Greg Mitchell's Blog, page 19

Israeli Soldiers Kill Palestinian Minister

Thurs. update: The NYT, of course, gives equal weight to Israeli and Palestinian doctors who interpret autopsy.  The Israeli, of course, suggests the poor guy just died of heart attack.  No role for choking, head-butting, rifle-butting, tear gas.

Wed.  Fortunately, a Reuters reporter there to witness--and even take, or submit, photo of attack. And another photo of aftermath.

Wed. Update:  Long-discredited NYT bureau, of course, rushes to the defense, and you may see echoes of the Eric Garner case.   The Times reporters, who often seem to be embedded in the IDF,  claim  Israeli medics tried to help him but for some reason the Palestinians rushed him to a clinic!--and, by the way, it was partly the man's fault because he had high pressure and suffered from diabetes.  And maybe he was just unlucky victim of tear gas, so forget about being hit with rifle butt and choked.  And to balance the evidence of non-violent protest we must learn that the Israeli military described the protesters as “rioters” and said its forces “halted the progress of the rioters into the civilian community of Adei Ad using riot dispersal means.”

Even the headline--which ran for hours. and later changed--was revealing:  Minister Dies During Protest.  You know, to the casual reader, maybe just had a heart attack, or died of old age, or was struck by a car, or hit by a Hamas rocket. 

Video of the encounter.  Next we will have other Israeli defenders complaining to the Times that they ran a photo of the victim getting manhandled without running a second photo of the protesters screaming and threatening--and the public editor will say that, as usual on this subject, the paper is doing its best when attacked by both sides. In fact, the Times did carry such a photo showing menacing rioters today with its story, until swapping it out for the attack on the minister.

CNN tops even the NYT, which is never easy on this subject, claiming, "There were varying reports of exactly how Abu Ein died, including what role -- if any -- Israeli authorities played in it."  If any!

Elsewhere, Israeli human rights group in annual report strongly condemns abuses in Israel during recent Gaza war.  Haaretz covers. 

Kathryn Bigelow and the Torture Report

[image error] Update, December 9, 2014:  What a great coincidence: Kathryn Bigelow was long ago booked on The Daily Show for last night to tout a PSA she directed relating to ivory sellers funding terrorism and exterminating elephants.  Lo and behold, it happened to all on the day the long-delayed torture report came out.  To his credit, Jon Stewart kicked off (perhaps to her surprise, or so it looked) with a question about her film Zero Dark Thirty, which some of us criticized for defending torture--and you'll recall it late came out that she had been given extra help from...the CIA.   He asked her if she was upset that the CIA had maybe lied to her about certain things and she simply demurred, while looking extremely uncomfortable, claiming it was...."complicated." 

January 2013: We had wondered when she would explain herself more fully--rather than ignore or downplay the charges--but after a loss at the Golden Globes (but an Oscar for Best Picture still at stake), Kathryn Bigelow, director of Zero Dark Thirty, has finally written an op-ed, for today's L.A. Times.  I'll analyze it below but for now here it is.

Nice that she thanks her film-making team for getting the picture made, without crediting crucial help from the CIA.  And revealing,  "As a lifelong pacifist, I support all protests against the use of torture, and, quite simply, inhumane treatment of any kind," does not get to the point of the criticism of her film, does it?  Most critics have suggested that maybe she did not mean to show that torture works, but did not recognize that she was conveying that very message.

Once again she goes out on a limb and backs the First Amendment, and makes the ludicrous charge, as an artist, that critics don't seem to know "depiction" does not equal "endorsement."   Everyone understands that, but she insists on peopling her piece with "straw men."   What she doesn't own up to is that her "depiction" of the usefulness of torture in the film is likely not based on facts--and, in fact, the film endorses the view that torture was crucial in helping to get bin Laden.  (See a brief clip from key scene here, for example.)   In the op-ed, she admits that she and screenwriter Mark Boal chose to accept the disputed view that torture did play a role in nailing bin Laden.  So much for the claims of her defenders who state that her film does no such thing.

