US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
JOURNALISTS ARE KILLERS TOO...!
25 Mar 2002
Modified: 30 Mar 2002
A question which needs an answer is however the following : are journalists killers too...? And the answer is an unequivocal YES. Journalists kill when keeping silent about crimes by their governments and others.
Or help fabricate propaganda supporting wars.

- ALSO SEND TO THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNALISTS FEDERATION - IFJ-BRUSSELS.

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION -

JOURNALISTS ARE KILLERS TOO...!

Henk Ruyssenaars.

FPF - The Netherlands - March 25th - 2002 - The international journalist organization CPJ's research indicates, that at least 37 journalists were killed in 2001 because of their work as journalists. They either died in the line of duty or were deliberately targeted for assassination - even with "friendly fire" by their governments - because of their reporting or their affiliation with a news organization.

A question which needs an answer is however the following : are journalists killers too...? And the answer is an unequivocal YES. Journalists kill when keeping silent about crimes by their governments and others.
Or help fabricate propaganda supporting wars.

They make killing possible when they obey orders to withhold information from the public or publish false material. They help killing when they use their job as a "cover" and cooperate with the CIA-Mossad or other
intelligence agencies. Another disgusting example is the infamous British "D-Notice" in "time of emergency". When the government c.q. military see it fit to order and censor for instance all journalists in the "British Empire". Meaning that the BBC is only half as reliable as people think. I've sometimes worked for them and refused for weeks working for the BBC during the Gulf War period. Because of the Oxford accent the BBC propaganda is noticed less.
But the air waves are filled with lies.

I refuse sitting outside doors waiting to be lied to.

Contrary to many of my colleagues all over the world, I refuse to take part in the immense and disgraceful stream of small lies, bigger lies and publicity companies "War on Terrorism"-US-Press handouts. By conforming to the wishes of the global US-propaganda-machine, the journalists and
correspondents are now an active part of the killing. Publication of made observations can in many cases prevent bigger disasters, like President John F. Kennedy told some New York Times editors : "If you had published what you knew in advance, the whole Bay of Pigs disaster would never have taken place", he afterwards told them. Whom - contrary to good journalistic manners and style - had given in to the wishes of the White House not to publish the material they had.

Worse is happening now when anyone in the White House, the NSA/CIA or the Pentagon wants to attack another energy-rich country. The main part of the worlds journalists then actively takes part in the war by "preparing" American, and "massaging" socalled Western public opinion. And to acquire also that way the support of the US-Congress for an attack on whatever they feel like. Journalists will cooperate and as such are collaborators in the "War on Terrorism"-Killing Fields.

Mossad False Flag Operation :

A good example is given by Uri Avnery - well known writer and journalist - who lives in Israel. He has written extensively about the life and career of Ariel Sharon, and some days ago gave this example about "Iran, the media and the war preparation". Concerning Iran and the Mossad False Flag Operation with the arms ship the Karina A, Avnery wrote :

"- For this, Israel's good services are needed. It has an enormous influence in the US Congress and the media. It works like this: Israeli generals declare every day that Iran is producing weapons of mass destruction and threatens the Jewish State with a second Holocaust. Sharon announces that the capture of the Iranian arms ship proves Arafat is a part of the Iranian
conspiracy. Peres tells everybody that Iranian missiles threaten the whole world.
- Every day some newspaper tells its readers that Bin Laden is in Iran or with the Hizbullah in Lebanon.
(see NY-Times : on Arafat/Iran).
- President Bush knows how to reward those who serve him well. Sharon got a free hand to oppress the Palestinians, imprison Arafat, assassinate militants and enlarge the settlements. It's a simple deal: You (Israel) deliver the support of the US Congress and the media, I deliver the Palestinians on a platter."
end quote Avnery.

And - for nearly everybody to see everyday in the socalled "News"-papers : the main part of the journalists tag along and as such are guilty by association. By not telling the truth about what they know.

So, yes, journalists that do not use the information they have about crimes against humanity in whatever form and whatever place, concerning whatever government - including the worst sinners right now - the United States and Israel : if those journalists don't speak up they are an active part of the killing and guilty as such. Guilty also of not being able to understand that tomorrow it may well be their turn.

