Conference Call with Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) and Robert Greenwald, Director, "Outfoxed" and "Foxattacks.com" Subject: Fox News and Iran
Interview
CONFERENCE CALL WITH SENATOR BERNARD SANDERS (I-VT) AND ROBERT GREENWALD, DIRECTOR, "OUTFOXED" AND "FOXATTACKS.COM"
SUBJECT: FOX NEWS AND IRAN
12:08 P.M. EDT, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2007
Copyright ©2007 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Jack Graeme at jack@fednews.com or call 1-800-211-4020.
MR. GREENWALD: Thank you and thank you all for joining us, and thank you, Senator Sanders, who is with us, who will be speaking just after I make a few remarks. I wanted to let everyone know a little bit about the context of Fox Attacks Iran.
It started out in April when our good friends and colleagues at Media Matters and News Hounds started alerting us that Fox was beginning to beat the drums very loudly about the fact that we needed to take military action against Iran. We started collecting material on April 11. We continued that collection of material around Fox's position and its point of view and its ideology in regard to Iran until August 1. We collected, in that short period of time, over five hours worth of material. We've posted about an hour of it at the Fox Attack (sic) website for those of you who are interested in looking and seeing all the material that we did not use in our three minute piece.
As we started working on the video, putting the clips together, several of us were struck by the sense that we had heard all these words before. We had heard these warnings. We had seen these graphics. And in fact, we then went back and started looking at Fox in the buildup to the Iraq war.
And we found word-for-word, sentence-to-sentence, graphic-for- graphic, exactly the same pattern, which is essentially no news; it's about opinion, it's about fear, it's about scaring us and it's about telling us we must take action now.
It's rare in life that any of us either personally or professionally get a second chance, but there is a second chance here. We need the help of the media and we need it very badly in order to make sure that as in a democracy the right questions are asked. And I refer to the public editor in the New York Times, who on Sunday said very clearly -- it was in regard to the New York Times but I think it's relevant to all of the media -- we must take pains when reporting today's events to add yesterday's perspective. We must attribute information exhaustively to keep sources' credibility and motives in view.
He goes on to say we must look now at who is making what decisions based on what information. And towards that end, all of us in this group asking for the public to speak out need the help of the media. In the past, the Fox Attacks that we've been doing have received a total of over 2 million views, and we hope there will be many citizens around the country who will respond. We've already had 3,000 views this morning. It's only been available for about an hour or so.
And we refer those of you to the website where we -- particularly the article from the Guardian, the July 16 article -- which talks about the balance of power shifting to military action before Bush leaves, and references the fact that Cheney seems to have beaten Condoleezza Rice in an internal power struggle.
It also talks about the 277 warships stationed close to Iran, and many other articles that we post on the website so that people have the hard data and hard information.
Many of us, myself and my colleagues at Brave New Films were absolutely convinced that there was no possible way that there would be an attack against Iran, but the research, the articles, and then remembering Andrew Card's infamous comment, you don't introduce new product in the summer just before the fall of the buildup to the war, reminds all of us that the summer is in fact a very serious time, and a time when all of us who care about democracy, care about the key decisions, raise the alert and get involved.
And with that, I would like to ask Senator Sanders to please give us his comments and his perspectives. And after the Senator finishes, we'll ask for questions from all of you on the call.
SEN. SANDERS: Well, thank you, Robert. And let me thank you and all the people that you're working with the extrordinary job you're doing in educating the American people about the reality of what's happening in our world, and the world of media, and corporate media, and so forth.
The issue here I think is not terribly complicated. From my perspective, somebody who voted against the war in Iraq when I was in the House of Representatives, do everything I can to bring our troops home as soon as possible, my perspective has been that this war has been an unmitigated disaster. It's a war that Bush mislead us into, that we should never have gone into in the first place. The bottom line here is not only all of the suffering that has taken place to American soldiers to the people in Iraq, the huge amount of money that we spent, the real issue is that we are less safe today than we were before the war began.