She had a right to "depict" that in the film.  But she should own up to it, frankly.  Also: One can only laugh at her claim that, hey, if we didn't give film-makers freedom to show "harsh" realities we'd never have seen any of the great war films of the past.  Funny, I don't recall Paths of Glory suggesting that, hey, since some of the men in the trenches were cowards it justifies shooting a few of the innocent to keep others in line.  Kubrick took an unflinching, complex look at the "realities"--but didn't let his ethically challenged characters off the hook.

While Bigelow claims to be  anti-torture herself, there are no scenes--in fact, hardly any words--in the film that suggest anyone "depicted" really has any real problem with it, except maybe growing tired of it (the poor souls).  In the op-ed she claims that it shows the "moral consequences" of torture.  I haven't seen her or anyone else reveal where that happens in the film.  In fact, in the scene where the two female CIA characters gaze at President Obama on a TV screen as he attacks torture they simply look at each other as if to say, "Where does that guy come off saying that--what does he know about it?"

Finally, she closes with this morally bankrupt whitewashing:  "Bin Laden wasn't defeated by superheroes zooming down from the sky; he was defeated by ordinary Americans who fought bravely even as they sometimes crossed moral lines, who labored greatly and intently, who gave all of themselves in both victory and defeat, in life and in death, for the defense of this nation."   In this way, she lets all of them off the hook--as she did in her film with the central character Maya.

She also offers a plea to not forget the victims of 9/11.  Okay, we get it, Kathryn.  Like in your film--9/11 justifies torture.  (See links to key critiques from experts such as Jane Mayer and Steve Coll.)  

Greg Mitchell has written over a dozen books on subjects including influential political campaigns, atomic cover-ups, WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning, the death penalty in America, even Beethoven --see the books here or on rail at right on this blog.  

When NYT Caved to Bush on Secret Site

James Risen just posted this buried in running blog on release of the Senate torture report:
12:15 P.M. Report Details Effort to Block Article on C.I.A. Prison

The Senate report discloses that in November 2002, a major American newspaper, which it doesn’t identify, discovered that the C.I.A. had a secret prison in an unidentified country where it was holding Abu Zubaydah, the first major Qaeda operative captured after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The report says that after the C.I.A. learned that the newspaper knew about Abu Zubaydah’s whereabouts, the Bush administration urged it not to publish the information. The report notes that the newspaper agreed, but that the agency still decided to close the prison.

In fact, the unidentified newspaper referred to in the report was The New York Times, and the country where the prison was located was Thailand. The New York Times agreed at the request of the White House not to publish an article disclosing that the C.I.A. had a secret prison in Thailand.

In December 2003, The New York Times finally did disclose that the C.I.A. had a prison in Thailand where Abu Zubaydah had been held, but that he had subsequently been moved.

Controversy Over 'Newsroom' Campus Rape Episode

You probably know much about this already so I won't belabor.  HBO's The Newsroom in its penultimate episode presciently (it was filmed months ago) tackled the subject of a he said/she said alleged campus rape, with two male aggressors, just as the current uproar over the Rolling Stone UVA story peaked.   It aroused much backlash due to how Aaron Sorkin pictured its male producer offering sympathy to the female student but standing firm on not outing perps who have not yet been arrested.   See NYT story today.

But now here's something to watch.  A female writer for the show, Alena Smith,  tweeted that she got kicked out of the writer's room for objecting too strongly to the parts of the "rape" episode.  This drew wide RTing and commenting on the Web.  However, Sorkin, in that Times story, while confirmed that she was asked to exit, also claims that when he did a few pages of re-write she greeted them with great "enthusiasm."  So now we'll see how she replies.  (Note:  Hours have passed and she has not replied on Twitter, although she has posted other things there.)

