Interview with Amy Goodman, Host of Democracy Now!

May 16th, 2004 & June 30th, 2004
Transcription by Mary Joyce

May 16th, 2004
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Here we go. So why don't you just give an introduction to what Democracy Now is.
AMY GOODMAN: I'm Amy Goodman, host of Democracy
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Hold on. Just look at me here.
GOODMAN: Oh. I'm sorry. I'm Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now a daily grassroots un-imbedded international, independent news hour. And we broadcast over 220 radio public radio and television stations around the country, public access TV now on PBS, and on Free Speech TV which is channel 9415 of Dish Network. We're also broadcasting on radio stations across Canada, across Australia, in Europe. We're the largest public media collaboration in this country.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. And when you say, 'The freedom of the press is enshrined in the constitution, and they serve as a megaphone' -- So -- I guess, when I'm -- As opposed to -- Well, how do you see the media as a megaphone?
GOODMAN: The media acts as a megaphone for those in power, instead of acting as a check and balance -- holding those in power accountable. It simply amplifies what they say. And that's not what's supposed to be what happens. I mean, I always say that ours is the only profession protected by the US constitution because we're supposed to be the check and balance in government. But that's not what the media's doing. It's reached an all-time low. -- Can I ask something?

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Yeah.
GOODMAN: I'm not quite sure what you're doing. This is -- You're saying, "Don't say what I usually say?"
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: No. No. No. I'm just saying -- I'm just trying to give you sound bites. Well, I'll just ask a question like normal. I guess, I'm just throwing you off by trying to do it like -- like giving you a starting point and then going from there.
GOODMAN: Right. And the reason why you don't want to take parts of the speech is because you don't want to have it as a speech?
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Right, I just want to have this as an interview.
GOODMAN: Yeah. Okay. So it's sort of to make those points.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Right for the piece that I'm doing.
GOODMAN: Right.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So I guess to transition -- How did you see the Bush administration using the UN as a pretext to go to war?
GOODMAN: Well, the Bush administration didn't work very well with the United Nations at all. In fact, was involved with bugging members of the UN Security Council, monitoring them, tapping their phones and their faxes, to try to find out what it was that they were -- how they were planning and talking to the different countries. George Bush always made it clear he had no interest in the UN. But then a lot of people clearly were putting pressure on him, and certainly Tony Blair, the Prime Minister. And so, they had to make some kind of pretense about getting UN approval, but had a very hard time doing that.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: How do you see the decline in investigative reporting as opposed to more beat reporting in the media leading up the war? Did you notice that?
GOODMAN: The media reflects the establishment consensus. And before the war the Democrats joined the Republicans, for the most part, in supporting the invasion. And so, because the media brings you that very small spectrum between the Democrats and the Republicans, when the Democrats agree with the Republicans they bring you no spectrum of opinion. So you had mainstream America against the invasion. And you had, I won't call it a mainstream press I will call it an "extreme press." You had this extreme press instead beating the drums for war -- the four major nightly newscasts out of 393 interviews they did in the week leading up to and after Colin Powell's address -- push for war at the United Nations, of the 393 interviews, three were with anti-war representatives. That does not represent mainstream America. Mainstream America was for more inspections and diplomacy. The majority of people in this country. That was a media that just iced out dissent.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So what could have the media done better in the lead-up towards war?
GOODMAN: Their job. The media could've done their job. And that is to bring us the full diversity of opinion, and not act as a conveyor belt for the lies of the administration. That's exactly what they did. I mean you look at the paper of record, the New York Times. Judith Miller the chief national security correspondent, these frontpage stories over and over again talking about weapons of mass destruction. That's -- And she is using unnamed sources. There's no check and balance on the government, she is just naming the government and then you have her publisher Pinch Sulzberger saying, "Well, it's not her fault. The administration should have done a better job investigating this." What is he talking about? She's not the press secretary for the administration. She's supposed to be checking what they say. And the reason it matters, when the media acts as a conveyor belt for the lies of the administration, is the lies take lives. That's why it matters.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. And when you hear David Kay say, "Why did we get it so wrong?" What do you think of?
GOODMAN: I think that the media's responsible. You expect -- [Interruption]
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Are you all right?
GOODMAN: Yeah.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Just start --
GOODMAN: We expect governments to lie. The great journalist I.F. Stone said to journalism students, "If you're going to remember two words in this class, 'Governments Lie.'" So we expect that. But what we don't expect is that the media will simply act as stenographers to those in power -- just write down those lies. Because people in the old Soviet Union, they knew to read between the lines of Pravda. But in this country you sort of have the sense that there is a media that is functioning, that is filtering, critiquing, analyzing, investigating, and that there are many channels, much diversity. But it's not true. It matters who owns them and what their views are, and those owners are becoming fewer and fewer in this country. We're in the midst of the largest media consolidation this country has ever seen. And so, what was the question?

