By Jena Ardell
By Jon Campbell
By Alan Scherstuhl
By Tessa Stuart
By Roy Edroso
By Jon Campbell
By Albert Samaha
By Zachary D. Roberts
It became the spin of the week: how could United States intelligence agencies have been unaware that India was getting ready to test a nuclear weapon? Nightline's John Donvan, on May 12, was one of the first to make the point: "Despite spending more than $26 billion a year on spy satellites, despite an Indian election campaign where the winning party said in its literature it will 'take India to be a nuclear power,' despite all that, U.S. intelligence was apparently caught by surprise." A page-one New York Times story the next day took the surprise a step further: "U.S. Blundered on Intelligence, Officials Admit."
It's a great privilege for the American media to be able to second-guess the CIA. But if the Indian nuke program was as out in the open as the press would now have it, where were the headlines and scary broadcasts warning us that an Asian nuclear arms race was imminent? Wasn't this also a failure of media intelligence?
In fact, a database search finds more than 500 print and wire stories and dozens of broadcasts since January that discussed the plans of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to make India a full-fledged nuclear power. The problem is that almost none of them appeared in mainstream American publications.
The international media--including the BBC and foreign wire services, both widely available to American journalists--have been on the story since early March. Military journals like Defense News have paid attention, as have smaller ideological and ethnically focused publications.
But the big national papers and--especially--network news dramatically underplayed the impact the BJP's ascendance would have on disrupting the region, particularly regarding nuclear proliferation. Prior to the actual detonation, for example, The New York Times never published the story everyone today says was obvious: that the BJP's electoral manifesto contained a pro-nuke plank. The Washington Post, in what must now seem a painful choice, included the nuke angle in the last two paragraphs of a story on March 19.
Similarly, both Time and Newsweek have provocative stories in their May 25 issues about how Pakistani officials tried to warn the U.S. government about India's nuclear plans in early and mid April--which is fine, but weren't these officials all available for interviews at the time?
Perhaps, as syndicated columnist Norman Solomon suggests, the U.S. media can redeem their own tardiness by giving the next nuclear tests as much attention as last week's--even if they are carried out by the United States. As Malcolm Gladwell wryly notes in the current New Yorker: "The Indians are not the only ones to fetishize the bomb. A decade after the fading of the Cold War, the United States and Russia continue to maintain arsenals of tens of thousands of atomic and hydrogen bombs, for what purpose no one can say."
The Post's Glass House
When a gossip column starts lecturing an all-news channel about obsessive focus on the entertainment world, it's a good sign that something's out of whack. A Page Six item in Saturday's New York Post--headlined "Seinflacks"--tweaked the cable channel MSNBC for treating the Seinfeld last episode "as far more important than the fact that India had tested a nuclear bomb." The column went on to say that on Wednesday, "India's atom threat dominated from 9 a.m.11 a.m. with 184 minutes, while the Seinfeld story was given 136 minutes. But Thursday, from 9 a.m.3.p.m., India was worth just 20 minutes, while Seinfeld was hyped with 114 minutes." The column concluded: "Call us cynical, but we doubt the comedy's finale would have been found quite so newsworthy had it been on CBS or ABC.">
Press Clips is always happy to see hard-hitting media criticism in other papers, especially when it's backed up with empirical research. But the Page Six slam is a real head scratcher. First of all, how did MSNBC on Wednesday cram 320 minutes of news into a two-hour period?
Richard Johnson, who heads Page Six's fleet of reporters, said that "a computer gremlin, or what we used to call a typo" was responsible for a misprint, and it was supposed to be "9 a.m. to 11 p.m." He declined to say where he had obtained his figures.
Second, while it's certainly true that NBC went into hyperdrive to promote Seinfeld's signoff, the Peacock Network was hardly alone. Asked if he'd compared MSNBC's ratio to any other media outlets, Johnson said, "I can't say that we did." Fair enough: during the same two-day period, the New York Post itself published two stories and two editorials about the India-nuclear fallout, and more than 20 stories, editorials, and columns pegged to the final Seinfeld.
