Rachel Maddow interviews US United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice.
(MSNBC, 10.24.11)
Patrice Greanville
LAST NIGHT RACHEL MADDOW —one of the lionesses of the liberal press—furnished a textbook example of what it means to practice pseudo journalism, to serve as a shill for an virulent global capitalism bent on restoring colonialist relations around the world.
Maddow is certainly not original in this role; she has hundreds, if not thousands of colleagues who also perform valuable propaganda work for the American hegemon. Indeed, the record of the American media—and in far too many cases, the Western press in general—is rich with instances of abject collusion with power. The most revolting example on recent memory was 2003, when the corporate media literally rolled over to accommodate and amplify the profusion of lies dished out by the Bush regime to justify war against Iraq, making American journalists little more than stenographers to power.
WATCH VIDEO BELOW
The public in general, and journalism students in particular, should study this video segment closely for the lessons it packs in how NOT to conduct an interview with a power figure.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
That shameful—and criminal episode–criminal because of the demonstrable complicity of the media in what is correctly cataloged as a Nuremberg-class war crime—taught the media nothing. Introspection and repentance are out of the question for these self-complacent, overpaid propagandists, not to mention the top managers and owners of the whole apparatus of deceit. In fact, the corporate media (along with the embedded liberal punditocracy) cannot learn from their mistakes, for they do not constitute an honest and independent instrument of information but the chief indoctrination tool for the global capitalist system. In that capacity, being controlled from top to bottom by the world’s plutocracy, they cannot rectify their behavior according to experience or sudden moral epiphanies: as long as this regime exists, they will operate to satisfy the tacit or explicit commands of their owners, who certainly cannot and will not deviate from their agenda of ever-expanding power and wealth accumulation at any cost, including constant wars wrapped in sanctimonious Orwellian rhetoric.
The long Cold War gave us numerous examples of this curious “rigidity”, this stubborn reluctance to “learn”, but its ideological roots precede it by many decades as they obey ruling class priorities and US imperialism was already flexing its cynical muscles by the turn of the 20th century. That’s why the American press would not stop the Korean and Vietnam wars, although technically it could have, given its immense power to sway opinion; nor did it immediately unmask and toss in the trash the ludicrous charges proffered by Joe McCarthy. It took four painful years for McCarthy to fall, during which the media cheerfully created an anti-communist frenzy. It’s worth recalling that “Tailgunner Joe” fell into disgrace only because he had by then exhausted his usefulness to the powers that be, and, having literally run out of “easy” liberal targets, was now beginning to cast aspersions on the Republican party, Eisenhower, and the Army itself.
The cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, and now more recently Libya, indicate the American media will continue to cheerlead for the empire, marshaling the usual excuses of the war on terror, the recently dusted off imperative of “humanitarian intervention”, the need to plant and cultivate democracy and freedom in heathen lands, and so on. Those familiar with the shopworn American propaganda canon will recognize the music at once, but, endorsed by the near-unanimity of the mainstream media, these lies work. It’s dangerous, therefore, when the corporate media start (or restart) the drumroll for the toppling of yet another regime, when the character assassinations begin to multiply, as is the case with Syria and Iran, the two remaining semi-independent pieces (with Pakistan) in the Central Asia/Mideast theater of imperial operations. In this context, those in the media who actively seek and offer their platforms to the chief architects and promulgators of such lies must be held responsible for their active complicity in what is certain to become a major international crime. Rachel Maddow, though regarded in many progressive circles as one of their own, must now be put in this doleful category.
“By their vices thou shalt know them”
Due to its control by the business class, which also controls the government, American journalism suffers from a plethora of vices and deficits, beginning with its worship of “objectivity”, as false a God as it ever was, making it literally a paper tiger when it comes to holding officialdom’s feet to the fire. This is not the place for a full catalog of vices, a job already splendidly done elsewhere (see, for example, Michael Parenti’s Inventing Reality, and the work of N. Chomsky, A. Cockburn, E. Herman, A. Carey, and this site’s own editorial team) but the Rice-Maddow exchange on 10.24.11 is typical of the “hollow interview”—and therefore instructive—in this regard. What did Maddow—by any standard a talented TV host—do wrong to merit rebuke for her actions? Let’s count just a few problems with the so-called “interview” with Rice.
