How Most Of The Media Ignored Freeman's Appointment

I have one example of media bias, which will demonstrate that the biased, dishonest and fraudulent mainstream media has the potential to destroy America and is in the process of doing exactly that. That is so because it presents such a distorted picture of the world to most Americans who rely on it for news and information, that it will lead to policies and laws, which are likely to bring the country down.

Put the case that a president of the United States appoints an official to a top intelligence and foreign policy post who has a long history of close ties to some of America’s leading enemies, such as Iran, China and Saudi Arabia. (If “enemies” is too strong, those three countries certainly aren’t ones you want making key American intelligence and foreign policy decisions.) Assume this appointee has stated bizarre positions such as saying China acted too cautiously at Tiananmen Square, when it killed 2,500 people demonstrating for freedom. This sounds as an appointment that should never have been made, and represents a mortal danger to the U.S. Now you tell me that if you checked a dozen papers on the day this story broke, how many papers would you expect to cover that story.

Sit down and take a deep breath. I know you’d expect every one of the papers to cover that story, but only one of the 12 papers checked carried the story. And those 12 papers include some of the leading papers in the country such as the New York Times, considered by some to be America’s paper of record, the Wall Street Journal, considered by many to be America’s best paper, and USA Today, the largest circulation paper in the U.S., and many lesser lights which you may be even more familiar with such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Philadelphia Daily News and the New York Daily News. I only get 12 papers, but search engines I used did not reveal a single major daily paper in the U.S. that covered this story when it broke.

Every morning, I’m subjected to two separate shock treatments when I look over the 12 newspapers I get each day. First, the shock involves what’s going on in the White House. Second, there’s a follow-up shock caused by the failure of most of the media to cover important matters.

At least I get the news that everyone should have from at least one or more sources. But I’m afraid many Americans get only the mainstream media party line which paints a false picture of the world that, if accepted, will lead to bad decisions and ultimately disastrous consequences. The mainstream media does not tell the full Obama story, as he takes us toward socialism and as he proceeds to weaken our military and cripple our ability to defend against radical Islam.

Let me give you details of a recent perfect example, referred to in general terms only in the opening paragraphs of this column. President Obama has just appointed as chairman of the National Intelligence Council one Charles Freeman. The Augusta Chronicle correctly described this appointment with this headline for an editorial: “A jaw-dropping choice: Could this Obama intelligence appointment be more shocking?” Eleven of the 12 papers told their readers nothing about the Freeman appointment. Only one reported on the appointment, and I’m glad to report that was the Philadelphia Bulletin. It not only ran a story, but also ran it on the front-page. Of the 12 papers, the one with the smallest circulation and the youngest of the group put the other 11 to shame. That’s good news for the Bulletin, but bad news for the public. It means that about 18 million people got newspapers that missed vitally important news that day, compared to perhaps a few hundred thousand who got a newspaper with the news they needed.

Now I’ll report and you decide who made the right journalistic judgment on this matter after you get some of the facts on Mr. Freeman.

Freeman On Tiananmen Square Massacre

This is hard to believe, but it is true. Here is Mr. Freeman’s comment on that massacre. Read it and weep:

“[T]he truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than — as would have been both wise and efficacious — to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo’s response to the mob scene at Tiananmen stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action.

“I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of the national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folks, whether they represent a veterans’ ‘Bonus Army’ or a ‘student uprising’ on behalf of ‘the goddess of democracy’ should expect to be displaced with dispatch from the ground they occupy.”

Mr. Freeman thinks that the slaughter at Tiananmen Square suggests only that the Chinese government was “overly cautious.” He defends the slaughter of the pro-freedom demonstrators, as he says they were intent on disrupting “normal functions of government.”

Jake Tapper, of ABC-TV News, said Mr. Freeman sounded “like a hard-line Chinese Communist Party flack.”

The Chinese killed 2,500 at Tiananmen Square. You have to wonder how many they would have killed if they had not been overly cautious.

Advocates for Chinese human rights are already urging Mr. Obama to withdraw the Freeman appointment. There were 87 signatories of human rights advocates who signed the letter to Mr. Obama. It reads, “Mr. Freeman has a longstanding record of defending China’s authoritarian regime. In his view, for example, China’s nationwide democracy movement in spring of 1989, which protested government corruption and embraced international norms of human rights was only the ‘propaganda’ of ‘dissidents.’”

Freeman’s Financial Ties

Mr. Freeman’s defense of the slaughter at Tiananmen Square may be more understandable when you consider his conflicts of interest in countries that will be central to his job in evaluating world intelligence as chairman of the National intelligence Council. He has substantial financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia. The Center for Security Policy also reported he was part of the Iran lobby, pressing to improve relations with Iran without preconditions. Needless to say those three countries and their interests are frequently at variance with our interests.

Consider his China ties. He is a board member of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), 75 percent of which is owned by the People’s Republic of China. This company has major investments in Iran. It tried to merge with UNOCAL, America’s ninth largest oil company, but that attempt was halted when there was bipartisan congressional opposition. Arakan Oil Watch, a human rights groups, issued a report accusing CNOOC of human rights abuses. Mr. Freeman is also a founder of a pro-China organization, the U.S. China Policy Foundation, which seeks closer ties between the two countries. Mr. Freeman has a long history of supporting Chinese policies and even wrote a piece praising communist Chinese leader Mao Zedong.