Osama bin Laden is alive and he is well, and according to the National Intelligence Estimate, al Qaeda is growing stronger throughout the world and it's more of a threat today than they have been for many, many years.
If you look at what's going on in Afghanistan, what you see is the Taliban is re-emerging there as a very dangerous adversary. They're using some of the terrorist skills that they learned in Iraq, and the situation there is becoming even more difficult for our troops and the NATO troops. And one of the reasons for that, for the problems, increased problems we're having in Afghanistan is that we have diverted a lot of intelligence resources. We have diverted a lot of reconstruction money away from Iraq and into Afghanistan. That was a big mistake. And in the midst of all of this thing, as the most powerful military force the world, our nation is now held in lower regard in the international community than at any time in the modern history of the United States.
So you got that as a background, and now in the midst of all of this, unbelievably, there are increased rumblings that are coming from the vice president, from Cheney and from Bush about the possibility of a unilateral attack on Iran. So in the middle of a war, which is going badly in Iraq, in the middle of a war, which is going poorly in Afghanistan, you'll have the vice president and the president now intimating that it may be good public policy to wage a unilateral strike against Iran. I think this is absolutely incredible. I think it would be an unmitigated disaster, and I think it is something that the American people do not want to see happen and will do everything they can to prevent happening.
Now, in the Congress I have introduced S. Con. Resolution 13, which is a very simple resolution, and what it says to the president is, "Mr. President, you do not have the authority to wage a unilateral war in Iran. You have got to go to the United States Congress first." And in my view, if he goes to the Congress, I think he's going to have very, very strong opposition, and he will not get the authority to do that.
What Robert Greenwald is doing now in terms of his video is saying to the American people that, yes, we have got to go to Congress and do everything that we can to have Congress prevent this president from starting a war in Iran; but in addition to that, understanding how we got into the war in Iraq, that we have got to put pressure on the mass media not to play the same craven role that they played in Iraq, where they essentially collapsed and became megaphone for Bush's policies rather than being a critical independent voice, which is what we should be having and need to have in a democracy.
So what Robert is saying here is the leader of that effort, of course, is Fox News, which in many ways is simply a propaganda machine for the Republican Party and for the Bush administration. What happened in Iraq is that among many other reasons the media followed Fox's lead and became a megaphone for the Bush administration.
And what we're saying now is the America people have got to tell the mass media, many of whom understand, that they played a very destructive and poor role in terms of the lead-up to the war in Iraq. They have got to do better. And they have got to stand up and be an independent and critical voice in assessing the voracity of what Bush is saying and what is, in fact going on in the world.
So I want to congratulate Robert. I think what he is doing is very, very important in making us -- in reminding us that if you deal with politics in America today, it's not just the Bush administration, it is not just the United States Congress. It is the role of a media which is owned by fewer and fewer large corporate conglomerates, and pressure has got to be put on them to do the job to do the job that they are supposed to do, and not simply follow the White House.
So, Robert, thank you very much for what you are doing.
MR. GREENWALD: Well, thank you, Senator. And with that, Rose, if you could use this amazing technology and allow us to begin to get questions.
OPERATOR: For those of you who have a question, please press "star, one" on your touchtone phone, and your questions will be answered in the order that they are received. If you're using a speakerphone, you must pick up your handset before pressing "star, one" to register for a question. If at any time your question has already been answered, please press "star, two" to remove yourself from the question line-up.
Our first question is from Aaron Berhardt (sic). Please proceed with your question.
Q Hi. Aaron Barnhardt at the Kansas City Star. How are you today, Robert?
MR. GREENWALD: Very well, thank you.
Q The first question I have is about -- I have the film here loaded, but I haven't watched it yet; it may be addressed by it -- but do you perceive that Fox News at this point regarding specifically this Iran crusade, for want of a better word, is -- are they -- do you believe that they're taking directives from communications officers inside the White House? Or is this more of an ideological kindred spirit -- they almost anticipate what the White House wants to do without having to ask them?
In other words, are they useful idiots or are they fellow travelers?
