Return to: Home | World Affairs
The strange silencing of liberal America
Published 07 July 2011
Obama's greatest achievement is having seduced, co-opted and silenced much of liberal opinion in the US.
US President Barack Obama speaks in front of a screen showing his Twitter message at the start of a 'Twitter Town Hall' July 6, 2011. Photograph: Getty Images.
How does political censorship work in liberal societies? When my film Year Zero: the Silent Death of Cambodia was banned in the United States in 1980, the broadcaster PBS cut all contact. Negotiations were ended abruptly; phone calls were not returned. Something had happened. But what? Year Zero had already alerted much of the world to Pol Pot's horrors, but it also investigated the critical role of the Nixon administration in the tyrant's rise to power and the devastation of Cambodia.
Six months later, a PBS official told me: "This wasn't censorship. We're into difficult political days in Washington. Your film would have given us problems with the Reagan administration. Sorry."
In Britain, the long war in Northern Ireland spawned a similar, deniable censorship. The journalist Liz Curtis compiled a list of more than 50 television films that were never shown or indefinitely delayed. The word "ban" was rarely used, and those responsible would invariably insist they believed in free speech.
The Lannan Foundation in Santa Fe, New Mexico, believes in free speech. The foundation's website says it is "dedicated to cultural freedom, diversity and creativity". Authors, film-makers and poets make their way to a sanctum of liberalism bankrolled by the billionaire Patrick Lannan in the tradition of Rockefeller and Ford.
The foundation also awards "grants" to America's liberal media, such as Free Speech TV, the Foundation for National Progress (publisher of the magazine Mother Jones), the Nation Institute and the TV and radio programme Democracy Now!. In Britain, it has been a supporter of the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, of which I am one of the judges. In 2008, Patrick Lannan backed Barack Obama's presidential campaign. According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, he is "devoted" to Obama.
World of not-knowing
On 15 June, I was due in Santa Fe, having been invited to share a platform with the distinguished American journalist David Barsamian. The foundation was also to host the US premiere of my new film, The War You Don't See, which investigates the false image-making of warmakers, especially Obama.
I was about to leave for Santa Fe when I received an email from the Lannan Foundation official organising my visit. The tone was incredulous. "Something has come up," she wrote. Patrick Lannan had called her and ordered all my events to be cancelled. "I have no idea what this is all about," she wrote.
Baffled, I asked that the premiere of my film be allowed to go ahead, as the US distribution largely depended on it. She repeated that "all" my events were cancelled, "and this includes the screening of your film". On the Lannan Foundation website, "cancelled" appeared across a picture of me. There was no explanation. None of my phone calls was returned, nor subsequent emails answered. A Kafka world of not-knowing descended.
The silence lasted a week until, under pressure from local media, the foundation put out a terse statement that too few tickets had been sold to make my visit "viable", and that "the Foundation regrets that the reason for the cancellation was not explained to Mr Pilger or to the public at the time the decision was made". Doubts were cast by a robust editorial in the Santa Fe New Mexican. The paper, which has long played a prominent role in promoting Lannan Foundation events, disclosed that my visit had been cancelled before the main advertising and previews were published. A full-page interview with me had to be pulled hurriedly. "Pilger and Barsamian could have expected closer to a packed 820-seat Lensic [arts centre]."
The manager of The Screen, the Santa Fe cinema that had been rented for the premiere, was called late at night and told to kill all his online promotion for my film. He was given no explanation, but took it on himself to reschedule the film for 23 June. It was a sell-out, with many people turned away. The idea that there was no public interest was demonstrably not true.
Symptom of suppression
Theories? There are many, but nothing is proven. For me, it is all reminiscent of long shadows cast during the cold war. "Something is going to surface," said Barsamian. "They can't keep the lid on this."
