John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JEFF SCHOGOL IN CHECKPOINT ASIA

 

“The Top US Military Officer: We’ll Provide Evidence of an Imminent Iranian Attack One Day”

https://www.anti-empire.com/the-top-us-military-officer-well-provide-evidence-of-an-imminent-iranian-attack-one-day/#disqus_thread

 

All of the Pentagon and White House people just keep talking in circles, and that’s because what they are claiming is nonsense.

We indeed know what Iran’s General Soleimani was doing, and it was something entirely different than Trump’s blubbering claims about planning attacks.

He was dealing with Iran’s response to a proposal from Saudi Arabia concerned with de-escalating their relations. He was even travelling on a diplomatic passport.

It was virtually the opposite kind of activity the White House claims.

Washington has never gotten away from the Gulf of Tonkin Incident kind of thinking in all its ugly imperial affairs abroad.

For those who don’t recall, a phantom hostile incident in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of Vietnam became the basis for Lyndon Johnson’s starting the massive American holocaust in Vietnam, a war in which America killed an estimated 3 million people, many of them in the most horrible fashion.

John Chuckman

EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS

 

“Iran denies U.S. destroyed an Iranian drone near Persian Gulf

“Trump previously said an Iranian drone got too close to a U.S. warship”

____________________________

Response to a comment saying, “AP is not a credible news organization. It’s very difficult to figure out when they are telling the truth”:

 

Yes, but can you give us the name of even one consistently credible mainline news organization?

I’m not aware of any, and I read a lot.

You can only get at (an approximation of) what really has happened, especially in complex or very important matters, by reading differing points of view – and then interpreting and interpolating. All news sources have biases, every one, including the alternate and foreign press.

And certainly no one can guarantee you the truth in any story or from any source, as various new Internet outfits now pretend to do, outfits which all are not part of a solution to “fake news,” but are indeed themselves a new part of the problem.

They claim authority and expertise and impartiality which are simply impossible for them to have. And impossible, even if they had them, to offer everyone for free. They proclaim having truth much as a tent preacher thumping his Bible while weeping theatrical tears claims having it, and they are just about as credible.

You must do the job of uncovering truth yourself. There is no other way. It is the job of a juror, as in a big court case. Hearing the cross examination of witnesses remains a key method. Judging and weighing the relative credibility of witnesses is another. Listening for contradictions. Judging motivations.

Especially in these days of 24-hour-a-day deception and intrigue and disinformation – all of which have a lot to do with the needs and dark activities of America’s massive empire. Where stakes are great, as in the workings of a world empire, it simply follows that efforts to dissemble and mislead and hide truth are greater.

Things are being done every day which the American government does not want its people, or others, to know about. It does not want to be answerable about its many dark activities. It’s the same for other governments, of course, it’s just that the level of American activity immensely exceeds that of most other governments.

In general, no one ever just gives you truth. Loving mothers and good mates try doing that, but there are many things they themselves do not understand or only partially understand. And they, too, have their biases, as religious or political. If such close and loving people can’t provide you with truth, why would you think strangers, and ones with very complex and little-understood motivations, can do so?

When is the last time any organization or corporation truly gave you anything for free? Whenever we see an ad offering us something for free, the rational response is, what are they really trying to do here? Giving the public things for free is always an advertising or marketing or promotional or information-gathering tool, never a straightforward act.

Do you see information, good sound information, available anywhere for free? Attending university costs a great deal today, and, even there, not everything said or printed is true. Learning the secrets of a trade is costly, requiring a long apprenticeship. Good books are costly. Lectures by notable experts are not free. Travel to places in order to observe is costly.

Even looking-up something on-line is not free. You must have a computer, you must pay an ISP, and you must spend valuable time finding things and negotiating your way around them. Just reading an article requires time and skill and judgment. After all, that’s why traditional academic research requires multiple sources. And why academic journalism teaches having at least two sources for some important claim.

Information, sound reliable information, is not to be had for the price of a newspaper. And certainly not for the flip of a switch. Whether on a television or a computer.

Broadcasters and newspaper publishers are absolutely no different than other enterprises. They have bills to pay. They have obligations to others. They have friends to reward and enemies to punish. They have time and resource constraints. They are not motivated by the theoretical rules of sound journalism day-in, day-out any more than the average company is motivated by the Ten Commandments or the words of Jesus.

Of course, they quote the rules of journalism in public utterances, just as politicians or heads of corporations quote rules of ethics or morality. They may even truly hold them as guiding ideals. But live by them in their every action, day and night? You have to be naïve to believe that.

