[Letter and reply printed in current edition of CJR:]

Whose Supplement?

The Columbia Journalism Review deserves a notable Dart for ambiguity and nondisclosure in the magazine’s twelve-page supplement from The Commonwealth Fund titled “What Will Happen Under Health Reform — and What’s Next?” (CJR, May/June)

A reference to CJR was in smallish type at the top of the first page: “Supplement to the May/June 2010 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review.” Are we to understand that “supplement” is a euphemism for “advertisement”? I can see why an advertiser would prefer to avoid the less lofty word, especially in pages filled with editorial content. But shouldn’t we expect better of a magazine devoted to raising journalistic standards?

I’d suggest that CJR let readers in on the information they had a right to know in the first place. Did CJR’s editors have any role in putting together those twelve pages? If so, what was that role? If not, why the avoidance of truth-in-labeling words like “paid” and “advertisement”?

(more…)

To listen to the new interview with Norman Solomon on FAIR's national radio program CounterSpin – about the current media blitz from Gen. David Petraeus – click here.

By Norman Solomon

It’s already history. In mid-August 2010, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan launched a huge media campaign to prevent any substantial withdrawal of military forces the next summer.

The morning after Gen. David Petraeus appeared in a Sunday interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to promote the war effort, the New York Times front-paged news of its own interview with him — reporting that the general “suggested that he would resist any large-scale or rapid withdrawal of American forces.”

In fact, the general signaled that he might oppose any reduction of U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan a year from now. During the NBC interview, the Times noted, “Petraeus even appeared to leave open the possibility that he would recommend against any withdrawal of American forces next summer.”

On Monday, the Washington Post also published the twisty line of the suddenly interview-hungry Petraeus, reporting that “he remains supportive of President Obama’s decision to begin withdrawing troops next July, but he said it is far too soon to determine the size of the drawdown.” The newspaper observed that “the general’s presence in Kabul, as opposed to the U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, could make him a far more forceful voice for attenuating the drawdown if he chooses to make that case.”

“Attenuating the drawdown” means keeping the war machinery at full throttle.

Let’s be clear about what’s happening here. The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, with the evident approval of the White House, has launched a fierce media blitz to cripple the policy option of any significant military withdrawal a year from now. Riding high in what is supposed to be a civilian-run military, Petraeus is engaging in strategic media operations to manipulate what should be a democratic process on matters of war and peace.

(more…)

It scarcely seems to matter whether the Gibbs statements this week were a calculated new version of triangulation or an uncalculated declaration of attitude. Either way, the Obama White House is proving itself to be tone deaf — and self-destructive — in its approach to major sectors of the Democratic Party base that are to the left of this centrist president and willing to express opinions forthrightly. Are Gibbs and Obama so stuck inside their Pennsylvania Avenue bubble that they don't realize how they're helping to depress the Democratic turnout for the November election? At this point, Gibbs — and, it must be assumed, Obama — are choosing to show contempt for people who comprise a margin of victory in congressional and other races across the country. The White House has now riled people and organizations that have defended them from progressive critics for most of the last 18 months. If the White House is on a triangulation jag in hopes of proving how non-left the administration is, that's a dumb move that will be lost on all but a few centrist voters and certainly meaningless to Republican voters — while damaging the prospects of some Democratic candidates who can ill afford more fracturing of the Democratic base. If the White House is merely venting its genuine ideological attitudes, the arrogance is breathtaking. Without strong support from progressives in 2008, Barack Obama would be a senator today. And if President Obama had taken progressive insights more seriously on a range of issues — including Afghanistan, unemployment, kindness to Wall Street and off-shore oil drilling — his presidency could have avoided some terrible historic blunders, and the Democratic Party's poll numbers would be appreciably better than the current grim figures.

— Norman Solomon

(more…)

Friday, Aug. 20 at 7 p.m. — Point Reyes Station — Dance Palace Community Center, 503 B St.

Norman will be a speaker at the “Versus not Versus” evening of “poetry in support of West Marin community unity.” The event will include a screening of the new documentary “Every War Has Two Losers” (based on journals of poet William Stafford) and a conversation with filmmaker Haydn Reiss.

Thursday, Aug. 26 at 7:30 p.m. — Walnut Creek — Rossmoor Community, Fireside Room, 1001 Golden Rain Rd.

The Rossmoor Democratic Club is hosting Norman’s speech about media and politics.  More info

Sunday, Aug. 29 at 7 p.m. — Oakland — Humanist Hall, 390 27th St.

Norman is speaking about healthcare and public policy at this event.  More info

On my way to the Los Alamos National Laboratory a few years ago, I found it listed in a New Mexico phone book—under "University of California."

Since the early 1940s, UC has managed the nation's top laboratories for designing nuclear bombs. Today, California's public university system is still immersed in the nuclear weapons business.

Sixty-five years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug. 6 and 9, 1945, the University of California imprimatur is an air freshener for the stench of preparations for global annihilation. Nuclear war planners have been pleased to exploit UC's vast technical expertise and its image of high-minded academic purpose.

During most of WWII, scientists labored in strict secrecy at the isolated Los Alamos lab in the New Mexico desert, making possible the first nuclear weaponry. After the atomic bombings of Japan, UC continued to manage Los Alamos. And in 1952, when the government opened a second nuclear bomb generator, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory east of San Francisco, UC won the prize to manage operations there, too.

A few years into the 21st century, security scandals caused a shakeup. UC lost its exclusive management slots at Los Alamos and Livermore, but retained major roles at both laboratories.

In mid-2006, the Los Alamos lab went under a new management structure, widened to also include Bechtel and a couple of other private firms. A year later, a similar team, likewise including UC and Bechtel, won a deal to jointly manage Livermore.

At Los Alamos, I learned that the new management team was, legally speaking, an LLC, a limited liability corporation. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the concept of "limited liability" for managers of a laboratory that designs nuclear weapons.

Weird, huh? But not any stranger than having the state of California's top system of higher education devoted to R&D for designing better ways to blow up the planet.

(more…)

Washington’s spin machine is in overdrive to counter the massive leak of documents on Afghanistan. Much of the counterattack revolves around the theme that the documents aren’t particularly relevant to this year’s new-and-improved war effort.

The White House seized on the timeframe of the documents released by WikiLeaks. “The period of time covered in these documents (January 2004-December 2009) is before the President announced his new strategy,” a White House email told reporters on Sunday evening. “Some of the disconcerting things reported are exactly why the President ordered a three month policy review and a change in strategy.”

Unfortunately, the “change in strategy” has remained on the same basic track as the old strategy — except for escalation. On Tuesday morning, the lead story on the New York Times website noted: “As the debate over the war begins anew, administration officials have been striking tones similar to the Bush administration’s to argue for continuing the current Afghanistan strategy, which calls for a significant troop buildup.”

Even while straining to depict the U.S. war policy as freshly hatched since last winter, presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs solemnly proclaimed that the basis for it hasn’t changed since the autumn of 2001. “We are in this region of the world because of what happened on 9/11,” Gibbs said on Monday. “Ensuring that there is not a safe haven in Afghanistan by which attacks against this country and countries around the world can be planned.” In other words: a nifty rationale for perpetual war.

To read all of this article by Norman Solomon, click here.

Norman Solomon wrote in a recent op-ed piece:

Statistics might not lie — but they easily go flat as wallpaper when high unemployment is routine.

Norman Solomon was interviewed by The Real News Network. For video, click here.