Zarqawi Death: Michael Berg Turns Tables on Media
“As the poet John Donne said, any man’s death diminishes me. It doesn’t bring my son back, and this will just bring a new cycle of revenge killings.”- Michael Berg
The Jordanian government made sure they got the justice they sought for the hotel bombings within their borders that their native son Abu Musab al Zarqawi orchestrated and supported. President George W. Bush is claiming all the glory in the hope that he will regain some popularity in the polls.
This morning when MSNBC’s daytime anchor Randy Meier interviewed Michael Berg, father of 26-year-old Nick Berg who was beheaded in Iraq, I was struck by what seemed like a defensive nationalist stance on behalf of the network by its own anchor. I wish I had a video because that would speak volumes. Meier actually recoiled and retaliated, cutting Berg short on his comments when Mr. Berg commented that he understood how the parents and family of Zarqawi feel today, having lost a son. Meier quickly interrupted, as if he was responsible for acting as a right-winger in a hot-button political debate rather than an interview with the father of a lost son. Meier said:
“With all due respect, I doubt that Zarqawi’s family is going through what you went through. Since Zarqawi is now deemed a martyr by his family members and they are rejoicing in his death. I don’t think that they are feeling anywhere near the type of grief that you and your family felt.”
My goodness. What an arrogant statement! I looked at an MSNBC on-line story which tells both sides and, for all intents and purposes, refuted the need for the overly (and odd) defensive manner in which Randy Meier conducted himself. The article shows the contrast between family members who privately grieve and publicly proclaim martyrdom for their lost son.
The mainstream media seem to have lost all sense of the meaning of morality and humanity when they speak of “values” issues from the perspective of two narrow issues: abortion and homosexuality. This interview between Randy Meier and the father of a son who was executed by al- Zarqawi was not handled with any moral deference to the man who lost his son whatsoever. When that man raised the possibility that another family might be mourning today, he was cut off. As a human being with values that lead me to see how war affects millions of innocent lives, I sat back and marveled at the moral hypocrisy of the American media.
The focus in the media that is put on human values is perverted because of the Bush theology to which so many misled people subscribe. Bush theology has nothing to do with real religion or faith. It is only a religion of nationalism and empire. I believe Randy Meier acted unprofessionally this morning. He showed, on behalf of his network MSNBC, that his network is more than willing to turn their heads away from objectivity when they are presented with a moral values challenge that throws Bush theology for a loop. To me, it seemed that Randy Meier acted more like an apologist for war giving a poor schmuck who lost his son some pity-air-time than an objective network anchor.
I think NBC/MSNBC should take a close look at their media strategy. Sensible people are watching. One voice from the right side of the blogosphere (who misspells Mr. Meier’s name) asked a question for which the answer seems so obvious:
It’s easy for the cable anchors to criticize the extreme statements of Michael Berg. But the important question is, why, on this day, did they feature him at all?
Perhaps someone will remind this young Einstein that Mr. Berg’s son died at the hands of al-Zarqawi.
Think of what happened just yesterday when we saw Brian Williams on the Nightly News giving plenty of prime time coverage to the controversy occurring on their own network when Matt Lauer hosted an interview with the offensive Ann Coulter, who took some of the ugliest pot-shots against 9/11 widows that I’d ever seen or heard. Shouldn’t we ask why she was featured at all on a professional network - and why her filthy statements echoed throughout the primetime cycle?
We’ll remain a morally confused people as long as truly decent and kind Americans are shut out, belittled, or cut off in public when a real challenge to the tilted civility balance is presented. Mr. Berg lost his son Nick to a man who engaged in murder. That murderer, Zarqawi, was the target of state-sanctioned vengeance. Mr. Berg proclaimed “Not in my name and not in my son’s name.” This statement rings of something so Christian in its nature that I am stunned when I think of our own society with so many Christians out there supporting what we have done in Iraq. The $25 million bounty on Zarqawi’s head offered to some unsavory someone in the Middle East will surely be rendered unto Caesar by the Christian American taxpayer while they give their consent to continuing violence and human torture by their silence.