And finally, it's amusing to see the Murdoch-owned Post attack NBC for using its news division to hype its entertainment fare, given how often that occurs on Murdoch's Fox News Channel--which, coincidentally, is MSNBC's principal rival. Call us cynical, but we doubt the various Murdoch organizations--the Post included--will show much restraint when The Simpsons and The X-Files air their last installments.
CovertAction Quarterly(now usually called CAQ) has been on quite a tear for the last several years. Having grown beyond its earlier, sometimes overly obsessive focus on U.S. intelligence naughtiness, the magazine now regularly publishes original, first-rate material on a wide variety of subjects--including the environment, white-collar crime, and nuclear proliferation--which has won CAQ much recognition in the last two years from the people at Project Censored.
Now all of that is at risk: on May 10, CAQ's three paid staffers found letters slipped under their household doors, informing them that they'd been canned by the publisher. The only explanation given was that "interpersonal relations and work styles . . . [had created] a hostile and unproductive environment for all of us."
That, according to now former editor Terry Allen, is a crock. She says that the principal reason was the staff's ''refusal to be bullied [by CAQ's owners] into publishing wacko conspiracy theories and articles that served their agenda but failed to distinguish between facts and political fairy tales."
Allen told the Voice last week that CAQ's founders--the publishing trio of Bill Schaap, Ellen Ray, and Louis Wolf--tried to push through stories that showed the Serbs as "blameless victims of genocide," that would call the current leadership of Azerbaijan "a model of progressive governance," and that purported to expose Hitler's bunker in Antarctica, "which is being supplied by the U.S. navy," Allen recalled with derisive laughter.
Allen also said that Wolf was guilty of "unsavory journalistic behavior," and had been called on it. She declined to elaborate, saying, "I don't want this to descend into mudslinging." Apparently interoffice relations sunk to the point where a photograph of a man with his head up his ass was hanging in the CAQ office, with the caption "publisher" on it.
Reached for comment on Monday, Schaap declined to respond to Allen's specific charges. In a prepared statement, he and his copublishers said the dismissals "had nothing to do with the extremely high-quality content and presentation of the magazine," and were due "solely to interpersonal relations and conduct that had, over time, become absolutely intolerable." Schaap added that the magazine does intend to continue publishing, and that hiring a new editorial staff is "in the works."
It's unclear whether CAQ can put out its next issue on time. As for Allen and her two fired colleagues: "We are ready to wipe off the bottoms of our shoes, take a long shower, and move on."
ClipboardABC's Peter Jennings delivered one of the more honest network newscast lead-ins on Friday, just before going into Sinatra overkill: "There's quite a lot of news today. We'll get to some of it." . . . Haven't had a chance to read through all of the "AIDS awareness'' bilingual supplement that ran in Sunday's Daily News, but VoiceAIDS reporter Mark Schoofs says it's "really good." Besides, where else have you read the headline: "El Peligro De 'Knockin' Boots'"? . . . How fortunes shift in the world of hip-hop media. The Source was once the cred bible, before it got mad fat with ads. Now the June issue introduces a new financial column, headlined--this is not made up--"Wassup Wit Mutual Funds?" My guess is that Stress, until recently fairly unknown and uneven, will begin to take over the space once occupied by TheSource. . . . Never a paper to miss the Rat Pack angle, Monday's New York Post reproduced at length the open letter Shirley MacLaine has written to her old friend Frank Sinatra, published in this week's Newsweek. Alas, reporter Bill Hoffmann was so busy copying down the words that he must've forgotten what he was looking at, since the Poststory refers in its second paragraph to the letter "in this week's Time magazine." . . . Last week The Washington Post finally noticed the FBI investigation into the Dole '96 campaign--a story broken in Press Clips three weeks ago--in a nicely detailed Thomas Edsall piece on Thursday. Also last week, Insight magazine reported that a federal grand jury in New York is now hearing from witnesses about this case (though the Voice has been unable to confirm this, and it's unclear why the probe would be based in New York). As of Monday, still nothing in The New York Times.
Research: Kaelen Wilson-Goldie