other people who appear on DN’s 11/3 program authenticate the election results. DN producer Jeremy Scahill impatiently compares Kerry’s quick concession with the weeks-long, post-election suspense in 2000. (Phyliss Bennis later draws the same comparison.) In addition, guests Mahdi Bray and Pacifica National Board member Leslie Cagan all affirm that Kerry lost an election that he was seriously contesting. Michael Ratner expresses only a marginal amount of concern over the uncounted votes in Ohio.
An ironic choice, Scott McConnell of the American Conservative Magazine appears for a lengthy segment. McConnell argues that Kerry quit because he could not be regarded as the legitimate winner, having lost the popular vote. No one reminds the audience that this is exactly the situation that Bush was in when first inaugurated.
Co-host Juan Gonzalez then proceeds into a lengthy segment. First, he’s astonished at how the Black vote largely went to the Democrats. Then Gonzalez takes issue with the long lines that some people had to endure when voting. Then Gonzalez cites voting irregularities with the New Mexico election. (According to news reports most of the allegations of fraud and abuse came from Florida and Ohio.) . Moving to the Buckeye State, Gonzalez is “amazed” that Ohio is publishing voting statistics at the county and not at the precinct level. Then Gonzalez legitimates Bush’s claim he won in Ohio by arguing that it came about from the inherent racism that goes along with that area of the country.
American University law professor Jamin Raskin then appears for a long segment. Raskin urges reform of the 225+ year-old Electoral College. He also legitimates the results by suggesting it came about from the GOP’s use of gerrymandering. Following this author Esther Kaplan appears. She also validates the election results by claiming that the GOP won because of a backlash against social concerns like gay marriage. (Goodman and Gonzalez agree with her.) Robert Parry is the last guest on. Parry validates the election by explaining Bush won because of the conservative media infrastructure.
E-voting activists Bev Harris and Professor Aviel Rubin appear. Harris discusses her organization’s upcoming freedom of information request (FOIA) campaign. She describes her request as requesting audits of selected selection machines at selected, individual precincts. During Rubin’s segment he advocates the use of paper audits. Goodman and Rubin both wonder why there are so many who are not embracing the paper ballot panacea. Neither mentions the alternative of requiring the use of open source software with the electronic voting machines.
All in all, Democracy Now!’s news reports from 11/3 to 11/8 were so favorable to the outcome of those benefiting from the “election” that anti-war activists should reevaluate the integrity of this program and the people on camera. If this weren’t enough, DN simultaneously provided a great propaganda service to the military with regards to their upcoming assault/massacre of civilians in Fallujah.
#file_2# #file_3#
Shortly after this Amy Goodman has on Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Diamond is also affiliated with the National Endowment for Democracy. Goodman never mentions it but both the Hoover Institute and NED are said to have long-time connections with the CIA. (So does Pacifica, apparently.)
Goodman and Diamond both discuss Fallujah with just their faces and bodies lit; the background is black. Diamond repeatedly states that the objective of the US military is to remove the threat posed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (As with any ghost story Zarqawi’s menace is enhanced by the limited lighting.) Goodman never hints that there is enormous skepticism around the world about whether Zarqawi is CIA fiction designed to justify the slaughter of Fallujah’s civilian population. When Diamond concludes his presentation with only modest criticism of the top military brass Goodman effusively praises him, saying:
“…this is very powerful coming from you, working at the Hoover Institution. We hear this from others, actually, in government as well, but peace activists, but for you to be at the prime Bush think tank in the country, for you, who was a senior advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, is quite astounding…(Goodman, 11/5/04).” What happened to the ‘Exception to the Rulers’ here?
Space precludes conducting film analyses of the audio and visual montages that DN aired in the four programs cited (from 11/3 to 11/8/04). In brief, they all appear to this author to be examples of cinematic propaganda designed to serve the Pentagon’s interests. The most obvious is the video clip DN aired (11/4) of a smiling Bush standing with his lovely wife and daughters (11/4) as they wave to people off camera after Kerry’s concession. Did Karl Rove select it?
