One year ago, Foreign Policy magazine placed New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman at number 33 on their list the Top 100 Global Thinkers, noting that he “doesn’t just report on events; he helps shape them.”

Friedman, who commands a $75,000 speaking fee (more than most Americans make in a year), wrote in his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree that when he did his first column as the New York Times’ chief diplomatic correspondent in 1989:

I certainly did not know anything about most of the issues the senators were quizzing [Secretary of State James] Baker about, such as the START treaty, the Contras, Angola, the CFE (Conventional Forces in Europe) arms control negotiations and NATO…I couldn’t keep straight whether the Contras were our guys or their guys, and I thought the CFE was a typo and was actually ‘cafe’ without the ‘a’.

One could only hope that over the 20 years that followed, the foreign affairs columnist who once referred to himself as the newspaper’s paid “tourist with an attitude” and boasted of eating 14 Big Macs in 14 countries as one of the perks of his job, has acquired more intellectual depth.

It turns out, in Friedman’s case, that hoping for intellectual growth amounts to wishful thinking.

Fast forward a decade and a half to July 2006. In an interview with the late Tim Russert on CNBC (watch video clip), Friedman not only revealed this not to be the case, but boasted, yet again, of not even knowing what he writes about or supports politically:

We got this free market, and I admit, I was speaking out in Minnesota—my hometown, in fact—and guy stood up in the audience, said, ‘Mr. Friedman, is there any free trade agreement you’d oppose?’ I said, ‘No, absolutely not.’ I said, ‘You know what, sir? I wrote a column supporting the CAFTA, the Caribbean Free Trade Initiative [sic]. I didn’t even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade.’

While honesty is an admirable quality in any journalist, Friedman’s bravado combined with his intellectual incompetence and hostility towards the use of facts unveils an enormous amount of hubris. Friedman, despite admitting “he did not know anything about” most political issues of national and global importance, and not being able to recall the name of or knowing the contents of the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), still believes he belongs in such a prominent perch covering these issues at “the paper of record.” To make matters worse, it has been reported that President Barack Obama has sought out Friedman for foreign policy advice concerning the Arab Spring.

The fact that this three-time Pulitzer Prize winner’s writing qualifies as serious, award-winning journalism and punditry is why Belén Fernandez latest book, The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work is such an important read.

Fernandez writes that the point of her book “is to demonstrate the defectiveness in form and in substance of [Friedman's] disjointed discourse, and in doing so offer a testament to the degenerate state of the mainstream media in the United States.”

Fernandez analyzes and critiques Friedman’s journalism and punditry using his columns from 1995 to the present, and his five books, with some additional material gleaned from select interviews and public appearances.
 

The Imperial Messenger is divided into three sections: America, the Arab/Muslim World, and The Special Relationship [U.S.-Israel]. The book’s conclusion compares the work of Friedman to Dr. Adrienne Pine, an anthropologist at American University in Washington D.C., who blogs at www.quotha.net and whose writing and opinion has appeared in a number of alternative media outlets.

Friedman, who Fernandez concludes relies on “clichéd feel good nationalism” and the “reduction of complex international phenomena to simplistic rhetoric and theorems that rarely withstand the test of reality” serves as the perfect vehicle for making such an indictment of the American mainstream media.

McJournalism

In The Imperial Messenger, Fernandez deftly reviews some of Friedman’s signature theories and policy prescriptions from past years, and evaluates how they’ve stood the test of time.

Take for instance his “Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention” highlighted in The Lexus and the Olive Tree — a theory which Friedman stumbled upon as he “Quater-Poundered [his] way around the world”: no two countries that both had McDonald’s had fought a war against each other. Sure, it’s got a certain ring to it, but never mind the facts: as Fernandez points out, Israel’s occupation and bombing of Lebanon, or NATO’s war against the former Yugoslavia. All of these states, together with the host of NATO members, are graced with the Golden Arches.

Freidman’s “Flat World Theory,” which he floated in his 2005 bestseller The World is Flat, was developed in collaboration with the vice president of corporate strategy at IBM. Friedman, who compares himself to Christopher Columbus for making this “discovery,” argues simplistically that globalization has leveled the playing field among people, countries and companies around the globe. The World is Flat was awarded the first annual £30,000 Financial Times and Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year Award.

