Stefania Maurizi, John Goetz and Christian Mihr discussed in Georg Büchner Buchladen (bookshop) in Berlin about: “What is the Purpose of Journalism if War Crimes Are Not Allowed to be Published?”.
I think this is a good question for discussion. What do you think?
Be able to start the wars you want
This one is true.
Especially in the western world (and mostly the USA), we have created and participated in many wars. Invasions, government overthrows, etc.
If the media couldn’t be controlled, our governments wouldn’t be able to justify each war. And that’s very bad in a democracy, because public opinion is everything.
So you have to control the media to control the war.
The purpose of modern journalism is to suck up to the billionaire class, and to keep the lower classes scared, poor and stupid, so they don’t find out where the REAL source of their pain comes from.
To convince your citizens that war is good, actually.
Making money and accumulating power. Duh.
I think the question is deliberately naive and baiting.
The accusation of “war crimes” requires an actual, full investigation (and trial) to be completely valid and/or meaningful.
Instead, it’s thrown out any time an act of war appears to be particularly unfair or evil, often without full context or detail.
Who does the trial so its valid?
If you were accused of a war crime, who would you want involved?
Accuser, defender, and as close as possible to a neutral host/judge/jury?
It seems that’s the best we can do.
If I was a fascist, like those accused of said war crimes, I’d want to rig the system so that I wouldn’t get in trouble. Why not paint neutral groups as hostile so I get to pick my trial?
Then the question can be “are journalists allowed to report on accusations of war crimes”?
The answer is the same: it depends who is being accused. Are they the US empire or vassal state? Expect to be publicly vilified at best. Are they a non-aligned state? Expect cheers and a bunch of primetime cable news interviews.
Instead, it’s thrown out any time an act of war appears to be particularly unfair or evil, often without full context or detail.
I often see news reports being quite careful and describing what appears in detailed evidence documenting murder by the military as ‘apparent’ war crimes.
I would argue that the credible accusation of war crimes, that is, with evidence available, requires a full investigation and trial full stop. If no trial occurs, and nobody sues for defamation, the papers can say whatever they feel confident enough to say. Except WikiLeaks…
In Australia there was the interesting defamation case recently with a civil court finding that the soldier who brought the defamation case had no case and did in fact commit war crimes in Afghanistan. He has not been charged with a crime. What does this say about impunity for war criminals? In contrast, Australian military whistleblower David McBride had to plead guilty last month for releasing evidence of war crimes and their cover-up by military leadership to a journalist with the state-broadcaster, the ABC. In both cases though, the news organisations publishing the news articles are seen to be in the right by the government and courts. (Although the ABC did get raided just a couple of months after Julian Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, the journalist was not charged.)