MR. GREENWALD: Well, I try -- unlike Fox, I try to stay in the fact-based world. And the facts we know are that Fox is increasing the amount of coverage of the need to go to war with Iran at exactly the same time that elements of the current administration are increasing and getting louder and stronger and saying we must take military action against Iran. That's the evidence, that's the firm data we can see. And certainly since they've taken this position -- their having Bolten on; it seems like he has his own show on the air, practically, on a regular basis serving to reinforce that position.
Let me also ask if the senator -- Senator Sanders, do you have any comment on this?
SEN. SANDERS: No, I don't have anything to add to what you said, Robert.
Q And then my second question is since "Outfoxed" came out, Fox's popularity really seems to have crested, and the backlash media, people who actually spend some of their time pointing out the errors of Fox and making fun of their style, have surged in popularity. As you probably know, MSNBC last month passed up CNN in all the key demographics and seems to -- and their most popular personality, Keith Olbermann, attacks what he calls "Fox Noise" practically every night. I wonder if you see Fox's powers actually diminishing at this point, and as the cacophony against them grows louder, that they're really not having the impact that they did at the time that "Outfoxed" came out.
MR. GREENWALD: Well, I think there's no question that the rest of the media and many independent experts are very clear now that Fox is many things. What it is not is a news channel. What it is is a very effective, very entertaining organization that presents one point of view; that's not news. And I think that many individuals, many groups, many experts, Senator Sanders and many others have all worked in concert with the material that we've been able to provide from "Outfoxed" and currently now with foxattacks, whereas I said before, these short two- and three-minute videos -- this is about the fourth or fifth one we've done -- we're over 2 million people; that's more than most Fox shows get. So I think that we have the will and the technology to make clear now that they do not provide news.
SEN. SANDERS: You know, and I would just add to that, that Fox's decline is parallel with the decline in popularity of a president who is widely regarded as a failure in terms of his policies on almost every major issue facing this country. So if you are going to be a TV network propping up an administration which is extraordinarily unpopular on virtually every public policy thing that they do, it's hard to retain your own popularity.
Q Thank you both.
OPERATOR: Our next question is from Jeff Miller (sp). Please proceed with your question.
Q Hi, Robert and Senator Sanders. I have a quick question on, Robert, your methodology of collecting this information. And second is, did you cross-reference it against attacks Fox has lately been making on the president for other issues, and what type of relations, if there is any, those have?
MR. GREENWALD: The methodology is initially heavily reliant on the many experts and monitors at both Media Matters and at the News Hounds, who are monitoring and watching Fox and alert us as well as the staff at Brave New Films to particular clips and particular statements that we should be aware of. We collect all of those.
As I said, we were fairly shocked to find over five hours worth, essentially all with the same message. We then take them and go through them making sure that we maintain the substance of what has been said and work to put it together in a form that people can see and understand in the easiest possible way.
We also have a caption recorder that our co-producer, Jonathan, uses very effectively here in order to do word searches, so that we have a pretty full understanding of what they're saying, when they're saying and how they're saying it.
OPERATOR: Our next question is from Susan Keith (sp). Please proceed with your question.
(Pause.)
MR. GREENWALD: Susan, are you there? (No response.)
OPERATOR: Our next question is from Diane -- Philip Diane. Please proceed with your question.
Q I think it's Philip Dine. Is that right? Hello?
MR. GREENWALD: Philip?
Q Yeah, okay, hi. Phil Dine, St. Louis Post Dispatch.
MR. GREENWALD: Hi, Phil.
Q Hi. It seems to me you're -- well, I'd like you to respond to this thought that it seems to me that you're conflating several issues that really are separate. Let's posit that Fox is biased, that the war in Iraq has been botched, and that our popularity is sinking in the world. But most serious military experts think that Iran is a transcendant threat to the region and to the world. When I was reporting from the Persian Gulf area before we went into Iraq, people in one Arab country after another would tell me, "You guys are crazy if you fight Iraq. Iran is the threat." This is a regime that is increasing now its public hangings of dissidents; it kidnaps people, foreigners, when it wants to; it's moving inexorably towards a nuclear weapon. So even if one accepts everything else you're saying,what do you say we should do about Iran?
