Le climat est tr\u00e8s \u00e9trange \u00e0 Washington, fait de certains actes audacieux, des pouss\u00e9es de fi\u00e8vre suivies de replis peureux. La presse est tr\u00e8s caract\u00e9ristique de ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne, et surtout la plus libre et la prestigieuse qui fait \u00e9talage pour le cas d’une couardise qui laisse sans voix.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tL’exemple de Brzezinski est bon, parce que c’est un personnage de l’establishment<\/em> au-dessus de tout soup\u00e7on de dissidence. Poursuivant sur l’appr\u00e9ciation<\/a> qu’il donnait hier de son audition<\/a> au S\u00e9nat, le site WSWS.org<\/em> affiche aujourd’hui<\/a> sa stup\u00e9faction de voir la plus libre et la prestigieuse presse US quasi-totalement silencieuse du fait le plus marquant de cette audition, et d’ailleurs relativement discr\u00e8te sur cette audition en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tApr\u00e8s avoir rappel\u00e9 les grandes lignes de l’audition de Zbigniew Brzezinski, et surtout son aspect le plus sensationnel, WSWS.org<\/em> poursuit :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abIt is self-evident that such testimony at an open congressional hearing from someone with decades of experience in the US foreign policy establishment and the closest ties to the military and intelligence apparatus is not only newsworthy, but of the most immense and grave import. Any objective and conscientious newspaper or news channel would consider it an obligation to inform the public of such a development.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbYet neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post carried so much as a news brief on Brzezinski’s testimony in their Friday editions. Nor did USA Today or the Wall Street Journal. All of these publications, of course, have well-staffed Washington bureaus and regularly cover congressional hearingsespecially those dealing with such burning political questions as the war in Iraq.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThere is no innocent explanation for their decision to suppress this story. The Washington Post on Thursday published a large page-two column and photo on Henry Kissinger’s appearance the previous day before the same Senate committee. The former secretary of state under Richard Nixon gave testimony that was generally supportive of the Bush administration’s war policy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbMoreover, the Post’s web edition carried an Associated Press report on Brzezinski’s appearance. That article introduced subtle but significant changes to Brzezinski’s speculative scenario of the road to war with Iran which had the effect of underplaying the sharpness and urgency of Brzezinski’s critique of the Bush administration. It omitted the suggestion that a terrorist attack within the US could become the justification for war, and it removed the quotation marks from Brzezinski’s talk of a defensive war against Iran.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe World Socialist Web Site on Friday telephoned the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today to ask for an explanation for their failure to report Brzezinski’s testimony. None of the newspapers returned our calls.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAs for the television news outlets, the News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS showed a clip of Brzezinski laying out his war scenario before the Senate committee, without making any comment. NBC Nightly News ignored the story entirely.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tIl ne fait aucun doute que cet \u00e9touffement, cette quasi-censure du t\u00e9moignage de Brzezinski marque l’immense peur, appelons \u00e7a une immense trouille, l’attitude le m\u00e9rite, qui marque aujourd’hui le comportement professionnel des journalistes am\u00e9ricains, sp\u00e9cialement les plus prestigieux d’entre eux. Une telle attitude montre que ces personnages c\u00e9l\u00e9br\u00e9s comme des parangons de vertu et d’ind\u00e9pendance sont compl\u00e8tement partie prenante du syst\u00e8me, jusqu’\u00e0 sacrifier tous leurs r\u00e9flexes professionnels.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tD’autre part, leurs variations marquent \u00e9galement le d\u00e9sarroi de l’establishment<\/em>, parfois proche de se lancer dans des actions de contestation violente de la folie actuellement au pouvoir, qui se r\u00e9v\u00e8lent bient\u00f4t comme du style retenez-moi ou je fais un malheur puisque suivies de retraites piteuses et ignominieuses comme dans le cas de Brzezinski qui est d\u00e9taill\u00e9 ici. On se rappelle des exhortations<\/a> du New York Times<\/em> au Congr\u00e8s et l’on voit aujourd’hui le silence complice du New York Times<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 3 f\u00e9vrier 2007 \u00e0 13H58<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Le climat est tr\u00e8s \u00e9trange \u00e0 Washington, fait de certains actes audacieux, des pouss\u00e9es de fi\u00e8vre suivies de replis peureux. La presse est tr\u00e8s caract\u00e9ristique de ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne, et surtout la plus libre et la prestigieuse qui fait \u00e9talage pour le cas d’une couardise qui laisse sans voix. L’exemple de Brzezinski est bon, parce que… <\/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":[2],"tags":[1006,2826,3256,3952,6394,3257,6393],"class_list":["post-68483","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-brzezinski","tag-censure","tag-new","tag-wsws","tag-yimes","tag-york","tag-zbig"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68483","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=68483"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68483\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68483"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68483"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}