Counterpunch

Jonathan Cook, the article’s author, is no rightwing nut – so what examples does he provide to support his claims? He cites a handful of Guardian pieces that he objects to for various reasons, but spends most time* on a George Monbiot column (which happens to criticise a book by Edward Herman and David Peterson).

Monbiot, of course, isn’t “voice of the Guardian”. Nor is he its chief policeman or cult leader. He’s one writer among many. The Guardian has an editorial position and “structural” constraints, but those aren’t what Cook is arguing against when he goes into the details of his disagreement with Monbiot. (Cook wrote, for example: “Monbiot['s] treatment of Herman and Peterson’s work was so slipshod and cavalier it is hard to believe that he was the one analysing their books.”)

The handful of examples provided by Cook prove next-to-nothing about “The Guardian” in general (a newspaper which publishes thousands of articles by hundreds of writers), so, in order to make his article seem coherent, Cook has to pull a killer rabbit out of his rhetorical hat. What he conjures up is identity politics.

Monbiot is thus portrayed by Cook not just in terms of disagreements on an issue, but as someone aligned with the “wrong” side. Cook seems to identify himself with the “true” dissident left – Chomsky, Herman, Pilger, etc. That’s the “right” side. Notice how Cook characterises Monbiot’s behaviour towards Pilger and Chomsky (my bold emphasis):

“Monbiot also laid into journalist John Pilger for endorsing the book.”

“Monbiot also ensnared Chomsky in his criticism, castigating him for writing a foreword to one of the books.”

Hundreds of Counterpunch readers will get the idea that Monbiot “laid into”, “ensnared” and “castigated” their political heroes. Now compare what Monbiot actually wrote:

‘But here’s where it gets really weird. The cover carries the following endorsement by John Pilger [Pilger's blurb]. The foreword was written by Noam Chomsky. He doesn’t mention the specific claims the book makes, but the fact that he wrote it surely looks like an endorsement of the contents.’

That’s all Monbiot has to say about Pilger and Chomsky. Merely a statement of fact: that they endorsed Herman and Peterson’s book, plus a subjective judgment about this being “weird” (because the book promotes “genocide denial”, Monbiot argues).

Cook claims that Monbiot was interested in “creating an intellectual no-go zone from which critical thinkers and researchers were barred – a sacred genocide”. But, far from creating a “no-go zone”, the publication of Monbiot’s article stimulated a large amount of open debate (on a topic which had previously been of interest mostly to specialists in the field).

It should also be noted that prior to Monbiot’s article, Herman and Peterson’s book had been reviewed unfavourably by an internationally recognised authority on genocide and genocide prevention, Professor Gerald Caplan. Herman and Peterson’s response to this critical review was to label Professor Caplan a “genocide denier” and “genocide facilitator” – quite gratuitously and without justification, in an odd tit-for-tat outburst. Jonathan Cook says nothing about this revealing context.

Jonathan Cook replies to me

I emailed Jonathan Cook (on 29/9/11). To keep it brief I asked him one thing only – to justify his “laid into” wording. Cook’s first email ignored my question and instead asked me why Monbiot would use the word “weird”. When I pressed him further, he replied that he would take my point seriously only if I “offered some indication” that I shared his concerns over what he described as Monbiot’s act of “real intellectual violence” (ie Monbiot’s claim of “genocide denial” with regard to Herman and Peterson).

After my third attempt to get Cook to answer the question, he provided an answer of sorts, mostly bad-faith presumptions about George Monbiot. Monbiot was “being sly” in using the word “weird”, Cook claimed; Monbiot was “insinuating” that Pilger had endorsed genocide denial; Monbiot “didn’t say it forthrightly” because he didn’t want to “alienate Pilger’s fans”. (Emails received from Jonathan Cook, 29/9/11).

* Bizarrely, after this blog piece was published, Cook complained to me by email that I was wrong to say that he spent “most time” on the Monbiot column. I replied with a word-count showing that he did indeed spend most time on the Monbiot section (by a long way). He replied that his section on Monbiot includes a digression about Chomsky, which, when subtracted, leaves the Monbiot section with a slightly lower word-count than the Assange section!

(Reading the full text requires free registration at the Lancet website. If you don’t want the hassle, but would like more info on the study, see Iraq Body Count’s summary).

From their ‘About’ page:

• News Frames attempts to decode the headlines – in terms of frames and metaphors.

• Frequent (often daily) updates, emphasis on UK newspapers.

Why? To quote George Lakoff:

‘Beyond the political work is the cognitive work – working with your own mind. This requires changing your brain, thinking in ways you have never thought before, understanding what you have not previously understood…’

I like how you conveniently left out the events leading up to the publication of Pilger’s email. Pilger isn’t the one being “divisive”.Monbiot branded Herman and Peterson “genocide deniers” , and then attacked Chomsky, Pilger and Media lens. ML was right to publish the email and its arguments are obvious in the context of the alert.
(William, 15/8/2011)

Thanks, William. Most of my readers are probably familiar with the preceding “events”, and I provided links for those who aren’t.