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Oh, that's good. Why did -- When you say -- When you hear David Kay say, "Why did we get it so wrong?" --
GOODMAN: Oh yeah. David Kay. Right. Right.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And getting -- And I guess, specifically like --
GOODMAN: Listen.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: -- getting more people before --
GOODMAN: I mean the media -- There were lots of people who were seriously questioning the evidence. They just weren't allowed on the media. They were completely marginalized. You had people like David Kay, the weapons inspector, who was on continually. Bruce Ritter was also a weapons inspector -- Uh -- Sorry.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Scott Ritter
GOODMAN: Scott Ritter was also a weapons inspector, and he said 'That there weren't weapons of mass destruction.' We hardly saw him on television. Although years before when he was much more hawkish he was everywhere. People were there. The weapons inspectors, a number of them were saying the intelligence doesn't hold up. Intelligence analysts from the CIA were saying this is not true. But the media simply wasn't giving voice to them. Because they -- Their views diverged from the establishment consensus. -- I'm going to have to leave it there.

June 30th, 2004
GOODMAN: If you look at the way the media covered the lead-up to the invasion, it definitely reached an all-time low. And it all has to be challenged, dissected, analyzed. In the months leading up to the invasion -- Well, let's look at September 2002. You had first Andrew Card, the chief of staff of George Bush, being asked at the beginning of September why they weren't pushing harder for war -- to justify the invasion. And he says, "From a marketing point of view, you don't roll out new products in August." This is the former GM lobbyist -- General Motors lobbyist. So the beginning of September, the propaganda blitz begins. And September 7th, Prime Minister Blair and George Bush hold their news conference at Camp David, and they say that Saddam Hussein is just 6 months away from getting nuclear weapons. They're citing an IAEA report -- the International Atomic Energy Agency. The mainstream journalists, for the most part, simply repeat this. I think the Washington Post had somewhere buried in their story there might not have been such IAEA report. And in fact there wasn't, and Mohamed ElBaradei said that. [background noise] But that did not influence what the mainstream reporter said. They simply acted as a conveyer belt for the lies of the administration. The New York Times comes out with a piece the next day, it's a Sunday morning. This is -- you know, everyone's back to school and work after the holidays, it's a very critical time. And the Bush administration is wrapping up the -- [Interruption]

