Ward Churchill is a professor in the ethnic studies department of the University of Colorado, but may soon be fired in the wake of a controversy that sprung from an essay Churchill wrote entitled "Some People Push Back; On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." The essay examined the moral implications of United States foreign policy, but most importantly it compared those killed in the September 11th attack of the World Trade Center to Adolph Eichmann, a high-ranking Nazi technocrat who was put to death after the War. Voices throughout the mass media began clamoring for Churchill’s resignation or firing immediately and the story became a big news item.
The Churchill controversy presents an opportunity to use Noam Chomsky’s theories from Manufacturing Consent and Media Control. The issue of free speech is commonplace in Chomsky’s writings and the Churchill case is eerily reminiscent of another controversy in which Noam Chomsky supported the rights of a Holocaust denier in France. To test Chomsky’s theories I would like to compare two news outlets, one corporate (CNN) and one independent (Democracy Now!), as to how they chose to cover the Churchill story. As freedom of speech is the First Amendment to our Constitution and therefore one of America’s most treasured values, it would seem certain that the press, especially since their freedom also depends on the same amendment, would cover this story with much veracity, and would explicate what Churchill had actually written in order to show the public exactly what the fuss was all about. Indeed, a press concerned with the freedom of the people and its own freedom would certainly allow Churchill his say in order to get a "fair and balanced" story. But if Chomsky’s theories are correct, the corporate media might tend to ignore the story, or attempt to keep it on the back pages and out of the spotlight. Neither of these was the case, but Chomsky goes further to explain how the details of the story could be manipulated in such a way, either by falsification or by omission, as to turn the story into propaganda. A corporate media concerned more with the power of the state than the power of the people would certainly do something like this in the Churchill story. If this has happened then it would only become noticeable when the corporate news article is juxtaposed with an independent news article.
I chose to compare a CNN article from their website http://www.cnn.com/ and a Democracy Now! Interview with Churchill. The article from CNN seems to be the best bit of exegesis about the story from the network after searching through it’s website for all the information on Churchill. Not surprisingly, the article actually wasn’t written by anyone at CNN, it comes from the Associated Press. As Chomsky notes in Manufacturing Consent, almost every news outlet around the country gets an Associated Press feed and gets their top stories from them. This can present an obvious problem in a country where the press is supposed to be free and diverse. If a news outlet is getting all their top stories from the Associated Press, then the AP has already decided the news that’s "fit to print" before the editors can even read the stories. In a situation like this, the Associated Press gets to decide whether a story will be covered and how it will be covered. Certainly, the way in which the AP chose to cover the Churchill story in the beginning influenced the way it was covered in the following days. In a way, they set the tone for how every writer and editor produce a story, and how every American views a story. In this case, the story is prepackaged by the time it gets to CNN and is simply reproduced. This is obviously a money-saving scheme thought up by executives at CNN and not well understood by those watching CNN.
The Democracy Now! interview is also mostly exegetical like the AP article, but with the big difference that it gives the accused a voice. The AP article contains no quotes from Churchill except the phrase "little Eichmanns" from the essay in question. However, the article does give ten quotes to other people who include: 1) the professor at Hamilton College who first raised the controversy and calls Churchill’s writings "outlandish and odious rhetoric", 2) Governor George Pataki who calls Churchill a "bigoted terrorist supporter", 3) the relative of a 9/11 victim who calls him a "nut case", and 4) the Colorado legislature who declared his comments "evil and inflammatory." The neutral quotes in the article include Hamilton College officials explaining the cancellation of Churchill’s speaking engagements, an ACLU official who asks that Churchill’s life not be threatened anymore, and a conservative who believes that firing Churchill would be wrong, but that our nations universities are overstocked with leftists.