“The process of mutual aggrandizement in this case is straightforward,” writes Fenandez. “Friedman writes a book about globalization under the guidance of corporate executives, corporate executives hail book as blueprint for world, accolades propel Friedman’s fame to further reinforce elite power structures,” she writes. Friedman attributes his motivations to his professed desire to see “large numbers of people escape poverty”, evidence be damned.

Fernandez also notes that the same year when Friedman was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for “clarity of vision…in commenting on the worldwide impact of the terrorist threat,” he wrote a column called “ Crazier than thou,” in which he noted “No, the axis of evil idea isn’t thought through—but that’s what I like about it.”

“Crazier than thou” was a response to criticism from Chris Patten, the European Union’s Commissioner for External Relations at the time, of the Bush Administration’s “absolutist and simplistic” and “not thought through” lumping of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an allied existential threat to world peace. Friedman goes on to suggest that Bush introduce these countries to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who’s “even crazier than you.” His assessment of Rumsfeld’s mental faculties is one of the few reasonable things he’s written. Friedman goes so far as to dismisses European and Arab concerns of civilian casualties in Afghanistan as “nonsense,” because according to him, Afghans would rather be blown up by our B-52′s than continue to live under Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

In 2009, Friedman compared Afghanistan to a “special needs baby” that the U.S., an unemployed couple, has decided to adopt. This “is merely one manifestation of a tradition of unabashed Orientalism that discredits Arabs and Muslims as agents capable of managing their own destinies and sets up a power scheme in which the United States and its military simultaneously occupy the positions of killer/torturer, liberator, educator, and parent/babysitter,” writes Fernandez.

Even when it seems it can’t get worse, it does. Friedman suggested that the Bush Administration should make Iraqis “ Suck. On. This” as compensation for 9/11 (which Iraq had nothing to do with). “We can only assume that haughty refrains of sexual-military domination find resonance among audiences seeking to defy feelings of individual and/or national inadequacy,” writes Fernandez. “It is meanwhile not clear why Friedman subsequently purports to be scandalized by the sexual military goings-on at Abu Ghraib.”

Friedman also once suggested that if the Serbs don’t acquiesce to NATO demands the population should be pulverized with a “ less than surgical” bombing campaigns, and if necessary militarily-“pulverize” the country back into the 1300s. It can be assumed that Friedman either never bothered to read the Geneva Conventions, or shares the Bush Administration’s view that they are irrelevant.

Friedman often has a penchant for contradicting himself. One strong example of his contradictory positions can be gleaned from two columns on Indonesia, written just a year apart.

In a May 1998 column, Friedman describes Suharto’s regime in Indonesia as “possibly the most corrupt regime in the world today,” an analysis that bordered on accurate, though is still a little euphemistic, especially in light of the US-backed dictator’s genocide against the Timorese. But a year later, in another column, Friedman chastised the US Congress for blocking the sale of fighter jets and US-training to Indonesia’s military because the country is “ too complex to be a pariah.”

Other examples of Friedman’s pearls of journalistic and political skills pointed out by Fernandez include suggesting that Washington recruit the Russian mafia in the fight against Osama bin Laden, flooding Iraq with counterfeit money, or reducing his benign criticisms of Israel, a country he noted “had me at hello,” solely to its continued illegal settlement building.

“Friedman’s accumulation of influence is a direct result of his service as mouthpiece for empire and capital, i.e., as resident apologist for military excess and punishing economic policies,” writes Fernandez. This comes through in the following quote from The Lexus and the Olive Tree:

The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the U. S. Air Force F-15, and the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

Fernandez’s The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work is a meticulously researched book, written with wry wit and an unrelenting critical eye, that should be read by both Friedman’s fans and critics alike; not just for what it reveals about his journalism or the New York Times, but for what it says about the state of American journalism as a whole. In short, if New York’s “paper of record” wanted to start rectifying its own journalistic deficiencies, it would do well to start by replacing Friedman with Fernandez.