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: You're evaluation of the television performance leading up to the war in Iraq.
GOODMAN: Right, it's not going to be the television. It's going to be the New York Times.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Television --
GOODMAN: Well, I was going to do the New York Times story.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Well, let's go back and say -- If the journalists are supposed to question the war before the war, and not after the war, then when's the -- Can speak to your thoughts on that topic.
GOODMAN: Right, okay. So you don't want to do the Times at all?
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Yeah, just jump into -- I've covered -- I mean I talked to John MacArthur -- Rick MacArthur just yesterday so I got a lot of that from him.
GOODMAN: Oh, that whole aspect of that day.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Right.
GOODMAN: Okay. Although that was the networks also, because that was -- you know, General Electric's NBC that -- but you did that with Rick.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Right
GOODMAN: Okay. So repeat the question then.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. When is the right time to question war? And talk to the perspective of how media covers that question?
GOODMAN: The critical time to question war is before it happens. And that's precisely what the media didn't do -- is they acted as a conveyor belt for the lie -- [Interruption] -- We're not going to be able to do this...
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So let's go to -- you know, when you're talking about the conveyor belt of lies. And when's the right time to question war.
GOODMAN: Okay. The time to question war is before it happens. The time for the media to lay out the evidence of which there was so much that indicated the administration was lying. But instead, they acted as a conveyor belt for the lies of the administration. You have in August and September and the lead-up to war, Bush and Blair making their case for nuclear weapons that Saddam Hussein was about to get them. And rarely did the media challenge this. The corporate networks certainly didn't. And yet there were those who were saying this isn't true. Those who are in a position to know, like Mohamed ElBaradei, who is the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency -- saying "They're citing reports that we have not come out with. And they're citing our reports -- and the newspaper reporters the same." Rarely were they showing -- exposing what was very clear at that time -- and what many people were saying around the world, as well as right here. There were weapons inspectors who were saying that the evidence didn't hold up. They were simply iced out at that time. And you have the networks cheerleading for war. You know, at that time they're developing their graphics in the lead-up to war -- on the eve of the war. And MSNBC Phil Donahue is fired from MSNBC. And an NBC secret memo is leaked that says very clearly that at a time when the other networks would be waving the flags, they didn't want Phil Donahue as their flagship program who is presenting anti-war points of view. And so they unceremoniously dumped him. The networks were unabashed in this. And the day of the bombing of Iraq, Dan Rather saying, "Good Morning Bagdad" Tom Brokaw saying, "We don't want to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, because we're going to own the country in a few days." The message was very clear. Dan Rather actually made the point himself -- the CBS anchor, but not here. He made it on BBC, saying if he were to ask the hard questions in this country, he would be necklaced. But why wouldn't he speak up here? I mean, when the media acts as a conveyor belt for the lies of the administration, it matters, because the lies take lives. And when they don't express the point of view of a cross section of society, as well as the experts inside and outside the system, it's a disservice to the servicemen and women of this country. They can't have these debates on military bases. They rely on us in civilian society and our media, which provides the forum for the discussion, to discuss these critical issues. Anything less a disservice to the service men and women of this country -- a disservice to a democratic society.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Could you talk about how the media from your perception covered issues of international law? Or didn't cover them?
GOODMAN: International law is anathema to the general public in this country because the media doesn't take them seriously. And yet it's absolutely critical to understand "We live in a global system" and "a global community." George Bush is now turning to that global community to save him in Iraq right now. To -- In his run for the Presidency, he knows he cannot go it alone. Now that it has been a disaster, he has to put it on the shoulders of others. But he has very explicitly, in fact, proudly flaunted international law. And the only way he can get away with that is if the media doesn't take it seriously. Because otherwise, they would be continually raising these issues and explaining what international law is. Just the way the media works in 8 or 9-second sound bites, the average. What you can hear in those sound bites is simply repeating of the establishment consensus. You can here someone saying, "Saddam Hussein is Hitler." And everyone knows what that means. If you say that "The highest officials in the United States, George Bush, Donald Rumsfield are war criminals." Or "There's grounds to believe that -- or they should be tried." You sound crazy, unless you explain what you have to say. And then you have to explain what war crimes are. You have to explain international law. But that doesn't fit into this very neat 7-, 8-, 9-second format. And the media can get away with saying it's not a political edit -- It's just, you're not ready for prime time. You don't know how to give a good sound bite. But in fact, it's fiercely political.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Can you talk about when the Democrats and Republicans agree -- Some journalists say we can't fill in the void, we just can't do it.
GOODMAN: The way the media works in this country is it reflects a very narrow spectrum of opinion. It's the opinion, the range between the Democrats and the Republicans. And when the Democrats and the Republicans agree, that means that there is an icing out of all dissent. Before the invasion you had John Kerry, John Edwards as senators voting for the invasion. And that reflected overwhelmingly what the Democrats where saying -- the Democrats that the media covers. People like Dennis Kucinich, who was also a Democratic candidate for President, the media hardly covered. But with the establishment figures, that's who the media focuses on. And so they were iced out almost all dissent. But I would contend that mainstream America was in a very different place. At that time in the lead-up to the war, most people were opposed to the invasion. They were for more inspections, more diplomacy. So I don't even want to call it mainstream media anymore. I think we should call it "extreme media." It didn't reflect mainstream America. And when you have the study that FAIR does of the 4 major nightly newscasts -- NBC, ABC, CBS and the PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer, in the week leading up to and after Colin Powell gave his address at the United Nations -- his push for war, they looked at the 2 weeks of the 4 major nightly news casts -- 393 interviews done around war, only 3 were with anti-war representatives. That's 3 of almost 400. That is not mainstream media. It doesn't reflect mainstream America. That is an extreme media beating the drums for war.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. And can you talk about the -- How the ownership actually affects the news coverage? What's more important? You know, you have the liberal media bias claims of the right. And then you have the other side saying that it's owners. So give that --
GOODMAN: What matters is "Who owns the media?" It doesn't matter how many channels there are. [Interruption] Do you need me to repeat that? Okay.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Yeah, just start again. "What matters is" --
GOODMAN: What matters is "Who owns the media?" It doesn't matter how many channels there are. And we are now in the midst of the greatest media consolidation in the history of this country. And that is determining the kind of views -- or the lack of diversity of views we're hearing. You have Colin Powell leading the war in Iraq, and his son Michael Powell, chair of the Federal Communications Commission, leading the war on diversity of voices here at home -- trying to launch the rules that will lead to deregulation -- leading to the greatest consolidation of media in this country's history. I would contend that media monopolies and militarism go hand in hand. And that's what we're seeing in this country right now. When you have such a narrow spectrum of opinion, they're simply beating the drums for war.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. What is your views on regime change -- is it even legal under international law? Or people that you've talked to? Is it even legal to go overthrow another government?
GOODMAN: I think even the Bush administration probably privately behind closed doors, is saying there was a very serious mistake made here. Just moving into a country and deciding you want to overthrow their government, I don't think is a -- is legitimate in most peoples eyes. And what matters are the -- is the American public if it's going to be the American government that's doing this. And we saw it not only in Iraq, we also saw it in Haiti in the midst of the invasion. In the midst of the occupation in Iraq, the same thing has now happened in Haiti. And it's not legitimate. People don't condone it. But if the media doesn't take it seriously, if the media adopts the language of the -- those in power -- For example, with the invasion the media taking the words "Operation Freedom" as their description of the invasion -- their name for the coverage. You have a very serious problem. I know it was supposed to be "Operation Iraqi Liberation" according to Counterpunch.org, that's the name the Pentagon had come up with it -- and they didn't like the acronym "O-I-L." So they went to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Now that's what the Pentagon does, they come up with the most propagandistic name. But what matters is that the networks -- and not only FOX, but MSNBC, NBC, CNN, adopted the title that the Pentagon came up with as the title of their coverage "Operation Iraqi Freedom," which is purely propagandistic. You know, you have to ask then, "If we had state media in this country, how would it be any different?"