My 15 June talk was to have been about the collusion of American liberalism in a permanent state of war and in the demise of cherished freedoms, such as the right to call governments to account. In the US, as in Britain, serious dissent -- free speech -- has been substantially criminalised. Obama the black liberal, the PC exemplar, the marketing dream, is as much a warmonger as George W Bush. His score is six wars. Never in US presidential history has the White House prosecuted so many whistleblowers, yet this truth-telling, this exercise of true citizenship, is at the heart of America's constitutional First Amendment. Obama's greatest achievement is having seduced, co-opted and silenced much of liberal opinion in the US, including the anti-war movement.
The reaction to the cancellation has been illuminating. The brave, such as the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, were appalled and said so. Similarly, many ordinary Americans called in to radio stations and have written to me, recognising a symptom of far greater suppression. But some exalted liberal voices have been affronted that I dared whisper the word censorship about such a beacon of "cultural freedom". The embarrassment of those who wish to point both ways is palpable. Others have pulled down the shutters and said nothing. Given their patron's ruthless show of power, it is understandable. For them, the Russian dissident poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko once wrote: "When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie."
Post this article to
11 comments from readers
- Mr. Divine
07 July 2011 at 13:13John, why don't you use your own money to promote your work? Why not rent a cinema and show your film? And if you can't rent a cinema why not buy one? Why not put your own money with your mouth is?
- Mr. Divine
07 July 2011 at 13:20Andrew Fisher, one of Australia's greatest Prime Ministers, started his own newspaper to defeat the lies of a rival parliamentary candidate. He didn't just cry about it, he did something.
- Maria
07 July 2011 at 15:29Dear John, thank you for the courage.
It is not easy to be a decent person among conformists; this is the crux of Yevtushenko line. In the majority of people the instinct for servility, which is often critical for survival, overrides the instinct for decency. The USSR was a horrific experiment in suppressing the free thinking. The US is another interesting site showing how people exert themselves to look and sound like idiots in order to secure a place at a manger.
- Steve Mac
07 July 2011 at 16:40Hi John,
I presume that something similar didn't happen with the cancellation of your event and planned screening at the Edinburgh Book Festival?
- DonaldKehoty
07 July 2011 at 17:51The impression I get from this article is that this is a personal issue with Pilger, and his rant has the scent of sour grapes. Perhaps the Lannan Foundation had legitimate reasons for not screening the film. Like, it's full of inaccuracies, or it's just not very good? I mean, anyone who writes that Barack Obama "is as much a warmonger as George W. Bush" has a problem with reality, and one can imagine how his film is slanted. And the notion that liberal opinion has been silenced is certainly not true in my observation. It seems all I read lately on progressive blogs and sites is constant Obama-bashing and whining from ivory-tower liberal purists. Although not all of them are legitimate: Karl Rove's minions are busy aiding and abetting that circular firing squad--the paid right-wing trolls posing as disaffected liberals have pretty much taken over the Internet. I am curious about Pilger's film, however, and if I can Netflix it I will.
- andyg
07 July 2011 at 18:02In order for wrongdoing to be maintained it becomes only sufficient for some men to do ...........................nothing.
- DonaldKehoty BackAtYouPlonker
07 July 2011 at 18:12You definitely need to see the film, read his books and research, branch out, hear Noam Chomsky and consider all that is said. It will end your brainwashed beliefs in mainstream media, subdue your want to believe in conspiracies, and open your mind back to free thinking.
- Wolfgang
07 July 2011 at 19:26Keep at it John. I've seen the film and it confirmed what I already know.
- hugh markey
07 July 2011 at 20:34Guess Who's Coming to the White House? You didn't think Sidney Poitier would turn up?
Chicago is Barrack's kind of town!
Mayor Daley
- simon
07 July 2011 at 22:05God bless John Pilger , we need more people like him. i have seen the movie and its the best movie i have seen in the 21st century, what a true legend he his.
- Humdinger
07 July 2011 at 22:08They thought t it was a load of agenda based rubbish, didn't want to waste their time showing it and have given our John a body swerve. Tends to happen with films that are a load of old toss.
Post your comment
This article was originally published on 07 July 2011 in the issue Israel's next war
Friday, 8 July 2011
New Statesman - The strange silencing of liberal America
via newstatesman.com
