{"id":66422,"date":"2005-05-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-05-18T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/05\/18\/la-presse-la-plus-libre-du-monde-et-la-realite\/"},"modified":"2005-05-18T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2005-05-18T00:00:00","slug":"la-presse-la-plus-libre-du-monde-et-la-realite","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/05\/18\/la-presse-la-plus-libre-du-monde-et-la-realite\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cLa presse la plus libre du monde\u201d et la r\u00e9alit\u00e9<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

La presse la plus libre du monde et la r\u00e9alit\u00e9<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t18 mai 2005 Ci-dessous, nous publions un texte de l’organisation FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting)<\/a>, court mais \u00e9difiant sur l’extraordinaire silence qui a accompagn\u00e9, dans la presse US, la diffusion publique (le 1er mai) d’un m\u00e9morandum qui nous dit que l’attaque de l’Irak est bien un montage de toutes pi\u00e8ces de Bush-Blair, avec le renseignement n\u00e9cessaire \u00e0 cette guerre, organis\u00e9 en fonction du but de cette guerre, d\u00e8s le d\u00e9but de l’\u00e9t\u00e9 2002. Mais si le texte de FAIR est court, c’est parce que le tour est vite fait, des journaux am\u00e9ricains ayant publi\u00e9 l’information.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDepuis le 10 mai et la publication de FAIR, des journaux \u00e0 grande diffusion ont publi\u00e9 des articles sur ces r\u00e9v\u00e9lations, notamment le Los Angeles Times<\/em> et le Washington Post<\/em>, comme le note Tom Engelhardt<\/a>. L’intervention de FAIR, qui recommande \u00e0 ses lecteurs de faire des actions de pression, y est certainement pour quelque chose. Dans tous les cas, et pour nous rassurer, ces articles sont \u00e9videmment rel\u00e9gu\u00e9s en pages int\u00e9rieures.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDans un article judicieusement intitul\u00e9 (nous traduisons) : \u00ab Qui est le fils de pute ?<\/em> \u00bb, \u00e0 partir d’une remarque du porte-parole du Pentagone qui s’\u00e9tait interrog\u00e9 sur le fils de pute (son of a bitch<\/em>, ou SOB) qui avait donn\u00e9 \u00e0 Newsweek<\/em> l’information sur les livres du Coran d\u00e9sacralis\u00e9s (\u00ab People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?<\/em> \u00bb), Jim Lobe relie les deux affaires du m\u00e9mo publi\u00e9 par le Times et de l’affaire des livres du Coran publi\u00e9e par Newsweek<\/a>. Il les commente avec l’esprit qu’il faut.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCes deux affaires sont \u00e9videmment parall\u00e8les ou similaires. Elles illustrent toutes les deux l’extraordinaire malaise qui touche aujourd’hui la presse am\u00e9ricaine, entre sa r\u00e9putation de presse la plus libre du monde et l’orgie d’auto-censure \u00e0 laquelle elle se livre depuis le 11 septembre 2001, avec une fameuse pr\u00e9paration avant. En g\u00e9n\u00e9ral l’auto-censure marche, sans consignes n\u00e9cessaires (le m\u00e9morandum du Sunday Times<\/em>). Parfois, l’auto-censure a des rat\u00e9s et Newsweek<\/em> publie sa petite nouvelle sur la d\u00e9sacralisation du Coran, qui n’a d’ailleurs absolument rien de nouveau<\/a> et ne fait que confirmer un fait av\u00e9r\u00e9 et accueilli en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral par une indiff\u00e9rence tranquille. Le probl\u00e8me, comme dit le porte-parole de la Maison-Blanche \u00e0 propos de la publication de Newsweek<\/em> et de ses cons\u00e9quences, c’est que \u00ab the image of the United States abroad has been damaged<\/em> \u00bb. La r\u00e9alit\u00e9, les Corans profan\u00e9s , le renseignement trafiqu\u00e9 pour inventer une raison de faire la guerre, n’est pas ce qui leur importe. Il y a l\u00e0 comme la plus compl\u00e8te bonne foi dans l’univers totalement clos du virtualisme.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Smoking Gun Memo?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\tIraq Bombshell Goes Mostly Unreported in US Media<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBy FAIR, Media Advisory, 10 May 2005<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tJournalists typically condemn attempts to force their colleagues to disclose anonymous sources, saying that subpoenaing reporters will discourage efforts to expose government wrongdoing. But such warnings seem like mere self-congratulation when clear evidence of wrongdoing emerges, with no anonymous sources required– and major news outlets virtually ignore it.