1. WRONG attitude
Fawning unduly, using loads of deferential gestures toward a powerful government figure defeats the whole purpose of conducting an interview (same applies to press conferences). The kid-gloves treatment is useless if the purpose is to really cross-examine the policies being defended by a government official. Deference—which should not be confused with plain politeness— is not required, even in the case of presidents, as they are the servants of free citizens, not their monarchs. This elementary fact should never be forgotten by members of a free press but in America—which pretends to be the foremost example of a free media— it is. So, to Maddow and her ilk: Stop acting like courtiers in the presence of the sovereign.
In fairness to Maddow, the, shall we say, “esthetics” of most interactions between prominent members of the press and powerful officials have become by now rigidly choreographed routines in which deference and softballs are the order of the day. This cloying exercise in mutual courtesy may reek of a privileged club atmosphere, which in a way it is, considering that most members of the media—upper division—are the class equals of their political counterparts. Much bigger media figures than Maddow, from Dan Rather to Katie Couric to Scott Pelley and, of course, the grandmaster of softballs, Bob Schieffer, at the helm of CBS’ Face the Nation for 2o years, indulge in the same journalistic travesty.
2. Ill-preparedness
America’s culture is a culture in a hurry, and so it with its journalistic precincts, where the pressure to produce is augmented by the ludicrous pressures to score scoops against the competition. Such atmosphere is not conducive to calm consideration of any issue, an essential requisite when preparing for an interview with someone who represents complex positions. Of course, calm consideration is useless if you lack the necessary education to even conceive of some important questions, or the cultivated talent to spot platitudes and bald-faced lies. In far too many cases, practically illiterate in matters of history (as they are in economics and other critical subjects), most members of the American media find themselves clearly out of their depth when facing a smooth-talking member of the political class. How can such journalists tackle the well-rehearsed web of lies and half-truths that comprise the usual justifications for our criminal foreign policy if they remain almost totally ignorant of the facts underscoring such pronouncements, or perhaps enthusiastic believers in such self-serving mythologies? The answer is they can’t, and if they did, it would soon land them in plenty of trouble (but that’s another story).
The end result is a sham interview, which is entirely fitting when you operate within the confines of a sham democracy. So the slight discomfort, the traces of uneasiness you perceive in such encounters, are indeed inevitable due to the knowledge/power imbalance. Would a mediocrity look comfortable discussing the finer points of Catholic doctrine with the Pope?
3. The “collabo” effect
French people who collaborated with the Germans were tagged as “collabos”, and sometimes punished accordingly. At the risk of stating the obvious, there’s a long tradition of collaboration between the supposedly independent media in the US and the capitalist system that runs the country. The end result is that, given the rights of ownership, the American media dances to the tune dictated by its capitalist masters. This naturally includes the generous facilitation of the pro-capitalist (including imperialist) messages in both print and television media. In that respect, many media figures are expected to act (and do, career comes first) like “collabos” on the side of the usurper in the class wars that span the whole planet. But the capitalist enforcement of such rules is not ironclad. Here and there glimmers of sabotage and resistance pop up. So, what prompts Maddow to invite Susan Rice, of all possible people (see below who this woman really is in a profile by none other than our esteemed colleague Glen Ford) to hold forth on the current objectives of American foreign policy? As if these criminals didn’t have already enough access to the mainstream media (and consciousness).
It’s not surprising that Rice, an expert liar and an unapologetic hawk in foreign policy, wasted no time in packing the interview with all manner of sanctimonious bullshit about the holy objectives of US foreign policy, which, as Salvador de Madariaga memorably said, is regarded by most Americans as pure as the immaculate conception. Platitudes to the effect that Obama’s international policy showed great care and sensitivity to spare the suffering of innocents, yada yada, while achieving its goals with the efficiency of a well-crafted war machine met with no riposte from Maddow except tacit approval (obstinate Obama boosterism is one of the things that mar the entire spectrum of commentary on MSNBC). A similar unproven statement to the effect that Gaddafi (let’s put more nails on his coffin to whitewash our involvement in this cynical war) had murdered “tens of thousands of [of his own] people in a single day” elicited a similar blank stare from Rachel.
On the matter of Africa—and the hundred or so “advisors” being sent by Obama to fight some very bad men in the Congo and elsewhere— there was an uptick in Maddow’s willingness to pin her interlocutor, but by then the damage was done. Such failure underscores, again, the pathetic preparedness of American journalists, or their conveniently self-inflicted amnesia when it comes to imperial meddling. For, after all, who of any moderate awareness is not cognizant that the biggest quagmire in the postwar (aside from the other forgotten war, Korea), the Vietnam War, started with the sending of a few hundred “advisors” to the Indochina peninsula?