AUTHOR: Cyril Mychalejko
URL: http://upsidedownworld.org
E-MAIL: cmychalejko [at] gmail.com

Abeer Baker represents prisoners as a private human rights lawyer and runs the Prisoners’ Rights Clinic at Haifa University’s Law Faculty. She became personally involved with Palestinian political prisoners through Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, where she worked for ten years. Her first case dealt with a prisoners’ petition for permission to study at the Israeli Open University. After her exposure to the life of Palestinian political prisoners, she realized that numerous cases can be brought to court.

Anat Matar is a senior lecturer at the Department of Philosophy of Tel Aviv University. She has been active for many years in the “Refusal Movement” (refusal to serve in the Israeli army). She serves on the steering committee of “Who Profits?”, a project of the Coalition of Women for Peace, and she is the Chairperson of the Israeli Committee for the Palestinian Prisoners. Matar became personally involved with Palestinian political prisoners through “Open Doors”, a small organization which campaigned for the release of all administrative detainees during the 1990s. In addition, she learned more about prison when her son refused to enlist in “an army of occupation”. He was sentenced to serve two years in a military prison. After his release, she wrote me ,“I looked for activities related to the much harder cases, those of Palestinian prisoners”.

Political prisoners movement

According to the editors, several Palestinian solidarity organizations were active in Israel before the establishment of Open Doors. They informed me that the most important and well-known organization, Ansar Al-Sajeen, was closed down several years ago. The defense minister issued a decree to that end based on the allegation that the organization was “supporting terror”. Other organizations are Youssef al-Sadiq and the Friends of the Detainees. They usually focus on humanitarian aid, prison conditions, contact with families, and legal representation. 

The situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is different. There is a Ministry in charge of prisoners’ issues and there are legal organizations and support groups, write Baker and Matar. “Needless to say, we have been in contact with most of them. We exchange advice and information and held several meetings in Ramallah with representatives of these organizations.”

Recommendations of international campaigns

The book offers such a wide variety of information that it is difficult to know where to start. I have challenged the editors to identify key issues for international campaigns in support of Palestinian political prisoners. According to Abeer Baker and Anat Matar, the most immediate campaign should focus on acknowledgement of the political character of the arrest, trial and detention of Palestinian political prisoners. They suggest that the following issues should be included in campaigns: 

First of all, the release of administrative detainees. The idea should be, “Stop using this undemocratic tool completely”. Currently, there are over 200 detainees held without a trial, some for years. 

Tamar Pelleg-Sryck wrote an excellent essay on administrative detention for the book which offers the background information that is needed for such a campaign.

Video on administrative detention produced by Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association based in Ramallah.

Abeer Baker and Anat Matar continue:

A second goal should be the criticism (mainly by international legal experts) of this legal system, bringing to light its apartheid-like logic.

Sharon Weill clarifies the apartheid logic in her essay. In his review of Threat for The Electronic Intifada, Asa Winstantley wrote:

She [Sharon Weil] proves that because of the separate and unequal legal systems for Israelis and Palestinians there — civil courts for Israeli Jews but military courts for Palestinians — the occupation of the West Bank is best understood as a system of apartheid. 

In addition, Abeer Baker and Anat Matar suggest:

Other burning problems are the arrest and trial of children, the arrest of political activists, like those organizing protests against the Apartheid wall, the transfer of prisoners into Israel, and one issue that is particularly painful – the special situation of the Palestinian prisoners who are Israeli citizens.

The editors are convinced that the Israeli Government cannot halt resistance to the occupation and the denial of rights of Palestinians by detaining Palestinian leaders and activists. “No, we don’t believe this result can be achieved through these means.”

The book Threat, Palestinian Political Prisoners in Israel and the recommendations of the editors are excellent tools for designing and planning campaigns in support of Palestinian political prisoners.

First published at The Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

Outlook editor, Vinod Mehta’s essay entitled ‘Muslims and Media Images: Where Things went Wrong’ has two main points. One with regard to Muslim’s expectations from the so called mainstream media and they expect all unbiased non-Muslims to promote the Muslim cause. He says that the expectations of the Muslim community are misplaced because Indian media faces may compulsions and challenges in their depiction.

