Edward S. Herman’s Biography

Wade Frazier

November 2017

Note from the author:

I first published this biography draft on November 4, 2017, one week before Ed unexpectedly died.  Ed asked me to do his Wikipedia biography when I wished him a happy birthday this past April.  As with my pal Brian O’Leary, I think that Ed felt that the end was near when he asked me to write his biography.  Ed’s biography will be part of a larger effort on Ed’s life and work.  My final biography will likely look a little different from this draft, but I will preserve this draft on my site.  A smaller version of my final essay will become my initial Wikipedia biography, before I do battle with Wikipedia’s “editors.”  The original will always live on my site, however. 

On my site, I have long written about Ed’s work, such as this chapter of one of my essays, and particularly this passage on Manufacturing Consent.  I began my correspondence with Ed and Noam Chomsky as early as 1992, and was in continual correspondence with Ed since the late 1990s.  Other than the lessons of my surreal journey, I have had no greater political education than at the knees of those scholars of conscience, including Howard Zinn, who all are/were great men and among the best that my great nation has produced.  This biography project on Ed has been and will continue to be a labor of love and one of my life’s greatest pleasures and honors. 

 

Introduction

Edward S. Herman (born April 7, 1925) is professor emeritus of finance at the Wharton School of Business of the University of Pennsylvania and a media analyst with a specialty in banking, corporate, and regulatory issues as well as political economy.  He also taught at Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.  He is perhaps best known for developing the propaganda model of media analysis with Noam Chomsky. 

 

Contents

Early life and education

Academic career and writings

Ethical stance, analytical approach, style, and focus of political-economic writings

Early political writings and activism

Suppression of Counter-Revolutionary Violence

The Political Economy of Human Rights

Terrorism and the Western Media

Demonstration elections and the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II

Manufacturing Consent and the propaganda model

Lies of Our Times and Z Magazine

Disintegration of Yugoslavia and the Western media

Genocides in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Western media

Overthrow of Ukraine’s government and demonizing Russia

General political analysis and commentary

Criticisms

Selected publications

Notes

Early life and education

Herman credited his being raised in a democratic-liberal household during the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and politically radical relatives for helping develop his political philosophy. 

Herman received his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Pennsylvania in 1945, Masters of Arts from the University of Pennsylvania in 1948, and PhD in 1953 from the University of California, Berkeley.  Herman attended Berkeley to pursue his PhD partly because of the political radicals there, and he was influenced by the writings of economists Robert A. Brady and Leo Rogin.  Herman’s PhD thesis was a study of Bank of America and its parent company, Transamerica Corporation.[1] 

 

Academic career and writings

After obtaining his PhD, Herman returned to Pennsylvania and was recruited by Wharton to help perform studies of banks and corporate control mechanisms, which Wharton had contracted with various government agencies to study.  One of Herman’s early papers was on conflict of interest in savings and loan banks. 

In 1981, Herman published Corporate Control, Corporate Power, which The Twentieth Century Fund sponsored.  It was partly an update of A.A. Berle, Jr. and Gardiner C. Means’s The Modern Corporation and Private Property.[2]

In Corporate Control, Corporate Power, Herman analyzed the internal structure of American corporations, their influence over the American economy and polity, and the competing interests within corporations, which were primarily owners, lenders, and managers.  Herman wrote that corporate managers had prevailed in those power struggles, and that in 1981, management’s “triumph is virtually complete,” although managerial ascendance did not dim the overriding corporate goal of profit maximization.[3]  The primary competing interests within corporations were united on that premise.

Herman wrote that expanding government influence in the 1960s and 1970s was resisted by the American business community and that “Big Government” was in the midst of attacks on it.  Herman concluded that American corporations were, on average, as immune to outside influence as they were at the turn of the 20th century, as they operated with virtual autonomy, no matter their impact on American society, including environmental harm.  Herman wrote that government influence over corporations was “extremely modest,” and that efforts by public interest groups and citizens to make corporations more accountable to American society were “extremely feeble.”[4]

 

Ethical stance, analytical approach, style, and focus of political-economic writings

From the beginning of his political-economic writing career, Herman’s work reflected the ethical stance that is consistent with Noam Chomsky’s; Herman primarily criticized the polity that he was a citizen of, which he could influence, not foreign nations, and particularly when he believed that his nation committed historic crimes.  The United States’s international behavior, and the American media’s treatment of it, has been the primary focus of Herman’s political-economic writings since the 1960s.

In the preface of Manufacturing Consent, Herman and Chomsky wrote:

 

“Perhaps this is an obvious point, but the democratic postulate is that the media are independent and committed to discovering and reporting the truth, and they do not merely reflect the world as powerful interests wish it to be perceived.  Leaders of the media claim that their news choices rest on unbiased professional and objective criteria, and they have support for the contention in the intellectual community.”[6]

 

The majority of Herman’s political-economic writings challenged the idea that the American mass media engaged in a search for the truth and honestly reported its findings.  Herman used a scientific approach to test media impartiality.  An example of this is Herman’s analysis of the media’s treatment of the United States’s withdrawal from UNESCO.  The Heritage Foundation was a prominent member of the campaign for withdrawal.[7]  Herman wrote that an “Alert, independent, and unbiased media would not allow themselves to be ‘managed’ and would not play a supportive role in a propaganda campaign.”[8]  Herman asserted that an independent media would:

 

 

Herman collected U.S. media reports on the UNESCO withdrawal, listed sources of media reports, and how often they were cited.  He collected the mainstream media’s and dissident media’s reporting on agenda items of the United States’s government regarding its UNESCO withdrawal.  He also performed a qualitative analysis of the language used by the media when describing various actors in the controversy.  Herman particularly examined the reporting of The New York Times, as he often did in his media analyses.

Herman’s analysis yielded the findings that the mass media, both print and television, cited critical American and Western officials in more than 70% of such instances.  When describing American officials, neutral or favorable language was used, such as “patience had run out” and “goaded beyond endurance,” while UNESCO was regularly described with pejorative language such as “wasteful” and “Iron Curtain spy base.”  UNESCO’s director-general, Amadou M’Bow, was described with terms such as “wily” and “wields patronage and job assignments like a truncheon.”[9]  Regarding the United States’s withdrawal from UNESCO, Herman’s analysis tested the assumption that the American mass media acted as an independent seeker of the truth.  His approach to analyzing the mass media’s performance regarding the UNESCO withdrawal was typical of the media analyses that he performed in his political-economic writings, which included events in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, East Timor, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and neighboring nations, Iraq, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Poland, Iran, Ukraine, Russia, Libya, Syria, Greece, Israel, and other nations that the American media covered that had political-economic significance in American foreign relations. 

Herman’s scientific approach was accompanied by restrained language.  New Republic’s review of Herman’s Corporate Control, Corporate Power stated: “Herman’s book is powerful, but his words are deceptively quiet.  He scores without raising his voice.  He favors understatement.”[10]

Herman regularly argued that the media often produced highly distorted reporting of the situations, particularly regarding the United States’s international activities, of which relatively few Americans had firsthand knowledge.  He made the case that the American media often portrayed the United States’s international behavior in precisely the opposite terms of what an unbiased evaluation of the evidence might lead to, and he often quoted George Orwell’s writings.[11]

Especially in nations where the United States militarily intervened, Herman wrote that American-sponsored elections, war crimes trials, and other activities produced the trappings but little or none of the substance of their accepted ideas, and that the American media was nearly always an accomplice to such deceptions.[12]

Herman, particularly with Chomsky, used pair examples to demonstrate media bias, such as comparing the American media’s coverage of multiple genocides committed by its Indonesian client state under the Suharto regime to the concurrent slaughters in Cambodia.[13]  Another example was the media’s treatment of the 1980s civilian slaughters in American client states Guatemala and El Salvador compared to the media’s treatment of the revolutionary government in nearby Nicaragua, as well as the attacks on Nicaragua by the American proxy army called the Contras.[14]  Herman and Chomsky often wrote that the most significant determinant of American media coverage was whether the subject was aligned with American interests or not; American allies and client regimes could count on favorable American media treatment, even if they committed genocide, while enemy regimes and other targets of American foreign policy received highly unfavorable media treatment, irrespective of what the facts of an objective investigation might yield. 

Herman’s writings also covered domestic American events and how the American media treated them.  While writing about elite activities and the double-standards that the media used to report on them, Herman noted that the word “hypocrisy” failed to adequately communicate the meaning, and he began using “chutzpah.”  Herman defined the “chutzpah factor” as:

 

“Self-righteousness, arrogance, and a sense of superiority so great that gross double-standards seem entirely reasonable and no self-interested action is beyond rationalization.  This factor is positively correlated with size, power, and per capita income.”[15]

 

Herman’s writings reflect a dry humor, such as his invoking Herman’s Law when writing about Muhammad Suharto’s regime in Indonesia, which stated:

 

“…when the dictator of a shakedown state loses control and ceases to be useful to the United States, the mainstream media suddenly discover that he is a crook and focus intently on his corruption.”[16]

 

Early political writings and activism

One of Herman’s earliest political publications was America’s Vietnam Policy: The Strategy of Deception, written with Richard B. Du Boff. 

In America’s Vietnam Policy, Herman and Du Boff compared the American government’s professed stance in 1965 – a negotiated settlement of the war in Vietnam – with its actions.  According to their analysis, the United States actively avoided meaningful negotiations.  Herman and Du Boff noted that the Geneva Accords of 1954, which formally ended France’s invasion of Vietnam as it attempted to regain its empire, did not call for Vietnam to be partitioned into two nations, and that the United States actively prevented Vietnam’s holding a free election to unify Vietnam, as called for by the Geneva Accords, primarily because, as Dwight Eisenhower later admitted, Ho Chi Minh, a communist, would have received 80% of the vote.[16]

In America’s Vietnam Policy, Herman and Du Boff contrasted American president Lyndon Johnson’s public speeches on Vietnam with the United States’s actions as recorded in the mainstream and independent American and Western media, which revealed a stark contrast between rhetoric and actions.  After the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the United States escalated the war.  Herman and Du Boff argued that the reason for the United States’s refusal to enter into meaningful negotiations was that any negotiations would involve concessions to Vietnam’s National Liberation Front (NLF), and that the American-installed military regime in South Vietnam had very little support from its citizenry, as openly admitted by General Nguyễn Cao Kỳ.[17]

In America’s Vietnam Policy, a theme was introduced that was reflected in Herman’s subsequent political writings, when Herman and Du Boff wrote:

 

“As American foreign policy has moved toward the open use of military power to dominate other states, the employment of Orwellian language has become more frequent.  Words with emotionally satisfying (or repellant) qualities are increasingly employed to describe their precise opposites.  Nowhere is this more in evidence than the claim by President Johnson and Secretary Rusk that the goal of American policy in Southeast Asia is the preservation of ‘independent’ states.”[18]

 

America’s Vietnam Policy stated that since the American-supported regimes in South Vietnam had little political support from their citizens, and that the United States was not “liberating” South Vietnam’s citizenry from a foreign occupying power (in fact, the United States was the foreign occupying power), that it considered the people of South Vietnam to be its enemy.  Therefore, the United States engaged in a war of extermination against South Vietnam’s populace.  Herman and Du Boff argued that the United States’s activities in Vietnam met the Genocide Convention’s definition of genocide.[19]

In 1967, Herman was among more than 500 writers and editors who signed the "Writers and Editors War Tax Protest" pledge, vowing to refuse to pay the 10% Vietnam War Tax surcharge proposed by president Johnson.[20]

In 1970, Herman published Atrocities in Vietnam: Myths and Realities, which was a study of atrocities committed in Vietnam; those committed by the United States and the South Vietnamese regime that it installed and supported, and those committed by North Vietnamese actors.

In Atrocities in Vietnam, Herman attributed the monograph’s inspiration to the American government’s public relations efforts in the wake of the My Lai Massacre.  Herman wrote that when Seymour Hersh’s reporting finally broke through the American media’s wall of silence surrounding the My Lai incident, the American government’s response was twofold: downplay the massacre as an isolated incident and portray American policy as anti-atrocity, while portraying the NLF’s policies as pro-atrocity; the other response was to mount an official investigation that portrayed the My Lai incident as contrary to American policy.[21]

The foreword and conclusion of Atrocities in Vietnam addressed president Richard Nixon’s statement that American troops were in Vietnam primarily to prevent an NLF “massacre” of millions of South Vietnamese citizens.  Preventing a “communist bloodbath” became the policy statement of the American government, and that claim was a central focus of Atrocities in Vietnam.  Herman wrote that nations rarely responded militarily to atrocities committed in foreign nations, and that foreign military interventions almost always resulted from considerations of self-interest by the intervening power, not concern for the victims of foreign atrocities.  Herman wrote:

 

“Moralists and humanitarians as well as political-military elites are hesitant to call for direct military intervention as a means of bringing an end to indigenous massacres abroad.  They recognize that direct intervention may well worsen the situation, bringing in the complications of competing foreign as well as domestic interests in the invaded country.”[22]

 

Herman noted that in sharp contrast to the alleged American concern for preventing communist atrocities in Vietnam, the American government failed to even protest a bloodbath in nearby Indonesia in 1966, in which about a million civilians, primarily communists, were slaughtered by the Indonesian government.[23]  In fact, the American government was deeply complicit in that mass murder.[24]  The contrast of the American government’s and media’s reactions to slaughters based on their political utility became a primary theme of Chomsky and Herman’s Counter-Revolutionary Violence

In Atrocities in Vietnam, Herman concluded, after examining a wide array of supporting sources, including South Vietnamese officials, that the NLF’s base of support was South Vietnam’s peasantry.  Herman wrote that about the only indigenous Vietnamese support that the United States and the South Vietnamese government had was from military officials and mercenaries who collaborated with and fought for the French imperial effort, Roman Catholic refugees from North Vietnam, and a tiny urban elite who were primarily rural landlords.[25]  The peasantry of South Vietnam represented about 80% of South Vietnam’s population, a typical proportion in agrarian economies, and they became the American military’s primary target.  As in America’s Vietnam Policy, Herman wrote that targeting civilians was defined by the Sixth Principle of Nuremberg, formulated in 1950, as a war crime.[26]

Herman wrote that between 1965 and 1969, according to official American sources, the United States used 450 times as much ordnance in Vietnam as the NLF’s and Hanoi’s government did combined, and that the United States dropped twice as much tonnage of ordnance on Southeast Asia than it dropped on all nations during World War II, and in Vietnam, the United States dropped more than 500 pounds of ordnance for every person.[27]

Herman conservatively estimated more than one million Vietnamese civilian deaths from 1965 to 1969 and more than two million wounded, and he conservatively estimated that the United States was responsible for at least 80% of them; Herman quoted an informed American estimate that it was more than 99%.[28]

In Atrocities in Vietnam, Herman engaged in the media analysis that became a hallmark of his work.  While the American government and media focused on the NLF’s killings of civilians, Herman’s analysis of news reports for 1966 found that about 1,000 South Vietnamese civilians were killed by accident by American forces in “friendly fire” incidents, which was equivalent to all South Vietnamese civilians killed by the NLF in 1966, according to official estimates by South Vietnamese officials.[29]  He wrote that the NLF’s killings were specifically targeted toward collaborators with the Americans, while the United States’s killings targeted everybody.

