The writers and editors of the Nation
pull no punches in assailing both the Bush administration and the media for what they deem to be a dangerous and unnecessary overreaction to the September 11 terrorist attacks. From columnist Katha Pollitt's diatribe against the American flag (according to her, "The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance") to author Chalmers Johnson's evocation of the 1950s CIA term "blowback" to try to illustrate how what Johnson sees as America's corrupt foreign policies brought about September 11, this is not the kind of talk one finds within the pages of Time
or Newsweek. Although the Nation's targets range from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Bayer, the manufacturer of Cipro, the harshest criticism is reserved for the mainstream media. According to Michael Massing, author of the 30-page section titled "Press Watch," members of the media—by not asking pertinent questions or aggressively pursuing concrete answers from Bush administration officials—have directly aided the administration's goal of ultimate secrecy. While Massing may be on point, other contributors are definitely not. Some writers predicted a prolonged conflict in Afghanistan with major U.S. casualties. Others suggested that millions of Afghan civilians would starve because of America's military operations. Neither of the aforementioned has happened. Still, those who found the early coverage of America's "War on Terror" to be monotonous will appreciate the Nation's radical point of view. (Apr.)
