Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
OK
Feet to the Fire: The Media After 9/11, Top Journalists Speak Out Hardcover – Illustrated, October 18, 2005
- Print length575 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherPrometheus
- Publication dateOctober 18, 2005
- Dimensions6 x 0.5 x 9 inches
- ISBN-101591023432
- ISBN-13978-1591023432
Customers who bought this item also bought
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
From Booklist
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
Review
About the Author
Product details
- Publisher : Prometheus (October 18, 2005)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 575 pages
- ISBN-10 : 1591023432
- ISBN-13 : 978-1591023432
- Item Weight : 2.11 pounds
- Dimensions : 6 x 0.5 x 9 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #697,657 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author
A veteran investigative reporter, media critic and whistleblower, Kristina Borjesson grew up in Port-au-Prince Haiti. Her landmark book, INTO THE BUZZSAW: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press is an anthology of personal essays by distinguished reporters detailing their encounters with censorship. BUZZSAW won the National Press Club's Arthur Rowse Award for Press Criticism and the Independent Publishers Award and is a New York Public Library "Books to Remember" selection. Borjesson's second book, "FEET TO THE FIRE: The Media After 9/11, Top Journalists Speak Out" also won the Independent Publishers Award. Her third book, "The Reptile Club Librarian" is her first work of fiction.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Which is exactly what happened, of course. He seems to have forgotten, as Bush later did, that the UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq for months before Bush kicked them out. Koppel also repeats the Bush claim that every other intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD.
Reading the interviews with Ron Suskind, Tom Yellin and Thomas Curley, I'm struck by how many people in the corporate media identify with the US power structure. Though highly critical of Bush/Cheney, they also apparently believe that the government is normally run (or was once run) as depicted in our high school civics texts, that voters elect their officials and the elected officials are actually running everything in a straightforward manner.
Suskind actually says, "Look, it is a sacred, solemn duty of the leaders of a nation to explain to the true sovereigns - the voters, the citizens - why we should go to war against another nation. There is a long history of this being a solemn and sober obligation." You have to wonder if Suskind is selling a line of bull, or just terribly naive.
Barton Gellman of the Washington Post claims that his paper did a great job in the buildup to the war, and spouts quite a bit of nonsense: “I’m not that sympathetic to arguments that intelligence should have known exactly what was coming [before 9/11]…I want to emphasize: the public record, and our best efforts to penetrate further, didn’t show that the President was wrong [about WMD], either. The pundits who claim now that they ‘knew’ all along are full of cr*p. They didn’t know.”
In these interviews from 2004-2005, it's fascinating how no one can quite put their finger on why Bush invaded Iraq. Suskind thinks it was because Saddam was an easy target to make an example of. Helen Thomas just says, "I don't know...Someday we'll find out why we went to war." Tom Yellin blames the Clinton administration for not supporting a coup in the 1990s by Ahmed Chalabi (!) Walter Pincus thinks it involved wanting to make Iraq a pro-Israeli democracy. Pincus actually says that this could not be sold to the American people from the beginning because: “You could not and probably should not send American soldiers into another country to establish democracy if US security is not threatened immediately and directly.” Really, Walter? Has he forgotten Panama in 1989?
Pincus, with more perception, says: “When it comes to government, we moved into a PR society a long time ago. Now, it’s the PR that counts, not the policy.” He criticizes the Post for rotating personnel around too much, so that no one develops too much expertise. He also points out how eager the media was to get the war going because a lot of money had been spent getting reporters over to the Middle East and embedded in military units. However, Pincus falls into the same conventional Establishment idiocy at times - the CIA does only what the President tells them: “The lesson is: presidents run everything, and people do what presidents want done.” Of course, Pincus has helped prop up the official story of the JFK assassination, and led the attack on Gary Webb in the 1990s.
David Martin with CBS News actually has his office inside the Pentagon. He’s been there for so many decades, he completely identifies with the US national security apparatus. In his interview, he has never heard of the “Clean Break” document put out by PNAC before 9/11. “The government wasn’t lying to us” about WMDs, he insists. He feels very good about the then-current elections in Iraq, doesn’t think the US wants a long-term military presence there, doesn’t think that Halliburton got its contracts because of Dick Cheney. Martin actually says he believed that Saddam was a threat to the US.
If these people aren't professional shills, then they are in denial because they're too close to the power structure. They are unable to be detached and see things as they really are. They have too much invested in the system, and can't admit that American foreign policy is not about democracy, human rights or “protecting our national security.” Walter Pincus admits that Richard Perle is “a friend of mine” and “I actually like John [Negroponte, director of national intelligence], I’ve known him for a long time.” So they need to perform all of these mental contortions ("Maybe Bush invaded Iraq to prove his manhood or get revenge for his dad") to keep the cognitive dissonance under control. If they can't handle exploring the truth about the Iraq war, it's no wonder they can't even look at 9/11.
John MacArthur and Paul Krugman are much more perceptive. James Bamford is even sharper, understanding the influence of Israel and the Zionists on US foreign policy. Knight-Ridder did stellar work on the Iraq war and get a lot of well-deserved attention here. Juan Cole and Chris Hedges are terrific, and I used to read them all the time back in the day. But no one here fundamentally questions the events of 9/11.
Having been played like a fiddle by the Bushies, the media predictably began to get its revenge in Bush's second term. And while Bush and the gang are unlikely to ever be able to manipulate the media at such a scale again, what's to prevent it from happening with future administrations? Unfortunately, this book does not have those answers.