Adam Horowitz writes:
The summer between my junior and senior year in college 14 years ago, I had the honor of interning at a magazine called Lies of Our Times. I worked with Edward S. Herman; the magazine was an outgrowth of the analysis he and Noam Chomsky put forward in Manufacturing Consent.
Here's how the mag described itself, "Devoted to the exposure of
misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda in the major media.
With over 150 correspondents, including Noam Chomsky, Edward S.
Herman, Alexander Cockburn, Jessica Mitford, Edward Said, Holly Sklar, Jane Hunter, Ben Bagdikian, and many others." Nice lineup. The main article I worked actually ran in FAIR. It was a formative experience for me in understanding the systems and politics behind our news coverage.
I couldn't help but think back to those days as I read the Times this morning, and the article about UN rapporteur Richard Falk being expelled from Israel. In the fourth paragraph Isabel Kershner writes:
He has compared Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to Nazi
atrocities and has called for more serious examination of the
conspiracy theories surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks. Pointing to
discrepancies between the official version of events and other
versions, he recently wrote that "only willful ignorance can maintain
that the 9/11 narrative should be treated as a closed book."
What
is the purpose of including Falk's comments about 9/11? How is
that relevant in any way? Why does this come before actually mentioning
the human rights abuses
Falk might be interested in exploring in Israel/Palestine? (these don't
get mentioned at all). Instead we learn (these are all quotes from the
article):
- A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that Mr. Falk had been informed in advance that his entry would be barred.
- He has long been criticized in Israel for what many Israelis say are unfair and unpalatable views.
- Mr. Falk issued a statement this month describing Israel's embargo on Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas,
as a crime against humanity, while making only cursory reference to
Hamas's rocket attacks against Israeli civilian centers. Israeli
officials expressed outrage. - When his appointment was announced by the Human Rights Council last
spring, the Israeli representative said it was "impossible to believe
that out of a list of 184 potential candidates," the members had made
"the best possible choice for the post." - The American and Canadian representatives also expressed concerns about Mr. Falk's possible bias.
- Israel objects to the mandate of the special rapporteur on grounds that it ignores all human rights violations by Palestinians, either against Israelis or against other Palestinians. More specifically, it objects to Mr. Falk.
- The Foreign Ministry noted that in the past three years, Israel
welcomed visits by seven special rapporteurs of the Human Rights
Council and two other senior United Nations representatives.
And
the article ends with "Also on Monday, Israel released 224 Palestinian
security prisoners from its jails as a gesture to the Palestinian
Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas."
Um, this level of shilling for the Israeli Foreign Ministry is over the top even for the Times. But back to the odd 9/11 reference. The only role this
can seem to play in my thinking is to make it clear to an average
reader in the US, who might not know or care about Israel/Palestine,
that this guy is not to be trusted. Not only does he hate Israel, but
he also hates America. Hmmm, "misinformation, disinformation, and
propaganda in the major media" – this would seem to fit the bill.