Herman wrote that the United States engaged in a war of extermination against South Vietnam’s peasantry and engaged in a scorched-earth campaign that sought to make rural South Vietnam uninhabitable.  The American tactics included using defoliants such as Agent Orange, specifically on crops.[30]  Herman quoted Admiral William Leahy’s refusal to stoop to the barbarity of attacking Japanese crops during World War II.[31]

Herman wrote that South Vietnamese officials reported that American soldiers were shooting at “everything that moves.”[32]  That observation was later confirmed by American soldiers, who stated that their orders were to “Kill everything that moves.”[33]

Herman quoted Orville Schell, who wrote:

 

“One Newsweek correspondent told me on returning from Quang Ngai that he was shocked by what was going on in the countryside.  Having had experience in Europe during World War II, he said that what he had seen was ‘much worse than what the Nazis had done to Europe.’”[34] 

 

In an early instance of his noting how the American media operated, Herman observed that the correspondent did not publish that revelation in Newsweek.

Herman wrote that in light of the numerous massacres engaged in by American forces that began coming to the American public’s awareness, a popular defense of those activities was to call it an unintentional side-effect of America’s noble efforts for Vietnamese self-determination, although the facts did not support such an assertion.[35]

Another American propaganda device that Herman discussed was “captured documents,” which were “discovered” at fortuitous times for American publicity efforts, such as after its destruction of Huế, which was one of the greatest American atrocities of the war, as it reduced the city to rubble and left thousands of civilians dead.  More than a year later, a “captured document” was “miraculously discovered” in American government files, where it had hidden for more than a year, in which the NLF boasted of murdering thousands of civilians.  The “discovery” happened soon after Hersh’s reporting of the My Lai Massacre and during concerted attempts by North Vietnam to negotiate an end to the war.  Herman wrote that the American military-intelligence services forged many incriminating documents during the Vietnam War, and that Huế’s “captured document” was of dubious authenticity and was creatively translated at minimum.  Herman, with Chomsky, later reproduced the argument and evidence in Counter-Revolutionary Violence and The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism.[36]

 

Suppression of Counter-Revolutionary Violence

Herman entered into his first major collaboration with Chomsky when they wrote and in 1973 attempted to publish the monograph Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact and Propaganda (CRV), which was a study of the United States’s international behavior and the media’s reporting of it, particularly in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.  CRV’s thesis was that the United States, in its attempts to re-establish Western dominance over former European colonies as a response to popular postwar revolutions to overthrow colonial rule, became the world’s leading practitioner of violence in post-colonial nations. 

Herman wrote of his collaborations with Chomsky:

 

“My collaborations with Chomsky arose out of shared interests and views, and a perceived synergy in working together – we could meld together our individual ideas and ways of saying things, benefit from mutual editing, and get things done faster and better working collectively.  From the beginning we rarely saw one another, but had an active correspondence, exchanging paper and ideas and comments on the passing scene.”[37]

 

Chomsky and Herman began CRV by noting that the American political establishment headquartered in Washington, D.C. was highly selective about which “bloodbaths” elicited its concern.  They also noted that the political establishments in Moscow and Beijing had similar selective concern.[38] 

Chomsky and Herman introduced a framework in CRV that became a hallmark of their work, which classified bloodbaths (and terrorist activities) in these categories of Washington D.C.’s regard:

 

Benign – East Pakistan in 1971, Burundi in 1972;

Constructive – Indonesia in 1965-1966; French in Vietnam, 1950s; Diem regime in Vietnam, 1950s; the United States in Vietnam, 1960s; the United States in the Philippines, periodically from 1898 to when CRV was printed in 1973;

Nefarious – Vietnamese revolutionary, 1950s and 1960s;

Mythical – North Vietnamese land reform in the 1960s; North Vietnamese in Huế in 1968.

 

Chomsky and Herman argued that the American classification of bloodbaths was related to their political utility, regardless of the objective facts of such murders.

Benign bloodbaths were those that the United States’s political establishment had little strategic interest in and were often committed by friendly nations (and the United States regularly supplied the regimes committing the murders), constructive bloodbaths had strongly favorable results for American (primarily corporate) interests, nefarious bloodbaths were conducted by official enemies, and mythical bloodbaths either never happened or were minor events inflated into legendary status by government/media exaggeration.

Chomsky and Herman contracted with Warner Modular, a recently acquired subsidiary of Warner Publishing, which was part of Warner Communications’s media conglomerate, to publish CRV.  Warner Modular was headquartered near Boston, served the university market, and published supplemental reading for university courses.  Warner Publishing’s president was William Sarnoff, nephew of David Sarnoff, who had business experience but was new to publishing. 

Warner Modular’s publisher, Claude McCaleb, had spent his career publishing books for universities, and CRV was planned as part of a series of works that studied American institutions, which McCaleb believed would be timely after the Watergate scandal.  Warner Modular had prepared ads to run in various periodicals that promoted CRV, in anticipation of an upcoming convention of the American Sociological Association in New York City.  Sarnoff saw the ads come across his desk and called McCaleb.  Sarnoff asked if CRV would be another Pentagon Papers that would embarrass Warner.  McCaleb replied that it was not a document leak, but was an analysis of public material by two established academics.

Two hours later, Sarnoff called again and instructed McCaleb to bring an advance copy of CRV to Warner Publishing’s headquarters at Rockefeller Plaza in New York City (since advance copies were not yet available, McCaleb was instructed to deliver the manuscript).  McCaleb flew to New York that night, deposited CRV’s manuscript at Warner Publishing’s headquarters the next morning, and attended the American Sociological Association’s conference to await the advance copies of CRV that would be distributed to the conference.  The first printing of CRV, of 10,000 copies, was just coming off the presses.

At Warner Modular’s booth at the convention, McCaleb received a call from Sarnoff’s office, which instructed him to immediately report to Warner Publishing’s headquarters.  Upon arrival, McCaleb was greeted by Sarnoff, who proceeded to verbally attack McCaleb for publishing CRV.  Sarnoff agreed that CRV was not libelous, but said that it was “full of lies” and not worthy of publication.  McCaleb reminded Sarnoff of the arrangement that they had when McCaleb was hired: he and his staff were given discretion to select what to publish, and that their sales levels would measure their success.  Sarnoff dismissed McCaleb’s argument by stating that the arrangement did not cover works that were “worthless and full of lies.”  Sarnoff complained that too many of Warner Modular’s works were written by left-wing writers.  McCaleb replied that conservative writers were also represented, and that Warner Modular had planned to publish works by Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.

Sarnoff then canceled the ads for CRV, ordered the destruction of the first printing of CRV, as well as the Warner Modular catalog that listed them, and announced that he would not release one copy of CRV to anybody.  When McCaleb replied that such an outrageous move would shatter Warner Modular’s staff and shock the publishing world, Sarnoff replied that he did not “give a damn what I, my staff, the authors, or the academic community thought and ended by saying that we should destroy the entire inventory of CRV.”[39]

Warner Modular attempted a compromise position by offering to reprint a series of articles that supported the United States’s counter-revolutionary violence, which Warner Publishing reluctantly accepted.  However, before CRV was published, Warner Publishing decided to shut down Warner Modular.  CRV was never published and CRV’s 20,000 copies were destroyed.[40]

Sarnoff’s destroying his own company to prevent a work’s publication was one of the most notorious cases of Western censorship in the late 20th century.  Chomsky and Herman’s work on that subject was not fully published until 1979. 

 

The Political Economy of Human Rights

In 1977, previews of Chomsky and Herman’s next collaboration, after the destruction of CRV, appeared in various publications.  One was a preview of the first two chapters of The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism.[41]  Another was on the American media’s treatment of Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge victory in 1975, when little confirmable information on Cambodia’s situation was available to the West.[42]  Herman’s writings have been regularly published in Monthly Review since the 1970s.

In 1979, Chomsky and Herman published the two-volume The Political Economy of Human Rights; The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism was the first volume, and After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology was the second.  The combined works greatly expanded on CRV.  The preface of The Washington Connection established the theme of those two works, which contrasted the facts of the United States’s international behavior with the popularly held beliefs about them in the United States.

The facts asserted by the authors were that the United States had “organized under its sponsorship and protection a neocolonial system of client states ruled mainly by terror and serving the interests of a small local and foreign business and military elite.”

The beliefs asserted by the authors, which they called an “ideological pretense,” were that the “United States is committed to furthering the cause of democracy and human rights throughout the world, although it may occasionally err in the pursuit of this objective.”

The authors noted that between 1960 and the publication of their work in 1979, more than 18 Latin American governments had been subjected to military takeovers, in which the United States was essential to the process.[43]  The authors wrote that torture had been no more than a historical curiosity in recent centuries, but suddenly flourished in the “free world” while it had simultaneously declined in the Soviet domain after Stalin’s death.

The inner cover of The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism presented a diagram of nations that routinely tortured their citizenry during the 1970s.  That diagram listed the 35 nations that practiced torture on an administrative basis, and 26 (74%) of them were client states of the United States.  The diagram also presented the amount of military aid provided by the United States to those torturer regimes from 1946 to 1975, as well as how many of those nations’ military personnel were trained by the United States from 1950 to 1975.

In The Washington Connection, Chomsky and Herman argued that the term “terror,” as used by the American media, was a political construct applied only to violence committed by marginal groups, even American students who protested the Vietnam War, while state terror, which was immensely more destructive, was defined away as not being terror at all, but was described by euphemisms such as “police action,” “protective action,” and similar terms, even while the Cuban and Cambodian governments’ violence was deemed “terroristic.”[44]

In the introduction of The Washington Connection, Chomsky and Herman made arguments about the American mass media that were further developed in their Manufacturing Consent.  One section was titled, “Cambodia: Why the Media Find It More Newsworthy Than Indonesia and East Timor.”  Chomsky and Herman explicitly made their arguments about the Cambodian slaughter in the 1970s; they were framed in the American media’s treatment of it, as they stated:

 

“Even today, as regards East Timor, where our brutal Indonesian satellite (authors of the 1965-1966 butcheries) have very possibly killed as many people as did the Khmer Rouge, there is a virtually complete blackout of information in the Free Press.  This is a bloodbath carried out by a friendly power and is thus of little interest to our readers.  It is a ‘benign bloodbath’ in our terminology.”

 

In After the Cataclysm, Chomsky and Herman made their stance on the Cambodian slaughter even more explicit, writing that their focus was on the American media’s treatment of foreign slaughters.  They wrote:

 

“As in the other cases discussed, our primary concern here is not to establish the facts with regard to postwar Indochina, but rather to investigate their refraction through the prism of Western ideology, a very different task.”[45]

 

Chomsky and Herman noted that Time magazine, in preparation for an article on Cambodia (“Cambodia: An Experiment in Genocide”, July 31, 1978) had approached Chomsky to elicit his support for the Khmer Rouge regime.  Chomsky replied to Time with a partial list of fabrications about the Cambodian situation that Time and other American publications were responsible for.[46]  Time’s article did not name any “political theorists” who defended “the Cambodian tragedy” and Khmer Rouge atrocities because, as Chomsky and Herman noted, Time could not find any.[47]

Chomsky and Herman wrote about Cambodia:

 

“It is a common error, as we have pointed out several times, to interpret opposition to U.S. intervention and aggression as support for the programs of its victims, a useful device for state propagandists but one that often has no basis in fact.”[48]

 

Chomsky and Herman could not have been clearer that their task was to focus on how the American media handled events such as the slaughters in Indonesia, East Timor, and Cambodia, not to support the regimes that might have slaughtered fewer people than their neighbors, as if the lesser of two evils was somehow good.

In their subsequent Manufacturing Consent, Herman and Chomsky summarized the decade of the Cambodian catastrophe and the American media’s treatment of it:

 

“Phase I: From 1969 through 1975, U.S. bombing at a historically unprecedented level and a civil war sustained by the United States left the country in utter ruins.  Though Congress legislated an end to the bombing in August 1973, U.S. participation in the ongoing slaughter continued until the Khmer Rouge victory in April 1975…The vast numbers of Cambodians killed, injured, and traumatized in that period were, in our conception…‘unworthy victims.’”

“Phase II: From April 1975 through 1978 Cambodia was subjected to the murderous rule of the Khmer Rouge, overthrown by the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in December 1978…the Pol Pot era is the ‘holocaust’ that was widely compared to the worst atrocities of Hitler and Stalin, virtually from the outset, with massive publicity and outrage at the suffering of these ‘worthy’ victims.”

“Phase III: Vietnam installed the Heng Samrin regime in power in Cambodia, but the Democratic Kampuchea (DK) coalition, based primarily on the Khmer Rouge, maintained international recognition apart from the Soviet Bloc.  Reconstructed with the aid of China and the United States on the Thai-Cambodia border and in Thai bases, the Khmer Rouge guerillas, the only effective DK military force, continued to carry out activities in Cambodia of a sort called ‘terrorist’ when a friendly government is the target…Phase III renewed the status of the people of Cambodia as worthy victims, suffering under Vietnamese rule.”[49]

 

One theme of Chomsky and Herman’s work was that one reason for unthinking acceptance of the idea of United States’s good intentions in its international behavior is the relative freedom of its domestic society.  In a section of The Washington Connection titled, “Brainwashing under freedom,” Chomsky and Herman wrote: “As should be obvious from the most cursory examination of history … internal freedom is quite compatible with exploitative and even inhumane external conduct extending over many decades.”[50]  The authors provided examples of that phenomenon, including Ancient Athens’s aggressive military behavior, when it was the inventor of democracy, and Western Europe’s plundering of humanity on several continents from the 17th to 20th centuries, even though its societies were relatively open.

 

Terrorism and the Western media

In their initial collaborations, Herman and Chomsky wrote about “benign” and “constructive” terror, and devoted two chapters to the concept in The Washington Connection.[51]  In 1982, Herman published The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda, which was a study of terrorist activities and the Western media’s treatment of them.  The theme of The Real Terror Network was similar to Herman’s Atrocities in Vietnam: Myths and Realities, in that terror engaged in by American client states was defined out of existence in the mass media’s lexicon, although it was often at least an order of magnitude greater than the terrorist acts of its victims.

Herman began The Real Terror Network with a quote from George Savile, who wrote, “A man that should call everything by its right name would hardly pass the streets without being knocked down as a common enemy.”[52]

In The Real Terror Network, Herman provided the dictionary definition of “terror”, which is: “…a mode of governing, or of opposing government, by intimidation.”[53]  Herman wrote that the Pinochet regime in Chile and the Garcia regime in Guatemala easily met the dictionary definition of terrorist organizations, but because they were American client states while committing their terrorist acts, the American media defined those terrorist acts out of existence.  When their terrorist acts, including mass murders, could no longer be completely ignored, those acts were described in the American media by various euphemisms, including maintaining “security” and “stability.”

