How propagandists function: Exhibit A

[Jefferson23]

Thursday, Aug 12, 2010 06:13 ET

By Glenn Greenwald


Jeffrey Goldberg, in the new cover story in The Atlantic, on an Israeli attack on Iran:


Israel has twice before successfully attacked and destroyed an enemy's nuclear program. In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak, halting -- forever, as it turned out -- Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions; and in 2007, Israeli planes destroyed a North Korean-built reactor in Syria. An attack on Iran, then, would be unprecedented only in scope and complexity.


Good news! Israel can successfully end a country's nuclear program by bombing them, as proven by its 1981 attack on Iraq, which, says Goldberg, halted "forever, as it turned out -- Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions."

Jeffrey Goldberg, The New Yorker, 2002, trying to convince Americans to fear Iraq:



Saddam Hussein never gave up his hope of turning Iraq into a nuclear power. After the Osirak attack, he rebuilt, redoubled his efforts, and dispersed his facilities. Those who have followed Saddam's progress believe that no single strike today would eradicate his nuclear program.

When it suited him back then, Goldberg made the exact opposite claim, literally, of the one he makes today. Back then, Goldberg wouldn't possibly claim what he claims now -- that the 1981 strike permanently halted Saddam's "nuclear ambitions" -- because, back then, his goal was to scare Americans about The Threat of Saddam. So in 2002, Goldberg warned Americans that Saddam had "redoubled" his efforts to turn Iraq into a nuclear power after the Israeli attack, i.e., that Saddam had a scarier nuclear program than ever before after the 1981 bombing raid. But now, Goldberg has a different goal: to convince Americans of the efficacy of bombing Iran, and thus, without batting an eye, he simply asserts the exact opposite factual premise: that the Israelis successfully and permanently ended Saddam's nuclear ambition back in 1981 by bombing it out of existence (and, therefore, we can do something similar now to Iran).


This is what a propagandist, by definition, does: asserts any claim as fact in service of a concealed agenda without the slightest concern for whether it's true.



remainder: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/12/goldberg/index.html

[ixion]

1. Indeed...

and they always assume, with extreme exclusivity, that their worldview is the One And Only Worldview.

[Tutankhamun]

2. Great last sentence: "How many times can we be persuaded to attack the new Hitler?"

Every time our politicians beat the war drums we face yet another Hitler. We're all trapped in Munich for the rest of our lives.

[JohnyCanuck]

3. And this part is really true.

But Jeffrey Goldberg is no more of an objective reporter on such matters than Benjamin Netanyahu is, and the fact that so many are willing to treat him as though he is provides a valuable testament to the ongoing vitality of the Supreme Law of Beltway Life: Seriousness credentials, once vested, can never be revoked, no matter how grave one's past sins of falsehood and error are.

[JohnyCanuck]

4. "No profession is more accountability-free than establishment journalism."

Greenwald responding to The Atlantic's James Fallows, a Goldberg defender:

I'm now finishing up a long article for Harper's about America's War Culture: why war advocacy has been and continues to be the reflexive, required perspective of the nation's foreign policy elite. I don't want to say too much about the piece, but one central reason for this is that those who were most spectacularly wrong in cheering for the attack on Iraq have not only faced no accountability, but have thrived, been rewarded, have seen their positions of influence elevated. Conversely, those who were right continue to be marginalized. That's due in part to the ethos implicit in Fallows' defense of Goldberg: it's so unfair to have their prior behavior affect their current status and credibility. As a result, our war policies -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now Iran -- are all being shaped by the very same war-hungry political and media elites who performed so disgracefully in 2002 and 2003. Goldberg's Iran essay and the Seriousness with which it's being treated -- and which Fallows demands it be accorded -- is a perfect example of that dynamic. That Jeffrey Goldberg of all people is the reporter to whom we turn to understand the contours of the Iran debate would be comical if it weren't so troubling, and it illustrates the broader shield from accountability with which political and media elites have vested themselves.

There are a small handful of the most vigorous Iraq War supporters who have commendably confronted what they did and candidly confessed their errors. In my view, that's somewhat credibility-restorative. But Jeffrey Goldberg is most certainly not a person who has done so. Quite the opposite: he continues to use his blog to peddle and re-affirm the most discredited of his pre-war falsehoods about Saddam. So it's not just that Goldberg committed past journalistsic sins; it's that he continues to this day to defend what he did (the only Iraq "error" which Goldberg is willing to admit is that he underestimated Bush's incompetence in prosecuting the war).

Why should Goldberg confess to any errors? There's no incentive for him to do so. Most other people in influence -- Obama's leading national security officials, media stars, think tank experts -- are guilty of the same sins Goldberg committed regarding Iraq. All of them therefore collectively and conveniently agree that they will just forget about that whole messy Iraq business, and thus ensure that one's responsibility for it does not impede one's ongoing career success or level of influence. Goldberg is still treated as credible and influential despite his unrepented Iraq falsehoods because the people who determine credibility and influence did essentially the same thing he did, and are thus incentivized to maintain a Look Forward, Not Backward amnesia, ensuring that nobody pays a price for anything that happened (see, as but one example, Slate's Fred Kaplan -- who was also spectacularly wrong in his Iraq-war-enabling reporting -- gushing this week about Goldberg's brilliance: "the best article I've read on the subject -- shrewd and balanced reporting combined with sophisticated analysis of the tangled strategic dilemmas."). Meanwhile, Goldberg's colleague publicly demands that nobody hold Goldberg's past transgressions against him. No profession is more accountability-free than establishment journalism (emphasis added /JC).