Journalists that do not speak up, but do take part in the present global killing spree called "War on Terrorism" do not deserve to be called journalists. They are their Master's Voices, and as such a disgrace to our
profession. Those "journalists" are propagandists and collaborators; making our world a still worse place to live in.

Those are the ones that do not publish this article ....


TO THEM THE FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION OFFERS THE FOLLOWING QUOTE:

"In Germany first they came for the Communists; I wasn't a Communist so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists; I wasn't in a Union so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for the Jews; but I was a Christian, so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for the Catholics; I was a Protestant, so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for me; and there was no one left to speak up.

-Pastor Martin Niemöller.

He died in the concentration camp.

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION forpressfound (at) netscape.net Henk Ruyssenaars*
fpf (at) chello.nl


* The Dutch author worked globally for 40 years as journalist/foreign correspondent for many international media. From Scandinavia to Vietnam, as correspondent in Latin America and 10 years North/South Africa and the Middle East. While being accredited as N-Africa & M-East correspondent - based in Tunisia for ten years, sometimes reporting for the BBC too...
Because of "human journalism" declared "Persona non Grata" five times by different governments in East and West.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST !


FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
Editor : Henk Ruyssenaars
fpf (at) chello.nl

Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

This article will be censored
25 Mar 2002
in the American mainstream media, especially TV. Henk Ruyssenaars makes a very important point when he writes that ŌJournalists kill when keeping silent about crimes by their governments and others, or help fabricate propaganda supporting wars.Ķ

It is also true that American citizens kill when they keep silent on our governmentÕs complicity in war crimes. However, even Hank does not dare to tackled the worst culprit--the ownership of American TV.

Most Americans get their news and opinions from a single source--mainstream TV. Whoever owns this source has the ability to brainwash American from birth to the grave. This power is feared by all politicians including Bush, the most powerful, worldwide politician.

This ownership with some exceptions is largely in wealthy, right-wing, anti-Arab/Muslim, Jewish hands.
Politicians get their marching orders from Sharon, the head of an international, nuclear roque government that is given $3,000,000,000 a year of our tax dollars to suppress Palestinian freedom, and to propagate wars against all of IsraelÕs neighbors.
Conc.: media ownership
30 Mar 2002
L.S. !

Of course media-ownership leads to the beginnening of the end : yesterday a report was published by APA in the US about the negative influence of violence on TV.
It shows that the more violence you are fed with, the more violent you get. (Poor last two generations!)

The same goes for ownership of the media : there are some honest journalists who have spoken out about how the "news in adjusted form" has been served under ownership influence for the past at least five decades.

In other articles in other languages I've written about that too. What hits me and my colleagues most is the lack of fantasy of some journalistic brethren : they can not imagine that they might end up in interrogations and jail if they are singled out. Orwell is having an orgasm in Heaven, looking at the present McCarthy'ism in the US. And :"War is Peace" and so on...
He was right all the way : it's 90% Newsspeak now !
That's why Indymedia is needed to counterbalance.

In the article on "Journalists are killers too...!, I merely point out the guilt by association for journalists who work with false information and propaganda press organs.

In The Netherlands it's a famous saying : "You speak the language of the one who's feeding you."
Which with the present ownership of the media-empires means a pro-Israel attitude.

See for yourself for instance in this article : an Israeli himself Israel Shamir explains it in a nutshell :

PLEASE NOTE :

Today's Media World Dominated by Powerful Pro-Israel Bias

An Israeli journalist points out that the "news" isn't a business; it's a way of keeping the "sheeple" in line with carefully-placed propaganda.
 