My point was straightforward:- reasonable discourse isn’t served by quoting emailed personal attacks which are devoid of argument – even if the emails are from respected figures such as Pilger.

You’ll note that Chomsky’s emails on this topic weren’t quoted – because he strongly disapproves of his emails being used in this way (Pilger should know better). I recently corresponded with Prof Chomsky (one fairly long discussion, plus one brief one). It’s clear that whatever disagreements he has with George Monbiot (and another Guardian journalist), he doesn’t want them aired in public in the form of published correspondence.

If Pilger were attacking fellow dissidents in a published article, he’d provide (I would hope) specific arguments to support his assertions, but there are no such arguments here. In fact, it’s impossible to know which claims (presumably from Monbiot) he’s addressing, so rational debate is ruled out.

Here’s what Pilger’s (widely circulated) email is quoted as saying:

‘A common recipe for smear is half or quarter truth, conflation, misrepresentation, a pinch of sneer and a dollop of guilt-by-association. Stir briskly. Chef Monbiot is a curiously sad figure. All those years of noble green crusading now dashed by his Damascene conversion to nuclear power’s poisonous devastations and his demonstrable need for establishment recognition – a recognition which, ironically, he already enjoyed. Predictably, the born-again attack as “denialists” those who continue to point out Western propaganda’s mendacious constructions and omissions. Goodbye George.’ (Email from Pilger, 29/6/2011 – my bold emphasis)

Note the lack of specific referents. Pilger’s first remark (“A common recipe for smear…”) appears to be addressing one or more of Monbiot’s statements (from a recent series of articles concerning “genocide denial“). But we have no idea which ones – making rational debate impossible. As Noam Chomsky often points out, if you’re accusing someone of “misrepresentations”, “smears”, “half-truths” (etc), you need to cite what you’re criticising.

But we can at least take a stab at the “guilt-by-association” claim. If Pilger is referring to himself (as a target of “guilt-by-association”), then he’s misread Monbiot. Here is what Monbiot wrote (in his Guardian article criticising Herman & Peterson’s book):

But here’s where it gets really weird. The cover carries the following endorsement by John Pilger. “In this brilliant exposé of great power’s lethal industry of lies, Edward Herman and David Peterson defend the right of us all to a truthful historical memory.” (George Monbiot, Guardian article, 13/6/11)

And that’s basically it, as far as mention of Pilger is concerned. It’s a simple statement of fact by Monbiot. If any “guilt” is implied, it’s not “guilt-by-association”, but guilt by direct endorsement – a rather different logical proposition.

The following comment (apparently on Monbiot’s views regarding nuclear power) is the most ill-considered and regrettable part of Pilger’s email:

‘Chef Monbiot is a curiously sad figure.All those years of noble green crusading now dashed by his Damascene conversion to nuclear power’s poisonous devastations and his demonstrable need for establishment recognition – a recognition which, ironically, he already enjoyed.’ (Excerpted from Pilger email, above)

George Monbiot’s recent articles on nuclear power have sparked off a useful debate in which various claims (on both “sides”) have been publicly subjected to scrutiny. There have been some reasonable challenges to George’s position, but there have also been many stupid, knee-jerk misrepresentations of what he has written. Pilger’s assertion (that Monbiot had a “Damascene conversion to nuclear power’s poisonous devastations”) is clearly among the gratuitously stupid misrepresentations.

The second part of Pilger’s remark claims that Monbiot has a “demonstrable need for establishment recognition – a recognition which, ironically, he already enjoyed”. Deeply unpleasant personal attacks such as this are usually an indication that the person making the attack lacks a rational case. And Pilger’s word “demonstrable” is comical in this context – how would one “demonstrate”, with rational argument, Monbiot’s “need”?

As for Pilger’s final remark – a generalisation about “the born-again” – without referents, it’s practically meaningless.

In short…

Since it’s impossible to know which particular claims or arguments John Pilger’s email is referring to, it’s not part of the process of rational debate – its function is purely divisive. The only party to benefit from its publication is the website which published it (to prop up its long-standing attack on George Monbiot’s reputation).

* I talk of emails (plural), because this isn’t the first time that John Pilger’s correspondence has been published (by the same website, coincidentally) with the intention of attacking someone’s reputation in lieu of rational debate (source).

Semantic Quiz

1. Gerald Caplan, George Monbiot (and others) describe Herman & Peterson as “genocide deniers”. Is this a “smear”?

2. Herman & Peterson retaliated by calling Gerald Caplan a “genocide denier” and “genocide facilitator”. Is this a “smear”?

3. Monbiot says Medialens gives “support” to “genocide denial”. Is this a “smear”?

4. Medialens says the British media (specifically including Andrew Buncombe) has “systematically denied” genocide (and/or British “complicity” in it). Is this a “smear”?

5. Medialens disciple Gabriele Zamparini accused Antiwar.com of “hiding” the “Iraq genocide”. Is this a “smear”?

6. David Peterson coined the term “Bosnia Genocide Lobby” to refer to some of his critics? Is this a “smear”?

7. David Peterson says he’s doing “genocide reallocation”. Is he “smearing” himself?

8. Noam Chomsky has reportedly stated “unequivocally” that “he presumes standard accounts of what happened at Srebrenica to be accurate”. Is Prof Chomsky “smearing” himself, or is he “smearing” Herman, Peterson & Medialens?