Herman wrote that Israel had a special place in the American media’s reporting, being portrayed as victims of terrorism, when its former Prime Minister, Moshe Sharett, frankly wrote that Israel’s violence was primarily offensive in nature, with many fabricated reasons given for its attacks, and Sharett even wrote that those crimes were Israel’s “sacred terrorism.”[54]

In a later work, Herman and Gerry O’Sullivan wrote that the Israeli state’s terrorist acts claimed more than 20 times as many lives as Palestinian terrorist acts, but with state-terror being defined out of existence for American client states, Israeli terror was never called that in the American mass media.[55]

 

Demonstration elections and the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II

In the mid-1980s, Herman wrote two books with Frank Brodhead: Demonstration Elections and The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection.  The theme of Demonstration Elections was that the United States used so-called “free elections” as a public relations tool of American foreign policy when, by objective measures, the elections were not free at all, but only provided the illusion of freedom as a way of promoting the United States’s foreign policy interventions to the American public.  Herman and Brodhead argued that the United States mounted demonstration elections in some of Earth’s most repressive regimes, in which the elections served to justify elite rule and state terrorism.  Herman and Brodhead presented case studies of such elections in the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and El Salvador.

The authors also examined the American mass media’s treatment of those elections, and wrote that a “demonstration election is a media event above all else.”[56]  Herman and Brodhead wrote that the American media could present openly fraudulent elections in glowing terms, and they contrasted the American media’s treatment of American client-state elections with a Soviet-sponsored demonstration election in Poland.  While the American media was incensed over Lech Walesa’s arrest, the murders of 76 officials of the Christian Democratic Party in Guatemala in 1980-81 were “treated very matter-of-factly if at all.”[57]

In Demonstration Elections, Herman presented a “Glossary of Current Orwellian Usage,” which was expanded in his “Doublespeak Dictionary” in a subsequent book, Beyond Hypocrisy.  Herman’s glossary defined a demonstration election as, “A circus held in a client state to assure the population of the home country that their intrusion is well received.  The results are guaranteed by an adequate supply of bullets well in advance.  See Free Election)”.  Herman defined a free election as, “A post-pacification election, in which the ‘hearts and minds’ of the survivors are shown to have been won over by the force of pure reason.”

In Herman and Brodhead’s subsequent collaboration, The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection, they analyzed the Western media’s coverage of the trial of Mehmet Ali Agca, a Turkish terrorist who shot Pope John Paul II in 1981.  While the American media continually emphasized Soviet involvement in the “conspiracy” to kill the Pope, the three Bulgarian and six Turkish defendants were acquitted in 1986 for a lack of evidence.  Herman and Brodhead wrote that the so-called “Bulgarian Connection” only arose after Agca’s interrogation in solitary confinement, and that his confessional testimony, which reflected mental illness, such as his claiming to be Jesus Christ at the beginning of his trial, was the only evidence presented by the Italian prosecution.  The authors specifically credited the Italian secret service for the unfounded allegations, which were first reported in a document created a week after the assassination attempt and included the accusations that Agca trained in the Soviet Union and that a Soviet official had announced the plot to other Warsaw Pact nations, which Herman and Brodhead concluded was “pure disinformation.”[58]

The authors argued that the evidence for a Bulgarian conspiracy, and by extension, Soviet sponsorship, was always weak-to-non-existent, but the American media, guided by the CIA, treated wild and groundless accusations as fact, and they named Claire Sterling, Paul Henze, and Michael Ledeen as the primary American writers who promoted the Bulgarian Connection. 

Herman and Brodhead presented evidence that the attempted assassination of John Paul II likely was a conspiracy, but was mounted by a Turkish terrorist organization, the Gray Wolves, which Agca belonged to, and that the Gray Wolves were a CIA-sponsored organization.[59]  The authors wrote that, “the links of the CIA to the…Gray Wolves were easily as impressive as any …Gray Wolves connections to the Bulgarians.”[60]  In 1991, former CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman disclosed to the Senate Intelligence Committee that his colleagues had purposely altered their reports to suggest Soviet involvement in the assassination plot, but that there was “no evidence” of Soviet involvement.[61]

Herman and Brodhead wrote that since the acquittal of the defendants, the American media quietly dropped the matter.  The authors wrote that far from the media’s suffering any consequences for irresponsibly supporting such flimsy allegations: “U.S. and western power and media domination are so great that lies can be institutionalized as myths and can remain effective even after exposure.”[62]

 

Manufacturing Consent and the propaganda model

Herman’s framework of analysis in Corporate Control, Corporate Power, in which competing interests would still unite on the mutually beneficial goal of maximizing corporate profit and power, was a precursor to his and Chomsky’s propaganda model, of which Herman was the primary author.[63]  The propaganda model formed the central framework of his next effort with Chomsky, published in 1988 and titled Manufacturing Consent, which is arguably their most famous work, both jointly and individually.  The book’s title came from Walter Lippmann’s writings, which noted the “manufacture of [the public’s] consent” for elite activities.[64]

Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model has the following “news filters” that determine the mass media’s news content in the United States:

 

  1. Size, ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media;
  2. The advertising license to do business;

  3. The sourcing of mass media news;

  4. Flak and the enforcers;

  5. Anticommunism (or “fear ideology”) as a control mechanism (largely replaced by the “war on terror” after the fall of the Soviet Union).

 

In Manufacturing Consent, Herman and Chomsky argued that those news filters reflected conflicts of interest that biased the news toward serving powerful interests instead of objectively informing the public.  Themes of their earlier works were repeated, such as worthy and unworthy victims and legitimizing versus meaningless elections.  Manufacturing Consent presented several case studies of the news filters in action, including “Legitimizing versus Meaningless Third World Elections in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua,” the “KGB-Bulgarian Plot to Kill the Pope,” and the Indochina wars in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Herman and Chomsky stated that their hypothesis was no “conspiracy theory,” but that market and structural principles were a better explanation of the media’s behavior.[65]  A Canadian documentary of Chomsky’s life and work was released in 1992, titled Manufacturing Consent, which briefly featured Herman.  It was the most popular documentary in Canadian history to that time, yet it never played on American mainstream television or had a mass theatrical release in the United States, but played at American colleges.

As they summarized the American media’s retrospective treatment of the Vietnam War, Herman and Chomsky wrote:

 

"The war was a 'tragic error,' but not 'fundamentally wrong or immoral' (as the overwhelming majority of the American people continue to believe), and surely not criminal aggression - the judgment that would be reached at once on similar evidence if the responsible agent were not the USA, or an ally or client.

"Our point is not that the retrospectives fail to draw what seem to us, as to much of the population, the obvious conclusions; the more significant and instructive point is that principled objection to the war as 'fundamentally wrong and immoral,' or as an outright criminal aggression - a war crime - is inexpressible.  It is not part of the spectrum of discussion.  The background for such a principled critique cannot be developed in the media, and the conclusions cannot be drawn.  It is not present even to be refuted.  Rather, the idea is unthinkable.

"All of this reveals with great clarity how foreign to the mobilized media is a conception of the media as a free system of information and discussion, independent of state authority and elite interests."[66] 

 

Lies of Our Times and Z Magazine

In 1989, Herman contributed to Hope and Folly: The United States and UNESCO, 1945-1985 with an analysis of the American media’s treatment of the United States’s withdrawal from UNESCO.  Also in 1989, Herman co-authored The “Terrorism” Industry with Gerry O’Sullivan, which further developed the themes of Herman’s The Real Terror Network.

In 1990, Herman became the editor of the magazine Lies of Our Times (LOOT), which presented media analysis.  Herman was LOOT’s editor for its entire existence, until it went out of business in 1994.  LOOT particularly analyzed the reporting in The New York Times (NYT).  An example of LOOT’s revelations was when they showed how NYT translated Arabic script for its readers.  In LOOT’s March 1990 issue, they reproduced an NYT photo of Lebanese journalists marching in a demonstration, accompanied by a banner, in Arabic script, which translated to, “Yes to the (printed) word, no to terror.”  However, NYT informed its readers that the Arabic script translated to, “In Allah’s hands we are safe.”  NYT never printed a correction or retraction when informed of its “mistake.”[67]  NYT repeated that feat later that year, during the Bush administration’s promotion of the upcoming war against Iraq, when NYT translated Arabic script ringing the Bank of Kuwait’s logo as stating, “There is no deity but Allah,” when the Arabic script actually translated to, “Bank of Kuwait, Kuwait, 1952.”  Once again, NYT never printed a correction or retraction of its “translation.”[68]

Chomsky wrote an article each month for LOOT under the heading “Letter from Lexington,” and Chomsky’s articles were subsequently compiled into the book Letters from Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda, for which Herman wrote the foreword.[69]

Michael Albert, the owner of South End Press, which published The Washington Connection and After the Cataclysm, founded in 1987, with Lydia Sargent, Zeta Magazine, which was renamed Z Magazine in 1989.  Herman contributed an article to nearly every issue of Z Magazine, clear into his 90s, when his contributions began becoming more occasional.  Herman’s themes were usually mass media analysis and American foreign policy, and featured such issues as the media’s treatment of Suharto as a “good genocidist” while Pol Pot was a “bad genocidist.”[70]  Herman also wrote about economic issues, such as Paul Krugman’s tenure at NYT that saw a mellowing of his enthusiasm for the neoliberal agenda, to the point where Krugman expressed his reservations about the merits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.[71]

During the Bush administration’s promotion of its upcoming invasion of Iraq, in response to eager support coming from so-called leftists, in particular Christopher Hitchens’s praise for cruise missiles as “precision-guided weaponry” that Hitchens called “good in itself,” Herman published five articles in Z Magazine on “The Cruise Missile Left.”[72]

Herman also contributed to other publications in the 1990s, such as Covert Action Information Bulletin and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Herman published prolifically in the 1990s.  His Beyond Hypocrisy: Decoding the News in an Age of Propaganda, which included Herman’s humorous Doublespeak Dictionary, was published in 1992 and was illustrated by political cartoonist Matt Wuerker.  In 1995, Herman published Triumph of the Market: Essays on Economics, Politics, and the Media.  In 1997, Herman and Robert W. McChesney published The Global Media: the new missionaries of corporate capitalism.  In 1999, Herman published The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader.  Those works expanded on Herman’s themes of media analysis and the United States’s foreign and domestic policies, including its covert and open interventions in foreign nations.

Herman often wrote about NYT, and he challenged one of their claims of journalistic integrity: their opposition to the Vietnam War.  Herman argued that NYT was an enthusiastic supporter of the American invasion of Vietnam from the beginning, and that it, “never abandoned the language of apologetics, according to which the United States was resisting somebody else’s aggression and protecting ‘South Vietnam.’”  Herman wrote that NYT never wavered from the “tragic error” framework, never published a critique of the Vietnam War on principle, and that, “the antiwar movement and the ‘sixties’ have always been treated with hostility by the paper.”[73]

 

Disintegration of Yugoslavia and the Western media

The disintegration of the Soviet Union allowed the United States to openly intervene in the former Soviet sphere of influence.  Herman wrote extensively on the West’s contribution to the disintegration of Yugoslavia and on the United States’s interventions in particular, particularly the NATO-led bombing of the former Yugoslavia in 1999.  Herman’s work on the former Yugoslavia was primarily published in the first decade of the 21st century, often in collaboration with David Peterson.[74]

From the beginning of his writings on the former Yugoslavia, Herman challenged the official Western narrative, which stated that an American-led NATO was engaging in a “humanitarian” invasion of the former Yugoslavia, to prevent “genocide.”  Herman wrote at length about the Western media’s use of the words “humanitarian” and “genocide,” and noted the same double standards that the media uses with “terrorism.”[75]  In the second edition of Manufacturing Consent, published in 2002, Herman and Chomsky presented a tally of the mainstream media’s use of “genocide” in relation to slaughters perpetrated in Kosovo, East Timor, Turkey, and Iraq.  Iraq’s slaughters of its Kurdish population (after Iraq became an enemy state overnight when it invaded Kuwait) were called “genocide” between 10 and 20 times as often as Turkey’s comparable slaughters of its Kurdish population, and Turkey used American-supplied weapons.  While an objective assessment of the facts would not suggest a Serbian “genocide” against the Albanians in Kosovo, and the Indonesian invasion of East Timor led to humanity’s greatest proportional genocide of an ethnic group since World War II, the American mainstream media applied “genocide” to Serbian activities in Kosovo about 10 times as frequently as it did Indonesia’s activities in East Timor.[76]

In critiquing Hitchens’s support for the Clinton-led attack on Serbia, and challenging Hitchens’s critique of Chomsky’s work that questioned American intervention (The New Military Humanism), Herman articulated the primary issues that Chomsky and he were concerned with:

 

  1. The war’s effects;
  2. Its compatibility with the rule of law;

  3. The motivations and aims of the war-makers - whether they were driven by humanitarian concerns or by more mundane political-economic factors.

 

Herman wrote that Clinton could not have been motivated by humanitarian concern when he led the attack on Serbia, when its crimes in Kosovo were insignificant when compared to concurrent and far greater crimes in Turkey and East Timor, committed with American-supplied weapons, which Clinton easily ignored.[77]

Project Censored’s 10th-ranked story of 1999 was how the United States deliberately started the war with the former Yugoslavia.  Examples of the United States’s machinations included its ultimatum at Rambouillet, which many diplomats deplored as not being a serious negotiation, which called for the military occupation of all of Yugoslavia and which Henry Kissinger said was “an excuse to start bombing,” and the CIA’s training of the extremely violent Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) well before NATO’s bombing, when just the year before, in 1998, American special envoy to Bosnia, Robert Gelbard, described the KLA as a “terrorist group.”[78]

In 2000, Herman co-edited and contributed to Degraded Capability, The Media and the Kosovo Crisis, which was an analysis of the global media’s performance regarding NATO’s bombing of the former Yugoslavia.  Herman and Peterson contributed a chapter of Degraded Capability, which analyzed Cable News Network’s (CNN) performance.  Herman and Peterson’s analysis portrayed CNN as an enthusiastic supporter of NATO’s attack and concluded that CNN acted as “NATO’s de facto public information arm.”[79]  Herman and Peterson presented their analysis of CNN’s coverage and whom CNN featured.  The majority of CNN’s interviews were of NATO-bloc officials, and less than 1% of CNN’s coverage was devoted to the 15 most prominent critics of NATO’s actions, including Chomsky, who was not on CNN even once.

