By the way, what has happened to our freedom of speech?
Earl J. Prignitz
December 22, 2005
It's quite obvious that our so-called free press isn't all that free anymore. If you don't believe that, just recall how the White House fed us all of the propaganda concerning why we needed to go to war with Iraq. With the help of a compliant media, truth became the first casualty in their campaign to whip up support. But rather than admit to their lies and misinformation, the administration continues to attack those reporting the truth.
As Frank Rich recently wrote in The New York Times, the administration?s "web of half-truths and falsehoods used to sell the war did not happen by accident; it was woven by design and then foisted on the public by a P.R. operation built expressly for that purpose in the White House."
In his speech to last spring's National Media Reform Conference in St. Louis, Bill Moyers hit the nail on the head when he accused the Bush Administration not merely of attacking his highly regarded PBS program NOW, but of declaring war on journalism itself. "We're seeing unfold a contemporary example of the age-old ambition of power and ideology to squelch and punish journalists who tell the stories that make princes and priests uncomfortable," Moyers explained.
And until just the past day or so President Bush has all but avoided traditional press conferences, closing down a prime venue for holding the executive accountable. Only when there was such a furor about his secret spying on American citizens did he decide to allow for a press conference to defend his illegal use of wire taping. Always before when on those rare occasions he deigned to meet reporters, presidential aides turned the press conferences into parodies by seating a friendly right-wing "journalist," former male escort Jeff Gannon, amid the reporters and then steering questions to him when tough issues arose. They have effectively silenced serious questioners, like veteran journalist Helen Thomas, by refusing to have the President or his aides call on reporters who challenge them. And they have established a hierarchy for journalists seeking interviews with Administration officials, which favors networks that give the White House favorable coverage ? as the frequent appearances by Bush and Dick Cheney on Fox News programs will attest.
Why do you think the federal District Judge James Robertson resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases? Obviously he had his fill of the way President Bush has maintained his secret spying program. Two associates familiar with his decision said that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrant-less surveillance program authorized by the President in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.
Then at the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires ? a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan explained that the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.
The administration has scrapped enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act and has made it harder for reporters to do their jobs by refusing to cooperate with even the most basic requests for comment and data from government agencies. This is part of a broader clampdown on access to information that has made it virtually impossible for journalists to cover vast areas of government activity.
Under Bush administration directives, at least 20 federal agencies have produced and distributed scores of "video news releases" out of a $254 million slush fund set up to manufacture taxpayer-funded propaganda. These bogus and deceptive stories have been broadcast on TV stations nationwide without any acknowledgment that they were prepared by the government rather than local journalists. The segments ? which trumpeted administration ?successes,? promoted its controversial line on issues like overhauling Medicare, and featured Americans "thanking" Bush ? have been repeatedly labeled "covert propaganda" by investigators at the Government Accountability Office.
So, I repeat, what has happened to our freedom of speech?
As Frank Rich recently wrote in The New York Times, the administration?s "web of half-truths and falsehoods used to sell the war did not happen by accident; it was woven by design and then foisted on the public by a P.R. operation built expressly for that purpose in the White House."
In his speech to last spring's National Media Reform Conference in St. Louis, Bill Moyers hit the nail on the head when he accused the Bush Administration not merely of attacking his highly regarded PBS program NOW, but of declaring war on journalism itself. "We're seeing unfold a contemporary example of the age-old ambition of power and ideology to squelch and punish journalists who tell the stories that make princes and priests uncomfortable," Moyers explained.
And until just the past day or so President Bush has all but avoided traditional press conferences, closing down a prime venue for holding the executive accountable. Only when there was such a furor about his secret spying on American citizens did he decide to allow for a press conference to defend his illegal use of wire taping. Always before when on those rare occasions he deigned to meet reporters, presidential aides turned the press conferences into parodies by seating a friendly right-wing "journalist," former male escort Jeff Gannon, amid the reporters and then steering questions to him when tough issues arose. They have effectively silenced serious questioners, like veteran journalist Helen Thomas, by refusing to have the President or his aides call on reporters who challenge them. And they have established a hierarchy for journalists seeking interviews with Administration officials, which favors networks that give the White House favorable coverage ? as the frequent appearances by Bush and Dick Cheney on Fox News programs will attest.
Why do you think the federal District Judge James Robertson resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases? Obviously he had his fill of the way President Bush has maintained his secret spying program. Two associates familiar with his decision said that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrant-less surveillance program authorized by the President in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.
Then at the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires ? a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan explained that the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.
The administration has scrapped enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act and has made it harder for reporters to do their jobs by refusing to cooperate with even the most basic requests for comment and data from government agencies. This is part of a broader clampdown on access to information that has made it virtually impossible for journalists to cover vast areas of government activity.
Under Bush administration directives, at least 20 federal agencies have produced and distributed scores of "video news releases" out of a $254 million slush fund set up to manufacture taxpayer-funded propaganda. These bogus and deceptive stories have been broadcast on TV stations nationwide without any acknowledgment that they were prepared by the government rather than local journalists. The segments ? which trumpeted administration ?successes,? promoted its controversial line on issues like overhauling Medicare, and featured Americans "thanking" Bush ? have been repeatedly labeled "covert propaganda" by investigators at the Government Accountability Office.
So, I repeat, what has happened to our freedom of speech?
Print
Email