In conclusion, Democracy Now’s propaganda function on behalf of power was never more transparent than in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential “election”. If DN is not currently being sponsored by the CIA--it should be.
Scott Loughrey
On November 3rd, 2004, John Kerry conceded the Presidential race to George Bush while hundreds of thousands of provisional ballots were still uncounted in Ohio. Either he quit believing that he could not win—or something more sinister happened. Specifically, I’m referring to the possibility that Kerry was never running, that his campaign was a charade. Technically this idea implies that something very similar to a coup d’etat has been executed in the US, since a political organization has retained power without an election.
#file_1#
Questions about Kerry’s lackluster “campaign” are natural when considering how lethargically he waged it. For example, his campaign simply skipped the March for Women protest in Washington, DC. (Held on 4/2/04, it drew 1.2 million, high-energy people many of whom enthusiastically supported him.) Many commentators have also noted that Kerry was swept into the role of Democratic front-runner after the mainstream media abruptly sabotaged Howard Dean’s effort. In addition, much has been said about Kerry and Bush’s similar station and ties to the same mysterious Skull and Bones fraternity at Yale.
We should also take note of Democracy Now!’s revealing programming on 11/3, 11/4, 11/5 and 11/8/04. (DN is an immensely popular hour-long daily news program which airs on Pacifica Radio and which is reportedly now owned by its leading figure, Amy Goodman.) At no point during this period did DN have someone mention that a single company had counted sixty million votes. While DN provided some useful information during this period it provided no single fact (like Christopher Bollyn’s claim) that would galvanize the dejected Left into action. In addition, I will argue that DN served a propaganda function for the pending US assault of Fallujah. Not bad for a news resource that many anti-war activists regard as a treasure.
Democracy Now! – the Aftermath of 11/2
11/3 Broadcast
In reviewing the news shows aired by Democracy Now on 11/3, 11/4, 11/5 and 11/8/04 it is clear that DN was very narrowly framing its discussions about the Presidential election. For example, on the (two-hour) 11/3 program host Amy Goodman mentions an email she received asking why Kerry quit with “a quarter of a million provisional ballots” still uncounted. As if speaking for the Kerry campaign she asks rhetorically whether a candidate is entitled to quit.All of the other people who appear on DN’s 11/3 program authenticate the election results. DN producer Jeremy Scahill impatiently compares Kerry’s quick concession with the weeks-long, post-election suspense in 2000. (Phyliss Bennis later draws the same comparison.) In addition, guests Mahdi Bray and Pacifica National Board member Leslie Cagan all affirm that Kerry lost an election that he was seriously contesting. Michael Ratner expresses only a marginal amount of concern over the uncounted votes in Ohio.
An ironic choice, Scott McConnell of the American Conservative Magazine appears for a lengthy segment. McConnell argues that Kerry quit because he could not be regarded as the legitimate winner, having lost the popular vote. No one reminds the audience that this is exactly the situation that Bush was in when first inaugurated.
11/4 Broadcast
Early on the next day (11/4) Amy Goodman asserts that Bush won the popular vote. She states that Kerry had quit because of a determination he could not win. We then see an excerpt of Kerry’s concession speech. This is followed by an unusually favorable clip of Bush’s acceptance speech. In it Bush is shown at his most likeable and conciliatory; i.e., Bush humbly asking for the support of all Americans.Co-host Juan Gonzalez then proceeds into a lengthy segment. First, he’s astonished at how the Black vote largely went to the Democrats. Then Gonzalez takes issue with the long lines that some people had to endure when voting. Then Gonzalez cites voting irregularities with the New Mexico election. (According to news reports most of the allegations of fraud and abuse came from Florida and Ohio.) . Moving to the Buckeye State, Gonzalez is “amazed” that Ohio is publishing voting statistics at the county and not at the precinct level. Then Gonzalez legitimates Bush’s claim he won in Ohio by arguing that it came about from the inherent racism that goes along with that area of the country.
