[Peace-discuss] Glenn Greenwald: Helen Thomas interrupts Obama talking about Neda video to ask a real question

[John Fettig]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/24/photos/index.html
The "Neda video," torture, and the truth-revealing power of images*The
President's remarks on the images of Iranian violence are in conflict with
his suppression efforts at home.*

*Glenn Greenwald*

Jun. 24, 2009 |

*(updated below - Update II - Update III)*

The single most significant event in shaping worldwide revulsion towards the
violence of the Iranian government has been the video of the young Iranian
woman bleeding to death, the so-called "Neda
video."<http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/21/iran.woman.twitter/>
Like so many iconic visual images before it -- from My Lai, fire hoses and
dogs unleashed at civil rights protesters, Abu Ghraib -- that single image
has done more than the tens of thousands of words to dramatize the violence
and underscore the brutality of the state response.

For the last question at his press conference
yesterday<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/23/politics/main5107407.shtml>,
Obama was asked by CNN's Suzanne Malveaux about his reaction to that video
and to reports that Iranians are refraining from protesting due to fear of
such violence.  As Obama was answering -- attesting to how "heartbreaking"
he found the video; how "anybody who sees it knows that there's something
fundamentally unjust" about the violence; and paying homage to "certain
international norms of freedom of speech, freedom of expression" -- Helen
Thomas, who hadn't been called on, interrupted to ask Obama to reconcile
those statements about the Iranian images with his efforts at home to
suppress America's own torture photos ("Then why won't you allow the photos
--").

The President quickly cut her off with these remarks:

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Helen. That's a different question.
(Laughter.)

The White House Press corps loves to laugh condescendingly at Helen Thomas
because, tenaciously insisting that our sermons to others be applied to our
own Government, she acts like a real reporter (exactly as -- according to *
Politic**o*'s Josh
Gerstein<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24087_Page2.html#ixzz0JHNOMKTP&D>
--
White House reporters "could be seen rolling their eyes and shifting in
their seats" when Obama called on*The Huffington Post*'s Nico Pitney, who
has done some of the most tireless work on Iran, gave voice to actual
Iranians, and posed one of the toughest questions at the Press Conference).
The premise of Thomas' question was compelling and (contrary to Obama's
dismissal) directly relevant to Obama's answers:  how is it possible for
Obama to pay dramatic tribute to the "heartbreaking" impact of that Neda
video in bringing to light the injustices of the Iranian Government's
conduct while simultaneously suppressing images that do the same with regard
to our own Government's conduct?

The reason Thomas' point matters so much is potently highlighted by a new
poll from *The Washington Post*/ABC News released
today<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_062209.html?sid=ST2009062304056>
--
not only the responses, but even more so, the question itself *(click to
enlarge image)*:

<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SkIN8s-_saI/AAAAAAAAB8o/IfOUn4CieS8/s1600-h/torture.png>

Half of the American citizenry is now explicitly pro-torture (and the
question even specified that the torture would be used not against
Terrorists, but "terrorist *suspects*").  Just think about what that says
about how coarsened and barbaric our populace is and what types of abuses
that entrenched mentality is certain to spawn in the future, particularly in
the event of another terrorist attack.  But even more meaningful is the
question itself -- it's now normal and standard for pollsters to include
among the various questions about garden-variety political controversies
(health care, tax and spending policies, clean energy approaches) a question
about whether one *believes the U.S. Government should torture people (are
you for or against government torture?)*  That's how normalized torture has
become, how completely eroded the taboo is in the United States.

It would be one thing for the Obama administration to argue that there is no
value in releasing torture photos specifically, and in investigating and
imposing accountability for past abuses generally, if there were consensus
among Americans that torture is wrong, barbaric and -- as Ronald Reagan put
it <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/01/shifts/> (
hypocritically<http://www.democracynow.org/2005/2/18/promoting_the_ambassador_of_torture_bush>
but
still emphatically) -- "an abhorrent practice" justifiable by "*no
exceptional circumstances whatsoever*."   But we have the opposite of that
consensus:  we have an ongoing debate over torture that is fluid, vibrant
and far from settled, with half the population embracing the twisted and
morally depraved pro-torture position.  For that reason, to suppress
evidence of what our torture actually looks like and the brutality it
entails -- particularly graphic evidence -- is to make it easier for that
pro-torture position to thrive, just as it would have been easier for the
Iranian Government to slaughter protesters with impunity if they had
succeeded in suppressing the images of what they were doing (it was this
same dynamic that led the Israeli Army to defy its own Supreme Court
and forcibly
block reporters and photographers from entering
Gaza<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/world/middleeast/07media.html>
and
which caused the embedded American press to suppress images of the massive
civilian deaths<http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/truths-consequences-by-digby-since.html>which
their protectors, the U.S. military, was causing in Iraq).

