07 December 2010 By Kourosh
Ziabari Robert Jensen is a journalism
professor at the University of Texas at Austin and
board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource
Center in Austin. Jensen joined the UT faculty in
1992 after completing his Ph.D. in media ethics and
law in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication
at the University of Minnesota. Prior to his academic
career, he worked as a professional journalist for a
decade. At UT, Jensen teaches courses in media law,
ethics, and politics. In his research, Jensen draws on
a variety of critical approaches to media and power.
Much of his work has focused on pornography and the
radical feminist critique of sexuality and men's
violence, and he also has addressed questions of race
through a critique of white privilege and
institutionalized racism. In addition to teaching and
research, Jensen writes for popular media, both
alternative and mainstream. His opinion and analytic
pieces on such subjects as foreign policy, politics,
and race have appeared in papers around the country.
He contributes to local organizing in Austin, TX,
through his work with the Third Coast Activist
Resource Center, http://thirdcoastactivist.org/, and
the progressive community center 5604 Manor,
http://5604manor.org/ Prof. Jensen joined me in an
exclusive interview to discuss the latest developments
in the Middle East, the prospect of Iran-U.S.
relations, the ongoing military campaign of the
Israeli regime in Palestine, the biased coverage of
the Middle East affairs by the mainstream media and
the failure of President Obama in repairing the
damaged picture of the United States in the global
stage. Prof Jensen believes that Obama
is a less belligerent president than Bush. "Obama
recognizes that the United States can't impose its
will on the world in the fashion that it has in the
past. Yet Obama is still committed to the maintenance
of the empire. No imperial U.S. president or official
has ever deserved a Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, I
can't think of a single head of state who would be
deserving," he says. With regards to the U.S.-Israeli
relations, Prof. Jensen believes: "United States puts
up with defiance from Israel that it wouldn't tolerate
from other client states, but we should remember that
U.S. policymakers don't make decisions based on
humanitarian grounds. They want to extend and deepen,
or at least maintain U.S. power, and those
policymakers believe Israel is useful in that
regard." Here is the full transcript of my
in-depth interview with Robert Jensen, the professor
of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. Kourosh Ziabari: As a professor
of journalism, what's your viewpoint regarding the
portrayal of independent nations, particularly Iran,
by the mainstream media in the United States? Why is
the depiction of Iran and other non-aligned countries
so lopsided and biased in the United States? Robert Jensen: First, I'm not
sure what the phrases "independent nation" or
"non-aligned country" mean these days. Those are terms
from the Cold War that were used to describe countries
trying to escape the clutches of the two dominant
world systems, run by the United States and the Soviet
Union, and today the geopolitical landscape is very
different. I think it's more useful to find other
terms to describe countries. The United States is a
global power in economic decline that continues its
attempts to dominate world politics, especially in
strategically crucial regions such as the Middle East.
Iran is a regional power that attempts to extend its
power in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Concentrated wealth dominates the internal politics of
the United States, producing certain types of
corruption and anti-democratic trends. An
authoritarian leadership dominates the internal
politics of Iran, producing certain types of
corruption and anti-democratic trends. In short, as a U.S. citizen, I
focus my critique on my society, and that includes
criticism of the ways that the United States targets
other nations. But that should not be read as a
blanket endorsement of the internal politics of other
nations. On media, rather than talking
about bias of a specific media system, we can
recognize that the media of each country reflect the
most powerful forces in the society. Depictions of the
United States in the Iranian media are full of
inaccuracies and distortions, as are depictions of
Iran in the U.S. media. In each society, people should
examine the forces that shape the news they receive
and go beyond conventional sources. I'm a harsh critic of the degree
to which the U.S. corporate-commercial news media's
coverage of the world is distorted by an imperial
foreign policy. U.S. mainstream journalists tend to
accept the worldview of U.S. policymakers and
corporate elites, which means that the day-to-day
coverage rarely breaks out of that official framework
to consider other perspectives. The most egregious
case of this was U.S. mainstream news coverage of the
run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, in which
journalists were complicit in the U.S. government's
propaganda campaign. But the same basic pattern shapes
news coverage on a daily basis. KZ: The mainstream media in the