Herman and Peterson wrote about how CNN never reported the particulars of the Rambouillet document, such as the requirement that not only Serbia cede its sovereignty in Kosovo to NATO, but to cede all of Yugoslavia’s as well.  The authors noted how CNN gullibly reported on the “Racak Massacre,” which was avidly reported by NATO and the media as a massacre of civilians, when the forensic studies of Racak’s dead showed them to likely be battle deaths and that most of the dead were probably KLA fighters.[80]  The so-called Racak Massacre was a key public justification for NATO’s bombing campaign.  Herman and Peterson later classified the Racak Massacre as one of the media’s “mythical bloodbaths.”[81]  Herman and Peterson later wrote that on the day before NATO’s bombing commenced, the British Defense Minister informed the British Parliament that the KLA had probably killed more civilians in Kosovo than the Serbian army had.[82]  Before the NATO bombing began, there were about 2,000 civilian deaths in Kosovo, of which the Serbian military was responsible for about 500.[83]

Herman and Peterson wrote about one of CNN’s acts that contributed to Serbian deaths, when NATO bombed a Serbian TV station after accusing it of broadcasting “propaganda.”  In fact, CNN was using that very facility on the day before the bombing, as had other American broadcasting networks.  CNN was privately informed of the upcoming NATO bombing and quietly evacuated its personnel while never warning its Serbian colleagues, 16 of whom were killed in the next day’s NATO bombing.  CNN never informed its viewers of its involvement or mentioned that attacking a TV station was a Geneva Convention war crime.[84]

After NATO’s bombing and isolation of Serbia, human rights organizations, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International (AI) in particular, began campaigning to have Slobodan Milosevic delivered to the war crimes tribunal that the United Nations (UN) set up at The Hague (International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)), which indicted Milosevic in the midst of NATO’s bombing of Serbia.  Herman and Peterson wrote extensively on the ICTY and Western media coverage of it. 

The ICTY was formed by the UN Security Council in 1993 and was dominated by the United States, along with the United Kingdom and Germany.  The United States largely funded and staffed the ICTY.  Herman and Peterson presented an alternative framework that described ICTY as the “Pseudo-Judicial Public Relations Arm of NATO.”[85]  The ICTY almost exclusively prosecuted Serbs, while many of the greatest war crimes in Yugoslavia were arguably committed by non-Serbs and NATO itself.  Herman and Peterson quoted American and British documents and officials who openly stated that the ICTY operated under their direction, which strongly implied that the ICTY was far from an impartial court.[86]

Herman and Peterson presented a theme that Herman wrote extensively on afterward: when Nazi officials were tried at Nuremberg, American prosecutor Robert H. Jackson made a landmark statement, that the greatest crime that the Nazis committed was initiating a war of aggression, which became the court’s position.  Jackson stated:

 

“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

 

Herman and Peterson noted that the UN Security Council excluded a war of aggression, which NATO’s bombing arguably was, from acts that the ICTY would prosecute.[87]  The authors wrote about how a well-documented war crimes complaint was delivered to the ICTY in 1999 by lawyers from North and South America, which named 68 NATO leaders, but the leading American petitioner eventually gave up when he realized that the ICTY was “a hoax.”[88]

Herman and Peterson wrote about the gross double-standards of the ICTY, such as how Serbs were indicted for alleged war crimes, when NATO and non-Serbian actors allegedly committed the same crimes and worse, but were either never prosecuted by the ICTY or given token treatment in apparent attempts to show the ICTY’s impartiality.[89]

Herman and Peterson wrote about how the United States openly supported the ICTY, which operated under its direction, while it simultaneously announced that it would not recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which it did not control.[90]  The seven nations that voted against the treaty that formed the ICC were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, Yemen, and the United States.

Herman and Peterson wrote about how the ICTY’s prosecution was generously funded, while the defense was not similarly funded.  The authors also noted how the ICTY regularly rejected the practices of standard jurisprudence, as it “created its own rules as it went along.”  Herman and Peterson listed some of the legal irregularities in the ICTY’s operation:

 

  1. No right to bail and a speedy trial;
  2. Defendants may be tried twice for the same crime;

  3. No right to a jury trial;

  4. No independent appeal body;

  5. Admission of hearsay evidence;

  6. Confessions to be presumed free and voluntary unless the contrary is established by the prisoner;

  7. No definition of the burden of proof needed for a conviction, such as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”[91]

 

Herman and Peterson’s essay on the subject was written to analyze the performance of NYT’s primary journalist who covered the ICTY, Marlise Simons, who never seemed to notice any departures from accepted judicial practice, nor did she ever report such for NYT’s readers.  Herman and Peterson noted the striking parallels between the ICTY’s activities and the Stalinist show trial against Leon Trotsky.[92]  Milosevic died in the ICTY’s custody of a heart attack, soon after the ICTY rejected Milosevic’s request for specialized medical treatment for his heart condition.  Camp Bondsteel, a large American military base, sits in Kosovo today.

Herman later wrote that not only did politically compromised courts such as the ICTY define aggressive war out of existence, as far as war crimes were concerned, in direct contradiction to Nuremberg’s rulings, at least for those committed by the ICTY’s sponsors, so did the most prominent “human rights” organizations, such as AI and HRW, which adopted the ideological framework of the imperial aggressors.[93]

In 2010, Herman and Peterson published The Politics of Genocide, which Chomsky wrote the foreword to.  The Politics of Genocide used the framework that Chomsky and Herman used a generation earlier in CRV, as Herman and Peterson categorized bloodbaths and genocides as constructive, nefarious, benign, and mythical, depending on their political expediency to Western, and particularly American, interests.  The authors classified the Iraq sanctions regime under George H.W. Bush’s and Bill Clinton’s administrations and the invasion/occupation of Iraq under George W. Bush’s administration as “constructive genocides,” which claimed nearly two million lives by conservative estimates, but the American media never described them as “genocides.”  In contrast, the Serbian military’s actions in Kosovo claimed perhaps 500 civilian lives before NATO’s bombing began, and might have been fewer than those that the KLA killed in the same timeframe, but was constantly referred to by the American mass media as a “genocide.”  Herman and Peterson classified Serbian Kosovo activities as a “nefarious genocide,” and they classified Croatia’s Operation Storm, which made 250,000 Serbs refugees from the Krajina region and killed several thousand people, including several hundred women and children, as a “benign bloodbath.”[94] 

Chomsky began his foreword to The Politics of Genocide with:

 

“Perhaps the most shattering lesson from this powerful inquiry is that the end of the Cold War opened the way to an era of virtual genocide denial.  As the authors put it, more temperately, ‘during the past several decades, the word “genocide” has increased in frequency of use and recklessness of application, so much so that the crime of the 20th Century for which the term was originally coined often appears debased.’  Current usage, they show, is an insult to the memory of victims of the Nazis.”[95]

 

One incident in particular had enduring relevance to Herman’s work, which was the massacre of “Bosnian Muslim men of military age” in July 1995.  The ICTY located 2,000 bodies in the aftermath, and the ICTY’s forensic analyst concluded that at least half of the bodies retrieved from the mass graves died in combat in the fierce fighting around Srebrenica, not by executions.[96]  Less than 500 of the recovered bodies provided evidence of execution, which primarily consisted of blindfolds and ligatures.[97]

Herman also noted that the executions were partly motivated by revenge, as several thousand Serbian civilians had been killed in the region by Bosnian Muslim invaders since 1992.[98]  Even though the Serbs bussed Muslim women, children, and the elderly from the area before engaging in the massacre of Muslim military-age men, the American and Western media have referred to the incident ever since as a “genocide.”

In 2011, Herman edited and contributed to The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics, which dealt with the treatment of the Srebrenica massacre in the Western media and ideological system, as well as what the best evidence showed about the massacre.

As the highly publicized 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre arrived in 2015, Herman wrote that a much worse and undebatable massacre happened only a few months before Srebrenica’s, but virtually nobody in the West had ever heard of it: the massacre of several thousand Hutus in a refugee camp near Kibeho in Rwanda by the Tutsi regime led by Paul Kagame.  It was a slaughter of at least 8,000 Hutu men, women, and children by the Tutsi camp guards in April 1995.  Its anniversary passed in nearly complete silence in the Western media.  Herman argued that the “Golden Silence” of the media in the instance of the Kibeho massacre was because it was committed by American ally Paul Kagame’s forces.  The only Western nation with any coverage of the Kibeho massacre’s anniversary was Australia, as 32 Australian medical personnel, working on the UN’s behalf, witnessed the slaughter.  The Australians were forced to stop counting by the Tutsi camp guards when they reached 4,000 victims, which was less than half of the apparent corpses.[99]  The issue of Rwanda and the Western media system became a focus of Herman’s work in the 21st century.

In 2012, Herman and Peterson published Reality Denial, which was a critique of Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.  Herman and Peterson argued that Pinker’s effort was thinly veiled imperial apologetics.  Herman and Peterson wrote: “Pinker selects the estimated death toll that minimizes the U.S.-inflicted casualties and fits his political agenda.”[100]  Pinker argued for a “Long Peace” since the end of World War II, and Herman and Peterson countered with, “in the real world there has been a series of long and devastating U.S. wars…”[101]

On Pinker’s treatment of genocide, Herman and Peterson wrote, “In his treatment of ‘genocide,’ Pinker’s selectivity - his focus on Western target-victims and neglect of the victims of the West itself - and his gullible and ignorant treatment of the facts are remarkable.”  Herman and Peterson presented an example of Pinker’s “genocide” estimate of Bosnian “massacre” deaths from 1992 to 1995 as between 100,000 and 200,000, while establishment estimates, including one by the ICTY, placed the deaths from all sides in Bosnia at 100,000 and Bosnian Muslim civilians at 33,000.[102]

On Rwanda, Herman and Peterson wrote that not only did Pinker espouse the Western party line that Rwanda’s Hutus slaughtered 700,000 Tutsis with machetes, which did not match the adducible facts that Herman and Peterson later wrote about in Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, Pinker failed to connect the conquest of Rwanda by the Tutsis to their subsequent invasion of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which had claimed several million lives when Pinker published his book.

Herman and Peterson noted that while Pinker was given to exaggeration when describing slaughters committed by enemies of the United States, for victims of American aggression, Pinker did not even mention them, such as the American-backed genocide in Guatemala in the 1980s, which killed about 200,000 people and was nowhere mentioned in Pinker’s book.  Pinker also failed to mention the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in his book’s section on genocide, when it was the greatest proportional genocide since World War II.  When Pinker mentioned East Timor, it was in the context of “civil war” and murders by “gangs of drugged or drunken hooligans.”  Herman and Peterson wrote that there was no “civil war” when the genocide happened, and that far from “hooligans” performing the genocide, it was committed by the Indonesian military, with American weapons and support from the start, which was “a fact that might explain his lack of interest in this real genocide.”[103]

Herman and Peterson wrote about Pinker’s frequent mention of “terrorism” in Better Angels, and a section of Pinker’s book was devoted to it, but the authors noted how Pinker adopted the framework that ignored state terrorism while focusing on “non-state actors.”  The authors wrote that Pinker did not consider Israeli slaughters of Palestinians, fully intended to intimidate their target population, or the American “shock and awe” invasion of Iraq, to be acts of terrorism.[104]

Herman and Peterson finished Reality Denial with:

 

“In the final analysis, The Better Angels of Our Nature is an inflated political tract that misuses data and rewrites history in accord with its author’s clear ideological biases, while finding ideology at work only in the actions of his opponents…

“Small wonder, then, that the message of Better Angels pleases so well the editors of the New York Times and the large U.S. permanent-war establishment.  It is regrettable that despite its manifest problems, the book has bamboozled so many other people who should know better.”

 

Genocides in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Western media

In The Politics of Genocide, in the chapter titled “Nefarious Genocides,” Herman and Peterson wrote a section on Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC, and named Zaire when the genocide began), and wrote on themes that they developed further in their 2014 collaboration, Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later.

In Enduring Lies, Herman and Peterson made the case that the West’s popular conception of the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s reflected one of the Western media’s greatest Orwellian triumphs, when it turned reality on its head as perpetrators were portrayed as victims, and victims as perpetrators.

Chomsky and Herman first wrote about Tutsi slaughters of Hutu in CRV and The Washington Connection, describing the Tutsi slaughters of Burundi’s Hutu professionals, including several members of the government’s cabinet and all Hutu officers in the military, up to 250,000 victims in all, as a “benign bloodbath.”  When the killings finally ended, there was only one Hutu nurse in Burundi.  Chomsky and Herman quoted the American ambassador to Burundi, Thomas Melady, who defended American inaction to the slaughter as an example of the “limitations of United States power.”  Chomsky and Herman wrote that the ambassador’s view revealed either “a startling degree of cynicism or capacity for self-deception.”[105]

Herman and Peterson began Enduring Lies with some context, writing that the Tutsi and Hutu ethnic groups were both Bantu language-speakers.  The Tutsi became the elite and the Hutu the commoners over the centuries, at a ratio of about 10%-20% elite Tutsi and 80%-90% peasant Hutu, which was typical of agrarian societies, with their limited agricultural surpluses.  That ethnic division was exploited under both German and Belgian colonial rule, in standard imperial practice, and the Tutsi became the elite overseers of colonial society on behalf of their European overlords.  When the postwar revolutions in Africa and elsewhere overthrew colonial rule, Rwanda’s Hutus deposed the Tutsis in a revolution between 1959 and 1961.  Tutsis fled Rwanda into exile, largely to Burundi, but also to the West, and more than 100,000 Rwandan Tutsis had settled in exile in Uganda by 1985.[106]

Idi Amin was overthrown as Uganda’s dictator in 1979, and in 1981, Milton Obote was elected Uganda’s president.  Immediately after Obote’s electoral victory, Amin’s former defense minister, Yoweri Museveni, led a guerilla war against the Obote government, finally overthrowing it in 1986, and Museveni dictatorially rules Uganda as of 2017.  Two members of Museveni’s organization were his close comrades: Fred Rwigyema and Paul Kagame, Tutsis who had fled Rwanda as young boys with their families.  Rwandan Tutsis in Museveni’s organization, which occupied western Uganda in the 1980s, stated that they always knew that their experience would be used to one day conquer Rwanda, and they never lost Museveni’s support.

In October 1990, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), primarily comprised of Tutsis in Uganda’s military, invaded Rwanda from Uganda, in a mutiny that the strict disciplinarian Museveni turned a blind eye to.  Rwigyema was killed on the invasion’s second day.  Paul Kagame was studying at an American military school in Kansas at the time, and he immediately quit school and came to Rwanda to lead the invasion, which killed tens of thousands of Hutus over the next several years.