American University law professor Jamin Raskin then appears for a long segment. Raskin urges reform of the 225+ year-old Electoral College. He also legitimates the results by suggesting it came about from the GOP’s use of gerrymandering. Following this author Esther Kaplan appears. She also validates the election results by claiming that the GOP won because of a backlash against social concerns like gay marriage. (Goodman and Gonzalez agree with her.) Robert Parry is the last guest on. Parry validates the election by explaining Bush won because of the conservative media infrastructure.
11/5
On the 11/5/04 program Goodman says little of significance about the election. She mentions 4,500 lost votes in North Carolina. Also, she briefly mentions that VoteProtect.org reports over 1,100 calls to their phone number from people protesting the election.11/8
On the 11/8/04 program Goodman again brings up the issue of Kerry quitting the campaign so quickly. However, she directs the conversation towards “…the use of the electronic voting machines..." Then she proceeds to offer a brief list of some of the irregularities with voting.E-voting activists Bev Harris and Professor Aviel Rubin appear. Harris discusses her organization’s upcoming freedom of information request (FOIA) campaign. She describes her request as requesting audits of selected selection machines at selected, individual precincts. During Rubin’s segment he advocates the use of paper audits. Goodman and Rubin both wonder why there are so many who are not embracing the paper ballot panacea. Neither mentions the alternative of requiring the use of open source software with the electronic voting machines.
All in all, Democracy Now!’s news reports from 11/3 to 11/8 were so favorable to the outcome of those benefiting from the “election” that anti-war activists should reevaluate the integrity of this program and the people on camera. If this weren’t enough, DN simultaneously provided a great propaganda service to the military with regards to their upcoming assault/massacre of civilians in Fallujah.
Democracy Now! and Fallujah Top
Democracy Now!’s propaganda effort on behalf of the US military assault on Fallujah is obvious when reviewing the 11/5/04 broadcast. Early on Bush is seen at a press conference. Speaking about Fallujah the reporter asks him “What the objective is, stakes are for the United States, the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi elections coming up in January.” Curiously, Democracy Now! letter boxes both the reporter’s question and Bush’s reply. Bush’s reply to the question appears smarmy, smirking, sadistic and rambling. However, the red letter box featuring animated sound waves dispersing above Bush’s head distracts attention from Bush’s lack of statesmanship. The chaos that DN is inserting above Bush’s head is window dressing designed to improve Bush’s effectiveness.#file_2# #file_3#
Shortly after this Amy Goodman has on Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Diamond is also affiliated with the National Endowment for Democracy. Goodman never mentions it but both the Hoover Institute and NED are said to have long-time connections with the CIA. (So does Pacifica, apparently.)
Goodman and Diamond both discuss Fallujah with just their faces and bodies lit; the background is black. Diamond repeatedly states that the objective of the US military is to remove the threat posed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (As with any ghost story Zarqawi’s menace is enhanced by the limited lighting.) Goodman never hints that there is enormous skepticism around the world about whether Zarqawi is CIA fiction designed to justify the slaughter of Fallujah’s civilian population. When Diamond concludes his presentation with only modest criticism of the top military brass Goodman effusively praises him, saying:
“…this is very powerful coming from you, working at the Hoover Institution. We hear this from others, actually, in government as well, but peace activists, but for you to be at the prime Bush think tank in the country, for you, who was a senior advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, is quite astounding…(Goodman, 11/5/04).” What happened to the ‘Exception to the Rulers’ here?
Space precludes conducting film analyses of the audio and visual montages that DN aired in the four programs cited (from 11/3 to 11/8/04). In brief, they all appear to this author to be examples of cinematic propaganda designed to serve the Pentagon’s interests. The most obvious is the video clip DN aired (11/4) of a smiling Bush standing with his lovely wife and daughters (11/4) as they wave to people off camera after Kerry’s concession. Did Karl Rove select it?