How did you do?

• If you answered correctly, try saying “smear” less often to avoid being an “asshole”.* (This applies also to me, except when I say the word in irony).
• If you answered any question incorrectly, shame on you.
• If you laughed at any point, double shame on you.
• Bonus points if you have any idea who David Peterson is.

* In the same way that Herman & Peterson put the term “Rwanda genocide” in inverted commas (supposedly to indicate that they are denying “only” the “standard model” of the genocide), I’m putting the word “asshole” in inverted commas, to distinguish it from the standard insult.

Meditation Two: Compassion
Now imagine that someone dear to you has been the victim of a terrible accident. It is night time, and she is lying covered with blood on the roadside, suffering from terrible pain [...] You feel this person’s suffering intensely [...] At this moment, let yourself go into an immense feeling of love towards this person [...] Imagine that each atom of her suffering is replaced by an atom of love… [etc, etc] (The art of meditation, p110; Matthieu Ricard)

No doubt there’s a good idea behind this somewhere, but consider the script: Basically, you, a kind of Saintly Being, arrive on the scene to save someone with the power of your love. What’s the probability that any “good” achieved by this meditation will be undermined by a subtle sense of superiority? Or worse, that it functions almost like an “unconscious” revenge fantasy (I mean, “victim of a terrible accident”!). Without getting too cod-psychological about it, I recall Nietzsche’s warning about the hidden revenge motive within “altruistic” philosophies: Sklavenmoral, the ethics of the powerless, or, in modern clinical parlance, “passive aggressive”.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few “Buddhist” meditations like this. But we can return to the Sanskrit originals (before the humour was lost in translation) for inspiration. Here’s my loose translation of an early text (recently recovered Pārāyanavagga commentary):

Meditation Alternative
Imagine that you’ve just awakened to the realisation that you’ve wasted your life in chronic masturbation. This has left you with weakened mental faculties, resulting in over-dependence on beliefs and ideology. As you lie there in a feeble, mediocre state, someone symbolising everything you oppose (eg Dick Cheney, Rupert Murdoch, Alan Rusbridger, etc), walks in. They look at you with hatred. But as they notice your pitiful state, this turns to pity, and then a brief moment of compassion towards you. Imagine that this compassion expands to fill the universe, becoming luminous, replacing all pity, hate, suffering [etc]. Briefly contemplate the cosmic irony. Then cease thinking altogether for 20 minutes (if you can do that, you’re illuminated – contact me immediately for a certificate).
– RS

Earlier this week, with the help of colleagues and friends, I launched a “campaign”, The Big Fear – the small reframing, in the Guardian newspaper. I’ve been working on a “tagline” – something which sums it up in an easily replicable “meme”. The wording I decided on may not seem “clever” at first glance, but it ticks all the boxes (please post it widely in various forms – the website URL isn’t yet included – it will follow when live [update: here it is]. This blog isn’t the place).

It’s a very modest globe-spanning thing, with no delusions of grandeur – an audience of one is sufficient; self-promotion isn’t the name of the game. With that in mind, I’d like to thank the following for their advice (and their kind words regarding the final “meme”): Fredric Jameson, Noam Chomsky, Paul Krassner, Peter Lamborn Wilson, Paris Review (“Oui oui!”), and Franz Kafka II (for the graphics). For further info, please contact me via the “About” page.

For a larger image (printable size, over 3000 pixels wide), click here.

Meanwhile, the ‘radical’ blogosphere seems to be reacting to the corporate media’s obession with bin Laden… by obsessing over media coverage of bin Laden. The evil genius apparently knew how to make himself the focus of global attention, which is probably what real “power” boils down to.

“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people – and the West in general – into an unbearable hell and a choking life.” – Osama bin Laden, CNN, February 5, 2002

Turning to Chernobyl

Which evil criminal (or systemic state/corporate abstraction) was responsible for the “million” deaths “caused” by the Chernobyl disaster (eg as a result of alcohol poisoning, etc, which may or may not have been caused, presumably indirectly, by the radiation from Chernobyl)? Hmm – approximately one million deaths alleged in a supposedly “prestigious” “scientific” report, and a messenger (George Monbiot) who gets attacked for revealing that this “prestigious” report has serious flaws, and isn’t even peer-reviewed. Throw in the inadequacies of epidemiology* to quantify mortality resulting from the disaster – and I get a major attack of déjà vu.

* “Greenpeace notes, ‘It is widely acknowledged that neither the available data nor current epidemiological methodology allows holistic and robust estimations of the death toll caused by the Chernobyl accident’. This is an important point. During my 40 year career in radiation protection I have observed fierce arguments (mainly related to differences of opinion on the magnitude of radiation risks) which have turned out in the fullness of time to be merely reflections of the large uncertainties inherent in the data.” (Monty Charles, review of Yablokov report, in Radiation Protection Dosimetry)

Update: Some comment about this at the NO2ID site.