By Israel Shamir

The media world was well described in the brilliant novel by Evelyn Waugh, The Scoop. Though the main plot of the book unfolds in Africa, the relevant scene takes place on Fleet Street, at the office of the Daily Beast owner, Lord Copper. The media baron asked his foreign editor from time to time, is Yokohama the capital of Japan? Or does Hong Kong belong to us? The editor had two "safe" answers. When Lord Copper was right, he said, "Definitely, Lord Copper." When he was wrong, he said, "Up to a point, Lord Copper." That is the fork, from definitely to up to a point, of the permissible borders of mainstream media discourse. We journalists are dependent creatures. We would like to be honest and sincere, but we have to think of our mortgages and of our vocation. If we step over the borders established by the media owners, we would have to look for a different occupation altogether.
Speaking of Palestine, the borders are quite narrow. I would say they run parallel to the borders of internal Jewish Israeli mainstream discourse, from Meretz to Sharon. If we compare it with pre-Mandela South Africa, it is similar to the white mainstream discourse, from nationalist to progressive, not including the ANC. In my view, this discourse is exclusivist, even supremacist. It is based on sustaining Jewish supremacy in Palestine. It does not offer equality or even a safe future to the local inhabitants. But that is all you are allowed to say. You may support the creation of Palestinian reservations which puts you firmly in the Israeli "liberal" camp, or you can back mass expulsion and ethnic cleansing, and you will be called a hardliner or a hawk. These are the firm borders of the discourse. Whoever crosses the borders, and speaks for equality of a Jew and Gentile in the Holy Land, finds himself in the wilderness. His voice will be silenced, maybe for good.
I know this first hand. I live in Jaffa, a town with a mixed population. There are Palestinians, Mor oc cans, Israeli Ashkenazi Jews, Russians, and we all live together rather harmoniously. But a lot of people who were born in Jaffa live in refugee camps and they are forbidden to return just because of their religion or ethnicity. I find it morally impossible that a Jew from New York, Paris or Novosibirsk, like me, can come and live in Jaffa, while a local man, born in Jaf fa, may not come back home. I called for the return of the Palestinian refugees and immediately lost my job with Ha'aretz. That is the most liberal Israeli newspaper.
The case of Palestine coverage in the media is special for one reason. We have a peculiar vocabulary, developed for the local coverage. If I kill Ahmad, it would be reported that "Ahmad was killed by an Israeli." But if, God forbid, Ahmad would kill me, you would learn that "a Jew was murdered."
As in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, an Israeli may kill; but if an Israeli is killed, he turns into a Jew. It is absolutely forbidden to speak about Jewish atrocities and murders. The Jews are forever victims. It often appears we have three nations in Palestine: Jews, Israelis and Palestinians. Israelis may commit crimes, but it is innocent-always innocent-Jews that are murdered. If you confuse these two words, and refer to a murderer as "a Jew," you will be called an anti-Semite, and probably you will lose your job.
It should not be too complicated to cover our story. It is not even as complicated as other places of world concern. The right of national self-determination inclusive of autonomy or independence isn't an easy right to realize, as Corsicans can tell you. Palestine should be easier to cover: it is not the question of national self determination, but of basic human rights. Kosovo? In Kosovo, Albanians were discriminated against and tormented by Serb authorities, but they always had the technical right to vote and the Yugoslav government never withdrew their citizenship. They were distant second-class citizens, but still citizens. Kurds in Turkey? They also can vote.
The coverage of Palestine should be easier, but it is not. A journalist may write and speak about marginal problems, like the Jewish settlers beyond the Green Line. But the basic power structure of Jewish dominance in Palestine may not be questioned. We may not say that the Palestinians have no right to vote; no right to move to other parts of their country and no right to return to their homes in the only country they have ever known.
In my opinion, the source of the media bias in covering the Palestinians is tremendously important. For it speaks volumes about the power structure of the United States and Europe. It gives us unique feedback from the obscure world of media lords. And, it goes without saying, that "establishment" journalists are not given much leeway on reporting on this valuable feedback. They are always too busy writing "definitely."
The reason is obvious. Too many of our media lords subscribe to the notion of Jewish supremacy, and they are spread around the globe. In England, there is Conrad Black, he actually owns many papers in Canada, the United States and in Israel. In our country, he owns The Jerusalem Post. When he bought this paper, he dismissed the staff and hired people of his opinions. He is a right-wing Zionist, a zealous supporter of Jewish supremacy.
