Democratic Conversation

Saddam Hussein is about to be executed. It’s 2:37 a.m. in France, where I live, Saturday December 30th, and I have CNN International giving me up-to-the-minute info on his walk to the gallows. Naturally, they do not have a camera in the execution chamber, but this does not leave CNN without the opportunity to affect a circus atmosphere. The newscasters talk with colleagues about the last-minute legal push by Hussein’s lawyers. One smiles each time he informs the viewers that “Saddam Hussein will die by 10 p.m. eastern time in the U.S.” They speculate the ramifications of his execution vis-à-vis Iraqi insurgency against the American forces occupying the country. They have a segment on how the body reacts to hanging from the neck until death. They are recapping his life, even. Well, leaving out so far the part where his early dictatorial career was upheld and even encouraged both militarily and monetarily by the United States government, including Ronald Reagan, Don Rumsfeld, and George H.W. Bush. More on this in a moment.

Is it a coincidence that Hussein’s execution will be conducted just before the US east coast nightly news goes live? Probably. Even as they push for information about who has custody of Hussein at the moment (Americans or Iraqis), and when the execution will actually take place, no one should believe that CNN would broadcast live the execution if the Iraqi government had decided to allow that. Yet the merry-go-round of “guests” who talk about Hussein’s legacy, legal questions, retaliation by Baathist groups, and Hussein’s potential martyrdom continues. All of this happens, while soldiers continue to die in Iraq, Bush sits in Crawford, Texas “thinking about” his response to his Iraq debacle, and Iran spins centrifuges to produce weapons-grade plutonium for its upcoming inclusion into the Nuclear Club.

Is this CNN’s fault, the US media’s fault? Actually, I think it is. There was a time when news agencies actually did some actual investigative journalism rather than read from statements issued by government figures, or ask questions of on-air “experts” for opinions no one really cares about. I had the opportunity to watch BBC News for five months during my present stay in France. Stephen Sackur of HardTalk knows how to ask the tough questions, how to press a politician for an answer, and when that politician ducks or refuses the question, the journalist makes sure the people know this, and makes sure the politician looks like a fool for this refusal. You don’t see that on American television news shows (60 Minutes may be an exception, but then, you seldom see politicians on that show anymore). Why? If you press American politicians too much, they won’t return to your show, and if they don’t return to your show, then you loose ratings; you lose ratings, and you’re out of a job. What has happened to that sense of desire from reporters? What the hell has happened to the Forth Estate? What has happened to the last barrier between democracy and tyrrany?

Where are the AMERICAN MEDIA’S investigations into how Bush conned the American Congress and the American people into attacking and then occupying a country that had not waged war against the US? Where are the investigations into the failures of the Bush administration over its inability to deal with Iran? Where are the investigations into Bush’s failure to deal with North Korea? There has been some reporting on these important issues, but after that report you don’t hear of it again, or at least for a long time, and then only as a sidenote to another story. These times require more than the “news cycle” mentality of journalism. Yes, I blame the media for keeping the important issues OUT OF THE AMERICAN MIND and focusing instead on the ridiculous.

Recapping Saddam Hussein’s life and deeds is ridiculous; the overplay of President Ford’s death is ridiculous (the man was 93!); yet another clip of James Brown doing the splits in the 1970s is ridiculous; another murder reported from Nowhere, America, is ridiculous. Essential issues exist that not only fail to get investigated, they are hardly covered at all!

I’m not suggesting that news agencies create news. However, they can ask questions of government, tough questions, questions about the past, about present actions and motives that perpetrate them, about the use of power at every step in any governmental process.

And if these questions are not answered by those in power (at any level), then the media needs to go find those answers by other means. Has anyone not seen All the President’s Men, the chronicle of Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein? Those reporters put themselves against the might of the US government and the executive branch’s best laid plans to cover up presidential malfeasance, and the reporters won. And so I repeat: What has happened to that sense of desire from reporters? What the hell has happened to the Forth Estate?

Here are one or two glimpses:

On this night, Wolf Blitzer gives evidence of how Hussein “has found himself where he is tonight.” But what evidence he gives goes back only to the post US invasion and eventual capture of Hussein. Where was the link to Hussein’s rule with aiding and abedding from the United States? He had plenty of help during the 1980s. Where was the recap of George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq through deception and lies to not only America but to the world? Where was the obvious notation that if Saddam Hussein were still in power, there would not be more than 200,000 Iraqi murders by the United States, or more than 3,000 murders of US military by Bush’s illegal war?

On this night, George W. Bush does not look forward to his own trial for high crimes and treason that he, by all available evidence, should answer before judge and jury. Why? Because the Democrats in Congress, who will shortly assume legislative and congressional power, have claimed they are not interested in seeking Bush’s impeachment. There might be good reason not to impeach Bush, and there might be good reasons to begin investigations and proceedings immediately. But the people don’t know, because the media is not asking enough questions, or enough of the right questions. Or perhaps they are accepting too easily answers given by Democrats.

For instance, why not ask the question “How can you in legal and moral conscience not investigate alleged crimes committed by the Bush administration for getting the Congress and the country into a war?” Seems simple enough. Ask the question, demand an answer. Maybe Democrats have a justifiable answer: “We can’t impeach Bush now because we are in the middle of an occupation of a foreign country. How would that look to the people of the US and to the world?” Or they might answer thusly: “We don’t have the votes to get impeachment articles conferred, much less votes in the Senate to nail the guy.” Or, they might even answer this way: “Let’s wait till he’s out of office, and then put his feet to the fire, both domestically and internationally.”

Well, don’t hold your breath for any of those answers, much less the questions. But consider this: if the media fails to press the government for information, straight answers, and their motives and reasons for acting in any (and every) way, then American’s will again see an illegal war pushed on their children, who will die so politicians can make it seem as if they do something for their country. Likewise, the media will have allowed the one opportunity to right a terrible wrong that will come back to haunt America.