Mr. Berg pointed out that Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld had called Zarqawi’s tactics “sadistic and medieval” while completely forgetting his own sadistic and medieval tactics used at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and God knows where else. Sometimes I think we’ve lost our minds here in this nation.
A dozen Zarqawis will come to take the place of the one. This war in Iraq, never even officially declared, is not in the best interests of the United States. The cycle of violence will continue because the “enemy” is embroiled in what they consider to be “Holy War” and the Bush administration’s answer of violence for violence has not been a sufficient appeal to the hearts and minds of the only civilized people who could turn things around - the Muslims themselves. Our troops should come home now. There is nothing left to justify the reasons for our nation’s military action as cited in Public Law 107-243 in October, 2002 (passed in the days when legislators made the grievous mistake of trusting in the President’s honor and ability).
The Canadian Mounties uncovered a massive terrorist operation in their nation without removing one freedom from the Canadian people. The Bush administration has stolen many of our freedoms and taken our nation to an unnecessary and unjust war. In what is supposed to be the most powerful and just nation on the face of the earth, the contrast should shock you - and cause you to weep with shame.
June 8th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Wow, there are so many issues here it’s hard to pick one. I’ll try.I agree that Nick Berg’s father has the right to speak out on today’s top story since he’s lost so much in this war and at the hands of Zarqawi to boot. It’s very convenient for BushCo to treat Christians and churches like an electoral ATM, withdrawal only. But when it comes time to make a deposit like Mr. Berg does today by holding fast to the values of peace and “turn the other cheek” in the face of such an enormous and maddening loss then they’re nowhere to be found.The media enable the hypocrisy by attacking voices like Mr. Berg for their lack of proper bloodlust and “patriotism”. Nice post, you bring a lot of things together here.Re: Coulter. Let’s not forget how Lauer ended the interview, paraphrase, “Always nice to have you on the show Anne.” No Comment.
June 8th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Sensible people are watching.
I’m not sure there are too many of them. And the ones that do tune in will have a real struggle ahead of them to resist the message that the corporate media is pounding and that you saw Meier communicate. Vengeance is ours.
June 8th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Ann Coulter is human stinky and will go to heck when she croaks her last coliform.
Ethylent verk!
-Dahudifisk
June 9th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Without going into detail, or addressing every issue you bring up, I must disagree with the tone of your assessment of the MSNBC program. The reporter is correct in analyzing the difference in context between Berg’s experience and the Iraqi family. It is a failing of the “left” to assume their “values” apply in the same way to everyone in the world. The manner in which he interrupted Berg may have been uncivil, but Berg is being stupid to completely oversimplify the situations and project his assumptions. He has no idea what those people are feeling, because he doesn’t know them. There may be similarity, there may be absolutely none. I reject the superior attitude of “liberals” who assume that their response is the only acceptable one. The liberals are the reactionaries today. The conservatives want to preserve what they have, but they aren’t reacting to the left. What is the left preserving or serving? Where is their clear set of values? They left liberalism and humanitarianism behind long ago, it seems to me. I think part of it is that the internet generations have never tried to learn from their elders, have little or no patience for thinking things through, and just react to whatever they see on the screen. One must think broadly, and not just on one track in flashes. This is not encouraged by blogs and forums and other internet spawn. In terms of activism, nothing replaces human contact and activity, and the printed word. I’ve always been shocked by Berg’s willingness to use his son’s death for his own political ends. He is hardly some poor schmuck; he lost his son several years ago and has been appearing in public ever since. As for your presumptions about the Iraqi people, the overwhelming success of their elections speaks otherwise. You seem to be assuming that terrorists and their supporters are the vast majority of Iraqis. I doubt that is true, and there are people who say they are against the U.S., but that doesn’t mean it is a lasting point of view, but a momentary identification that will change very quickly as circumstances shift.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
in response to s.d., i have to point out the contradictions in your analysis of mr. berg’s interview on msnbc. you point out, correctly, the mr. berg is unaware of the reaction of al-zarqawi’s family to his death. but you fail to apply the same criticism to the anchor, who had no idea of the suffering or jubilation of either family. where does his authority, his right to asumption, come from?