Obama Does Colbert

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,The Colbert Report on Facebook,Video Archive

Beatles, Christmas, Fifty-One Years On

They did an annual "Christmas Record" every year, starting in 1963, just weeks before conquering the U.S.  It was 51 years ago today, and the band could surely word-play, and it's guaranteed to bring a smile...Here it is, with the boys all weighing in:

'Rolling Stone' Admits Its Story Falling Apart

As I predicted early on, the the big UVA piece.  Now Stone editor admits new info shows it had too much faith in its (single) source, the alleged victim, Jackie.  Even Jackie friend backing off.  Sad but many saw it coming.  New Wash Post piece with new findings.  UVA about to make statement. And Jackie now blaming...the writer.

Jackie said early in the week that she felt manipulated by Erdely, the Rolling Stone reporter, saying that she “felt completely out of control over my own story.” In an in-person interview Thursday, Jackie said that Rolling Stone account of her attack was truthful but also acknowledged that some details in the article might not be accurate.

UPDATE #1:  The magazine has not "retracted" the story some have claimed.  It is still posted at their site, with ed note above it.

UPDATE #2   Jezebel writer now admits she was "dead fucking wrong" in attacking the two early critics of Rolling Stone article.  "It means, of course, that when I dismissed Richard Bradley and Robby Soave's doubts about the story and called them "idiots" for picking apart Jackie's account, I was dead fucking wrong, and for that I sincerely apologize. It means that my conviction that Sabrina Rubin Erdely had fact-checked her story in ways that were not visible to the public was also wrong. It's bad, bad, bad all around."

Hipster Death Defying Hero

One of the subjects of my upcoming book, digging under the Berlin Wall (to get others out), 1963.   These guys had style (and balls).  Casting of Greengrass flick should be interesting. 

Disruption

Seemingly prescient, wake of New Republic moves (Foer and Leon W. out), were scenes in the last two episodes of The Newsroom with B.J. Novak playing a young owner who attacks "old" journalism and favors, in a now-famous word, "disruption."

Now We Take Berlin: Book and Movie Deals!

And further:  Signed contract this week so, as the tunnelers no doubt said at some point, there's no turning back now!  My risks a good deal lighter, however. 

Further update:  And it looks like we have our first foreign rights sale.  Meanwhile, thrilled to be working closely with my daughter on this, as she and husband already hard at work as (paid) researchers in Berlin.  My next trip there: January.  And I hear tremendous interest from A-list screenwriters on movie.

Update Thursday:  Publishers Weekly covers the book (and movie) deal tonight.   NYT, ABC, CBS,  and a few dozen others picked up the AP story today.  

Update Wednesday:  And now another wild week, since we did things backwards--my book proposal sold to the movies first, for Paul Greengrass film, and only now comes the major book deal.  Here's the Associated Press story now, with the great Rachel Klayman at Crown to edit. 

Friday: Big news today for yours truly, as my proposal for my next book The Tunnels was purchased by great upstart company FilmNation for a major film directed by one of my film heroes, Paul Greengrass.  Just up at Variety.

Quite flattered by interest over past 10 days from several leading studios and A-list directors but very happy to be with Greengrass--I was one of early boosters of his Bloody Sunday back in 2002, and since--and producer Mark Gordon (who did Saving Private Ryan and so many others).  Amazing story of  young folks in the West who at unfathomable risk dug tunnels under the Berlin Wall in 1962 to bring out family and lovers and others--and now a wonderful chance to tell it on the page and on the screen.  The Variety description includes the key angle of CBS and NBC financing two key tunnels--but omits what happened then:  JFK at the White House trying to suppress the two network specials as nuclear tensions rose.

Special thanks to Brian Siberell and Michelle Weiner at CAA and my literary agent Gary Morris at the David Black Agency.  Yowza.  And great chance to work with my daughter, who lives in Berlin about a mile from the former path of the Wall.   My photo above of some of those who died trying to get over or under or around the Wall, at the Memorial on Bernauer Strausse (remnant of the Wall behind them).