textfiles-politics/conspiracyTextFilesRegEx/panamatv.txt

<conspiracyFile>[From the January-February 1990 issue of "Extra!", a publication of FAIR.]
The Media Goes to War:
HOW TELEVISION SOLD THE PANAMA INVASION
by Mark Cook and Jeff Cohen
TWO weeks after the Panama invasion, "CBS News" sponsored a public
opinion poll in Panama that found the residents in rapture over what
happened. Even <data type="percent" unit="%">80%</data> of those whose homes had been blown up or
their relatives killed by US forces said it was worth it. Their
enthusiasm did not stop with the ousting of Gen. Manual Noriega,
however. A less heavily advertised result of the poll was that 82% of
the sampled Panamanian patriots did not want Panamanian control of the
Canal, preferring either partial of exclusive control by the US
("Panamanians Strongly Back US Move," "New York Times," 1/6/90).
A "public opinion poll" in a country under martial law, conducted by
an agency obviously sanctioned by the invading forces, can be expected
to come up with such results. Most reporters, traveling as they did
with the US military, found little to contradict this picture. Less
than 40 hours after the invasion began, Sam Donaldson and Judd Rose
transported us to Panama via "ABC's Prime Time Live" (12/21/90).
"There were people who applauded us as we went by in a military
convoy," said Rose. "The military have been very good to us [in
escorting reporters beyond the Canal Zone]," added Donaldson.
While this kind of "Canal Zone journalism" dominated television, a
few independent print journalists stuck out on their own. Peter
Eisner of "Newsday"'s Latin American Bureau, for example, reported
(12/28/89) that Panamanians were cursing US soldiers under their
breath as troops searched the home of a neighbor--a civilian--for
weapons. One Panamanian pointed out a man speaking to US soldiers as
a "sapo" (a toad--slang for "dirty informer") and suggested that
denouncing people to the US forces was a way of settling old scores.
A doctor living on the street said that "liberals will be laying low
for a while, and they're probably justified" because of what would
happen to those who speak out. All of Eisner's sources feared having
their names printed.
The same day's "Miami Herald" ran articles about Panamanian citizen
reactions, including concern over the hundreds of dead civilians:
"Neighbors saw six US truck loads bringing dozens of bodies" to a mass
grave. As a mother watched the body of her soldier son lowered into a
grave, her "voice rose over the crowd's silence: `Damn the
Americans.'"
Obviously there was a mix of opinion inside Panama, but it was
virtually unreported on television, the dominant medium shaping US
attitudes about the invasion. Panamanian opposition to the US was
dismissed as nothing more than "DigBat [Dignity Battalion] thugs"
who'd been given jobs by Noriega. And it was hardly acknowledged that
the high-visibility demonstration outside the Vatican Embassy the day
of Noriega's surrender had been actively "encouraged" by the US
occupying forces ("Newsday," 1/5/90).
Few TV reporters seemed to notice that the jubilant Panamanians
parading before their cameras day after day to endorse the invasion
spoke near-perfect English and were overwhelmingly light-skinned and
well-dressed. This in a Spanish-speaking country with a largely
mestizo and black population where poverty is widespread. "ABC"'s
Beth Nissen (12/27/89) was one of the few TV reporters to take a close
look at the civilian deaths caused by US bombs that pulverized El
Chorillo, the poor neighborhood which ambulance drivers now call
"Little Hiroshima." The people of El Chorillo don't speak perfect
English, and they were less than jubilant about the invasion.
"Our Boys" vs. Unseen Civilians
In the first days of the invasion, TV journalists had one overriding
obsession: *How many American soldiers have died?* The question,
repeated with drumbeat regularity, tended to drown out the other
issues: Panamanian casualties, international law, foreign reaction.
On the morning of the invasion, "CBS" anchor Kathleen Sullivan's voice
cracked with emotion for the US soldiers: "Nine killed, more than 50
wounded. How long can this fighting go on?" Unknown and unknowable
to "CBS" viewers, hundreds of Panamanians had already been killed by
then, many buried in their homes.
<div>
YOU BE THE JUDGE 

* "[The invasion was legal] according to all the experts I 
talked to."--Rita Braver ("CBS Evening News," 12/20/89) 

* "As far as international law is concerned, even sources in 
the US government admit they were operating very near the 
line."--John McWethy ("ABC World News Tonight," 1/5/90) 