DemocracyNow! on the other hand, includes the "little Eichmanns" quote in its introduction, explaining the controversy, but also includes that Churchill is an activist against the genocide on Native Americans, then cuts to a clip from The O’Reilly Factor, which has of course called for Churchill’s firing. Perhaps O’Reilly will boycot Colorado if it is not done! The Factor clip is of an interview between Bill O’Reilly and Colorado Governor Bill Owens which consists of the two expressing their consternation over Churchill’s comments and discussing the ways in which Churchill, a tenured professor, may legally be fired. From there the interview with Churchill starts and right off the bat Amy Goodman asks Churchill to explain his comments from the essay. He is given more than three minutes to respond. He talks about the political philosopher Hannah Arendt and explains the notion of Eichmann as a technocrat. How Eichmann was an everyday German, a good family man, and ultimately one who did not agree with Nazi policies. Yet as a technocrat he scheduled trains for shipping Jews to concentration camps and for that he was put to death. This is a far cry from what little background information CNN gave:
"Churchill wrote an essay shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks comparing those killed to ‘little Eichmanns,’ because of their participation in what he called “the mighty engine of profit.” Adolf Eichmann was the Nazi who organized plans to exterminate European Jews."
But perhaps most importantly was that Churchill was given more than three minutes to respond. This is unheard of in most radio and television news, and certainly you’d be hard-pressed to find a quote of that length in a newspaper. Chomsky makes time allowance a very important point in Manufacturing Consent. Throughout the film he is shown in interviews being cut-off by reporters, so much so that it becomes comical. This is a perfect example of where Chomsky is right on target. We have a mainstream article that includes two sentences of background information about the Eichmann quote in comparison with a three minute response by Churchill himself. This illustrates a wide rift between corporate and independent media.
The Democracy Now! interview continues by asking Churchill if he thinks the victims of 9/11 deserved what they got. He responds by saying that he is in no position to judge that for the victims nor for Adolf Eichmann. He wanted to show the reasons behind the attack and that if the United States’ rules of engagement were applied by its own enemies then the World Trade Center would be a fair target. This kind of statement is something I don’t think we would ever hear on mainstream news. Why not? Because it is an integral part of the culture of journalism that mainstream news never gives any kind of legitimacy to even a neutral opinion that would show the U.S. to be wrong. Churchill’s statement is plain and well-reasoned, but even with absolute evidence to back it up, it would never get airtime.
His responses in the interview are not trivial to the story, as the AP and CNN must have believed, it is information that is crucial to any understanding of the situation. No informed judgment could be made without this kind of information. So why would the mainstream press ignore it? Chomsky contends that it isn’t as simple as an editor with a big marker blacking out the voices of dissent, though this is the straw-man constructed by many of his opponents. In this case it is obvious that some of Churchill’s remarks were excluded from the media because they would be inflammatory. The media is able to excuse itself from printing these remarks out of respect for the families of the victims. They are able to claim that there is no agenda or bias in their reporting, just respect for their audience. But I remember 9/11, and I remember having to watch replays of the planes crashing over and over all day long on every channel. Certainly those images were inflammatory and they must have upset many people. So what’s the difference?
Chomsky would say that the important difference is that the image of the attacks bolsters patriotism; it is an image that purely manufactures consent through horror and awe, while Churchill’s comments bolster dissent. In the Associated Press editor’s office there may not be an evil man with a big black marker, but there is a technocrat. A person who is doing their job the best they think they can, but doesn’t realize the consequences of their actions. Somehow, the culture of media has ended up with contradicting values that can trump each other in certain instances. In this instance, we have freedom of speech and of the press on the one hand, and the media’s responsibility to never challenge the state’s power. In the editor’s office the latter trumps the former.
Chomsky himself has been the victim of a similar controversy, though not quite so severe. It is important to ask at times if our society is silencing the voices of dissent, and for what purpose. In this case, the emotional connection to 9/11 was used once again as a way to bolster support for state power. The elite have and will continue to use such devices to pressure the media into what amounts to censorship of ideas. Those that speak out are targeted and easily taken down by a machine that’s been at it for a long time. As long as this is going on, it’s obvious that the American myth of democratic freedom is just an illusion.