In the United States, there are too many of them to count. But allow us to mention Mortimer Zuck erman, a media lord and the current head of the Presidents' Conference of American Jewish Organi zations, the big daddy of all Jewish groups in America. He is one of the richest men in America, he made his fortune speculating in real estate and owns the third largest "serious" American weekly magazine, US News and World Report. He also owns the popular plebeian tabloid, The Daily News, a major circulation in the New York and New Jersey market. His newspapers generally advocate the brutal rule of market forces. With one exception; they call for generous annual subsidy of Israel by American taxpayers. Two ex-prime ministers of Israel, Netanyahu of the war-mongering Likud and Barak of the slightly less hawkish Labor Party supported Zuckerman in his quest for the leadership of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. This side of the Ku Klux Klan, this association of 52 heads of American Jewish organizations is the most bigoted body of men in American politics. Ha'aretz recently reported, that Mortimer Zuckerman had dismissed his shiksa wife, in order to get this coveted chair. As long as he stayed married to a non-Jewish woman, his colleagues, Jewish billionaires, would not trust him. And he is one of the most influential publishers in the United States.
On the other end of the planet, in Russia, the TV stations and newspapers also are under the ownership of Israeli citizens. One of them, Vladimir Gu sinsky, was forced to part with his TV station. But his extremely pro-Israeli staff was quickly hired by another channel, belonging to another Israeli citizen, Mr. Chernoi. In 1985, he was an accountant living on a salary of $100 a month. Today he is worth $5 billion, owns virtually all the aluminum plants in Russia, and lives in a nice suburb of Tel Aviv. Currently, he is under investigation for 34 murders, money laundering and membership in the Russian mafia. In a recent quip, he was quoted as saying that "the media is not business. The media is politics and influence." He uses his media empire to stifle all criticism of Israel in Russia.
I spoke recently to a young Russian military attaché in one of the Western capitals. He told me: your Israeli situation is similar to ours, but we have Chechnya a thousand miles away, while you have it next door. I asked him: do you want to say that Chechens have no right of vote? He was amazed. He did not know that the Palestinians have no right to vote. The media of Gusinsky, Chernoi, and Bere zovsky, that is three powerful media lords, all of them Israeli citizens, took care to cultivate his ignorance.
Even in Sweden, traditionally supportive of the Palestinian cause, since the national newspapers were bought by Jewish entrepreneurs, the coverage of Palestine became more and more lopsided. I do not know whether the new owners had to ask for it explicitly, or their chief editors just guessed their desires, but the results were the same.
This international group of Jewish media lords, from Washington to Moscow, is not subservient to the interests of Israel. But support of Israel is a part of their agenda. On the top of the list is globalization and neo-liberalism; what they call "freedom of market forces." On political matters, they tend to distrust democracy and personal freedoms while making constant demands for corporate liberties.
Mutual support is also high on their list of priorities. When Gusinsky was under investigation for embezzling funds, The New York Times and The Wash ington Post, that is the late Mrs. Kathryn Gra ham and Sutzberger, both published virtually identical lead stories and editorials supporting the "Independent Russian Press." Independent, appears to be a code word for "Jewish-owned."
This should be a serious cause for concern. When an Egyptian businessman bought Harrods in Lon don, the newspapers went into a fury. The headlines blared "our national heritage is being taken away by foreigners." In Israel, no outsider is allowed to own a newspaper. There was a rich Russian Jew, Gregory Lerner, who tried to buy a newspaper in Israel. He was sent to jail for six years for various mafia-related crimes. It is worth noting that, before he made his rush into the media, nobody cared about his offenses. An Iraqi Jew took over a newspaper, and very soon he found himself in jail. Because the media is not a business, it is the nerve system of a country.
In my opinion, the case of Palestine is much more important for you, for Europeans and Americans, than just another case of injustice. Because it proves that this international group of Jewish media lords have become a mite too powerful. In my experience, Jewish journalists can be as objective as any. Actually, the best coverage of Palestine is done by Jewish journalists, from Susanne Goldenberg of The Guardian to Gideon Levy of Ha'aretz. But it is easier to squeeze a camel through the needle's eye than to find an objective media lord. This problem can be solved without actually removing media from the hands of individual proprietors if newspapers would be treated like precious water sources and other all-important public utilities. That is, unless we want to delegate all these newspapers to the murky realm of ethnic press, and build from scratch a new network of free press.

END