Patrice Greanville is editor in chief of The Greanville Post.
ADDENDUM
Who is Susan Rice? The leading African American journalist and political commentator Glen Ford answers the question—
Susan Rice is Bad News for Africa
By Black Agenda Report executive editor Glen Ford
Barack Obama’s nominee for United Nations Ambassador is a very aggressive woman – militarily speaking. Susan Rice is “more bellicose” than George Bush when it comes to threatening Sudan over the plight of the people of Darfur, “while simultaneously backing a savage U.S.-Ethiopian assault that causes an even larger humanitarian calamity in Somalia.” One is forced to conclude that “Susan Rice’s brand of ‘humanitarian intervention’ is a farce, a pretext to justify military aggression under the guise of preventing human suffering.”
“Rice revealed herself to be an apostle of George Bush’s War on Somalia.”
Rice is a proponent of so-called “humanitarian military intervention” – but supports a U.S. Somalia policy that created “Africa’s worst humanitarian crisis [6],” according to the United Nations.
There is every reason to believe she will counsel the next president to continue George Bush’s policies in the Horn of Africa. In January, 2007, while Ethiopian troops attempted to crush Islamists who had brought a brief period of relative peace and stability to Somalia, and U.S. air and sea forces pounded the countryside with missiles and bombs, Rice revealed herself to be an apostle of George Bush’s War on Somalia (and the so-called War on Terror in general). Rice told the PBS News Hour [7] that U.S. collaboration with the Ethiopian invaders was justified by what she called America’s “counterterrorism imperatives,” which she said “really are real in the context of Somalia.” In Rice’s words, “We have to go after the terrorist cells where we find them.”
The Bush regime gave no estimate of how many persons with ties to Al Qaida were operating on Somali soil, but the number appears to have been very small. The main goal of the Americans and their Ethiopian allies was to crush the government that had been created by Somali Islamists. The Islamic Courts regime, as Abukar Arman writes in the journal Global Politician [8], operated “schools, hospitals, and for six months before the occupation removed every checkpoint in Mogadishu and brought a semblance of peace.” Two years after the invasion, the Islamists have retaken much of southern and central Somalia, and the Ethiopians appear poised to withdraw – after killing, starving and displacing millions in partnership with the United States.
“On Darfur, Rice is more bellicose than Bush.”
The “humanitarian” component of Susan Rice’s militarism is quite selective.
She has long been a super-hawk on punishing Sudan for its behavior in Darfur. Back in October, 2006, Rice declared, “It’s time to get tough” with the government in Khartoum.” In a Washington Post column[9], she advised the Bush regime to give Sudan “an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the U.N. force within one week or face military consequences.” (explain China and oil and Israel)
On Darfur, Rice is more bellicose than Bush. She sees no contradiction in calling for military action against Sudan, supposedly to end a “humanitarian crisis” in Darfur, while simultaneously backing a savage U.S.-Ethiopian assault that causes an even larger humanitarian calamity in Somalia. Rice claims to seek safety for civilians in Darfur, while supporting a total absence of security for Somali civilians. Darfur is a military/political convenience for “real-politic” operatives like Susan Rice. As Bruce Dixon wrote in his November 2007 BAR article, “If stopping genocide in Africa really was on the agenda, why the focus on Sudan with 200,000 to 400,000 dead rather than Congo with five million dead?” (See “Ten Reasons Why ‘Save Darfur’ is a PR Scam to Justify the Next US Oil and Resource Wars in Africa. [10]”)
“Her sole concern is projection of U.S. power by any means – or pretext – that is available.”
Rice’s behavior in Africa has always been morally inconsistent. She was a member of Bill Clinton’s National Security Council during the 1994 Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi minority. Later, she “swore” she would go “down in flames [11]” if necessary to prevent future genocides. But after her promotion to Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, she failed to publicly advocate action against U.S. allies Uganda and by then Tutsi-ruled Rwanda – the main perpetrators in an ongoing war that his killed millions
Susan Rice’s brand of “humanitarian intervention” is a farce, a pretext to justify military aggression under the guise of preventing human suffering. She has amply demonstrated that her sole concern is projection of U.S. power by any means – or pretext – that is available.
Rice embraces a policy that causes mass death and starvation in Somalia and ongoing genocide in Congo. Although she’s no blood relative of Condoleezza Rice, on African issues she seems headed in the same direction as the current Secretary of State.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com [12].
¶
ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it. Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”. (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA.)
THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
