The villains of our time do not have to be discovered and captured, they are already in front of us, telling us false information and propaganda about matters of life and death every day on our television screens. Most of them do not know that they are villains, that they are the "bad guys" in this world historical drama - only a traitorous few know what they're doing, but nonetheless, they are villains. And like all villains, they don't like it when a credible person or organization challenges them, and makes a fool out of them. They get irritated, and make up stuff about the person and/or organization.
The villains of our time were in true form following the release of 400,000 Iraq War logs by WikiLeaks on Saturday. In the Washington Post, Ellen Nakashima and Anthony Faiola desperately try to spin the issue of U.S. war crimes, and make the story about WikiLeaks's founder Julian Assange. They write:
Indeed, as WikiLeaks is trumpeting its latest coup, a number of former WikiLeaks activists are painting another picture of an organization that is out of control, still too driven by the personality and ego of its mercurial founder, Julian Assange.In the paper of government record, the New York Times, war propagandist John Burns, along with Ravi Somaiya, attack Assange like a tag team of mice who have a grudge against a bigger, meaner cat:
Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior, and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood.It's ironic that Burns speaks about "awareness" and consequences "in flesh and blood" when he has supported the deaths of innocent people because of his own lack of awareness. His legacy is beyond repair due to his continual blessing of government murder.
Any time public anger surfaces over the war in Iraq, or when the Pentagon's credibility is questioned by responsible journalists and organizations, Mr. Burns is there to piss out the fire, and this time he got a little help from his batboy Smithers.
Commenting on Burns's hit piece, Glenn Greenwald says in his article "The Nixonian henchmen of today: at the NYT":
The Iraq War is John Burns' war, and for the crime of making that war look bad, Julian Assange must have his character smeared and his psychiatric health maligned.The war in Iraq is primarily the media's war. Without the constant reinforcement of the lies coming from the Pentagon and the White House by the establishment media, the American people would have never been convinced that Iraq was a war of necessity. If the media did its job correctly, then hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq would still be alive, millions would still be living in their homes under lights, and trillions of dollars would be still in America to deal with high unemployment and crumbling public infrastructure.
But, the media failed. Instead of Edward R. Murrow, network stations are filled with anchor clowns like Chris Matthews, and Charlie Gibson. Instead of serious reporters, there are childish, and shameful reporters like CNN's Atika Shubert who either falsely think that the American people are more interested in Assange's personality than in U.S. war crimes, or care more about their own agenda than finding the truth. Greenwald writes:
Focusing on the tabloid aspects of Assange's personal life can have no effect -- and no purpose -- other than to distract public attention away from the heinous revelations about this war and America's role in it, and to cripple WikiLeaks' ability to secure and disseminate future leaks.
It's not hard to see why The New York Times, CNN and so many other establishment media outlets are eager to do that. Serving the Government's interests, siding with government and military officials, and attacking government critics is what they do. That's their role. That's what makes them the "establishment media." Beyond that, the last thing they want is renewed recognition of what an evil travesty the attack on Iraq was, given the vital role they know they played in helping to bring it about and sustain it for all those years (that's the same reason establishment journalists, almost by consensus, opposed any investigations into the Bush crimes they ignored, when they weren't cheering them on). And by serving as the 2010 version of the White House Plumbers -- acting as attack dogs against the Pentagon's enemies -- they undoubtedly buy themselves large amounts of good will with those in power, always their overarching goal. It is indeed quite significant and revealing that the John Ehrlichmans and Henry Kissingers of today are found at America's largest media outlets. Thanks to them, the White House doesn't even need to employ its own smear artists.
I doubt the "see no evil" culture inside establishment newsrooms will change in the immediate future. We don't know when journalists and reporters in the mainstream media will press the White House and Pentagon about U.S. war crimes, and call for a new investigation into the 9/11 attacks. So, what do we know? We know that establishment reporters don't cover wars, they participate in them, especially in the information war. We know that they don't expose lies, but repeat them until enough of us believe what is not true. We know that you won't learn about your world watching CNN, CBC, or reading the New York Times, and other news publications. We know that without the Internet our heads would be filled with propaganda and lies about the Iraq war, the War on Terror, the global financial crisis, and a number of other issues that affect us, and will shape the rest of this century. We know that government authorities and "trusted" news networks are the greatest villains of our time.