MR. GREENWALD: Senator Sanders, do you want to respond first?
SEN. SANDERS: Well, no one here, I think, has suggested that Iran is not a serious problem. No one ever suggested that Saddam Hussein, among other things, was a nice guy. The question is, how do you intelligently deal with the threat of Iran? I think the point that many of us are making is that a unilateral military attack against Iran would be a disaster.
Many of suggested that a unilateral military attack against Iraq would backfire, that it would cause a lot more problems than it would solve, and that certainly was the case.
So no one is suggesting here that Iran is not a problem. The answer obviously is that you need to use diplomacy, something that the Bush administration is not terribly enthusiastic about, that you have to work with the entire world community to resolve what is, in fact, a difficult problem. So I don't think anyone has a magical solution. But certainly we can do a heck of a lot better than waging a third war, inflaming the entire Muslim world, so that we're in a neverending war against the Muslim communities.
Q But with all due respect, that was kind of vague. I mean, Tom Lantos, Brad Sherman, a lot of Congressional Democrats think that we're running out of time and that Iran -- you know, diplomacy's nice. We're -- meanwhile they're moving towards a nuclear weapon. What --
SEN. SANDERS: Well that's what we -- in all due respect, Phil, that's what we heard about Iraq -- diplomacy is nice, but don't we really have to attack Iraq before they launch a military attack against the United States? That was dead wrong. It has caused disastrous results.
And what Tom Lantos and some others may say is fine. My own view and again the main point that I want to make is that I think that it would be unconstitutional for the president of the United States to launch a unilateral attack without getting authority from the Congress. I think if he went to the Congress, he would not get that authority.
But there are some people who will agree with you. I'm the first to admit that. Most members of the Congress, including many Republicans, do not.
Q I guess my question is, and I'll stop, is, you know, we all know that the evidence was ginned up and hyped and cherrypicked with regard to Iraq. They did have no nuclear program. We all know -- Iran says it is developing -- they say it's for civilian purposes, but we all know they have a nuclear program.
And wouldn't it help the credibility of what you're trying to do if you had some positive means --
SEN. SANDERS: Sure.
Q -- of dealing with Iran?
SEN. SANDERS: Well, if you're asking me, the answer is absolutely right. Do we need a positive approach to deal with Iran? Absolutely. Of course. You're absolutely right. Do I have one right here in front of me? No, I don't. But what I can tell you -- what would be absolutely counter, what would be absolutely destructive, is a unilateral American attack against Iran.
Clearly, we have to work with the entire world community to formulate a strong and effective approach against Iran and against its regime. No question about that. All that I am saying now is, A, the president cannot launch this attack unilterally -- he has got to go to Congress; if he went to Congress, he would not get the authority.
Your point is well-taken. We need an effective international approach to deal with the very serious problem of Iran.
(Cross talk.)
MR. GREENWALD: And to go back to the media part of it -- let me just reiterate that what we are saying with the video, I believe, is one specific thing, which is there's only one approach that is being talked about, at least at Fox, and we're urging you and your paper and other papers and other media to ask the hard questions: what is the evidence?; what is the IAEA saying?; what -- who are the decisionmakers?; where is that coming from?
Let us not please, please, take the assumptions as we did last time. And that's where the media has an incredibly critical role, and we need all of you.
Q Thank you.
OPERATOR: As a reminder, for those of you who have a question, please press "star, one" on your touchtone phone, and your question will be answered in the order received.
Our next question is from Mark Carlin (sp). Please proceed with your question.
Q Mark Carlin from Buzzflash again. I'd like to commend Robert and Senator Sanders, who we've talked to both extensively, for continuing to be on the back of Fox.
My question is this. Fox essentially follows the White House narrative, its political narrative, which often is in contrast with reality. And to answer the last question, we've dealt with North Korea, which has been a threat to the Asian community, quite differently than Iran. And I think that needs to -- one of the things that needs to be pointed out.
