Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
413
18 mai 2005 — Ci-dessous, nous publions un texte de l’organisation FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting), court mais édifiant sur l’extraordinaire silence qui a accompagné, dans la presse US, la diffusion publique (le 1er mai) d’un mémorandum qui nous dit que l’attaque de l’Irak est bien un montage de toutes pièces de Bush-Blair, avec le renseignement nécessaire à cette guerre, “organisé” en fonction du but de cette guerre, dès le début de l’été 2002. Mais si le texte de FAIR est court, c’est parce que le tour est vite fait, des journaux américains ayant publié l’information.
Depuis le 10 mai et la publication de FAIR, des journaux à grande diffusion ont publié des articles sur ces révélations, notamment le Los Angeles Times et le Washington Post, comme le note Tom Engelhardt. L’intervention de FAIR, qui recommande à ses lecteurs de faire des actions de pression, y est certainement pour quelque chose. Dans tous les cas, et pour nous rassurer, ces articles sont évidemment relégués en pages intérieures.
Dans un article judicieusement intitulé (nous traduisons) : « Qui est le fils de pute ? », à partir d’une remarque du porte-parole du Pentagone qui s’était interrogé sur le “fils de pute” (son of a bitch, ou SOB) qui avait donné à Newsweek l’information sur les livres du Coran désacralisés (« People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now? »), Jim Lobe relie les deux affaires du mémo publié par le Times et de l’affaire des livres du Coran publiée par Newsweek. Il les commente avec l’esprit qu’il faut.
Ces deux affaires sont évidemment parallèles ou similaires. Elles illustrent toutes les deux l’extraordinaire malaise qui touche aujourd’hui la presse américaine, entre sa réputation de “presse la plus libre du monde” et l’orgie d’auto-censure à laquelle elle se livre depuis le 11 septembre 2001, avec une fameuse préparation avant. En général l’auto-censure marche, sans consignes nécessaires (le mémorandum du Sunday Times). Parfois, l’auto-censure a des ratés et Newsweek publie sa petite nouvelle sur la désacralisation du Coran, qui n’a d’ailleurs absolument rien de nouveau et ne fait que confirmer un fait avéré et accueilli en général par une indifférence tranquille. Le problème, comme dit le porte-parole de la Maison-Blanche à propos de la publication de Newsweek et de ses conséquences, c’est que « the image of the United States abroad has been damaged ». La réalité, — les Corans profanés , le renseignement trafiqué pour inventer une raison de faire la guerre, — n’est pas ce qui leur importe. Il y a là comme la plus complète bonne foi dans l’univers totalement clos du virtualisme.
Iraq Bombshell Goes Mostly Unreported in US Media
By FAIR, Media Advisory, 10 May 2005
Journalists typically condemn attempts to force their colleagues to disclose anonymous sources, saying that subpoenaing reporters will discourage efforts to expose government wrongdoing. But such warnings seem like mere self-congratulation when clear evidence of wrongdoing emerges, with no anonymous sources required-- and major news outlets virtually ignore it.
A leaked document that appeared in a British newspaper offered clear new evidence that U.S. intelligence was shaped to support the drive for war. Though the information rocked British Prime Minister Tony Blair's re-election campaign when it was revealed, it has received little attention in the U.S. press.
The document, first revealed by the London Times (5/1/05), was the minutes of a July 23, 2002 meeting in Blair's office with the prime minister's close advisors. The meeting was held to discuss Bush administration policy on Iraq, and the likelihood that Britain would support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. ''It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided,'' the minutes state.
The minutes also recount a visit to Washington by Richard Dearlove, the head of the British intelligence service MI6: ''There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.''
That last sentence is striking, to say the least, suggesting that the policy of invading Iraq was determining what the Bush administration was presenting as ''facts'' derived from intelligence. But it has provoked little media follow-up in the United States. The most widely circulated story in the mainstream press came from the Knight Ridder wire service (5/6/05), which quoted an anonymous U.S. official saying the memo was ''an absolutely accurate description of what transpired'' during Dearlove's meetings in Washington.
Few other outlets have pursued the leaked memo's key charge that the ''facts were being fixed around the policy.'' The New York Times (5/2/05) offered a passing mention, and the Charleston (W.V.) Gazette (5/5/05) wrote an editorial about the memo and the Iraq War. A columnist for the Cox News Service (5/8/05) also mentioned the memo, as did Molly Ivins (WorkingForChange.com, 5/10/05). Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler (5/8/05) noted that Post readers had complained about the lack of reporting on the memo, but offered no explanation for why the paper virtually ignored the story.
In a brief segment on hot topics in the blogosphere (5/6/05), CNN correspondent Jackie Schechner reported that the memo was receiving attention on various websites, where bloggers were ''wondering why it's not getting more coverage in the U.S. media.'' But acknowledging the lack of coverage hasn't prompted much CNN coverage; the network mentioned the memo in two earlier stories regarding its impact on Blair's political campaign (5/1/05, 5/2/05), and on May 7, a short CNN item reported that 90 Congressional Democrats sent a letter to the White House about the memo-- but neglected to mention the possible manipulation of intelligence that was mentioned in the memo and the Democrats' letter.
Salon columnist Joe Conason posed this question about the story:
''Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damning evidence of those lies? Or are the editors and producers who oversee the American news industry simply too timid to report that proof on the evening broadcasts and front pages?''
As far as the media are concerned, the answer to Conason's second question would seem to be yes. A May 8 New York Times news article asserted that ''critics who accused the Bush administration of improperly using political influence to shape intelligence assessments have, for the most part, failed to make the charge stick.'' It's hard for charges to stick when major media are determined to ignore the evidence behind them.
[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit être lu avec la mention classique à l'esprit, — “Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.”.]
-