* "The territory of a state is inviolable. It may not be the 
object, even temporarily, of military occupation or other 
measures of force taken by another state directly or 
indirectly on any grounds whatsoever."--Article 20, OAS 
Charter 
<div>
Judging from the calls and requests for interviews that poured into
the FAIR office, European and Latin American journalists based in the
US were stunned by the implied racism and national chauvinism in the
media display. The "Toronto Globe and Mail," often referred to as the
"New York Times" of Canada, ran a front-page article (12/22/89)
critiquing the United States and its media for "the peculiar jingoism
of US society so evident to foreigners but almost invisible for most
Americans."
TV's continuous focus on the well-being of the invaders, and not the
invadees, meant that the screen was dominated by red, white and blue
draped coffins and ceremonies, honor rolls of the US dead, drum rolls,
remarks by Dan Rather (12/21/89) about "our fallen heroes"...but no
Panamanian funerals. This despite the fact that the invasion claimed
perhaps 50 Panamanian lives for every US citizen killed.
When Pentagon pool correspondent Fred Francis was asked on day one
about civilian casualties on "ABC's Nightline" (12/20/89), he said he
did not know, because he and other journalists were traveling around
with the US army. Curiosity didn't increase in ensuing days. FAIR
called the TV networks daily to demand they address the issue of
civilian deaths, but journalists said they had no way of verifying the
numbers.
No such qualms existed with regards to Rumania, where over the
Christmas weekend "CNN" and other US outlets were freely dishing out
fantastic reports of 80000 people killed in days of violence, a
figure--greater that the immediate Hiroshima death toll--which any
editor should have dismissed out of hand. Tom Brokaw's selective
interest in civilians was evident when he devoted the first half of
"NBC Nightly News" (12/20/89) to Panama without mentioning non-
combatant casualties, then turned to Rumania and immediately referred
to reports of thousands of civilian deaths.
<div>
Due Process Mugged 

You've seen it everywhere. It made the cover of "Newsweek," 
the front page of the "New York Times"' "Week in Review", and 
the "CBS", "NBC" and "ABC" news: Manual Noriega's mug shot, 
looking just like the criminals at the end of each "Dragnet" 
episode after Sgt. Joe Friday had brought them to justice. 
But what you didn't often see is an acknowledgement that the 
release of such mug shots is highly unusual, and may threaten 
Noriega's already slim chances of getting a fair trial. The 
Miami U.S. Attorney's office claims to have released it "under 
pressure from the press," according to the "New York Times" 
(1/14/90). "We will not comment very frequently on this case," 
U.S. Attorney Dexter Lehtinen said, calling that "the key to 
success." Sure, as long as the media are willing to publish 
prosecution leaks without regard to the defendant's 
constitutional rights. 

[Below this are two covers:] 
"Newsweek" (1/15/90) has "NORIEGA'S NEXT HOME? America's New 
Alcatraz" at the top; followed by "EXCLUSIVE The Noriega 
Files; His Treacherous Links With the Drug Cartel, Castro, 
Bush and the CIA", accompanied by a picture of a Noriega mug 
shot--he in a T-shirt holding the sign: 
"U.S. MARSHAL, MIAMI, FL, 4.1.5.8.6. .0.0.4. '90" 

"New York Post" (1/5/90) has "CANNED PINEAPPLE" covering half 
it's cover, with a subhead "Arrogant Noriega: I'm a political 
prisoner"; the bottom half shows two photos: one of Noriega 
surrounded by three police officers restraining him, and the 
other, the same mug shot as "Newsweek". 
<div>
Not until the sixth day of the Panama invasion did the US Army
augment its estimated dead (23 American troops, 297 alleged enemy
soldiers) to include a figure for civilians: 254. The number was
challenged as representing only a fraction of the true death toll by
the few reporters who sought out independent sources: Panamanian
human rights monitors, hospital workers, ambulance drivers, funeral
home directors. These sources also spoke of thousands of civilian
injuries and 10000 left homeless. Many journalists, especially on
television, were too busy cheerleading "the successful military
action" to notice the Panamanians who didn't fare so successfully.
TV correspondents, so uncurious about civilian casualties, could not
be expected to go beyond US military assurances about who was being
arrested and why. As the "Boston Globe" noted (1/1/90), US forces
were arresting anyone on a blacklist compiled by the newly-installed
government. "Newsday"'s Peter Eisner reported (1/7/90): "Hundreds of
intellectuals, university students, teachers and professional people
say they have been harassed and detained by US forces in the guise of
searching for hidden weapons."
<div>
CENSORED NEWS: Drug Links of Panama's New Rulers 