Herman and Peterson wrote that the RPF’s invasion from Uganda has been largely omitted from Western histories, particularly by the Rwandan war crimes tribunal that was established.[107]  Human rights organizations such as AI and HRW completely ignored the crime of the RPF’s invasion of Rwanda and instead focused on what crimes Rwanda’s government may have committed in response to the invasion.[108]

Herman and Peterson wrote regarding the RPF’s invasion:

 

“The United States and Britain couldn’t publicly support an illegal war, even if they supported it wholeheartedly and covertly; but they could support one side in a civil war that is alleged to be fighting to prevent the other side from committing genocide against its ethnic brethren.”[109]

 

Herman and Peterson wrote that many facts impressively contradicted the “Hutu genocide against the Tutsi” narrative that dominates Western discourse on the subject today, which Herman and Peterson named the “standard model.”  Herman and Peterson wrote that as it submitted to pressure from American and British diplomats, after years of having its economic reforms undermined by Western interests, led by the United States, the Hutu-led Rwandan government signed the Arusha Accords in August 1993, which legitimized the RPF.  Two months later, in neighboring Burundi, which had a similar ethnic composition of Hutu and Tutsi as Rwanda’s, the Tutsi military leadership assassinated Burundi’s first Hutu president and its first democratically elected president, Melchior Ndadaye, several months after he was elected with 65% of the vote.  The assassination triggered mass slaughters of perhaps 50,000 people, which created more than a million refugees, of which 260,000, mostly Hutu, still lived in Rwanda in March 1994.[110]  That Tutsi coup attempt failed, but a coup in 1996 succeeded.

In April 1994, Rwanda’s Hutu president, Juvénal Habyarimana, was assassinated, as was Burundi’s Hutu president, Cyprien Ntaryamira, who was elected after Ndadaye’s assassination, when Habyarimana’s airplane was downed by a missile as it approached Kanombe International Airport from a conference in Arusha.  The RPF mobilized within two hours of Habyarimana’s assassination and conquered Rwanda in less than four months in a prodigious bloodbath that claimed several hundred thousand lives, primarily Hutu, although reprisal killings of Tutsis claimed at least 100,000 lives.  Herman and Peterson quoted the UN’s military leader in Rwanda, Roméo Dallaire, a Canadian, who stated that the RPF was a highly trained force that could easily defeat the more numerous but poorly trained and equipped Rwandan military.[111]

Herman and Peterson wrote that similar to Yugoslavia’s ICTY, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was hastily convened in 1994 and even used the same prosecutor as the ICTY’s, including Louise Arbour, who was handpicked by the United States’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright.[112]  Herman and Peterson wrote that the ICTR was as politically compromised as the ICTY, and that it exclusively prosecuted Hutus under its formally unchallengeable presumption that only Rwanda’s Hutus committed genocide.[113]

In 1996-1997, Australian attorney Michael Hourigan led the ICTR’s investigation under the direction of ICTR’s original chief prosecutor, Richard Goldstone, to discover who was responsible for Habyarimana’s assassination.  By early 1997, Hourigan’s team had amassed the evidence, which included confessions from several members of Kagame’s inner circle that Kagame ordered Habyarimana’s assassination and that Kagame led a detailed planning meeting of the operation which shot down Habyarimana’s plane, less than a week before the assassination.  Hourigan’s team also obtained information from multiple sources, including the UN, that an RPF radio communication was intercepted immediately after Habyarimana’s assassination that announced that “the target has been hit.”  By the time that Hourigan’s team assembled its findings, Goldstone had been replaced by Arbour, whom Hourigan reported his team’s findings to.  To Hourigan’s dismay, Arbour received his team’s findings with hostility, ordered him to terminate his investigation, and announced that the ICTR would only prosecute crimes that happened after Habyarimana’s assassination.  Hourigan soon resigned, and the ICTR never again investigated Habyarimana’s assassination. 

Herman and Peterson wrote that while the ICTR refused to investigate Habyarimana’s assassination, French anti-terrorism judge Jean-Louis Bruguière conducted an investigation on behalf of the families of the crew of Habyarimana’s airplane.  Bruguière came to same conclusion that Hourigan did: Kagame’s RPF assassinated Habyarimana.  Herman and Peterson wrote that Kagame could never win an honest election in Rwanda, so assassinating Habyarimana made strategic sense.  Bruguière issued arrest warrants for nine members of the RPF for their role in Habyarimana’s assassination.  Bruguière’s investigation adduced a witness to the delivery of the missiles used in the attack to the RPF’s headquarters and even the identities of the RPF soldiers who fired the missiles, one of which missed, while the other hit Habyarimana’s airplane.[114]

Herman and Peterson wrote that to this day, the standard Western view, espoused by Kagame’s apologists, is that Habyarimana’s assassination remains shrouded in mystery, and the ICTR pretended that Hourigan’s investigation never happened.[115]  Today, when the Western media assigns any responsibility for the assassination, it is to an organization called Hutu Power.[116]  Herman and Peterson wrote that not only was there no credible evidence of Hutu involvement in Habyarimana’s assassination, but that the scenario was highly implausible:

 

“On the assumption that the shoot-down was central to the larger plan of Hutu Power and genocide, this would have required a miracle of Hutu incompetence; but it would be entirely understandable if it was carried out by Kagame’s force as part of their planned program to seize state power.”[117]

 

In 2003 and 2010, Rwanda held elections in which Kagame won 95 and 93 percent of the vote, respectively.  Herman and Peterson wrote:

 

“Disappearances, assassinations, and extended prison sentences for opposition political figures and journalists, and the banning of opposition parties, have been regular features of a 20-year-long Kagame-RPF ‘regime consolidation’ and the ascendancy of Kagame Power.  Were U.S. targets such as Russia’s President Vladimir Putin or Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez or any number of successive Iranian presidents ever to have been awarded 93 or 95 percent of the reported votes in an election, the establishment U.S. media would have devoted huge, angry, and sarcastic denunciations to such a display of electoral corruption, and rejected and delegitimized the outcomes.  But Kagame’s flagrantly corrupt victories and brutal means his RPF has employed to guarantee them have hardly caused a dent in his recognition as a respectable and legitimate leader.”[118] 

 

In 2017, Kagame was “elected” with 99% of the vote, to ensure his tenure as Rwandan president until at least 2024.[119]

Herman and Peterson argued that obscuring the RPF’s invasion from Uganda and misplacing responsibility for Habyarimana’s assassination were critical first steps in the Western media’s Orwellian feat of turning reality upside down, as it portrayed the events in Rwanda as the Hutus’ attempted genocide of the Tutsis.  The alleged Hutu plans to exterminate Rwanda’s Tutsis comprises what Herman and Peterson called “the foundational lie” of the standard model.  Herman and Peterson wrote that “conspiracy to commit genocide” has yet to be established for any of the ICTR’s prosecutions of Hutus, all of whom were either acquitted of that charge or had their convictions overturned on appeal.[120]

Goldstone and Arbour did not prosecute any Tutsis, but when their successor, Carla Del Ponte, tried to indict some the RPF members for their apparent participation in massacres of Hutus, she was soon removed from her position after a campaign led by Kagame’s regime, accompanied by American and British diplomatic pressure.[121]

Herman and Peterson wrote that the pre-Tutsi population of Rwanda was about 500,000-600,000, and that the most impressive study of the deaths during the RPF’s conquest of Rwanda counted about 500,000 people.  If there had been a genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda, there would have been few Tutsis left.  Tutsi deaths were estimated at 100,000-200,000.  The remainder would have been Hutu, and the higher the actual numbers killed, the higher the number and proportion of Hutu deaths.[122]  Herman and Peterson cited a United States State Department memo from September 1994 that stated that the RPF and its Tutsi surrogates had slaughtered 10,000 or more Hutu civilians each month, with the RPF accounting for 95% of the deaths, and that the slaughter’s purpose was an “ethnic cleansing intended to clear certain parts of Rwanda for Tutsi habitation.”[123]

Herman and Peterson wrote that the West’s dominant narrative has Kagame’s invasion halting the Hutu genocide of Tutsis, but the reality was that Kagame’s RPF was just beginning its murders.  Two years after the conquest of Rwanda, the RPA (the RPF was renamed the Rwandan Patriotic Army after Rwanda’s conquest) invaded the DRC, along with its allied forces from Uganda and Burundi, with heavy American and British support, both in supplies and diplomacy, in an invasion that had claimed more than five million lives by 2009.  The greatest loss of life was in the DRC’s provinces that the RPA invaded.[124]  Herman and Peterson noted that the RPA invaded under “several levels of pretext,” including hunting down the “genocidal” Hutu refugees.  Herman and Peterson noted that Kagame’s slaughters exceeded Idi Amin’s by a factor of at least five.[125]  Herman and Peterson wrote that the genocidal treatment of Hutu refugees was likely related to the idea that dead Hutus would not want the land back that the RPF drove them from, which Tutsi settlers subsequently occupied.[126]

Herman and Peterson wrote that Kagame is “possibly the greatest mass murderer alive today.”[127]  Similar to Suharto’s being a “good genocidist,” with gentle and even hagiographic treatment in the Western media, Herman and Peterson wrote that Kagame is a celebrity in Western culture, featured in works such as Stephen Kinzer’s A Thousand Hills: Rwanda’s Rebirth and the Man Who Dreamed It, which extolled Kagame’s virtues.  Herman and Peterson classified Kinzer’s book as “hagiography.”[128]  Herman and Peterson wrote that Kagame had even been compared to Abraham Lincoln, and has been universally portrayed in the West as a heroic figure.[129]  In The Politics of Genocide, Herman and Peterson performed a media analysis of its use of the word “genocide” when discussing various bloodbaths.  The Rwanda killings of about 500,000 were described as “genocide” more than 3,000 times, while deaths in the DRC, which numbered more than five million, were described as “genocide” 17 times.[130]  Herman and Peterson concluded that the RPA-led slaughters in the DRC were “Benign bloodbaths.”[131]

Herman and Peterson wrote that the American, British, and Canadian support for Kagame’s activities in central Africa reflected a longstanding rivalry.  Hutu-ruled Rwanda and the DRC were aligned with France, and overthrowing their governments and replacing them with proxies friendly to business interests in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, so that they could reap the benefits of exploiting the rich natural resources in the region and displacing French interests, has been the overriding purpose of the entire affair.[132]

In replying to a critique of their work, Herman and Peterson wrote:

 

“In short, once the RPF controlled the Rwandan state, it immediately turned its prodigious killing machine towards Zaire’s natural resources.  This it may have done under cover of chasing the Hutu “genocidaires,” but the pillage of Zaire-the DRC worked out so well for the RPF that by the late 1990s it had ‘built up a self-financing war economy centered on mineral exploitation,’ in the words of the UN Panel, with the pillage of resources so complete that it not only finances the RPF’s aggression, but generates annual surpluses back in Kigali as well.  As the historian René Lemarchand sums up this system of blood and money: ‘It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that by turning a blind eye to the profits drawn from the looting of the Congo’s wealth, the international community . . . is tacitly encouraging a colonial enterprise in the best tradition of European imperialism.’  Of course, what is true of the ‘international community,’ is true of academics as well.”[133]

 

Herman and Peterson performed a global media analysis on bylined articles that appeared between April 1, 2004 and April 30, 2014.  The promoters of the standard model of the Rwandan genocide appeared in print more than ten times as frequently as the dissenters, and articles written by Paul Kagame himself, which numbered 17, equaled the entire published output of the dissenters.[134]

The most prolific apologist for Kagame has been Gerald Caplan, who had 30 articles published during that period.[135]  Caplan was the principal author of Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide, sponsored by the Organization of African Unity (OAU).  While the OAU specifically instructed the effort led by Caplan to investigate Habyarimana’s assassination, it never did, completely ignored the original ICTR investigation led by Hourigan as if it never happened, and refused to attribute the assassination to anybody, instead stating that the truth was “shrouded in conflicting rumors.”  When acting in a less official capacity and as an apologist for Kagame, Caplan cited the RPF’s investigation, which blamed “Hutu extremists.”  Filip Reyntjens, a Belgian academic and former ICTR investigator, wrote that Caplan’s assessment of the RPF’s investigation of Habyarimana’s assassination was “a painfully biased and uncritical endorsement.”[136]

Herman and Peterson wrote that the second-most prolific promoter of the standard model, Linda Melvern, also wrote as if the ICTR investigation never happened, but remarked on the “continuing secrecy of western nations, the withholding of evidence and the failure to conduct an international inquiry,” while never seeming to suspect that the situation that she calls “shocking” could be due to the United States’s and United Kingdom’s efforts to protect their interests.[137]

Dallaire openly sided with the RPF in the events leading to Habyarimana’s assassination, but in an interview that he gave in September 1994, soon after he returned to Canada after the RPF’s conquest of Rwanda, Dallaire dismissed the standard model of the Rwandan genocide, stating that Hutu “extremist” efforts were “political” in nature, to eliminate the moderate Hutu and Tutsi coalition through political means.[138]

A year after Dallaire’s admission, when the ICTR was operating and more evidence of Hutu planning of the genocide was sought, to bolster the “foundational lie,” a fax was conveniently found, which has been promoted in the West as the “Genocide Fax.”  Herman and Peterson performed a document analysis that demonstrated that the so-called Genocide Fax is fabricated.  The fabrication effort began with text of a genuine fax that Dallaire sent to UN headquarters, seeking guidance on how to respond to an informant’s claims of weapons caches in Rwanda and how to protect the informant, but the document was then altered by removing some paragraphs and inserting text about killing Tutsis and Belgians.[139]  That altered document is today’s Genocide Fax.[140]

Bill Clinton repeatedly stated that his administration’s failure to intervene in the Hutu genocide of the Tutsis was his greatest regret as president.[141]  Herman and Peterson wrote that when Bill Clinton said in 2013 that, “If we’d have gone sooner, I believe we could have saved at least a third of the lives that were lost…it had an enduring impact on me,” that “he managed to combine an implicit lie with rank hypocrisy.”[142]

Herman and Peterson concluded that not only was the idea of a Hutu genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda, or conspiracy to commit such, a fabrication from the start, but that the true genocide of the times, primarily inflicted by Kagame’s RPA in today’s DRC, is the situation for which the West is engaging in true genocide denial, and the architect of the genocide is portrayed as a heroic icon in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada.[143]  In 2007, regarding events in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Herman wrote that genocide inflation is the real human rights threat, more so than genocide denial, and that “genocidalism” had become a tool of American expansion.[144]

In his review of Justice Belied: The Unbalanced Scales of International Criminal Justice in 2015, Herman wrote that the authors in Justice Belied made a:

 

“compelling case that this system is not only flawed but produces serious and systematic injustice.  One major theme pressed in a number of chapters is that the international criminal justice system (ICJS) that has emerged in the age of tribunals and ‘humanitarian intervention’ has replaced a real, if imperfect, system of international justice with one that misuses forms of justice to allow dominant powers to attack lesser countries without legal impediment.”[145]

 

Herman wrote:

 

“No tribunals have been established for Israel’s actions in Palestine or Kagame’s mass killings in the DRC.  Numerous authors in Justice Belied stress the remarkable fact of the ICC’s exclusive focus on Africans, with not a single case of charges brought against non-Africans.  And within Africa itself the selectivity is notorious – U.S. clients Kagame and Museveni are exempt; U.S. targets Kenyatta, Taylor, and Gadaffi are charged.”[146]

 

Herman concluded his review by noting how Justice Belied’s authors often stressed how the United States has corrupted the ICJS, and how:

 

“The system has worked poorly in service to justice, as the authors point out, but U.S. policy has had larger geopolitical and economic aims, and underwriting Kagame’s terror in Rwanda and the DRC and directing the ICC toward selected African targets while ignoring others served those aims.  Many of the statutes and much political rhetoric accompanying the new ICJS proclaimed the aim of bringing peace and reconciliation.  But this was blatant hypocrisy as the exclusion of aggression as a crime, the selectivity of application, the frequency of applied victor’s justice, and the manifold abuses of the judicial processes have made for war, hatred, and exacerbated conflict.  The authors of Justice Belied do a remarkable job of spelling out these sorry conditions and calling for a dismantling of the new ICJS and return to the UN Charter and nation-based attention to dealing with injustice.”[147]

 

Reflecting the accuracy of Herman and Peterson’s writings on Rwanda, the Secretary-General of the UN during the Rwandan genocide, Egyptian diplomat Boutros Boutros-Ghali, repeatedly stated that the genocide was, “one hundred percent the responsibility of the Americans!”  While open, name-calling derision came from the Clinton administration, an American-led effort led by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright ejected Boutros-Ghali from his position at the UN in 1996.[148]

In October 2014, the same month that Enduring Lies was published, British Broadcasting Corporation’s BBC 2’s This World broadcast Rwanda’s Untold Story, which, for the first time in the English-speaking West, told a story in the mainstream that differed from the standard model.  Rwanda’s Untold Story featured voices long marginalized in the West on the Rwanda issue, such as former FBI counter-terrorism agent James Lyons, whose position at the ICTR was Commander of Investigations and who was involved in Hourigan’s investigationRwanda’s Untold Story featured Aloys Ruyenzi, who was a member of Kagame’s personal guard who stated that he heard Kagame order Habyarimana’s assassination and saw Kagame’s happiness when Habyarimana’s assassination was reported.  On Rwanda’s Untold Story, Del Ponte told the story of how she lost her job as ICTR prosecutor when she tried indicting RPF members.