West, in general, and the United States, in
particular, conventionally boast of having an
independent stance toward the international affairs,
especially those which are related to the U.S. foreign
policy. We frequently hear that the United States is a
"beacon of freedom" and everybody is absolutely free
to express what he thinks; however, several instance
such as controversy over your Houston Chronicle
article, or the expulsion of Helen Thomas and Rick
Sanchez from United Press International and CNN proved
that the reality is somewhat different from what is
claimed. What's your viewpoint in this regard? RJ: The United States has
probably the most expansive legal guarantees of
freedom of expression in the world today, and that's a
good thing. While some people, especially immigrant,
have reasons to be nervous about speaking out, most
Americans have real freedom of expression, far beyond
the rights of citizens in many other countries. It's also true that in the
corporate-commercial media, certain viewpoints are
routinely excluded from mass distribution because of
how market-driven news organizations operate. In the
United States, dissidents and left, progressive
critics are generally free to speak but have limited
access to mass media channels. Your examples speak to that
complexity. I was sharply criticized for an op-ed I
wrote after 9/11, but that piece was published in a
mainstream newspaper without threat of government
intervention. Many people criticized me, but I
suffered no negative consequences, beyond being
publicly scolded by the president of my university. I
was free to speak and had some limited access, but
someone with radical views won't be a regular featured
commentator in the mainstream. Helen Thomas had a long
career in which she spoke her mind, increasingly
sharply at the end. It's unfortunate that an
off-the-cuff comment she made about sending Jews back
to Poland and Germany discredited her, which led to
her resignation from her position as a columnist for
the Hearst chain. Rick Sanchez also made a stupid
remark about Jews running the media, which led to him
getting fired from CNN. But, again, the problem in the
United States is not government censorship but rather
the narrowness of the conversation in commercial
media. KZ: Many leftist thinkers and
analysts believe that the hegemonic dominance of the
Zionist lobby over the corporate system of the United
States determines the trajectory of mass media in this
country. What do you think about this suggestion? Do
the Zionists really possess such an immense power to
manipulate the media as they wish? RJ: I am a leftist and don't
agree with those positions. The pro-Israel lobby in
the United States does not have the power that is
routinely attributed to it. U.S. support for Israel is
complex, but it is rooted in the longstanding goal of
U.S. policymakers to dominate the politics of the
Middle East. Israel's ongoing refusal to engage in any
meaningful peace negotiations with the Palestinians is
making it more difficult for the United States to
offer unconditional support for Israel, but at least
for now U.S. policymakers still consider Israel
important to maintaining U.S. domination. The claim that Jews run the media
or control the media is a lazy analysis rooted in
anti-Semitic fantasies about Jewish power. It's
appropriate to criticize the news media for their
failures to provide adequate coverage, and it's
important to analyze that failure. The problem is not
one group's dominance, but the effects of first the
corporate, commercial structure of the media; second
the professional practices of journalists that skew
the news toward official sources; and third the narrow
ideological framework in the United States that limits
not only journalism but the entire society. KZ: Several international
organizations, including the Federation of American
Scientists, have testified that Israel possesses up to
200 nuclear warheads. Although the state of Israel has
never confirmed the reports, almost everyone knows
that it is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in
the Middle East. Why don't the mainstream media in the
United States pay attention to this crucial and
sensitive issue? Why is the nuclear program of Israel
overlooked by the American community? RJ: The U.S. news media in recent
years has reported that Israel possesses nuclear
weapons, though those weapons are never the focus of
coverage, for the same reasons that Israel's defiance
of international law and rejection of a meaningful
peace process isn't the focus of the news. The U.S.
government considers Israel a key strategic ally in
the region and avoids subjects that raise difficult
questions about that alliance. The U.S. news media
tends to follow government officials, who don't want
to discuss the Israeli arsenal. KZ: Why does the United State
support and back Israel so unconditionally and
categorically? Israel is massacring the Palestinian
people, confiscating their lands, destroying their
homes and infrastructures on a daily basis; however,
the United States has carelessly turned a blind eye to
these atrocities being committed by Israel, rejecting
the most rudimentary rights of the Palestinian people.
