The momentum on the issue of the U.N's Law of the Sea Treaty seems clearly to be with the opponents. All of the Senate's top Republicans have said they oppose it, with several saying it can't or won't pass.
GOP presidential candidates are falling in line against it. Even Senator John McCain, previously considered a sure vote in favor of the pact, now says he has his doubts about it. But don't underestimate the value of biased reporting in favor of the controversial pact. Media bias could turn the tide.
I was reminded of this fact when
I saw a story from the Guardian America--the U.S. adjunct of the leftist British Guardian newspaper--about increasing GOP opposition to the treaty. A reporter named Elana Schor--and her editors--used almost every dirty trick in the book to make the critics look bad and the supporters of the treaty look good. This should go down in history as a case study of how media bias works. The bias was so bad it was almost laughable.
Consider the headline: "Republican rightwingers find an Iraq-on-sea." Consider the subheadline: "The UN Law of the Sea is supported by everyone from environmentalists to George Bush--just not fulminating unilateralists in the Senate." So the critics are foaming at the mouth. They probably drag their knuckles on the sidewalks, too.
The reporter, Schor, told me she doesn't necessarily agree with the headlines. "I don't write the headlines," she pleaded. "I just submit the text." But the text, which she called a "news analysis," wasn't any better.
Here's how she characterized the opponents: "the roster of foes looking to sink the treaty reads like a who's who of the Reagan era: Frank Gaffney, the former Richard Perle aide who now fronts the Center for Security Policy; Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum; Edwin Meese III, the Reagan attorney general embroiled in the Iran-Contra scandal; and Oliver North, the Marine officer indicted in that affair."
Notice that Gaffney doesn't run the center or serve as its president. Instead, he "fronts" it, like some Mafia kingpin. And he is linked to Richard Perle, the controversial figure associated with the equally controversial Iraq policy. Phyllis Schlafly was actually a major force in the conservative movement before, during and after Reagan. But calling her a "Reagan era" figure sounds like an indictment.
Speaking of indictments, Meese is said to have been "embroiled" in the Iran-Contra scandal. She makes it sound like he was found guilty of something or other. In fact, as Attorney General he reported the diversion of money from an Iran arms deal to the Nicaraguan freedom fighters and requested the appointment of an independent counsel. As for Ollie North, the decorated Marine Vietnam veteran and former National Security Council staffer who wrote a column against the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, he was "indicted," she reports. He was also initially convicted, but the conviction was thrown out of court. These details managed to get left out of her "news analysis."
A lot more could and should be said about the Iran-Contra affair, such as that it was motivated by a desire to save the Nicaraguan freedom fighters, in the face of an aid cut-off by a liberal Democratic Congress, and prevent the consolidation of a communist dictatorship there. But Ms. Schor, of course, wasn't interested in the facts; her intention was to smear the critics of the Law of the Sea Treaty as a right-wing cabal linked to the Reagan Administration and somehow connected with the Iraq policy. It was a carefully constructed paragraph designed to convey the impression that critics of the Law of the Sea Treaty are shady operators.
On the other hand, the supporters of the treaty, according to her article, included "the grassroots group Citizens for Global Solutions" and various "progressives" who believe it is "a worthy cause."
Have you ever seen liberal media bias that is more infantile in its approach? I am told that Ms. Schor came from The Hill newspaper and has prior newspaper experience. Did she learn her techniques of media manipulation from The Hill? Or is this what it takes to remain on the Guardian payroll? Let's hope The Hill editors are glad to have gotten rid of her.
Ms. Schor told me that she did not know that the "grass roots" Citizens for Global Solutions is actually the new name of the old World Federalist Association, a group which openly advocated the destruction of U.S. sovereignty and the establishment of a world government financed by global taxes. "How many years ago was that name used? I'm not sure," she said. Has she ever heard of "investigative reporting?"
Actually, it doesn't take a lot of work, only a Google search. You can check it out for yourself on the
Citizens for Global Solutions website. The name change occurred in 2004, not too long ago. The name, "Citizens for Global Solutions," sounds so much more innocuous than anything connected to "World Federalists," a movement that for decades has been known as a haven for world government advocates. If Ms. Schor had any desire to be a real reporter, she would investigate how World Federalists actually helped write the Law of the Sea Treaty. I've already done the article for her; you can read it
here. Don't expect to read about the details in the Guardian or the Guardian America.
The basic theme of her piece was that there's a sharp contrast between the "grass roots" nature of Citizens for Global Solutions and their "progressive "allies and the sinister right-wingers. We get the point. It was a smear, pure and simple. This is not even "news analysis;" it's propaganda and disinformation.
But there's more.
Here's another gem from the article: "Republicans on the foreign relations panel, who suspect chair Joseph Biden and ranking member Richard Lugar of stacking hearings on the treaty with more advocates than critics, have begun scheduling their own private briefings on the law of the sea." Suspect? I covered those hearings. Ms. Schor apparently did not. The line-up of witnesses was 9-2 in favor of the treaty. This is more than a suspicion; it is a fact. But the critics of the treaty are suspicious people who conduct "private briefings." It sounds rather sinister, doesn't it? It's as if those Republicans are going through unofficial channels. Isn't this improper? It certainly sounds that way. Shades of Iran-Contra!
Finally, notice how she describes the actual treaty. It covers "access to the world's waters" and "sets up a system to manage navigation and explore the oceans." Who in their right mind can be opposed to that? This is a gift to humanity.
The treaty sounds fantastic doesn't it? Apparently there's nothing in it which would even remotely suggest the existence of a U.N. bureaucracy or anti-American judges and tribunals.
Look for more of this garbage from the media in the days and weeks ahead, as the real cabal pulls out all the stops to save their precious Law of the Sea Treaty. Laugh at their stories but be sure to let the reporters and editors know that you know what they're up to. Tell them we won't stand for it.
