Independent journalist Russell Gordon has finally posted his “Media War” PowerPoint presentation online. Even for those who are aware of the media deceptions against Israel — from distortions to photo doctoring to “Pallywood” set-ups — what was done with such tools against the Serbs will be truly mind-blowing. It’s something I call “Bosnywood”.
Even more disturbing than these journalists’ crimes is something that professor and writer John Rosenthal pointed to in a 2005 blog post:
An article published in Wednesday’s New York Sun under the title “Advisor to Annan Triggers Concern” now reveals that David Finn, the chairman of Ruder Finn, has served as a “pro bono” advisor to Kofi Annan since he became UN Secretary General in 1997. Furthermore, the article reveals that Kofi Annan’s nephew Kobina was employed as a paid intern at Ruder Finn — “Kofi Annan asked David Finn if he would give some guidance to his nephew, Kobina Annan,” a Ruder Finn spokesperson is quoted as saying — and that “Ruder Finn’s publishing arm is selling Mr. Annan’s 2001 Nobel Peace Prize lecture as a hardcover book”. “At the same time that Ruder Finn employed Mr. Annan’s nephew,” the article notes, “two senior Ruder Finn officials, Anne Glauber and Dena Merriam, who is Mr. Finn’s daughter, were hired as outside contractors by the U.N. Development Program to revamp its communications office. They were paid $30,000 for two months’ work, according to a UNDP spokesman, William Orme.”
…it was in Bosnia that the UN essentially lost its innocence and, for better or for worse, abandoned the impartiality among warring parties that had hitherto been the sine qua non for UN peace-keeping operations. The most spectacular event in this process of transformation was the 1995 bombing of Bosnian Serb positions by NATO forces in connection with — though in fact not quite under — a UN mandate. The go ahead for the operation on the part of the UN bureaucracy — which was supposed to hold one of the two “keys” that had to be “turned” to initiate NATO air strikes in Bosnia — was given by none other than Kofi Annan in his capacity as then Under-Secretary General.
That is to say, Annan was in bed with a company that was working for the Bosnian side. Naturally, this made it easier to get the UN’s green light to bomb the opposing side. And once Annan did that, Rosenthal reveals (via Richard Holbrooke himself), Annan got a whole other quid pro quo:
Richard Holbrooke, in his notably self-aggrandizing account of the Bosnian conflict To End A War (New York: Random House, 1998), goes so far as to claim that it was thanks to this act of indulgence toward NATO that Annan would later become Secretary General: “in a sense Annan won the job on that day” (p. 103).
Like so many journalists and generals, Annan made his career by helping kill Serbs.
Given the common Jewish and Serb experience — not just dying together in WWII concentration camps but being assaulted by the propaganda wars mentioned here — it is a perverse irony that the Jews were successfully targeted by the anti-Serb media war, as boasted by James Harff, director of a PR firm called Ruder-Finn, to French journalist Jacques Merlino for his 1993 book:
Harf: …But in one stroke we were able to present a simple matter, a story with good guys and bad guys…And we won by targeting the right audience, the Jewish audience. All at once, there was a very clear change of language in the press with the employment of terms with a very strong emotive value, such as ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, etc., all evoking Nazi Germany, the gas chambers and Auschwitz. The emotive charge was so strong that no one could go against the dominant current, except on pain of being accused of revisionism. We hit the bull’s eye.
Merlino: Maybe. But between the second and the fifth of August 1992, you didn’t have any proof that what you said was true. You only had articles from Newsday.
Harff: Our business is not to verify information. We’re not equipped to do that. Our business, as I’ve already told you, is to accelerate the circulation of information that is favorable to us, to aim at targets judiciously chosen. That’s what we did. We didn’t assert that there were death camps in Bosnia, we let it be known that Newsday asserted it.
Merlino: But that’s an enormous responsibility. Are you aware of the responsibility?
Harff: We’re professionals. We had work to do and we did it.We’re not paid to practice morality. And even if the discussion was put on this terrain, we’d have a sound conscience. Because if you want to prove that the Serbs are poor victims, go ahead: you’ll be all alone.
I can certainly attest to that.
One thing that helps ensure that being a Balkans dissenter will remain a solitary endeavor is illustrated by a quote employed in the PowerPoint presentation above, from Mark Twain:
Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.
Another good quote comes from Gregory Copley, editor of the Defense & Foreign Affairs intelligence briefs:
Diligence, accuracy and balance have been removed from the current writings on the historic events now underway in the Balkans. Part of this is due to the fact that journalists have a natural tendency to report mostly that to which they can have easy access; believe most readily that which has been laid out for them in forms, and through channels, with which they feel comfortable. Traditionally, when one journalist, or only a small number, works harder, takes more risks, strives more to understand the broader picture, and reports a view contrary to that of his editorial cousins, he is not hailed for his achievement. He is castigated for breaking ranks with the accepted line, the accepted truth. A journalist who admits (in the light of later-discovered truths) that his work may not have been all that it should fears most and first the wrath of his editor. The editor himself rejects correction (for fear of losing credibility, a news medium’s only asset), unless the laws of libel force such apology or correction. And in war there is no libel. Better to sustain a lie than to lose circulation, viewers or listeners, by a revision of the view.
Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here