While Rwanda’s Untold Story adhered to unsupported ideas such as a Hutu-planned genocide of Tutsis, its challenge of the standard model of the genocide was unprecedented in the Western mainstream media.  Within days of the televising of Rwanda’s Untold Story, 38 leading promoters of the standard model, including Linda Melvern and Gerald Caplan, wrote a letter to the BBC, accusing Rwanda’s Untold Story of being an exercise in “genocide denial.”[149]

Herman and Peterson wrote about Rwanda’s Untold Story, noting that it uncritically repeated the myth of a Hutu conspiracy to exterminate the Tutsis and used a very loose definition of “genocide,” but that the show:

 

“marks an important, informative, and decisive break from the now-more-than 20 years of false and propagandistic storytelling in the Anglo-American world that has buried the real history of the period.  Both the BBC 2’s This World and the documentary’s production staff deserve their audience’s gratitude - not condemnation.”[150]

 

Herman and Peterson then discussed the “38’s” letter to the BBC, noting that the term “genocide denial” and its variants dominated their letter, and that “genocide” was used at least 27 times, but it only referred to events in Rwanda in 1994, and the 38 were silent on the undisputed slaughter of millions in the DRC as a result of the RPF’s invasion.  Herman and Peterson asked:

 

doesn’t their exclusive focus on Rwanda 1994 and the alleged Hutu conspiracy to exterminate the Tutsi make them apologists for the larger follow-up genocide?”

 

Herman and Peterson wrote about the 38’s misrepresentations of the investigations into Habyarimana’s assassination, and when the 38 attacked the American academics who performed the most thorough existing analysis of Rwanda’s killings in 1994, Herman and Peterson wrote:

 

“The 38 also resort to the conventional accusatory tactic of charging Davenport and Stam with ‘attempts to minimize the number of Tutsi murdered, a typical tactic of genocide deniers’ - when the going gets tough, sling mud.”

 

Herman and Peterson wrote that the 38’s letter was “error-laden and biased,” and concluded with:

 

“So in fact the 38’s cry of the immorality of ‘genocide denial’ provides a dishonest cover for Paul Kagame’s crimes in 1994 and for his even larger crimes in Zaire-DRC.  The 38 thus belong to a sizable contingent of apologists for Kagame Power, who now and in years past have served as intellectual enforcers of an RPF and U.S.-U.K.-Canadian party line.  We may note here the amazing claim by the 38 that the events of 1994 ‘should be treated by all concerned with the utmost intellectual honesty and rigour.’  Their own violation of this appeal in their open letter is both systematic and comprehensive.

“We have seen that the 38 have a penchant for slander as well as straightforward misrepresentation.  It is for committing the grave intellectual and moral crime of providing an alternative but, we believe, entirely credible and evidence-based reinterpretations of what really happened in Rwanda in 1994 that the 38 would like Rwanda’s Untold Story expunged from the BBC archives and its production team sent to the woodshed.

 

Overthrow of Ukraine’s government and demonizing Russia

Herman wrote about 2014’s Ukrainian revolution since it happened, with his first article in the May 2014 issue of Z Magazine.[151]  Herman quoted then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s comment on Russia’s reaction to the overthrow of Ukraine’s government, which Herman called a “coup”:

 

“You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped up pretext.”

 

Herman argued that the American invasion of Iraq (which Kerry voted for) was the “ultimate in a ‘trumped-up case,’” and quoted Barack Obama’s dismay at:

 

“The belief among some that bigger nations can bully smaller ones to get their way – that rejected maxim that might somehow makes right.” 

 

Herman wrote about Obama’s concern for Russia’s “challenging” the idea that “international law matters.”  Herman noted that George W. Bush joked: “International law?  I better call my lawyer; he didn’t bring that up to me.”  Herman wrote: “Violating international law is as American as apple pie.”  Vladimir Putin replied to the American invoking of international law with, “Firstly, it is a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law – better late than never.”

Herman wrote that the Obama administration was highly critical of Russia’s “aggressive” annexation of Crimea, which Crimea’s citizens overwhelmingly voted for, in an “aggression” for which the causalities were likely five people at most, if any at all, while the USA’s invasion of Iraq cost around a million lives, but was somehow not an aggression.  Herman wrote about the double standards that the Obama administration used with Russia and Ukraine, as compared to NATO’s Kosovo bombings.

Herman wrote that while the United States’s invasions of Yugoslavia and Iraq were wars of choice, Russia was reacting to a very real security threat regarding the overthrow of Ukraine’s government.  Herman wrote how Vladimir Putin noted that the NATO alliance violently supported Kosovo’s right of secession from Serbia, which Obama tried to rebut by stating that Kosovo held a referendum to secede from Serbia, which Herman wrote was a lie, as the secession was announced as a decree by the Albanian-dominated parliament, not a referendum.

Herman wrote that Crimea was adjacent to Russia and hosted a major Russian naval base, and its presence was subject to a longstanding agreement between Russia and Ukraine, while the United States’s Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, established during its invasion and occupation, was not voted on by any Kosovan or Serbian citizens.  

Herman noted the American media’s hostile treatment of Putin, which regularly described him as a “former KGB colonel.”  Herman asked if his readers could imagine the American media regularly referring to George H. W. Bush as the “former head of the CIA.”  Herman wrote on Putin and his treatment in the American media:

 

“Of course, every blemish on his career, and they are real – Chechnya, his position on gay rights, the weakness of Russian democracy and power of the oligarchs (which he inherited from the U.S.-supported Yeltsin) – is featured regularly.  Underneath this is the fact that he represents Russian national interests, which conflict with the outward drive and interests of the U.S. imperial elite.”[152]

 

Herman regularly wrote in subsequent years about the media’s hypocritical treatment of Russia, particularly in contrast to how the media treated the American invasion of Iraq, such as: “The double standard maintained by the mainstream has been spectacular.”[153]  Herman wrote that journalists who challenge the mainstream assumptions of “Russian villainy and U.S.-U.K reasonableness” are labeled “advocacy journalists,” while mainstream journalists are “not advocating anything, just reporting.”

Herman wrote that when Paul Krugman began writing about Russia and the threat of war in NYT, Krugman not only lacked expertise and failed to escape the “mainstream party line,” but that Krugman’s efforts made him “look foolish.”[154]  Herman quoted a Foreign Affairs article by John Mearsheimer titled, “Why the Ukrainian crisis Is the West’s fault.”  Mearsheimer wrote:

 

“For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president – which he rightly labeled a coup – was the final straw.  He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.”[155]

 

Herman wrote that when Malaysian airliner MH-17 was shot down over Ukraine, John Kerry immediately announced that he had clear proof that Russian rebels in Ukraine did it, but Kerry never provided any evidence.  Herman wrote about an American intelligence report that stated that the Russian rebels did not have an anti-aircraft battery that could reach the Malaysian airliner’s altitude, but that Kiev’s forces did.[156]

Herman wrote that Putin became a key figure in the United States’s 2016 presidential election as the “establishment’s devil-of-the-decade.”  Hillary Clinton used Donald Trump’s lack of hostility toward Russia, and even an expressed willingness to work with Putin, as a point of attack, and Clinton called Putin “another Hitler.”[157]  After the surprising Trump electoral victory and the escalating anti-Russian rhetoric, Herman wrote “The New Anti-Russian Hysteria” in Z Magazine, followed by “Fake News on Russia and Other Official Enemies: The New York Times, 1917-2017” in Monthly Review.[158]

Herman wrote that NYT had been hostile to Russia since the Russian Revolution of 1917.  Between 1917 and 1920, NYT claimed that the Bolshevik regime was on the brink of collapse at least 91 times, while reporting atrocity stories that were false.  Herman wrote about a century of disinformation that NYT reported about the Soviet Union and Russia, and how the American media promoted hysteria over Russia in 2016-2017, of which the most notable incident was when Washington Post published an article about an anonymous group, PropOrNot, that listed two hundred news and commentary sites as “routine peddlers of Russian propaganda.”  PropOrNot hid behind anonymity while making its unfounded claims about those sites, and Herman wrote that “the Post welcomed and promoted this McCarthyite effort, which might well be a product of Pentagon or CIA information warfare.”[159]

 

General political analysis and commentary

Herman’s political-economic writings, both in collaboration with other authors as well as individually, covered a wide array of topics that were far from confined to media analysis, although most of Herman’s books and articles were primarily concerned with media analysis.  Herman’s articles in Z Magazine and Monthly Review in recent years provide a sampling of Herman’s range of topics over his 50-year-plus political-economic writing career.

Herman and Peterson wrote on the media’s demonization of Reverend Jeremiah Wright because of his relationship with Barack Obama, while Obama was running for the Democratic Party nomination in the spring of 2008.[160] 

Herman wrote on the selective support of free speech in the West, noting that the media lauded the “I am Charlie” rally in Paris following the Charlie Hebdo massacre, for which the killers were a “solo effort” and “hardly a threat to free speech,” while France had laws that “permit arrests and imprisonment for political speech insulting Israel and questioning the Holocaust, and for giving verbal support for ‘terrorism’ (i.e., what the French state identifies as terrorism).” Herman noted about 70 arrests in the weeks following the Charlie Hebdo massacre, and that, “unsurprisingly, none of the arrests were reported to have been for verbal attacks on Muslim individuals or religious symbols, although attacks on Muslim individuals increased after January 7.”[161]

Herman often wrote about former ally Iraq during the American sanctions, invasion, occupation, and Iraq’s subsequent disintegration.  Herman wrote about how surprised and appalled he was when American soldiers lamented when Sunni insurgents gained control of Fallujah.  NYT quoted an American Marine Corps Sergeant who fought in Fallujah who stated, “It made me sick to my stomach to have that thrown in our face, everything that we fought for so blatantly taken away.”  Herman wrote that the American attack on Fallujah in 2004 not only killed thousands of people and reduced much of the city to rubble, but that, “Hospitals were an explicit target and weapons like white phosphorus and uranium-larded projectiles were used, all adding up to massive violations of the laws of war.”[162]

Herman repeatedly wrote about Madeleine Albright’s response in 1996 to the question of 500,000 Iraqi children’s deaths being a result of the American-led sanctions regime.  Albright replied that those children’s deaths “were worth it.”[163]

Herman wrote of how the American media and politicians are “aghast at the ISIS beheadings of several Western journalists,” while there is little mention in the media that “Saudi Arabia engages in beheading on a routine basis, in response to political dissent, but also social behavior that would not qualify for execution or, in some cases, imprisonment in the West (adultery, theft, drug dealing, ‘sorcery’).”  Herman wrote that some of the Saudi executions that year (2014) were for crimes for which the evidence was adduced via torture.[164]

Herman wrote that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that the Obama administration was trying to fast-track through Congress was socially regressive and blatantly in favor of rich corporate interests, and Herman noted that the TPP situation was very similar to how Bill Clinton helped pass NAFTA in 1993-1995.  Herman wrote that “free trade” was how the media described the proposed TPP, but that it was really about “investor rights,” and that TPP courts could operate with secret evidence.  Herman wrote about how Wikileaks exposed the secret machinations of the TPP negotiations, and showed how TPP’s policing measures would include supranational tribunals that sovereign national courts would be expected to submit to, but that those tribunals would have no human rights safeguards.  Herman noted how, “The mainstream media are once again favorably disposed to this investor-friendly ‘free trade’ agreement.”[165]

Herman wrote about the American interventions in Syria, and how the same journalists who advocated invading Iraq on what turned out to be false pretexts advocated American intervention in Syria.  Herman wrote about NYT journalist Bill Keller, who promoted the American invasion of Iraq, and was then (in 2013) promoting the American attempt to overthrow the Syrian government:

 

“…if Keller could swallow the fairly obvious lies of Bush war propaganda ten years earlier, and ignore throughout the Iraq war and occupation the gross violation of international law, why should anybody trust his judgment as he tries to rationalize the next war?”[166]

 

Herman wrote that Keller:

 

“clears the decks of any possible non-benign or less-than-benevolent aims: he dismisses the idea that the Israelis might be ‘duping us into fighting their wars,’ but he doesn’t mention AIPAC or any neocon influence on policy, and of course he never mentions the military-industrial complex and its possible influence on policy.”[167]

 

Herman later wrote:

 

“The warfare in Syria is a follow-on to the attacks on Iraq and Libya.  We may recall General Wesley Clark’s claim in March 2007 that shortly after 9/11 a Pentagon official had shown him a Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz list of seven Middle East and North African countries that were scheduled for attack and regime change.  Iraq and Libya, both on that list, have been attacked and transformed into U.S.-destroyed states with new or unsettled leadership.  The United States has been supporting regime change forces in Syria as far back as 2011, but the job has not been completed, in part because of Russian support for president Assad.  Truce efforts by the U.S. and Russia have regularly broken down because the U.S. still aims at regime change and supports the rebel forces that Russia targets, many or most of which are Al Qaeda- or ISIS-related and whose victory would mean another Libya-like failed state.”[168]

 

Herman favorably reviewed Diana Johnstone’s Queen of Chaos, which covered Hillary Clinton’s role in the American termination of Honduran democracy in 2009 and the war on Libya in 2011, while she was Secretary of State, among her other activities.[169]  Herman later wrote that if Hillary was the Queen of Chaos, then “Obama is surely King.”  Before the American-led attack on Libya, it had Africa’s highest standard of living.[170]  Herman wrote that Muammar Gadaffi was “the most important leader seeking an Africa free of Western domination, who was the chairman of the African Union in 2009, two years before his overthrow and murder.”[171]

Herman wrote of Obama’s war against Libya, and noted that Gaddafi’s death set the stage for the “United States African Command and U.S.-African state ‘partnerships’ to combat ‘terrorism,’” which was “a major setback to African independence and progress.”  Herman wrote that while Obama’s speeches called for nuclear disarmament, Obama immediately embarked on a nuclear “modernization” program that made their use more likely (“smaller, more accurate, less lethal”). 