In conclusion, Democracy Now’s propaganda function on behalf of power was never more transparent than in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential “election”. If DN is not currently being sponsored by the CIA--it should be.
Scott Loughrey
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Come off it...
13.11.2004 17:31
I can only imagine that you must be from the CIA or something, trying to vut
off access to what is an important source of information.
I would ask everybody to check out www.democracynow.org to listen for
yourself and make up your own mind. I think the above post has completely
misinterprated and taken out of context everything in the program. Either to
be pedantic, or to deliberately mislead.
You are especially wrong regarding the coverage of Fallujah. Democracy Now
has consistently interviewed people, like Robert Fisk, like Iraqi's and
Palestinians, who have denounced Fallujah as a massacre, and violating human
rights.
That guy they interviewed from the Hoover foundation was AGAINST the
invasion of Fallujah, he said it was a mistake. That was the point of the
interview. They were interviewing someone from conservative circles who also
disagreed with the way the war was being conducted. Amy Goodman said 'We
often hear this from the left, but I'm astonished to hear this from you,
someone who works at the Hoover Institute, a Bush thinktank'.
I have always thought it admirable that Democracy Now is not scared of
interviewing people from the right. Even people from the far right, like
when they interviewed Richard Perle. They challenged him on the airwaves.
But at the end of the day, they consistently bring on the important opinions
of people like Chomsky, Robert Fisk, the Palestinians, the Iraqis. They
interviewed Aristide of Haiti after he was removed by the US backed coup.
They have never made Bush look like anything more than an evil, petty
tyrant.
One of the main things they do is to show how all the gloss and special
effects, and Bush looking sharp and snappy, is all an illusion. Check out
their documentary on the mainstream media. They are happy to show pictures
of Plastic Bush and his Plastic Wife waving to adoring crowds. This is true,
this is happening. But at the same time they challenge you to look beyond
the media spectacle.
If you don't get this, think harder...
Regarding the coverage of the Presidential election, check out the story
'As vote scandals continue to emerge, could John Kerry unconcede?'
But you know, whether Kerry or Bush won, it isn't important. I'm glad Bush
won, actually. Kerry was equally bad, but people would have gone back to
sleep had he gained power. Bush will mobilise global resistance against him
like Kerry could never do.
Apart from some minor improvements in domestic policy, the US would have
changed nothing. Kerry still wanted to win the war in Iraq. He still wanted
to onesidedly back Israel above the interests of every other country. He
still had a basically backwards attitude towards Latin America.
Criticise democracy nows coverage if you think it is not accurate or the
angle is wrong. But to call it a mouthpiece of the CIA is a bit strong, I
think, and I can only think you have some other, vested interest yourself.
Hermes
CoIntel Pro
13.11.2004 17:58
This details about the activities of ConIntelPro. It is very interesting reading.
One of their classic tactics was to infiltrate leftwing groups and sow dissent and division. 'This person is a CIA agent', for example.
I think it important to start thinking about these things, and that these things could be happening again, because the political climate is not so far away form when we were at the peak of the cold war. Left wing groups have already been infiltrated by, for example, the BNP. In the US, we know the FBI infiltrated many antiwar circles. As resistance to imperialist policies grows, these agents will start playing a role by agitating within the movement.
Seriously, I don't know what can be done about it. But people should be aware of manipulation. I think a good defense is a certain moral attitude. There's a great Islamic law ( I'm not a Muslim, but Allah Akbar anyway ). It states that back-biting is one of the biggest sins. You should never gossip about people behind their back. Instead, you should confront them with any problems face to face.
Some Muslims say it's the one sin Allah will not forgive. You have to confess what you said about that person, to that person, in the afterlife if need be.
I think everyone in the movement is guilty of this crime. I know I am. But I think if we are going to move forward with greater unity and cohesion, in a time where the stakes are being raised, we have to bear a lot of these things in mind.
Hermes