The Bush White House justified the invasion by claiming that 
overthrowing Noriega was a major victory in the war on drugs. 
If journalists had reported the backgrounds of the new 
Panamanian leaders installed by the US invasion, and their 
connections to drug-laundering banks and drug traffickers, a 
primary rationale for the invasion would have been shredded. 
But few journalists scrutinized Panama's "new democrats" 
from the country's banking and corporate elite. One who did 
was Jonathan Marshall, editorial page editor of the "Oakland 
Tribune". In a series of editorials, "Panama's Drug, Inc." 
(1/5 &amp; 1/22/90), Marshall reported the following: 
PRESIDENT GUILLERMO ENDARA is a wealthy corporate attorney 
for several companies run by Carlos Eleta, a Panamanian 
business tycoon arrested in Georgia last April for conspiring 
to import more than half a ton of cocaine each month into the 
US. The Brazilian daily, "Jornal do Brasil," reported that 
Endara was Eleta's lawyer for 25 years and a direct 
stockholder in one of his companies. Endara's political 
mentor and idol is former President Arnulfo Arias, who 
reportedly amassed $2000000 from smuggling contraband, 
including hard drugs. 
VICE PRESIDENT GUILLERMO "BILLY" FORD is a co-founder and 
part owner of the Dadeland Bank, in Miami, a repository for 
Medellin drug cartel money. One of Ford's co-owner's, 
Panamanian Steven Samos, used the bank in the late 1970s to 
launder millions of dollars in drug money for a CIA-trained 
Cuban American. Panama's new ambassador to the US, Carlos 
Rodriguez, is also a co-founder of the Dadeland Bank. (The 
"New York Times" on Jan. 28 mustered up Roberto Eisenmann, the 
publisher of Panama's "La Prensa," to deny allegations linking 
Ford to money laundering. The "Times" didn't mention that 
Eisenmann is another co-founder of the bank.) 
ATTORNEY GENERAL ROGELIO CRUZ served as a director of the 
First Interamericas Bank. The bank, closed down for drug- 
related "irregular operations" in 1985, was owned by the 
leader of Columbia's Cali cocaine cartel and reportedly 
laundered money for Jorge Ochoa of the Medellin cartel. 
Panama's new chief justice of the supreme court and new 
treasury minister were also members of the bank's board. 
Marshall concluded: "President Endara's appointments read 
like a who's who of Panama's oligarchy. Many have personal 
or business associations with the drug-money laundering 
industry." Portraying Noriega's replacement by the Endara 
clique as a strike against drug dealing is a cruel joke. 
The importance of Panama to the international narcotics 
trade has long revolved around its supersecret banks--cool 
places to launder "hot money." In December 1986, Noriega's 
legislature pushed through a rollback in the country's bank 
secrecy law. In May 1987, when Noriega's government froze 
accounts in 18 banks as part of an anti-drug operation mounted 
by the DEA, it sparked a massive banking crisis in Panama. 
The actions were vigorously opposed by Noriega's foes in the 
banking elite. These foes now run Panama's government thanks 
to the US invasion. The "war on drugs" continues. 
<div>
The "Objective" Reporter's Lexicon: We, Us, Our
In covering the invasion, many TV journalists abandoned even the
pretense of operating in a neutral, independent mode. Television
anchors used pronouns like "we" and "us" in describing the mission
into Panama, as if they themselves were members of the invasion force,
or at least helpful advisors. "NBC"'s Brokaw exclaimed, on day one:
"We haven't got [Noriega] yet." "CNN" anchor Mary Anne Loughlin asked
a former CIA official (12/21/89): "Noriega has stayed one step ahead
of us. Do you think we'll be able to find him?" After eagerly
quizzing a panel of US military experts on "MacNeil/Lehrer" (12/21/89)
about whether "we" had wiped out the Panamanian Defense Forces (PDF),
Judy Woodruff concluded, "So not only have we done away with the PDF,
we've also done away with the police force." So much for the
separation of press and state.
Ted Koppel and other TV journalists had a field day mocking the
Orwellianly-titled "Dignity Battalions," but none were heard
ridiculing the invasion's code-name: "Operation Just Cause." The day
after the invasion, "NBC Nightly News" offered its own case study in
Orwellian Newspeak: While one correspondent referred to the US
military occupiers as engaging in "peacekeeping chores," another
correspondent on the same show referred to Latin American diplomats at
the OAS condemning the US as a "lynch mob." After the Soviet Union
criticized the invasion as "gunboat diplomacy" (as had many other
countries), Dan Rather dismissed it as "old-line, hard-line talk from
Moscow" ("CBS Evening News," 12/20/89).
Journalism gave way to state propaganda when a "CNN" correspondent
dutifully reported on the day of the invasion: "US troops have taken
detainees but we are not calling them `prisoners of war' because the
US has not declared war." (That kind of obedient reporter probably
still refers to the Vietnam "conflict.") Similarly, on Day 1, many
networks couldn't bring themselves to call the invasion an invasion
until they got the green light from Washington: instead, it was
referred to variously as a military action, intervention, operation,
expedition, affair, insertion.
<div>
"NORIEGA OFFERED HIS USUAL DAMP LIMP 
HANDSHAKE TO BUSH'S FIRM GRIP." 