But my question about Fox is this. I think you mentioned, Robert or the senator, about The New York Times ombudsman basically saying this weekend we don't put a historical context to news, and Fox is a prime example of that.
If we have a president and administration that botched Iraq -- and it's a war that's lasted longer than World War II -- that has seen Afghanistan drift back into the Taliban days, why would Fox be entrusted to claim that this administration, were it even valid to carry out a war against Iran that might involve nuclear weapons on our part, what -- does Fox at all bring up the credibility of an administration conducting that war that has completely failed in Iraq and is now falling back in terms of the war it has waged in Afghanistan?
MR. GREENWALD: Well, I have not seen any evidence of that. And as we know, Fox, like some others, believes that the solution -- you know, that's that line: if the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer, then everything looks to be a nail. Well, I think we've seen that over and over again with Fox.
I think we -- the senator is going to have to leave in a minute, so I think we have time for one more question, please.
OPERATOR: Our final question is from Cenk Uygur. Please proceed with your question.
Q It's Cenk Uygur from the Young Turks. (Audio break) -- having a nuclear weapon. They say they're going to use it for their energy program. I don't know that I believe them, either, but there's nothing inexorable about it, and it's five to 10 years from now, according to all the experts. So it seems like a lot of those facts didn't break through yet. And the problem is Fox is a very large mike, and some of the people fighting back don't have as a big a mike. How do you break through that? And do you see that we have broken through and made any kind of progress with the rest of the media?
MR. GREENWALD: Well, I'll answer that first and then ask the senator to have the last word as we finish up here.
I actually do see progress. And the work that you and the Young Turks are doing and many others, the incredible work in the blogosphere, the various groups and coalitions, from media matters to the newshounds to the free press that's working on structural change -- I think that there's a tremendous amount going on, and for the first time ever, we have the technology, we have the possibilities, we can do it quickly.
I mean, two years ago, if you had said we could put out these short video pieces -- using clips from Fox, getting it out to people quickly -- and we would have 2 million people seeing them in a very short period of time, I would have thought you were crazy. So I think we do have the possibilities.
But let me just say on this particular issue, I am one of those who was absolutely certain there'd be no possible way that this administration would consider going to war with Iran, and I've changed my belief completely, having watched both Fox and read all of the articles from newspapers and individuals from around the country and around the world. So I think we've got a serious job to do.
And again, I would say in my final comment to those of you on the call, whatever your position about the war, let us please ask the hard questions so that we don't have to have an after analysis of what went wrong story.
And with that, I'll turn it over to the senator.
SEN. SANDERS: Well, let me just say this. I think it is true that many in the media appear to have learned a lesson -- or at least suggest to themselves that they have learned a lesson about how they became megaphones for the Bush administration during the lead-up to the war in Iraq; will they be independent and play the role that they are supposed to play if there is a lead-up into the war in Iran? I'm not so sure.
I'm not so sure that there will not be a collapse, again, perhaps not as strong as there was in Iraq. It's one thing to look back and say, "Gee, we made a mistake," but now -- my word! Look what's going on right now. So I'm not all that confident.
The second part -- I think Robert is absolutely right. In recent years a couple of things have happened. I think people increasingly understand that media itself is not objective; that it is playing a role in shaping how people feel; that it has an ideology, by and large, especially when we're seeing fewer and fewer large media conglomerates own what we see, hear and read.
And the good news is that through the Internet, through the work that Robert is doing, through the work that many of the bloggers are doing, there is the understanding that it is absolutely imperative that the American people have the opportunity to hear a different perspective than what we're they're hearing from mainstream media, and that is a very positive sign.
MR. GREENWALD: Well, thank you all for joining us on the call. If there are further questions, feel free to contact any of us, and I'm sure we will be -- we will find -- we will get back to you. And hopefully this -- we will look back on this today as the beginning of taking some important steps and raising some really critical questions. Thank you all.
END.
Source