Herman wrote that:

 

“Israel is a major regional rival of Iran, and having succeeded in getting the United States to turn lesser rivals, Iraq and Libya, into failed states, it has been extremely anxious to get the United States to do the same to Iran.  And Israel’s leaders have pulled out all the stops in getting its vast array of U.S. politicians, pundits, intellectuals, and lobbying groups to press for a U.S. military assault on Iran.” 

 

Herman noted that Obama’s choice to negotiate with Iran rather than attack them was “probably the finest moment in the years of the King’s rule.”[172]

 

Criticisms

In 2010, Herman and Peterson wrote:

 

“An important and perhaps growing feature of official and strong-interest-group propaganda is the resort to personal attacks and flak to keep dissidents at bay and inconvenient thoughts out of sight and mind….We were very conscious of this when studying the Western dismantlement of Yugoslavia, where the Western media quickly fell into line and treated with aggressive condemnation any departures from the accepted truth and de facto party-line.”[173]

 

Herman’s writings have been constantly subjected to those kinds of attacks.

The suppression of CRV delayed the publication of Herman and Chomsky’s first major collaborative effort by several years.  When their work that expanded on CRV was finally published in 1979, it was used by Herman’s and Chomsky’s critics ever since as evidence for their apologetics for the Khmer Rouge and their being genocide deniers.

The assault began soon after The Washington Connection and After the Cataclysm were published.  In 1980, an article written by Steven Lukes accused Chomsky of irresponsibility for his and Herman’s writings on Cambodia.  Lukes charged that Chomsky was contributing to the “deceit and distortion surrounding Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia.”[174]

In his article, Lukes never mentioned that Chomsky and Herman’s treatment of Cambodia was explicitly made as part of a study that contrasted a similar bloodbath in East Timor that was inflicted by Indonesia, which used American-supplied weapons for its invasion.  Chomsky and Herman’s focus was a comparison of the American media’s treatment of both atrocities, not the nature of the atrocities themselves.  Chomsky replied that Lukes, by attacking his and Herman’s work on Cambodia, while never even mentioning the context or East Timor, showed that far from Chomsky’s being an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, Lukes had clearly demonstrated that he was an apologist for what Indonesia did in East Timor, and even worse, the United Kingdom’s support for Indonesia was crucial for its genocidal activities in East Timor, and Lukes was a British citizen.  Chomsky argued that Lukes was an apologist for genocide.[175]

Some academics, such as Sophal Ear, owe much of their public stature to their attacks on Chomsky and Herman’s writings on Cambodia.[176]  Ear, like Lukes, misrepresented Chomsky’s work, stating in his master’s thesis about Chomsky: “His favorable position towards the Khmer revolution would be hidden by the cloak of criticizing the print media's biases.”[177]  Ear seemed completely unaware that the bulk of Chomsky’s (and Herman’s) political writings have been media critiques, as Ear seized on “hidden” meaning in Chomsky’s work that was not there while ignoring Chomsky’s explicit writings on the subject.  Without significant exception, all other criticisms of Chomsky and Herman’s writings on Cambodia contained similar misrepresentations.

The attacks on Chomsky and Herman’s work were part of a larger pattern that Chomsky noted, in that Western intellectuals, “cannot comprehend this kind of trivial, simple, reasoning and what it implies…It reveals a level of indoctrination vastly beyond what one finds in totalitarian states, which rarely were able to indoctrinate intellectuals so profoundly that they are unable to understand trivial realities.”[178]

In light of generations of attacks that blatantly misrepresented their work and even turned it on its head, Herman wrote that after many years of contemplation, he would not change one word of what he and Chomsky published in their two-volume work in 1979.  In a 1988 letter to the editor of The New York Times, Herman wrote that the lies about their work had been “institutionalized,” which showed that their work on Cambodia and the media “was and remains on target.”[179]

Carlos Otero, the editor of Chomsky’s Language and Politics, wrote:

 

“The major international campaign orchestrated against Chomsky on completely false pretexts was only part – although perhaps a crucial part – of the ambitious campaign launched in the late 1970s with the hope of reconstructing the ideology of power and domination which had been partially exposed during the Indochina war.  The magnitude of the insane attack against Chomsky, which aimed at silencing him and robbing him of his moral stature and prestige and influence, is of course one more tribute to the impact of his writings and actions – not for nothing was he the only one singled out.”[180]

 

Herman wrote that the attacks on their Cambodian writings (as well as Chomsky’s defense of a Holocaust Denier’s right to freedom of speech, in the controversy known as the “Faurisson affair”):

 

“…imposed a serious personal cost on Chomsky.  He put up a diligent defense against the attacks and charges against him, answering virtually every letter and written criticism that came to his attention.  He wrote many hundreds of letters to correspondents and editors on these topics, along with numerous articles, and answered many phone enquiries and queries in interviews.  The intellectual and moral drain was severe.  It is an astonishing fact, however, that he was able to weather these storms with his energies, morale, sense of humour and vigour and integrity of his political writings virtually intact.”[181]

 

In the preface of The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics, Herman wrote:

 

“We know that our work will be assailed as ‘historical revisionism’ and, worse, as ‘genocide denial,’ but charges such as these are fundamentally political in nature, and we regard them as no more than cheap-shots and evasions, whose real purpose is to preempt challenges to a firmly established party-line.  The regnant account is regularly protected by aggressive personal attacks on the challengers in lieu of the more arduous task of answering with evidence.”[182]

 

Herman’s work on Yugoslavia has been regularly called “genocide denial,” and, as with other instances, the attacks from the political left, not right, were often the most frequent and fervent.  An example of this is George Monbiot’s article in The Guardian in 2011.[183]  Not only did Monbiot call Herman and Peterson “genocide deniers” and “belittlers,” he misquoted their work in his attack, stating that The Srebrenica Massacre, which Herman edited and contributed to, “claims that the 8,000 deaths at Srebrenica are ‘an unsupportable exaggeration.  The true figure may be closer to 800.’”  What Phillip Corwin, who was the highest ranking UN civilian official in Bosnia-Herzegovina in July 1995, wrote in the foreword to The Srebrenica Massacre was:

 

“But the situation is more complicated than the public relations specialists would have us believe.  That there were killings of non-combatants in Srebrenica, as in all war zones, is a certainty.  And those who perpetrated them deserve to be condemned and prosecuted.  And whether it was three or 30 or 300 innocent civilians who were killed, it was a heinous crime.  There can be no equivocation about that.  At the same time, the facts presented in this volume make a very cogent argument that the figure of 8,000 killed, which is often bandied about in the international community, is an unsupportable exaggeration.  The true figure may be closer to 800.  The fact that the figure in question has been so distorted, however, suggests that the issue has been politicized.  There is much more shock value in the death of 8,000 than in the death of 800.”[184]

 

Herman wrote in The Srebrenica Massacre:

 

“In January 2009, the European Parliament proclaimed every July 11 a ‘day of commemoration of the Srebrenica genocide,’ when ‘more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys…were summarily executed by Bosnian Serb forces…making this event the biggest war crime to take place in Europe since the end of the Second World War.’  In the face of such certitude, who in his right mind would ‘deny’ the “Srebrenica massacre”?[185]

 

Herman wrote in the same book that the number of executions, based on a forensic analysis of the bodies recovered, may have been less than 500.[186]

Herman and Peterson wrote separate rebuttals to Monbiot’s article, which The Guardian refused to publish.[187]  The Guardian then invited Herman and Peterson to write a joint reply, limited to 550 words, which was half the length of Monbiot’s article.

Herman and Peterson wrote:

 

“Soon thereafter we delivered a consolidated manuscript to the Guardian at exactly 550-words; and on July 20, five weeks and a day after it had published Monbiot’s original, the Guardian published an even shorter, 524-word response under our names.  But rather than giving it a title that featured our claims about Monbiot’s errors, ignorance, and crass name-calling, the Guardian gave it a title that was both plaintive and defensive: “We’re Not Genocide Deniers.”[188]

 

Herman and Peterson replied to Monbiot’s attack on Corwin’s words with:

 

“Monbiot attributes these 11 words from Corwin’s Foreword to the collection itself, and asserts that ‘It’ - namely, the collection – ‘claims that the 8,000 deaths at Srebrenica are “an unsupportable exaggeration” . . .’ (emphasis added).  As the seven contributors to the book besides Corwin focus on the issue of executions, not simply deaths for which no cause is specified, and as none of them deny the possibility of 8,000 deaths, Monbiot’s attribution of these 11 words from the Foreword to ‘It’ is a lie, and suggests that his reading of the book was even less than cursory.”[189]

 

Herman argued that Monbiot was “belittling” genocide by putting the Srebrenica massacre in the same class as the six million Jews who died in the Holocaust, and concluded his rebuttal by stating that, “There are very few sentences in George Monbiot’s June 14 diatribe that withstand close scrutiny.[190]

In his review of Herman and Peterson’s The Politics of Genocide, the most prolific promoter of the standard model of the Rwandan genocide, Gerald Caplan, wrote this:

 

“The main authorities on whom the authors rest their fabrications are a tiny number of long-time American and Canadian genocide deniers, who gleefully drink each other's putrid bath water.  Each solemnly cites the others' works to document his fabrications - Robin Philpot, Christopher Black, Christian Davenport, Allan Stam, Peter Erlinder.  It's as if a Holocaust denier cited as supporting evidence the testimonies of David Irving, David Duke, Robert Faurisson or Ernest Zundel.  Be confident Herman and Peterson are now being quoted as authoritative sources on the genocide by Robin Philpot, Christopher Black, Davenport and Stam, Peter Erlinder.”[191]

 

In their reply, Herman and Peterson noted the absence of anything that resembled a reasoned and fact-based critique in Caplan’s review of their work.  Caplan ignored the entire thesis of their work, which was how “genocide” had become a political construct, and focused on the book’s section on Rwanda.  Caplan accused Herman and Peterson of failing to cite certain authors, when they in fact did.  Herman and Peterson noted that Caplan castigated them for reporting facts that Caplan himself had previously published, such as that the RPF was an arm of the Ugandan military or that Robert Gersony’s research that adduced widespread RPF slaughters of Hutu civilians was “suppressed,” when Caplan himself had previously reported that suppression.[192]

Caplan dismissed Hourigan’s ICTY investigation with novel logic, while calling the RPF’s findings of its investigation into Habyarimana’s assassination, which absolved themselves of responsibility, “largely persuasive.”  Herman and Peterson wrote that notable scholars such as René Lemarchand and Luc Marchal found the RPF’s report quite unpersuasive, and Marchal concluded that the RPF’s investigation was:

 

“a parody of an investigation, the script of which had been written in advance,” and the “sole intention of which was to demonstrate the total innocence of the RPF and the Machiavellian guilt of the Extremist Hutus.”[193]

 

Herman and Peterson concluded their reply to Caplan’s review with:

 

“Of course, in his references to the genocide in Rwanda, Caplan means only the killings attributable to Hutus, not the vast numbers slaughtered by Kagame.  (Recall the “10,000 or more Hutu civilians per month” referred to in an internal State Department report.)  This stress on Hutu villainy repeats the Kagame regime’s rationale for its military presence in the DRC, allegedly chasing down the fugitive genocidaires.  But if the UN and other reports are correct, and deaths in the Kagame- (and Museveni-) controlled areas of the eastern DRC have run into the several millions, then Caplan’s evasions about their source, and the intellectual cover he provides for whatever Kagame does, make Caplan not merely a genocide denier — they make Caplan a genocide facilitator.”[194]

 

Herman has never backed down from his critics, and the character and methods of critiques of his work have rarely deviated from personal attacks, misrepresentations of his writings, logical fallacies, and name-calling. 

 

Selected publications

 

Notes

[1] Herman, interview with Paul Jay, The Real News Network, July 1, 2012.

[2] Herman (1981), Corporate Control, Corporate Power, pp. 5-9.

[3] Herman (1981), Corporate Control, Corporate Power, pp. 14-15.

[4] Herman (1981), Corporate Control, Corporate Power, pp. 15-16.

[5] Herman and Chomsky (1988), Manufacturing Consent, p. xi.

[6] Ellen Ray and William Schaap, in the introduction of Preston, Herman, and Schiller (1989), Hope and Folly, pp. xiii-xxv.

[7] Preston, Herman, and Schiller (1989), Hope and Folly, p. 216.

[8] Preston, Herman, and Schiller (1989), Hope and Folly, pp. 248-250.

[9] Herman (1981), Corporate Control, Corporate Power, back cover. 

[10] Herman (1992), Beyond Hypocrisy, pp. 2, 3, 160.

[11] Herman and Brodhead (1984), Demonstration Elections, Brown, Herman, and Peterson (2004), The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic

[12] Chomsky and Herman (1979), The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, pp. 21-22.

[13] Herman and Chomsky (1988), Manufacturing Consent, chapters 2 and 3.

[14] Herman (1992), Beyond Hypocrisy, p. 125.

[15] Herman (1999), The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader, p. 214.

[16] Herman and Du Boff (1966), America's Vietnam Policy, p. 17.

[17] Herman and Du Boff (1966), America's Vietnam Policy, p. 77.

[18] Herman and Du Boff (1966), America's Vietnam Policy, p. 89.

[19] Herman and Du Boff (1966), America's Vietnam Policy, pp. 114-123.

[20] "Writers and Editors War Tax Protest" January 30, 1968, New York Post.  History of War Tax Resistance; NWTRCC; January 18, 2004.

[21] Herman (1970), Atrocities in Vietnam, pp. 6-7.

[22] Herman (1970), Atrocities in Vietnam, p. 13.

[23] Herman (1970), Atrocities in Vietnam, p. 14.

[24] William Blum (1995), Killing Hope, pp. 193-198.  Herman (1999), The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader, pp. 207-223.

[25] Herman (1970), Atrocities in Vietnam, p. 29, 36.

[26] Herman (1970), Atrocities in Vietnam, p. 11.

[27] Herman (1970), Atrocities in Vietnam, pp. 55-57.

[28] Herman (1970), Atrocities in Vietnam, pp. 43-45.

[29] Herman (1970), Atrocities in Vietnam, p. 58.

[30] Herman (1970), Atrocities in Vietnam, pp. 83-87.