For sheer propaganda, high marks go to "Newsweek"'s Noriega 
cover story (1/15/90) featuring excerpts from a book about 
Noriega by "Wall Street Journal" reporter Frederick Kempe. 
The book and its author were much touted by the media during 
the invasion. Some highlights: 
HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST ELLIOTT ABRAMS. "By the summer of 
1985, the State Department's new Assistant Secretary of State 
for Latin American Affairs, Elliott Abrams, began to believe 
that Noriega's help for the Contras was overestimated and his 
general harm to democracy and human rights was underestimated. 
Abrams had come out of State's human rights office..." 
Abrams hardly "came out" of a human rights office. He was 
put there to disseminate anti-Nicaragua war propaganda as 
human rights information, an operation repeatedly exposed and 
denounced by Americas Watch. Abrams "human rights" work 
included attacks on the church-based Sanctuary movement, which 
offered refuge to Central Americans fleeing death squads. 
A careful reading of the "Newsweek" article leaves the 
sneaking suspicion that much of the material was provided by 
Abrams himself. "[Abrams] argued at several interagency 
meetings that backing the Contras could only be one part of 
an overall strategy of promoting democracy in the region. He 
wanted more pressure on Panama to democratize--without 
endangering the good relationship that existed." 
FIRM, REFINED BRAHMIN VS. LIMP, MESTIZO BASTARD. "The two 
intelligence chiefs contrasted in style and substance: Bush 
was lanky and refined, raised by a Brahmin New England family. 
He towered over the five-foot five-inch Noriega. Noriega was 
mean-streets Mestizo, the bastard son of his father's 
domestic. Noriega offered his usual damp, limp handshake to 
Bush's firm grip. They were clearly uncomfortable with each 
other." Aside from the racism of the piece, the line about 
the two being uncomfortable with each other is significant- 
-primarily to protect Bush. A second later: "Only in the 
twisted mind of Manuel Antonio Noriega could that 1976 
luncheon with George Bush be construed as the beginning of a 
beautiful friendship." Though it lasted for more than ten 
years. 
BUT IT WAS ALL CASEY'S FAULT. George Bush wasn't 
responsible for the ongoing ties to Noriega. The guy to 
blame, according to Kempe, was--as usual--the CIA director 
William Casey. Casey met often with Noriega to discuss aid 
to the contras. 
AND CASTRO'S, OF COURSE. Kempe makes a herculean effort 
with scant evidence to implicate Fidel Castro in all the drug 
dealing. But as other journalists have pointed out, Castro's 
main need for Noriega and Panama was as a haven for Cuban 
front companies to engage in legitimate trade with Western 
countries in circumvention of the US economic blockade ("Miami 
Herald," 12/28/89). An editorial in Kempe's "Wall Street 
Journal" (1/8/90) called on the US to cut a deal with Noriega 
if he'd implicate Castro. 
A WALK ON THE HOMOPHOBIC SIDE. Perhaps aimed at bolstering 
the anti-gay vote in support of the invasion, "Newsweek" ran 
a sidebar from Kempe's book under the headline, "A Walk on 
the Bisexual Side": "The macho officer [Noriega], proficient 
in judo and parachuting, would perfume himself heavily on off 
hours and wear yellow jump suits with yellow shoes, travel 
the world with a male pal with whom he was widely rumored to 
be having a torrid affair, and surround himself with openly 
gay ambassadors and advisers...Armchair psychiatrists credit 
Noriega's sexual confusion to his gay brother, Luis Carlos 
Noriega, the only person Noriega ever trusted completely." 
<div>
Where Did Our Love Go?
Many reporters uncritically promoted White House explanations for its
break-up with Noriega. Clifford Krauss reported ("NY Times," 1/21/90)
that Noriega "began as a CIA asset but fell afoul of Washington over
his involvement in drug and arms trafficking." "ABC"'s Peter Jennings
told viewers on the day of the invasion, "Let's remember that the
United States was very close to Mr. Noriega before the whole question
of drugs came up." Actually, Noriega's drug links were asserted by US
intelligence as early as 1972. In 1976, after US espionage officials
proposed that Noriega be dumped because of drugs and double-dealing,
then-CIA director George Bush made sure the relationship continued
("S.F. Examiner," 1/5/90; "New Yorker," 1/8/90). US intelligence
overlooked the drug issue year after year as long as Noriega was an
eager ally in US espionage and covert operations, especially those
targeted against Nicaragua.
Peter Jennings' claim that the US broke with Noriega after the
"question of drugs came up" turns reality upside down. Noriega's
involvement in drug trafficking was purportedly heaviest in the early
1980s when his relationship with the US was especially close. By
1986, when the Noriega/US relationship began to fray, experts agree
that Noriega had already drastically curtailed his drug links. The
two drug-related indictments against Noriega in Florida cover
activities from 1981 through March 1986 ("Analysts Challenge View of
Noriega as Drug Lord," "Washington Post," 1/7/90).
<div>
Objective Journalists of State Propagandists? 

