|
|
 James Woolsey |
POWER POLITICS?
James Woolsey and Noam Chomsky debate how far the U.S. can go in its foreign policy. March 12, 1998 |
 Chomsky |
|---|
Questions asked
in this forum:
Does the U.S. have a moral obligation to intervene in international affairs? Is America's willingness to use force against Iraq just a continuation of previous policies? Do you think the U.S. government, including Congress, is overstepping its limits? Do you believe that the U.S. public has an adequate opportunity to form rational opinions about U.S. policy given the quality of media coverage? What does the recent crisis tell us about the direction U.S. foreign policy is headed in the post-Cold War world? 
David Witbrodt of Saginaw, MI, asks: Do you believe that the U.S. public has an adequate opportunity to form rational opinions about U.S. policy given the quality of media coverage?
Mr. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, responds:
Yes, but it's difficult.
I think it is hard to get balanced and thought-provoking information from television. One major exception is The Lehrer News Hour, which is a national treasure, and from time to time there are excellent in-depth looks at issues on Nightline or one of the news magazine shows, such as Sixty Minutes.
"But the general rule for tv is "if it bleeds, it leads...."
But the general rule for tv is "if it bleeds, it leads", and there is so much focus on visual excitement, conflict, and sound bites that anyone who routinely gets news only from television will have a pretty bizarre idea of the world.
Radio is a little better. Last night for example, NPR had a lengthy presentation by four experts on what's going on in Kosovo with call-ins afterward. Some NPR programs and some talk shows get into issues in depth.
Following issues in the print media, or online, is essential in order to get behind the electronic media's sound bites. The major dailies sometimes have their problems -- if a reporter who covers a specific subject leans toward flair rather than accuracy, you can go for a very long time with readers getting an extremely biased view of an issue. The dailies feel themselves to be in competition with tv -- I wish they would compete more with the Lehrer News Hour and less withA Current Affair. On most issues, though, reading a major daily (or the weekly summary of news that several of them distribute nationwide) is essential. Also, weekly journals of news and opinion -- e.g. The Economist, The New Republic, The Weekly Standard -- can be a great help in getting behind the breathless tv 30-second report and finding out what's really going on.
Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at M.I.T., responds:
No, I do not. As noted, the central and most important issue was simply excluded: namely, the question of Washington's authority to violate international law and its own laws by the unilateral threat and use of force.
There were many distortions, though none as striking as this omission, in my view. One example was strikingly illustrated at the televised "Town meeting" on February 18. Defending U.S. plans to attack Iraq, Secretaries Albright and Cohen repeatedly invoked Saddam's ultimate atrocity: he was guilty of "using weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors as well as his own people," his most awesome crime. "It is very important for us to make clear that the United States and the civilized world cannot deal with somebody who is willing to use those weapons of mass destruction on his own people, not to speak of his neighbors," Albright emphasized in an angry response to a questioner who asked about U.S. support for Suharto. Putting aside the evasion of the question raised, Albright and Cohen only forgot to mention that Washington supported and continued to abet the crimes that are now belatedly condemned. Reporters and commentators refrained from mentioning these not insignificant facts, let alone stressing that it was not Saddam's crimes that turned him into the new Hitler; rather his disobedience.
There are many other examples. Thus, the New York Times reported that "Israel is not demonstrably in violation of Security Council decrees." That is clearly false. Israel has violated dozens of Security Council resolutions, and there would be many more examples if the U.S. did not routinely veto them. Of particular relevance here is Resolution 425 of March 1978, which orders Israel to withdraw forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon. It remains in Lebanon with U.S. support. Its most recent proposals continue to violate the Security Council Resolution.
Indonesia's extraordinary crimes and the strong U.S. support for them have also been largely suppressed or distorted, and still are, often in scandalous ways.
"...the U.S. public has a moral responsibility to monitor its government's actions...."
It is easy to go on with a long list. To return to question (1), while the U.S. public has a moral responsibility to monitor its government's actions, quite often only those who undertake or have access to independent research are in a position to act in a sensible and informed manner, a serious departure from functioning democracy.
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