According to Mehta there is a lack of understanding between Muslims and the Indian media. The media gives space to ether Muslim socialites that dominate the public space or to fringe Muslim voices no one knows. He warns that the situation is unlikely to change unless the common Muslim makes efforts to be heard. The onus is really on the Muslims themselves.

Academic Rajni Kothari’s article asserts that the role of the media in independent India has been negative as far as Muslim representation is concerned. The media has not provided enough space for minority opinions and has portrayed them negatively. He appeals the Muslim leadership to work hand in hand with secular Hindu elements towards a realignment of forces that can rebuild India’s democratic secularism. He is optimistic and believes that once this happens the press will have a very positive role in building constructive cooperative relationships.

Noted journalist, Kuldip Nayar’s article states that strained post- Partition Hindu–Muslim relations have affected journalism as a whole. He agrees that there do exist irresponsible journalists but emphasizes that these are in a minority. As far as the role of the English language press is concerned he feels, it’s more balanced, albeit subtly biased towards majority concerns. He believes that the national press is, on the whole, balanced and fair.

He do not agree that national press is a puppet controlled by majoritarian communal forces and dismisses such claims by Muslims as a product of fear psychosis. He urges the Muslim community to encourage their youth to come forward and represent the community in the national press.

The well known Hindi journalist, Mrinal Pande provides a gender-centric viewpoint on the issue. She points out that the press often fails in its role of a powerful social watchdog as far as women and minorities are concerned. Minorities and women lose out in a situation as male members of the majority community control media coverage and its institutions. A male preserve and its chauvinism are evident in the quick politicization of issues concerning women belonging to the minority community, she says.

The Pioneer editor, Chandan Mitra in his contribution, ‘The Print Media and Minority Images’, says that the generalization that the media is biased against Muslims is not true.

He points that in the English media two polarities exist, one patronizing and the other antagonistic. The former tends to understand the issues concerning Muslims and the latter believes that Muslims are prisoners of their own image.

As a BJP-backed MP, Mitra for long has espoused the RSS viewpoint and reiterates that the Urdu media is also not interested in projecting a positive image of the community or in raising awareness among Muslims about social changes and developments that are affecting the rest of India.

He concedes the point that there are biases existing in the media, but makes this up saying there are also dedicated people who go to great lengths to rectify such distortions.

Siddharth Varadarajan of the The Hindu argues that though the mainstream media after Independence did not openly support communal forces, the press, in common with the ruling Congress, arguably gave undeserved prominence to the views of the mullahs, portraying them as the leaders of the Muslim community. With the emergence of more virulent communal politics from the 1970s onwards, the communal biases of a section of the print media became more pronounced, and this came into stark relief every time a major incident of communal violence occurred.

He then provides an insider’s insight on riot reporting in the mainstream press and its invariable bias against Muslims, though veiled under a garb of impartiality. He bewails the fact that the compulsions of the market dictate that trivialities concerning celebrities get much more prominence than serious national issues.

Varadarajan notes that he has the liberty to bluntly speak the truth about communalism in the media because he is a Hindu, and a Muslim journalist or an intellectual might not find this so easy to say so.

The author while addressing the issue of the Indian Muslims and the media images raises the point why Muslims have been misunderstood not just by Hindus but also by other religious as well. It’s a matter of fact that wherever Muslims have a sizeable presence, certain misunderstandings about them persist in the non- Muslim mind.

Such attitudes or positions that have led to this general distrust should be studied and identified very carefully and placed in perspective and needs to be tackled with greater sensitivity and understanding. In such efforts, Muslims need to come forward ad address them, as they are the victims of this mindset.

The author also feels that Muslim studies have often received marginal and shabby treatment globally, and India is no exception. Since India is home to about 200 million Muslims, Muslim studies should be a serious academic pursuit, but the available writings on Indian Muslim society, culture, psyche, and problems in India rarely reflect the complexities of issues involved.

AUTHOR: Mujtaba Syed
URL: http://mujtabas-musings.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: syedalimujtaba [at] yahoo.com