* "one of the more odious creatures with whom the United 
States has had a relationship."--Peter Jennings ("ABC," 
12/20/89) 

* "At the top of the list of the world's drug thieves and 
scums."--Dan Rather ("CBS," 12/20/89) 

* Q: "Do we bring him here and put him on trial...or do we 
just neutralize him in some way?"--John Chancellor 
A: "I think you bring him here and you make it a 
showcase trial in the war on drugs and justice prevails."- 
-Tom Brokaw ("NBC," 12/20/89) 

*"We lose numbers like that in large training exercises."- 
-John Chancellor, commenting approvingly upon hearing only 
nine US soldiers had died ("NBC," 12/20/89) 

* "Noriega's reputation as a brutal drug-dealing bully who 
reveled in his public contempt for the United States all 
but begged for strong retribution."--Ted Koppel ("ABC 
Nightline," 12/20/89) 

* "Noriega asked for this. President Bush listed all the 
things Noriega had done to force him to take this action. 
Why does Noriega do these things?"--"CNN" anchor Ralph 
Wenge, interviewing a former US military commander 
(12/21/89) 

* "Noriega seemed almost superhuman in his ability to 
slither away before we got him."--Anchor Bill Beutel 
("WABC-TV," New York, 1/3/90) 

* "[George Bush has completed] a Presidential initiation 
rite [joining] American leaders who since World War II have 
felt a need to demonstrate their willingness to shed blood 
to protect or advance what they construe as the national 
interest...Panama has shown him as a man capable of bold 
action."--R.W. Apple ("New York Times," front page news 
analysis, 12/21/89) 
<div>
When, as vice president, Bush met with Noriega in Panama in December
1983, besides discussing Nicaragua, Bush allegedly raised questions
about drug money laundering. According to author Kevin Buckley,
Noriega told top aide Jose Blandon that he'd picked up the following
message from the Bush meeting: "The United States wanted help for the
contras so badly that if he even promised it, the US government would
turn a blind eye to money-laundering and setbacks to democracy in
Panama." In 1985 and '86, Noriega met several times with Oliver North
to discuss the assistance Noriega was providing to the contras, such
as training contras at Panamanian Defense Force bases ("Noriega could
give some interesting answers," Kevin Buckley, "St. Petersburg Times,"
1/3/90). Noriega didn't fall from grace until he stopped being a
"team player" in the US war against Nicaragua.
Democracy had as little to do with the break-up as drugs. If
Noriega believed Bush had given his strongarm rule a green light in
1983, confirmation came the next year when Noriega's troops seized
ballot boxes and blatantly rigged Panama's presidential election.
Noriega's candidate, Nicolas Ardito Barletta, was also "our"
candidate--an economist who had been a student and assistant to former
University of Chicago professor George Shultz. Though loudly
protested by Panamanians, the fraud that put Ardito Barletta in power
was cheered by the US Embassy. Secretary of State Shultz attended his
inauguration. (See "The Press on Panama," "Extra!", Mar/Apr 88;
Richard Reeves, "San Francisco Chronicle," 12/25/89)
As the Noriega case progresses toward trial, the media's treatment
of key witnesses against the General may offer a case study in bias.
Several of the witnesses have already testified on these matters in a
very public forum--hearings before Senator John Kerry's Foreign
Affairs Subcommittee on Narcotics. At that time, February 1988, they
fingered Nicaraguan contras as cocaine cohorts of Noriega operating
under the umbrella of the CIA and Ollie North. The hearings were
ignored or distorted by national media outlets, with Reagan/Bush
officials and CIA dismissing the witnesses as drug trafficking felons.
("Extra!," Mar/Apr 88; Warren Hinckle, "S.F. Examiner," 1/11/90). In
a predictable turnaround, as soon as Noriega was apprehended, TV news
brought forth experts to explain that "when one prosecutes someone
like Noriega for drug dealing, witnesses will of necessity be drug
dealers."
<div>
Reporters Rallying Round The Flag 