Mr. Freeman also has been running a Middle East think tank that has published teaching materials for American schools. The materials have been described as wildly inaccurate and anti-Israel. The textbooks have been funded by Saudi Arabia. And the think tank also has received contributions from the family of Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Freeman made the connections to two of those countries through his service as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and in several diplomatic posts of the U.S. in China.

The Washington Times, in an editorial (March 5, 2009) said Mr. Freeman isn’t alone in turning public service into private gain, but notes the special problems raised by his situation in relation to his job: “[W]hile it is important for senior intelligence officials to understand these strategically important countries, it is another matter to have been financially wedded to them. With his long-running and lucrative financial ties to foreign governments, Freeman would never get through the security clearance process if he were not an appointee, but merely was someone seeking regular employment in the intelligence community.” (This is similar to President Obama’s eligibility for a security clearance. Due to his close association with terrorists, he would never have been cleared by the FBI if he were seeking employment.)

Freeman’s Questionable Judgment On Many Matters

Mr. Freeman has said U.S. policies in the Middle East contributed to causing the 9/11 attacks. This is the old blame the victim approach, which cannot be justified by the facts leading up to 9/11. He is also well-known for his deep-seated bias against Israel. The Augusta Chronicle (March 6, 2009) reports he has accused Israel of “smother(ing) Palestinian democracy in its cradle.” Jake Tapper reported under his direction, the Middle East Policy Council published a treatise that critics found “shoddy and anti-Semitic.” But Mr. Tapper adds that Mr. Freeman was proud of the treatise. The Augusta Chronicle also reports he questioned the patriotism of Jewish congressional aides. And of course his views on Tiananmen Square, discussed above separately, fit into this category. These views are especially suspect, as they mirror the views of his patrons. That raises red flags as to whether he is tailoring his views to please his benefactors rather than putting forward his own honest views. Is he reflecting his principles or is he serving his masters? Or more fundamentally, what are his principles and does he have any?

Freeman’s Inability To Gain Trust Of Key Allies

You know the government of Taiwan would not trust a hired gun of Red China, and other key allies such as Japan and South Korea would probably feel the same way. By like token, Israel, a key ally in the Middle East, couldn’t possibly trust someone with a clear anti-Israel bias who also has close ties to Saudi Arabia.

You also have to wonder whether allies would share their intelligence regarding China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, knowing that Freeman would have access to such intelligence.

How Did Freeman Get By The Vetting Process? Or Was He Even Vetted?

Two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mark Kirk and Steve Israel (R-N.Y.), have requested an investigation and have raised questions about whether Mr. Freeman was properly vetted or vetted at all. Rep. Kirk, in a letter to the Inspector General, writes that most troubling is the “lack of disclosure by Ambassador Freeman and the lack of review by the administration.” He notes that given this is “one of the most important positions in the intelligence community [he] would have expected a comprehensive review” by administration officials prior to appointment. What’s worse, it now appears the administration did no vetting of Mr. Freeman and did not even know of his appointment until after Dennis Blair offered him the job.

Mr. Kirk also notes that the tax forms for Mr. Freeman’s tax-exempt Middle East Policy Council were submitted to the IRS with a Post-It note covering the names of his donors. Mr. Freeman still has not filed his financial disclosure forms so no one knows the names of all those bankrolling his think-tank. Finally, he has not been asked if he has been paying his taxes. Of course, even if Mr. Freeman turns out to be another tax cheat, that will be nothing compared to putting a virtual foreign agent in a key spot in the intelligence area.

Other Media Credits

I watched for coverage or commentary on Mr. Freeman after the story broke. The only item I found in the papers I checked was an excellent editorial in the New York Post (March 6, 2008). I think the Augusta Chronicle also deserves special credit for its editorial, which I made reference to earlier. That editorial concluded: “But a man who thinks the Chinese should have acted more decisively to crush the pro-democracy demonstration in Tiananmen Square has no business in our government at any level, and certainly not in such a key post. What is this administration thinking? And how much will they get away with?” The New York Times and the mainstream media might go down to Augusta to learn what’s going on in the real world and how to write editorials.

What Can You Do?

Mr. Freeman’s appointment does not require Senate confirmation. But there’s no reason that Congress can’t hold hearings on the propriety of this appointment. In fact, there is concern about Freeman coming from both sides of the political aisle, including Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.).

The Washington Times editorialized: “We urge Congress to investigate this appointment and its implications for U.S. national security. There are too many red flags for comfort. Surely in our vast national security bureaucracy there is some other qualified individual who does not bring Freeman’s substantial baggage.”

You can write your senators and representatives and urge them to call hearings on the Freeman appointment and take every action to oppose it. You might also put your views on record with the White House.

Finally, this case study should show you the need for making use of the alternative media to make sure you understand the real world and not the false construct of the mainstream media. There is almost unlimited material on the Internet such as frontpagemag.com and

newsmax.com. You might want to subscribe to a few conservative publications such as the National Review, the Weekly Standard, and Town Hall Magazine. You might also follow some of the media monitors including www.aim.org, www.mrc.com, www.camera.org and www. honestreporting.com.

This is not the standard appeal for citizen participation and action. This is a call to keep America from being turned into a socialist European-style government, with the death blow to free markets, to capitalism, and to America as we know it — based on the U.S. Constitution, the ideas of our Founders, and the rule of law.

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.