then you saunter down the strange path of criticizing “liberalism”, as though there is such a coherent movement anymore. american liberalism, much like the modern conservative “movement”, is a loose coalition of people with some shared interests and objectives, but who fundamentally disagree on many other points. can we really call the current republican party a movement when it is tenuously composed of psychotic bible-thumping southerners and university-educated libertarians?
and, by the way, if you could please be the first conservative to actually state what it is that conservatives are “conserving”, it would be quite helpful to those of us who have a slightly different memory of the good old days. you know, slavery and poll taxes and internment camps and gay-bashings and communist witch hunts and unchecked spousal abuse and unintegrated armed forces. which of those wonderful events are you so desperate to preserve?
June 9th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Matthew, what they call ‘conserving’, I call ‘hoarding’ or ‘looting’.
And as far as S.D. saying I think part of it is that the internet generations have never tried to learn from their elders, I’d suggest that it’d be nice if Bush quit the wisdom of his elders, because vampires like Cheney and Rumsfeld long ago lost whatever wisdom they had to offer and simply look for fresh blood to suck. (which they don’t even need, since they already suck).
Jesus Christ, that’s as stuffed-shirt an assumption as I’ve ever heard, implying that most bloggers are twenty-something ignoramuses lacking in values, liberal beliefs and humanitarian actions.
S.D. is wrong. Speaking for me, I’m just tired of cleaning up the walking wounded from every global and local conflict where self-described conservatives have trod.
One could mimic Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin by dumping 100 one-dollar bills on the NYSE trading floor today, and see the scramble that ensues, if they want to understand there’s only one ‘value’ in the ‘conservative’ heart. Two, if you count their strange desire to control and mass produce Stepford Sex.
June 9th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
My only thought is that, as a Jew, Mr Berg has mastered the principles Jesus taught better than most of His earthly followers.
June 10th, 2006 at 4:04 am
I did not see the interview, but I read about it. I admire Michael Berg. I am not gleeful about Zarkawi’s death, even though by all accounts he was a despicable human being. I do not believe his death will solve anything, and, let’s remember that we created the situation in which he could do his dirty work…and now, what about those among our own troops who are responsible for Haditha, Ishaqi,and other massacres? What about those at the top of our government who started this ill fated and tragic war based on lies? What about the fact that Osama Bin laden is still at large? What about yhe fact that almost as many Americans have died in this war as the victims of 9/11, and the thousands that injured or maimed for life? What about the tens of thousands of Iraqis? our media treats them as if they were not human for the most part…
June 10th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Dunno if anyone here has heard the news (not in the MSM, I suspect) — but Michael Berg is running for Congress . . . as the nominee of the Green Party of Delaware.
http://bergforcongress.us/
June 10th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
One thing nobody has pointed out is that, as these wars-of-choice continue, (and we have 3 more years of this administration, and who knows what will happen in 08), there will be more and more mothers, fathers, and wives speaking out. It’s in the interest of the Coulters and Limbaughs of this world to discredit the words of the grieving and aggrieved now, before they start gaining power (by running for office or other means).