Journalists justified their role as distributors of 
government handouts in different ways. Asked on Day 1 why US 
opponents of the invasion were virtually invisible on-the-air, 
a "CBS" producer (who declined to give her name) told 
"Extra!": "When American troops are involved and taking 
losses, this is not the time to be running critical 
commentary. The American public will be rallying around the 
flag." 
Some TV reporters claimed they were forced to rely on 
official US versions because they had nothing else. As 
"Newsday" reported Jan. 14, "Peter Arnett, a Pulitzer Prize- 
winning combat journalist, was reduced to reporting on 
Noriega's alleged pornography collection. `They [the 
Pentagon] got away with it again,' Arnett said of the initial 
press blackout." 
Arnett, who covered the invasion for "CNN," was complaining 
that Pentagon officials failed to provide photo opportunities 
of wounded soldiers, suffering civilians and general bang- 
bang. Naturally the Pentagon did everything possible to 
prevent such shots, keeping with its belief that the Vietnam 
War was lost in American living rooms. "Two things that 
people should not watch are the making of sausage and the 
making of war," "Newsday" (1/4/90) quoted an Air Force doctor 
as saying. "All that front-page blood and gore hurts the 
military." 
Experienced combat journalists like Arnett should know that 
the Pentagon's aim is to manipulate the pictures and stories 
that get out. "If you just looked at television, the most 
violent thing American troops did in Panama was play rock 
music," political media consultant Robert Squier told 
"Newsday." "They feel if they can control the pictures at the 
outset, it doesn't make a damn what is said now or later." 
Unhappiness with the Pentagon did not keep reporters from 
promoting the US Army-approved image of Noriega as a comic 
strip arch-villain. The Southern Command told reporters soon 
after the invasion that 110 pounds of cocaine were found in 
Noriega's so-called "witch house," and this played big on TV 
news and the front-pages. When, a month later the "cocaine" 
turned out to be tamales ("Washington Post," 1/23/90, page 
A22), the government's deception was a footnote at best. The 
initial headlines of Noriega as drug-crazed lunatic had served 
their purpose: to convince the American people that he 
represented a threat to the Canal. 
<div>
Provocations of Pretexts?
The US media showed little curiosity about the Dec. 16 confrontation
that led to the death of a US Marine officer and the injury of another
when they tried to run a roadblock in front of the PDF headquarters.
The officers were supposedly "lost." In view of what is now known
about the intense pre-invasion preparations then underway ("NY Times,"
12/24/89), is it possible the Marines were actually trying to track
Noriega's whereabouts?
The Panamanian version of the event was that the US soldiers, upon
being discovered, opened fire--injuring three civilians, including a
child--and then tried to run the roadblock. This version was largely
ignored by US journalists even after the shooting two days later of a
Panamanian corporal who "signaled a US serviceman to stop," according
to the administration. "The US serviceman felt threatened," the
administration claimed, after admitting that its earlier story that
the Panamanian had pulled his gun was false ("NYT," 12/19/89)
As for the claim that a US officer had been roughly interrogated and
his wife had been sexually threatened, the administration provided no
supporting evidence ("NYT," 12/19/89; "Newsday," 12/18/89). Since
the Marine's death and the interrogation were repeatedly invoked to
justify the invasion, the lack of press scrutiny of these claims is
stunning.
For months, US forces had been trying to provoke confrontations as a
pretext for an attack. In response to an Aug. 11 incident, Panamanian
Foreign Minister Jorge Ritter asked that a UN peacekeeping force be
dispatched to Panama to prevent such encounters. The US press largely
ignored his call ("El Diario/La Prensa," New York's Spanish-language
daily, 8/13/89).
<div>
A Tale of Two Editions 

Fighting in Panama: The Home Front Fighting in Panama: The Home Front 
<div> <div> 
The President The President 
<div> <div> 

DOING THE INEVITABLE 
<div> A SENSE OF INEVITABILITY 
Bush Reportedly Felt That Noriega IN BUSH's DECISION TO ACT 
'Was Thumbing His Nose at Him' 

