I’m back from a mini vacation and full of inspiration to crap on some of the mainstream media sources responsible for continually providing misinformation and slacking in their duties to report the news. One of the main subjects we have discussed often is the use of words and what those words actually mean, versus what they are intended to describe when used. Last November I wrote, ‘When, in the world of words, did ‘war crimes’ become ‘policy disputes?’ and then in February I railed on Steve Kroft (of 60 Minutes) for again using the term “Islamic Insurgents” to describe the local Taliban and Al-Queda forces fighting in Pakistan. Kroft was right to classify some of the Al-Queda members as insurgents, but by definition anyone who lives in a local area is not an insurgent (i.e. most of the Taliban and Al-Queda fighters the Pakistani army and US forces are battling).

Thanks to Dan Gillmor for pointing out the latest idiocy of the Washington Post. In an article (generally a pretty good one) on torture during the Bush administration, the Post continues to use the term “harsh interrogation methods” instead of “torture”. Why, when it meets the definition of torture to a T, won’t these people just use the word?!? Something I quoted in November is well worth repeating here to emphasis this point. Glenn Greenwald, of Salon.com, wrote,

“Hence:  ”war crimes” were transformed into “policy disputes” between hawkish defenders of the country and shrill, soft-on-terror liberals.  “Torture” became “enhanced interrogation techniques which critics call torture.”  And, most of all, flagrant lawbreaking — doing X when the law says:  ”X is a felony” — became acting “pursuant to robust theories of executive power” or “expansive interpretations of statutes and treaties” or, at worst, ”in circumvention of legal frameworks.””

Does TV rot your brain? Or does your brain just shrink…? Thanks to Glenn Greenwald for today’s Quote of the Day:

“And, just as a general note:  if you watch cable television news during the daytime, you can actually physically feel your brain shrinking.”

The issue of terrorism (state-sponsored or not) and which countries can get away with it, needs more discussion and exposure in order to hopefully stop it on all sides. It is true that definitions of war terms may change over time, but some things do not… Call it what it is, but don’t call a local fighting force rebelling an invasion “insurgents” (they are only insurgents if they don’t live there!) and don’t call bombing the shit out of children “defending the homeland” (that is always considered terrorism).

Even though Thomas Friedman has the backing of the New York Times, my money is on Glenn Greenwald if this fight gains some traction (and here’s to hoping it does). Read Greenwald’s post here for more, as I couldn’t have said it better. However, one thing Greenwald didn’t expand on this time, is the one-sided story (Israel’s side) most people are getting and how the NY Times, as we’ve recently mentioned, is the biggest loser of them all.

How about defining a new term in this time of war… “Media-Sponsored Terrorism” If the pundits say you’re in the right (and if one does, they all do), then nevermind the child who lost his sight while just trying to get some clothes from his house. How was he supposed to know Friedman was advocating the use of white phosphorus in Sunday’s paper?

Glenn Greenwald, of Salon.com, has for a long time been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration for all the right reasons (or should I say correct reasons, as he can be just as judgemental of Democratic decisions or inaction). In his latest piece written yesterday, Greenwald rightfully chastises the New York Times, Washington Post and AP for their inability to separate fact from fiction.

His discussion, which goes on in great detail describing why terms like ‘policy disputes’ must not be used in place of the actual description (‘war crimes’), is very, very valid and should not be discounted in its importance. As we all know, words are powerful things and nothing is more important to a journalist than the words he or she chooses to use in reporting on a story. So, Greenwald has a point when criticizing Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times when he wrote yesterday,

“The opposition to Mr. Brennan had been largely confined to liberal blogs, and there was not an expectation he would face a particularly difficult confirmation process. Still, the episode shows that the C.I.A.’s secret detention program remains a particularly incendiary issue for the Democratic base, making it difficult for Mr. Obama to select someone for a top intelligence post who has played any role in the agency’s campaign against Al Qaeda since the Sept. 11 attacks.” (Emphasis courtesy of Salon.com)

Mazzetti’s inability to report the facts is not only a failure to do his job correctly, but an insult to those of us who read that and automatically think, WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING?!?

Greenwald makes a very valid point in summing up this portion of his piece… The rest of it is well worth the read here.

“Hence:  ”war crimes” were transformed into “policy disputes” between hawkish defenders of the country and shrill, soft-on-terror liberals.  “Torture” became “enhanced interrogation techniques which critics call torture.”  And, most of all, flagrant lawbreaking — doing X when the law says:  ”X is a felony” — became acting “pursuant to robust theories of executive power” or “expansive interpretations of statutes and treaties” or, at worst, ”in circumvention of legal frameworks.”"

It seems that lately we’ve been bringing up Glenn Greenwald’s name quite a bit, and often in a positive light; today is no exception. Yesterday, Greenwald interviewed Georgetown professor of international studies and expert on former Soviet republics and Eastern Europe, Charles King. In yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor, King wrote an op-ed piece entitled, “Russo-Georgian conflict is not all Russia’s fault” and goes into greater depth than any other media outlets we have yet seen, discussing the real subject and issues behind the recent conflict between Russian and Georgian forces. Greenwald and King bring up a number of good points and the discussion is worthwhile to read or listen to (available both as a podcast and transcript on Salon.com), but one point in particular which has yet to get greater coverage in the mainstream media is the US’ true capability in helping to alleviate this growing crisis. As The Guardian reported Bush as saying this morning,

““Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century,” Bush said.”

Despite Bush’s short-term memory on what is acceptable or unacceptable in his eyes, it is not as if the US military has the capability of doing anything, already being stretched thin in two countries, but King asks that everyone take a deeper breath,

“American and European diplomats, who have rushed to the region to try to stop the conflict, would do well to consider the broader effects of this latest round of Caucasus bloodletting – and to seek perspectives on the conflict beyond the story of embattled democracy and cynical comparisons with the Prague Spring of 1968.”