[31] Herman (1970), Atrocities in Vietnam, p. 97.

[32] Herman (1970), Atrocities in Vietnam, p. 62.

[33] Nick Turse (2013), Kill Anything That Moves, p. 2.

[34] Herman (1970), Atrocities in Vietnam, p. 41.

[35] Herman (1970), Atrocities in Vietnam, pp. 87-88.

[36] Herman (1970), Atrocities in Vietnam, pp. 37-40; Chomsky and Herman (1973), Counter-Revolutionary Violence, in the chapter titled, “The Hue Massacres of 1968.”  Chomsky and Herman (1979), The Political Economy of Human Rights: Volume 1, pp. 345-354.

[37] Barsky (1997), Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, p. 159.

[38] Chomsky and Herman (1973), Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact and Propaganda, Introduction.

[39] Bagdikian, Ben H. (1983), The Media Monopoly, pp. 32-34.

[40] Chomsky and Herman (1979), The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, pp. xiv-xvii.  Barsky (1997), Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, pp. 160-162.

[41] Chomsky and Herman, “U.S. Versus Human Rights in the Third World”, Monthly Review’s July-August 1977.

[42] Chomsky and Herman, “Distortions at Fourth Hand”, The Nation, June 6, 1977.

[43] Chomsky and Herman (1979), The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, p. ix.

[44] Chomsky and Herman (1979), The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, pp. 6-7.

[45] Chomsky and Herman (1979), After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology pp. 139-140.

[46] Chomsky and Herman (1979), After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology, p. 351, n. 85.

[47] Chomsky and Herman (1979), After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology p. 164.

[48] Chomsky and Herman (1979), After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology p. 256.

[49] Herman and Chomsky (1988), Manufacturing Consent, pp. 260-261.

[50] Chomsky and Herman (1979), The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, p. 66.

[51] Chomsky and Herman (1979), The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, chapters 3 and 4.

[52] Herman (1982), The Real Terror Network, p. 1.

[53] Herman (1982), The Real Terror Network, p. 21.

[54] Herman (1982), The Real Terror Network, p. 78.

[55] Herman and O’Sullivan (1989), The Terrorism Industry, pp. 29-36.

[56] Herman and Brodhead (1984), Demonstration Elections, p. 153.

[57] Herman and Brodhead (1984), Demonstration Elections, p. 170.

[58] Herman and Brodhead (1986), The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection, pp. 206-209.

[59] Herman and Brodhead (1986), The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection, pp. 62-64.

[60] Herman and Brodhead (1986), The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection, p. 64.

[61] Martin A Lee, “On the Trail of Turkey's Terrorist Grey Wolves”, Consortium News, 1997.

[62] Herman and Brodhead (1986), The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection, p. 215.

[63] Herman (1999), The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader, pp. 263- 264.

[64] Herman and Chomsky (1988), Manufacturing Consent, p. xi.

[65] Herman and Chomsky (1988), Manufacturing Consent, p. xii.

[66] Herman and Chomsky (1988), Manufacturing Consent, p. 252.

[67] Lies of Our Times, March 1990, p. 19.

[68] Lies of Our Times, November 1990, p. 2.

[69] Chomsky and Herman (1993, 2004), Letters from Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda.

[70] Herman, “Pol Pot’s Death in the Propaganda System”, Z Magazine, June 1998; Herman, “Good and Bad Genocide: Double Standards in coverage of Suharto and Pol Pot”, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, September 1, 1998. 

[71] Herman, “Krugman, Putin, and the NYT”, Z Magazine, October 2014.

[72] Herman’s first article was “The Cruise Missile Left,” Z Magazine, November 2002, and his fifth was published in May 2004.

[73] Herman (1999), The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader, pp. 91-98.

[74] Herman and Peterson, “The Dismantling of Yugoslavia”, Monthly Review, volume 59, issue 5, October 2007.

[75] Herman and Peterson, “The NATO-Media Lie Machine: ‘Genocide’ in Kosovo?”, Z Magazine, May 2000.

[76] Herman and Chomsky (2002), Manufacturing Consent, p. xxi.

[77] Herman, Hitchens on “Serbia and East Timor”, Z Magazine, January 2000.

[78] Peter Phillips and Project Censored, Censored 2000, pp. 53-56.  Parenti (2000), To Kill a Nation, p. 99.

[79] Herman and Peterson (2000), “CNN: Selling NATO’s war globally”, Degraded Capability, p., 120.

[80] Herman and Peterson (2000), “CNN: Selling NATO’s war globally”, Degraded Capability, pp., 117-119.

[81] Herman and Peterson (2010), The Politics of Genocide, pp. 95-101.

[82] Herman and Peterson (2010), The Politics of Genocide, p. 49.  Herman, “The Fool, the Demagogue, and the Former KGB Colonel,” Z Magazine, May 2014.

[83] Herman and Peterson (2010), The Politics of Genocide, p. 49.

[84] Herman and Peterson (2000), “CNN: Selling NATO’s war globally”, Degraded Capability, pp., 119-120.

[85] Herman and Peterson (2004), “A Study in Propaganda: Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal”, in Brown, Herman, and Peterson’s The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic, p. 39.

[86] Herman and Peterson (2004), “A Study in Propaganda: Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal”, in Brown, Herman, and Peterson’s The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic, p. 41.

[87] Herman and Peterson (2004), “A Study in Propaganda: Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal”, in Brown, Herman, and Peterson’s The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic, p. 45.

[88] Herman and Peterson (2004), “A Study in Propaganda: Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal”, in Brown, Herman, and Peterson’s The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic, p. 45.

[89] Herman and Peterson (2004), “A Study in Propaganda: Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal”, in Brown, Herman, and Peterson’s The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic, p. 48.

[90] Herman and Peterson (2004), “A Study in Propaganda: Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal”, in Brown, Herman, and Peterson’s The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic, p. 51.

[91] Herman and Peterson (2004), “A Study in Propaganda: Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal”, in Brown, Herman, and Peterson’s The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic, pp. 53-54.

[92] Herman and Peterson (2004), “A Study in Propaganda: Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal”, in Brown, Herman, and Peterson’s The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic, p. 66.

[93] Herman, “Western Aggression: The Highest Form of Terrorism”, Z Magazine, February 2016, pp. 3-5.

[94] Herman and Peterson (2010), The Politics of Genocide, pp. 49-51, 81-83.

[95] Chomsky, “Foreword,” Herman and Peterson (2010), The Politics of Genocide, p. 7.

[96] Herman, “Golden Silences in the Propaganda System,” Z Magazine, June 2015, pp. 8-11.

[97] Herman (2011), “Preface.” The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics, p. 20.

[98] Herman (2011), “Preface.” The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics, p. 19.

[99] Herman, “Golden Silences in the Propaganda System,” Z Magazine, June 2015, pp. 8-11.

[100] Herman and Peterson (2012), Reality Denial: Steven Pinker’s Apologetics for Western-Imperial Violence, p. 10. 

[101] Herman and Peterson (2012), Reality Denial: Steven Pinker’s Apologetics for Western-Imperial Violence, p. 8. 

[102] Herman and Peterson (2012), Reality Denial: Steven Pinker’s Apologetics for Western-Imperial Violence, pp. 33-34. 

[103] Herman and Peterson (2012), Reality Denial: Steven Pinker’s Apologetics for Western-Imperial Violence, pp. 35-36. 

[104] Herman and Peterson (2012), Reality Denial: Steven Pinker’s Apologetics for Western-Imperial Violence, p. 37. 

[105] Chomsky and Herman (1979), The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, pp. 106-109.

[106] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 13-17.

[107] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 22-26.

[108] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, p. 67.

[109] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, p. 25.

[110] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 19-21.

[111] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, p. 22.

[112] Philpot (2013), Rwanda and the New Scramble for Africa, p. 180.

[113] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 38-43.

[114] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 27-29.

[115] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 29-32.

[116] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 26-29.

[117] Herman and Peterson, “Genocide Denial and Genocide Facilitation: Gerald Caplan and The Politics of Genocide”, MR Online, July 4, 2010.

[118] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, p. 13.

[119] Kuzmarov, “Dictators and Double Standards”, Z Magazine, October 2017.

[120] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 43-46.

[121] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 41-42.

[122] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 32-35.

[123] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, p. 37.

[124] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 48-55.

[125] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 54.

[126] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 53.

[127] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, p. 77.

[128] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, p. 93, note 30.

[129] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, p. 13.  Herman and Peterson, “Paul Kagame: ‘Our Kind of Guy’”, Z Magazine, October 2010.

[130] Herman and Peterson (2010), The Politics of Genocide, p. 35.

[131] Herman and Peterson (2010), The Politics of Genocide, p. 68.

[132] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, p. 54.

[133] Herman and Peterson, “Adam Jones on Rwanda and Genocide: A Reply,” MR Online, August 14, 2010.

[134] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, p. 71.

[135] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 66-73.

[136] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 30-31.

[137] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, p. 31.

[138] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, p. 56.

[139] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 59-60.

[140] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 83-89.

[141] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, p. 35.

[142] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, p. 75.

[143] Herman and Peterson (2014), Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide and the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later, pp. 76-77.

[144] Herman, “Genocide Inflation is the Real Human Rights Threat: Yugoslavia and Rwanda”, ZNet, October 26, 2007.

[145] Herman, review of Justice Belied: The Unbalanced Scales of International Criminal Justice, Z Magazine, January 2015.

[146] Herman, review of Justice Belied: The Unbalanced Scales of International Criminal Justice, Z Magazine, January 2015.

[147] Herman, review of Justice Belied: The Unbalanced Scales of International Criminal Justice, Z Magazine, January 2015.

[148] Philpot (2013), Rwanda and the New Scramble for Africa, p. 13.

[149] Melvern, et al., “Rwanda’s Untold Story: Letter to the Director-General of the BBC”, October 12, 2014, posted on lindamelvern.com. 

[150] Herman and Peterson, “The Kagame-Power Lobby’s Dishonest Attack on the BBC 2’s Documentary on Rwanda”, MR Online, November 1, 2014.

[151] Herman, “The Fool, the Demagogue, and the Former KGB Colonel,” Z Magazine, May 2014. 

[152] Herman, “The Fool, the Demagogue, and the Former KGB Colonel,” Z Magazine, May 2014. 

[153] Herman, Double Standards and/or Hypocrisy?”, Z Magazine, December 2014.

[154] Herman, “Speaking Truth to Power or to the Powerless?”, Z Magazine, February 2015.

[155] Mearsheimer, “Why the Ukrainian Crisis is the West’s Fault”, Foreign Affairs, September-October 2014.

[156] Herman, “Containing the United States”, Z Magazine, September 2016.

[157] Herman, “Containing the United States”, Z Magazine, September 2016.

[158] Herman, “The New Anti-Russian Hysteria” in Z Magazine, April 2017; “Fake News on Russia and Other Official Enemies: The New York Times, 1917-2017”, Monthly Review, July-August 2017.

[159] Herman, “Fake News on Russia and Other Official Enemies: The New York Times, 1917-2017”, Monthly Review, July-August 2017.

[160] Herman and Peterson, “Jeremiah Wright in the Propaganda System”, Monthly Review, September 2008.

[161] Herman, “Anti-Terrorism Rally in Paris?”, Z Magazine, March 2015.

[162] Herman, “After All We Did For Them in Fallujah!”, Z Magazine, October 2015.

[163] Herman, “Nasty Legacies”, Z Magazine, September 2015.

[164] Herman, “Double Standards and/or Hypocrisy?”, Z Magazine, December 2014.

[165] Herman, “Trans-Pacific Partnership versus Equality and Democracy”, Z Magazine, April 2015.

[166] Herman, “Foreign Engagement v. Aggression”, Z Magazine, June 2016.

[167] Herman, “Foreign Engagement v. Aggression”, Z Magazine, June 2016.

[168] Herman, “U.S. Political and Moral Disarray”, Z Magazine, December 2016.

[169] Herman, review of Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, Z Magazine, November 2015.

[170] Jeni Klugman, et al., “Human Development Report 2010, 20th Anniversary Edition” United Nations Development Programme, p. 144.  Libya ranked 53rd among Earth’s 169 nations studied, and had the highest-rank for an African nation. 

[171] Herman, “King of Chaos,” Z Magazine, March 2016.

[172] Herman, “King of Chaos,” Z Magazine, March 2016.

[173] Herman and Peterson, “The Oliver Kamm School of Falsification: Imperial Truth-Enforcement, British Branch”, MR Online, January 22, 2010.

[174] Lukes (1980), “Chomsky’s Betrayal of Truths”, Times Higher Education Supplement, November 7, 1980. 

[175] Barsky (1997), Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, pp. 187-188.

[176] Karen Eng, “Paying it forward: Fellows Friday with Sophal Ear”, TED Blog, October 19, 2012.

[177] Ear (1995), “The Khmer Rouge Canon 1975-1979: The Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia”, Master’s Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

[178] Barsky (1997), Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, p. 188.

[179] Herman, letter to the editor, “Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge”, The New York Times, published March 27, 1988.

[180] Barsky (1997), Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, p. 190.

[181] Barsky (1997), Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, p. 189.

[182] Herman (2011), “Preface.” The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics, p. 15.

[183] Monbiot, “Left and libertarian right cohabit in the weird world of the genocide belittlers”, The Guardian, June 13, 2011.

[184] Corwin (2011), “Foreword.” The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics, p. 8.

[185] Herman (2011), “Preface.” The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics, p. 13.

[186] Herman (2011), “Preface.” The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics, p. 20.

[187] Herman and Peterson, “George Monbiot and the Guardian on ‘Genocide Denial’ and “Revisionism”, MR Online, September 2, 2011.

[188] Herman and Peterson, “George Monbiot and the Guardian on ‘Genocide Denial’ and “Revisionism”, MR Online, September 2, 2011.  Herman and Peterson’s mistitled response is titled: “We're not genocide deniers. We just want to uncover the truth about Rwanda and Srebrenica”, The Guardian, July 19, 2011.

[189] Herman and Peterson, “George Monbiot and the Guardian on ‘Genocide Denial’ and “Revisionism”, MR Online, September 2, 2011.

[190] Herman, “Reply to George Monbiot on ‘Genocide Belittling’”, ZNet, July 20, 2011.

[191] Caplan, “The politics of denialism: The strange case of Rwanda”, Pambazuka News, June 17, 2010.

[192] Herman and Peterson, “Genocide Denial and Genocide Facilitation: Gerald Caplan and The Politics of Genocide”, MR Online, July 4, 2010.

[193] Luc Marchal, et al., “Analysis of the MUTSINZI Report,” CirqueMinime/Paris, February 10, 2010.

[194] Herman and Peterson, “Genocide Denial and Genocide Facilitation: Gerald Caplan and The Politics of Genocide”, MR Online, July 4, 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The next section: Brian O'Leary's Biography (72K)

Return to My Home Page (The address on the Internet of my home page is http://www.ahealedplanet.net/home.htm)