Americans are able to perceive torture clinically and in the abstract when
they're able to endorse it without seeing its effects.  They're able to
delude themselves that the extreme abuses at Abu Ghraib were unauthorized
aberrations -- rather than the inevitable by-products of the policies they
support -- because the photos showing that those abuses were systematically
applied at American detention facilities around the world are being
suppressed.  It's almost certainly true that few pro-torture Americans are
aware that the policies they support -- and that were approved at the
highest levels of the U.S. government -- have led to numerous detainee
deaths, because investigations into such matters are being blocked; court
proceedings impeded; and media discussions confined almost exclusively to
questions about "water in nostrils."  If Americans want to endorse
government torture, they should not be allowed to avert their gaze from what
they're causing and be spared the facts and details of what is done.

* * * * *

On a related note, the critique I
wrote<http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/22/npr/index.html>
of
the NPR Ombudsman's defense of their decision not to use the word "torture"
has been discussed<http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/calling-it-torture.html>
 in numerous places<http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/examining-runes-by-digby-greenwald-has.html>.
There has also been an outburst of angry (though highly substantive and
civil) criticisms from NPR listeners in the comment section of her
column<http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/06/harsh_interrogation_techniques.html>.
 As a result, we're in the process of inviting the Ombudsman, Alicia
Shepard, to appear with me on *Salon Radio* to discuss her rationale.
 Ostensibly, the Ombudsman is not meant to be a spokesperson for NPR but a
voice of NPR listeners.  I would hope, then, that she'd be willing to engage
and discuss the reaction which her column triggered (at the very least in
her column, though even better, in an interactive discussion).  I will post
updates of any responses we receive to the invitation extended to her.



*UPDATE*:  The media<http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_HuffPost_for_Iran_question.html?showall>
-manufactured<http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/sluggahjells/2009/06/cbs-mark-knoller-does-senseles.php?ref=reccafe>
(and,
as always, right-wing-fueled<http://www.memeorandum.com/090623/p69#a090623p69>)
pseudo-controversy
over Obama's "pre-coordinated" selection of *Huffington Post*'s Pitney to
ask a question is revealingly inane for many obvious reasons:  Pitney's
question was one of the most adversarial Obama was asked, and the
establishment media reaction clearly stems from resentment over their
perceived status being undermined by allowing *The Huffington Post* and,
more to the point, an actual Iranian (rather than a self-anointed
reporter-spokesperson for Iranians) to ask the President a question.

But equally revealing is their self-glorifying and delusional belief that
only establishment media reporters are sufficiently Serious to be entitled
to ask the President questions -- even as they fill Press Conferences with
petty, vapid questions and otherwise endlessly reveal themselves to be
substance-free and frivolous.  Along those lines, *The Washington Post*
claimed<http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/the-purge-of-froomkin-.html>that
"budgetary constraints" played a role in the firing of actually serious
journalist Dan Froomkin, yet *The Post* spends money to produce and promote
things like the below-posted
video<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHwyEbuWeso> from
"reporters" Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza that has to be seen to be
believed.  Be forewarned:  many will consider the video too petty to bother
posting and virtually everyone will find it painfully irritating to watch.
 I agree with those assessments, but there is still something about it --
the oozing smugness, the view of politics as a juvenile game, the
desperation to be above it all and too sophisticated to care, the total lack
of self-awareness in failing to realize how embarrassingly unfunny it is --
that makes it a *tour de force* in illustrating what and who so much of the
Washington media really are:



*UPDATE II*:  We were told by NPR that the Ombudsman is out of the office
this week and her office will get back to us by Monday with a response.
Additionally, someone from the Ombudsman's office also just left the
following note in the still-growing comment section to her
column<http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/06/comments/harsh_interrogation_techniques.html>
:

Dear Listeners;

Ms. Shepard is out of the office this week. I work closely with her and have
been keeping up with all of your comments. Rest assured that when she
returns she will respond to you.

In the meantime, I wanted to let you know that there is someone on the other
end reading and receiving your phone calls and emails.

Best,

Anna Tauzin

Office of the Ombudsman

The feedback and pressure are obviously having some effect.  I hope it
continues; I would look forward to the opportunity to discuss Shepard's
column with her in an interview.



*UPDATE III*:  Bridging Update I and Update II:  the *Post*'s Dana Milbank
was, completely unsurprisingly, one of the leaders in objecting to the *
Huffington Post*/Pitney
question<http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018747.php>.
 He's
probably best advised to stick to *Post*-funded vaudeville videos.  *The
Nation*'s Ari Melber has an excellent
analysis<http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/445637> of
the petulant, self-absorbed objections as part of this empty little scandal
of the day.  This empty chatter is the sort of thing with which they
endlessly occupy themselves -- all while condescendingly scorning Helen
Thomas' real questions and acting as though questions from *The
Huffington Post *are a major threat to their protocols of journalistic
Seriousness.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090624/a3900a2f/attachment-0001.htm