What are the main reasons behind this inhumane
approach which the United States has adopted? RJ: First, there is nothing
unusual about the U.S. government backing nations that
engage in crimes and abuses of power; the United
States has long supported corrupt and brutal regimes
around the world. U.S. support for Israel is unusual
in some respects. For example, the United States puts
up with defiance from Israel that it wouldn't tolerate
from other client states, but we should remember that
U.S. policymakers don't make decisions based on
humanitarian grounds. They want to extend and deepen,
or at least maintain U.S. power, and those
policymakers believe Israel is useful in that regard. KZ: In your article "There are no
heroes in illegal and immoral wars", you've implied
that the United States waged two wars in the Middle
East in order to take control over the vast energy
resources which are available in the region; however,
there remains a question as to the connection of the
United States to these two "enemies" which it attacked
since 2001. We already know that Saddam Hussein was
once a stalwart ally of the United States and was
unconditionally supported by Washington in the 8-year
war with Iran. It was President Reagan who
categorically expressed that the United States "would
do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing
the war with Iran." We also know that the Bush family
has been a close crony of the Bin Laden family for so
long and some critics have gone so far as to claim
that it was the Bush family who gave prominence to Al-Qaeda
and Bin Laden family in Afghanistan. So, what would
have been the reason for the U.S. to attack two of its
once-close allies in the Middle East? RJ: My position is not that the
United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to take
direct control of energy resources in 19th
century colonial style, but rather that the United
States uses military force to guarantee that U.S.
policymakers have as much control as possible over
decisions about the flow of oil and oil profits. In that quest, alliances shift as
conditions change. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait
in 1990, the U.S. position shifted. After that, U.S.
policymakers saw Hussein as unreliable and Iraq as a
threat to U.S. domination. So, Iraq became an enemy. The alleged ties between the Bush
family and the Bin Ladens do not drive U.S. policy.
The goals of the United States in the Middle East have
been consistent since the end of World War II, and we
shouldn't try to understand the policies that flow
from those goals by focusing on individuals. KZ: There are several conspiracy
theorists in the United States who suggest that the
9/11 attacks were an inside job perpetrated by the FBI
agents in collaboration with Mossad and the Israeli
government. How much reliable are these claims? Do you
believe that the 9/11 attacks were deliberately
designed to give the U.S. administration the pretext
to wage war in the Middle East? RJ: Those claims are absurd.
There is no evidence to support them and no credible
theory to explain such claims. A tremendous amount of
energy is wasted on such magical thinking. Over the past five years, Iran
has been subject to an intense psychological operation
staged by the United States and Israel over its
nuclear program. Washington and Tel Aviv have
repeatedly warned Iran against a military strike and
even threatened Tehran with a nuclear war. No
influential voice in the West protested these inhumane
threats and we even saw that several European
governments backed the proposal of a war against Iran.
What's your viewpoint? Who should respond to the war
threats of America and Israel? There are many left, progressive
voices in the United States critiquing U.S. policy
toward Iran, but those voices are rarely heard in the
mainstream. The United States has decided Iran is the
regional power that poses the greatest threat to U.S.
domination of the region, and so it targets Iran.
Compliant allies in Europe fall in line behind the
United States. The anti-democratic tendencies of the
Iranian regime make it relatively easy for the United
States to pursue this campaign, though few around the
world are eager to military conflict. KZ: What's in your view, the
source of America's imperialistic power? Several
countries in the world enjoy a flourishing economy, a
glorious civilization and a remarkable diplomatic
might; however, none of them can surpass the United
States in authority and political power. A single
right of veto for the U.S. in the Security Council
means that the saying of Washington can neutralize the
decision of more than 190 countries in the world. Does
this power emanate from the unique corporate system of
the U.S. government? RJ: History and global politics
are complex, but there some basics are clear. The
United States came out of World War II with enormous
power and a huge economy, while the imperial nations
of Europe were largely in ruins. The United States
exploited those advantages and over the decades built
a huge military that was virtually unchallengeable on
the global stage. Rather than promote real democratic
global governance, U.S. officials shaped a United
Nations system that they believed would reliably serve
the interests of U.S. elites. All that is changing as U.S.
economic power declines, and U.S. policymakers in the
future will be forced to make concessions and
adjustments or face disaster. It's not clear what
choices those policymakers will take. KZ: For my last question, let me
ask you about President Obama's administration and his
management of the "mess" which Mr. Bush created during
his tenure. President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize
for what was considered to be his efforts in resolving
the regional and global crises through diplomacy. Did
he deserve this prize when he ordered that the
Pakistani civilians be bombarded unrestrictedly and
the troops remain in Afghanistan for an extended
period of time? Did he deserve the prize when he
threatened Iran with a nuclear war in a hawkish and
violent language? RJ: Obama is a less belligerent
president than Bush. Obama recognizes that the United
States can't impose its will on the world in the
fashion that it has in the past. Yet Obama is still
committed to the maintenance of the empire. No
imperial U.S. president or official has ever deserved
a Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, I can't think of a
single head of state who would be deserving. The prize
should be awarded to those people who defy state power
and work in movements for real justice. Comments 💬 التعليقات |