And we must remember economic realities. Information is costly to obtain, both for news organizations and news followers. There are no free rides.

Apart from many built-in biases, news organizations can’t even afford the resources anymore to attempt to get at truth in all their stories. The entire traditional news industry, print and broadcast, is in relative decline owing to the effects of the Internet on revenues. We have a kind of technological revolution underway, and it affects everyone.

Foreign correspondents? Very few of them left anywhere. They are a mighty expensive luxury. Same for foreign bureaus.

Investigative journalism? Who does that anymore? At least in a serious way.

It costs too much. Just imagine, maintaining even one intelligent and capable reporter for weeks or months, burning through expenses, to pursue the fine points of just one story? It always was a terribly costly proposition, but these days, it almost cannot be done. And it isn’t.

A good second source for all important assertions? Not very likely. Even if possible, it costs too much.

Take a great deal of time to check out what sounds like a sensational scoop? There’s a cost to doing that, and there’s the risk that in the meantime another news source will run the story first.

And then there is the simple and obvious service to government that all news organizations offer. They can’t afford, for many reasons, to make an enemy of government.

Government is the source of approval for mergers and acquisitions in news organizations. It is the source for valuable leaks and various information. It is influential on other corporations and advertisers. It is even a source of advertising itself, in everything from legal notices to employment ads. What corporate news organization has any motivation for alienating government?

The movie-mystery notion of a news source working hard, battling for truth against the powers and interests of government is pretty close to pure fantasy. Not all that different from a Batman movie.

And who wants to be identified publicly as opposing his own country, as it were? This is especially true in a powerful, hyper-patriotic place like the United States. Every major news source there supports every dumb and destructive colonial war you can name. So, do you think you can really trust what they report on the details of those wars? Or their true causes? Or much about the nature of the opponent?

Try finding even one major American news source whose history includes opposition to major destructive policies like Vietnam or the invasion of Iraq. You can’t. At least not until a war like that in Vietnam was well along, and its foolishness and failure were becoming apparent. News sources all close ranks to support the government when the power establishment makes a major move. And the notion of a liberal bias in the American press is absurd for that reason alone, although there are many other reasons too.

And if you look back at history and biography, you find something important. You find motivation. Do you think great news moguls like Hearst or Murdoch or Black were motivated in building their empires by the desire for truth or providing excellent information? No, apart from profits, they want to influence people and governments. Indeed, having influence over a good number of people is itself a negotiable thing, a source either of profit or of even further influence.

Political parties, too, historically, either owned a newspaper or owned the loyalty of one or a number of them. Influence and promotion were the motivations, not the dissemination of truth. And it is no different on the Internet, no matter how large or small the source, no matter whether independent or not. There are undoubtedly some sincere exceptions, but it will take effort on your part to discover them.

A purpose is always being served, and you must do the work of sorting through it all to genuinely learn anything. Of course, you will never learn “the complete truth.” Not only is that a costly notion, it can no longer be supported philosophically. Science teaches us we live in a stochastic universe. We do not have “scientific laws,” as we once thought we had, we have possible outcomes, we have probabilities, we have always, it appears, a degree of uncertainty.

 

INTERESTING FOOTNOTE:

After American claims of having shot down an Iranian drone that was approaching a warship, Iran denied the claims and even joked that maybe America had mistakenly shot down one of its own. At this writing, Iran has published video proving they are correct, video of the American warship from a drone with the video’s timing marks proving the American claims false.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN THE NEW YORK TIMES

Clinton in action always reminds me of a not particularly pleasant child having a tantrum.

This is not diplomacy.

It is phony posing on the international stage for the sake of a constituency back home.

It does seem American policy abroad is almost never in the U.S.’s own enlightened, long-term interests.

It always has its roots in playing up to domestic constituencies. That might not be so bad were American politics themselves something of substance, but they are decidedly not.

Name-calling, ranting, puffery, ideologue thick-headedness – it truly is a sad spectacle for a supposedly great nation.

This juvenile approach to world affairs is not new. There have been countless iterations since World War II.

The more than forty years of stupid behavior towards Cuba is exactly the same completely childish nonsense. The occasional, tiresome name-calling towards China is more of the same.

Ahmadinejad may not rank high as a diplomat, but one cannot help appreciating his sense of humor and readiness to prick the balloons of the pretentious and phony.

And few near the top of American politics have proved him- or herself a more embarrassing phony than Clinton.