If the news of the invasion wasn't favorable enough to the 
administration, the "New York Times" sometimes fine-tuned it 
between editions. Above are headlines over the same story in two 
editions on Dec. 24--the earlier one (left) was apparently changed 
because it implied that the invasion was an act of personal 
vengeance by Bush. Another headline in the same early edition read, 
"U.S. Drafted Invasion Plan Weeks Ago," accurately describing the 
article's evidence that the invasion was scheduled before the 
"provocations" that justified it ever occurred. The headline 
changed to the more innocuous "U.S. Invasion: Many Weeks of 
Rehearsals." 
<div>
The "Declaration of War" That Never Was
"When during the past few days [Noriega] declared war on the United
States and some of his followers then killed a US Marine, roughed up
another American serviceman, also threatening that man's wife, strong
public support for a reprisal was all but guaranteed," Ted Koppel told
his "Nightline" audience Dec. 20.
Noriega never "declared war on the United States." The original
"Reuters" dispatches, published on the inside pages of the "New York
Times" (12/17-18/89), buried the supposed "declaration" in articles
dealing with other matters. In the Dec. 17 article headlined,
"Opposition Leader in Panama Rejects a Peace Offer from Noriega,"
"Reuters" quoted the general as saying that he would judiciously use
new powers granted to him by the Panamanian parliament and that "the
North American scheme, through constant psychological and military
harassment, has created a state of war in Panama." This statement of
fact aroused little excitement at the White House, which called the
parliament's move "a hollow step."
The day after the invasion, "Los Angeles Times" Pentagon
correspondent Melissa Healey told a call-in talk show audience on "C-
SPAN" that Noriega had "declared war" on the United States. When a
caller asked why that hadn't been front page news, Healey explained
that the declaration of war was one of a series of "incremental
escalations." When another caller pointed out that Panama had only
made a rhetorical statement that US economic and other measures had
created a state of war, the Pentagon correspondent confessed ignorance
of what had actually been said, and suggested that it was certainly
worth investigating.
The incident symbolizes media performance on the invasion--dispense
official information as gospel first, worry about the truth of that
information later. It's just what the White House was counting on
from the media. The Bush team set out to control television and front
page news in the first days knowing that exposes of official deception
(such as Noriega's 110 pounds of "cocaine" that turned out to be
tamales) would not appear until weeks later buried on inside pages of
newspapers. Rulers do not require the total suppression of news. As
Napoleon Bonaparte once said: It's sufficient to delay the news until
it no longer matters.
Besides uncritically dispensing huge quantities of official news and
views, the TV networks had another passion during the first days of
the invasion: polling their public. It was an insular process, with
predictable results. A "Toronto Globe and Mail" news story summarized
it (12/22/89): "Hardly a voice of objection is being heard within the
United States about the Panama invasion, at least from those deemed as
official sources and thus likely to be seen on television or read in
the papers. Not surprisingly, given the media coverage, a television
poll taken yesterday by one network ("CNN") indicated that nine of
ten viewers approved of the invasion."
<div>
I'm not Rappaport...I'm Valdez 

"Extra!" usually complains about media outlets relying on 
the same sources again and again, but "KTTV-TV" in Los Angeles 
may have gone too far in the opposite direction. 
Seeking a source to comment on the failed October 1989 coup 
against Manuel Noriega, the station called what they thought 
was the Panamanian consulate. In fact, it was the home of 
Kurt Rappaport, a 22-year old prankster. Rappaport, 
pretending to be an anti-Noriega Panamanian diplomat, "Arturo 
Valdez," was invited to be interviewed, and showed up at the 
studio sporting a false moustache. 
A sound bite from the 10-15 minute "Valdez" interview was 
broadcast on "KTTV"'s evening news, phony Spanish accent and 
all. ("LA Times," 10/7/89) But Rappaport was not treated 
any differently than most TV experts: "I get asked tougher 
questions when I go to cash a check," he told the "National 
Enquirer." 
<div>
<div>
Swallowing Hokum in Central America 

