In his “Reply to Independent Media as Mouthpiece for Centers of Power,” to RNN CEO Paul Jay states that I overlook his actual questions. The video was embedded within the original article, so I leave it to the readers to decide.
Next Jay establishes what was already established in my article: “that this was an interview with Wilkerson.” The thrust of my article questions why TRNN would choose to ask a Bush administration official to speak about what is happening in Korea. Why did Jay and TRNN not ask Korean officials from the North and South to respond? What is the rationale behind this? Is this good journalism? Jay still does not answer this.
Jay says he questioned Wilkerson repeatedly about the veracity of his claim that the North Korean’s were responsible:
JAY: And how do we know that it’s a torpedo? How do we know that the North did it? People are assuming this.
Sure, and what response did Jay expect from a Bush administration official – despite Wilkerson having expressed a dissident voice on some topics since his departure from government? It was not long ago that David Barstow exposed the Pentagon psy-op to manipulate TV voices. ((See David Barstow’s piece on using pro-military officials to control the media message: “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand” New York Times, 20 April 2008.)) Lob softball questions to a tendentious source, without facts presented from the other side, and then posit this is challenging “the veracity of his claim”? The video to the Jay-Wilkerson interview is embedded for viewing.
Jay says, “Petersen neglects to inform his readers that one of my questions was precisely that:
JAY: Is there anyone that gains if war breaks out on the Peninsula? Who’s got to gain from this?”
Jay asks, “Doesn’t this question raise the issue Petersen says I omitted?”
I demur. Semantically, “why would anyone else do it?” and “Who’s got to gain from this?” are speciously similar but substantively and qualitatively different. Readers may decide. Jay asks an open question to a former US official about a US-declared enemy state. Never was another potential terrorist named (and rightly so without sufficient evidence to make such a claim) during the interview; only North Korea was named as the malefactor — with zero evidence presented to viewers. However, the main problem is Jay’s choice of who to interview. Who was the best person to turn to for insight to a region? Someone outside that region? Someone who worked for an administration that demonized North Korea?
To Jay’s question — “Who’s got to gain from this?” — Wilkerson replied, “I can’t find anyone who gains…” Jay did not debate.
If no one gains, then who loses?
TRNN presents news stories from outside corporate media range, and it turns to sources that the corporate media marginalizes. But instances crop up where TRNN appears to violate Amira Hass’s journalistic dictum and serve as a mouthpiece for centers of power.
TRNN did run an Al Jazeera story that included a North Korean-friendly viewpoint – but it was unbalanced by two viewpoints that did little to monitor or challenge centers of power.
Jay ends thusly:
I should add this. When Peterson writes that North Korea is simply a ‘socialist country’, a la Cuba, he may lead his readers to assign a level of rationality to a leadership that might not be worthy of it. I would be more likely to label it a ‘xenophobic cult-of-personality in the midst of a catastrophic economic failure’.
Jay should not have added that. I have nowhere written that “North Korea is simply a ‘socialist country’, a la Cuba.” This is preposterous. First, it is very easy for some pundits, supposedly professing a superior moral compass than others, to denounce political systems and their leaders because they do not like them. How much do we really know about the situation in North Korea? Whether North Korea is ruled by lunatics or dynasties is irrelevant. What is important, is that in the current Pax Americana there are only a few countries that are resisting at a low level. But at least they are resisting! Second, it is just as easy to ridicule the capitalist-dominated political system and leaders in Canada and the US where masses of people find themselves abandoned to the dictates of neoliberal dogmas.
Yes, North Korea is socialist, but I make no comparison to Cuba. For socialism to survive and flourish in North Korea, it must do so while devoting enormous resources to maintaining a defense against the capitalist South backed by the nuclear-armed military superpower of the United States. One cannot draw any definitive conclusions at this stage about theoretical praxis and the economic situation between the North and South given the current and historical context. As depicted by the notoriously unreliable corporate or state media, the DPRK leadership has created a cult-of-personality. It is undemocratic. Its people are impoverished. It bears, however, only a minor semblance to Cuba. DPRK’s regime has engineered great crimes and acts of skulduggery against the South. Are the hands of South Korea and the US clean against the North? Tu quoque? Hardly; it is relevant since Jay speaks to a voice from the Bush administration. Therefore, Jay’s innuendo that I “may lead … readers to assign a level of rationality to a leadership that might not be worthy of it” is itself guilty of what it claims: misleading. By virtue of their turning to independent media, the readers have differentiated themselves from those people who rely preponderantly on the corporate media. I discern critical thinking ability from such readers and would expect them to read with skeptical open-mindedness, question, and come to their own conclusions.
I expect TRNN would also tend to attract critically thinking viewers. I urge readers to view Jay’s interview with Wilkerson and reach their own conclusions on whether it would reflect TRNN’s adherence to Hass’s journalistic criterion of monitoring centers of power.
TRNN offers a promise of what such viewers long for in video- or TV-based media. It will reach and hold onto such a viewership through its fidelity to journalistic integrity. Good journalism benefits us all.