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tA leaked document that appeared in a British newspaper offered clear new evidence that U.S. intelligence was shaped to support the drive for war. Though the information rocked British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s re-election campaign when it was revealed, it has received little attention in the U.S. press.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe document, first revealed by the London Times (5\/1\/05), was the minutes of a July 23, 2002 meeting in Blair’s office with the prime minister’s close advisors. The meeting was held to discuss Bush administration policy on Iraq, and the likelihood that Britain would support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. \u00a0\u00bbIt seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided,\u00a0\u00bb the minutes state.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe minutes also recount a visit to Washington by Richard Dearlove, the head of the British intelligence service MI6: \u00a0\u00bbThere was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThat last sentence is striking, to say the least, suggesting that the policy of invading Iraq was determining what the Bush administration was presenting as \u00a0\u00bbfacts\u00a0\u00bb derived from intelligence. But it has provoked little media follow-up in the United States. The most widely circulated story in the mainstream press came from the Knight Ridder wire service (5\/6\/05), which quoted an anonymous U.S. official saying the memo was \u00a0\u00bban absolutely accurate description of what transpired\u00a0\u00bb during Dearlove’s meetings in Washington.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tFew other outlets have pursued the leaked memo’s key charge that the \u00a0\u00bbfacts were being fixed around the policy.\u00a0\u00bb The New York Times (5\/2\/05) offered a passing mention, and the Charleston (W.V.) Gazette (5\/5\/05) wrote an editorial about the memo and the Iraq War. A columnist for the Cox News Service (5\/8\/05) also mentioned the memo, as did Molly Ivins (WorkingForChange.com, 5\/10\/05). Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler (5\/8\/05) noted that Post readers had complained about the lack of reporting on the memo, but offered no explanation for why the paper virtually ignored the story.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIn a brief segment on hot topics in the blogosphere (5\/6\/05), CNN correspondent Jackie Schechner reported that the memo was receiving attention on various websites, where bloggers were \u00a0\u00bbwondering why it’s not getting more coverage in the U.S. media.\u00a0\u00bb But acknowledging the lack of coverage hasn’t prompted much CNN coverage; the network mentioned the memo in two earlier stories regarding its impact on Blair’s political campaign (5\/1\/05, 5\/2\/05), and on May 7, a short CNN item reported that 90 Congressional Democrats sent a letter to the White House about the memo– but neglected to mention the possible manipulation of intelligence that was mentioned in the memo and the Democrats’ letter.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tSalon columnist Joe Conason posed this question about the story:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0\u00bbAre Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damning evidence of those lies? Or are the editors and producers who oversee the American news industry simply too timid to report that proof on the evening broadcasts and front pages?\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAs far as the media are concerned, the answer to Conason’s second question would seem to be yes. A May 8 New York Times news article asserted that \u00a0\u00bbcritics who accused the Bush administration of improperly using political influence to shape intelligence assessments have, for the most part, failed to make the charge stick.\u00a0\u00bb It’s hard for charges to stick when major media are determined to ignore the evidence behind them.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La presse la plus libre du monde et la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 18 mai 2005 Ci-dessous, nous publions un texte de l’organisation FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting), court mais \u00e9difiant sur l’extraordinaire silence qui a accompagn\u00e9, dans la presse US, la diffusion publique (le 1er mai) d’un m\u00e9morandum qui nous dit que l’attaque de l’Irak est… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66422","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66422","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66422"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66422\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66422"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66422"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66422"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}