During the height of the civil rights movement, Southern 
authorities frequently reacted to the bombing of a black 
church or a civil rights leader's home by blaming the act on 
the Movement: "The Negroes did it themselves. It's a stunt 
to win sympathy." While the innuendo that Martin Luther King, 
Jr. would have fire-bombed his own home while his children 
slept was prominently and uncritically reported in Southern 
dailies, journalists from national media ignored such hokum or 
reported it as a way of highlighting how depraved or dishonest 
the authorities were. 
Ironically, the same absurd scenarios dismissed by 
journalists when uttered by segregationists about Southern 
blacks are treated as entirely credible when uttered by US 
officials about Central Americans. 
EXECUTION OF PRIESTS BY SALVADORAN SOLDIERS, Nov. 16, 1989: 
Journalists knew instantly that the US-equipped Salvadoran 
army, with a history of execution-style slayings, had control 
of the Jesuit university grounds and that the martyred priests 
had been outspoken advocates of seating the FMLN guerrillas at 
the negotiating table. Yet when US officials played dumb, 
pretending not to know whether the killers were "far rightists 
or leftists," and when Salvadoran authorities asserted that 
the FMLN had murdered their advocates, these statements 
received credible coverage in some media. The fog was still 
thick a month later when "Newsweek" reported (12/25/89) that 
the priests had been murdered "by a presumed rightist death 
squad." Through such phrases, centrist media obscure the fact 
that the "rightist death squads" are an integral part of 
Salvador's military structure. (See Amnesty International's 
1988 report, "El Salvador `Death Squads'--A Government 
Strategy.") 
MURDER OF NUNS BY NICARAGUAN CONTRAS, Jan. 1, 1990: Days 
after the US relied largely on the death of a single US 
citizen to justify its invasion of Panama, two nuns--one an 
American--were killed when their pickup truck was ambushed in 
northeastern Nicaragua. The attack occurred in an area in 
which the contras--who have killed dozens of civilians in 
recent months--were known to freely roam. Initial media 
coverage gave play to Nicaragua's charges that the contras 
were responsible and to contra claims that the Sandinistas had 
impersonated contras killing the nuns. 
By Day 2, the murders were not worthy of mention on "CBS" 
and "ABC" nightly newscasts. By then Mexican and Latin 
American press agencies had found two eye-witnesses who 
identified the contras as the killers of the nuns. The story 
took two weeks to break in the US and when it did, the 
"Washington Post" broke it in a news story that read like a 
White House-sanctioned editorial (1/14/90): "There was little 
doubt that it was contra rebels who killed them. But there is 
also little doubt that the US-backed guerrillas did not mean 
to do it." "The Post" proceeded with an unsourced claim 
reminiscent of the innuendo once aimed at Martin Luther King: 
"In Managua, the capital, some suspected immediately after the 
attack that the Sandinistas might have staged it to appear to 
be a contra ambush. After all, only the Sandinistas...could 
benefit from such an atrocity." 
By giving credence to claims which obscure the violence 
caused by US-backed forces in Central America, some in the 
national media seem to be impersonating the Southern cracker 
reporters of 30 years ago. 
<div>
<div>
POSTSCRIPT: July 4, 1990
<div>
As an indication of the on-going intent to obfuscate the true scope and impact
of US military activities in and results of the invasion, the following item
appeared in the July 4 issue of the "San Francisco Bay Guardian":
- <div>
U.S. SOLDIERS HARASS U.S. FILM CREW IN PANAMA
by Jim Crogan
<div>
IN A PANAMANIAN refugee camp last month, soldiers from the U.S.
Southern Command confronted a U.S. film crew that was interviewing
Panamanian refugees. The soldiers attempted to stop the interviews
and confiscate the videotape and equipment. An estimated 500
residents of the camp surrounded and protected the crew and hid its
taped footage.
The crew, from Ronin Films (aka the Santa Monica-based Empowerment
Project) returned to Los Angeles this week.
Barbara Trent, EP's co-director and the director and co-producer of
the Panama film, told the Bay Guardian her crew's confrontation with
Southern Command military police and members of the U.S. Army Criminal
Investigations Division [CID] took place at the Allbrook Field
Displaced Persons Camp, a civilian war refugee facility administered
jointly by the Panamanian Red Cross and the Panamanian government's
Office of Disaster Assistance.
"The camp was exclusively a Panamanian facility, and we had
permission to be there from Panamanian disaster authorities, the Red
Cross and the council set up by the refugees to govern the camp, so I
didn't understand why SouthCom people were even there," said Trent.
"The refugees saved the day for us," she added. "They got between us
and the military, surrounded us and eventually walked us over to the
office used by the Disaster Assistance people. They even hid our
tapes.
"The people wanted us there," Trent continued, "because they
desperately wanted to tell the world about the losses they suffered
during the invasion, and the camp conditions they've been forced to
live under for the last six months."
During the incident, which she said her crew captured on film, the
CID people refused to explain to her or the Panamanian officials why
or on whose authority they were trying to stop the filming.
Eventually, after a series of negotiations between the Panamanians and
representatives from SouthCom, the EP crew finished its interviews and
left the camp.
Lt. Col. Robert Donley, deputy director of public affairs for
SouthCom, said the MP's actions were "definitely wrong. They are
there only to assist the Panamanians and had no authority to
intervene."
Asked why Army CID officials were participating in trying to stop
the EP crew from filming, Donley said, "That's a good question. I
really don't know and haven't been able to find out why."
Gary Meyer, co-director of EP and co-producer of the film, said the
crew also brought back several interviews that apparently describe the
U.S. use of laser weapons during last December's invasion. One
Panamanian said he saw "a bright red light, which made a distinctive
sound that he repeated for us on camera, and was then followed by an
explosion," Meyer said. Another family said they had an intense white
light come through their apartment window and explode whatever object
it hit."
Trent added that several people said they had seen "a Panamanian
soldier killed by a laser beam."
Trent reported that she had questioned General Maxwell Thurmond,
head of SouthCom, about the reports that laser weapons were used. "He
responded by saying that was crap, and that lasers were only used by
the U.S. Air Force to pinpoint targets," Trent recalled.</conspiracyFile>