June 11th, 2006 at 12:32 am
Liberals are not the only ones who make the mistake of assuming that other peoples think just like they do, when they do not. Our Iraq policy amply demonstrates that conservatives have even less understanding of other people. Think about it: Cheney, Bush et. Al claimed our troops would be welcomed as liberators, and once they could no longer convince anyone Iraq was an immanent threat to the US, they argued that the purpose of the war was to bring Democracy. But nobody invited us. The fact that people have participated in elections does not prove that they would rather have had an American occupation and a far-fetched chance at democratic government than to continue with the lives they had. Then women could walk around with heads uncovered, and everyone could go to school and go to work, and use electricity, and you didn’t die just for daring to go out of doors. If, for example, you never knew or made use of press freedom before, the rights we Americans advocate as universal would seem mighty abstract in exchange for the lives of brothers, sisters, children or parents lost to the bombing. For people in Iraq who want to live in peace again, participating in an election presented the fastest possibility of getting rid of their occupiers.
Democracy means different things to people in different cultures. We use the word as if everyone is in agreement about what it is. In China, people think of the Cultural Revolution as an experiment in democracy, understood as something like mob rule. The idea of elections and peaceful transfers of power is not what the word suggests first to most people there. Then the Chinese watched the USSR follow our advice, “democratising” only to fall to pieces, with the result that now Russiaans are unemployed, shocking numbers of women turning to prostitution, and their society is riven with crime. So not a few Chinese think we secretly just want to see their society fall apart, when we insist they democratise. Our government advocates “freedom” without bother to ask people what that means to them, and then we deliver occupation and rampant death. Throughout the cold war, we routinely supported harsh dictatorships (delcaring that “freedom”) when it served our interests.
So, conservatives have often been mistaken, imagining others want exactly the same things they want — even where “freedom” as they imagine it has almost no cultural roots and might even appear immoral. Time and time again, our foreign policy has demonstrated that we are committed to elections only as long as others elect somoene we like. For years, we wouldn’t allow people to elect communist governments, no matter how popular they actually were (Vietnam - the 1956 elections we refused to hold, because Ho Chi Minh would have won by a landslide, and there was no alternative but the puppets we eventually put in place and died to defend). When people did elect leaders who thought differently than we did, our government did not accept them as legitimate, and funded insurgencies (civil wars, proxy wars) to overthrow those governments. Or the CIA arranged an assassination (Mossadeq, Allende, Lumumba…even Ngo Dinh Diem!) People in Iran recently elected fundamentalists to government, and I haven’t heard anyone claiming it was an unfair election. Our efforts in the middle east have backfired before, turning secular states into fundamentalist ones (The Shah of Iran). That may be what was have accomplished in Iraq too.
And the Neo-Con architects of this war have also been profoundly mistaken when they thought that others were NOT like us: They imagined Iraqis would welcome an invasion, welcome our soldiers with food and drink and lay palm branches in their path? Nobody likes an alien occupying army. Not for long. Nobody likes having their doors smashed in by soldiers who hold grandmas and children at gunpoint - a routine event in Iraq these days. The Neocons tend to think their opponents “only understand the use of force” — as if threatened by superior force, they will just submit! What would Americans do if their country was invaded by people claiming to bring a better style of government? How easily would our well-armed citizenry accept a foreign occupation? Why on earth would Neo-cons assume that middle easterners are any different from us in this regard, given their reputation for endless cycles of retributive violence? Did they really think they could win hearts and minds by intimidation and abuse? If there was any chance at all of the occupation succeeding, that chance evaporated the moment the truth about Abu Ghraib escaped from the prison. There again, they miscalculated. They imagined that all American soldiers would find it in their hearts to countenance abuses violating American law and Constitutional ideals, as well as the Geneva Conventions, so the truth would never get out.
What worries me is that it appears so far they were correct when they thought Americans would accept a president appointed by fiat, and then re-elected by fraud (those voting machines). And they were evidently right when they thought Americans would apathetically accept being lied to and spied on by their own government, that we would permit a president to disregard the prerogatives of other branches of government, such as the judiciary and Congress. Just like we allowed a massive transfer of national wealth to the rich that, combined with war spending, has bankrupted us, leaving no money to invest in our own society, in our future, our infrastructure, in education or access to medicine for all Americans, not to mention shoring up our emergency response capacities… Where will it stop? What will Americans NOT tolerate from their own government?