|
|
Eric Blumrich
- John LeKay: When did you start making these animated flash photographs and what inspired you to do them?
- Eric Blumrich: I started making flash videos, a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq. During that time I was appalled at how the corporate media was dutifully echoing this administration's case for war. I'm a news junkie - I watched the "liberal media" playing host to an endless line of neo-conservative pundits spewing out talking points (which we all know now were deliberate falsehoods), and never giving a second's consideration or airtime to those who believed this foregone conclusion of war to be ill-advised.
The straw that broke the camel's back was the antiwar march in New York on March 20, 2003, which had brought at least a half-million people out into the streets. It was an amazing experience - hundreds of thousands of people of every ethnicity, faith, and age were there, braving the bitter cold, hoping to make their voices heard. The most memorable part of the event was when we were asked to give a minute of silence, followed by a mass chant of "The World Says No to War!"
Silence in New York City is a rarity - much less so when you have a crowd of over a half-million, but we pulled it off; the loudest sound was the police helicopters buzzing overhead. Then, the air shook and reverberated as hundreds of thousands of voices spoke as one.
- It was cool.
I came home that evening, and checked the internet, millions of others had taken part in protests from Juneau, Alaska, to Beijing, on every continent (including Antarctica.) This, I thought, was big; the media HAD to take notice.
I flipped on the TV and had to wait 20 minutes before CNN bothered to spend 10 seconds, covering the largest antiwar action in world history. When they deigned to show a few seconds of the day's events, it was accompanied by a commentator's voice, quoting Rush Limbaugh, saying that those in attendance were "Marxists" (And, that only about 10,000 showed up for the march.)
I was pretty outraged by this. It was apparent that the traditional media had voluntarily castrated and blinded itself, to better become a more streamlined conduit for the Bush administration's lies.
Now, a few months before this, I had become interested in the alternative media available exclusively via the web. I spent some time at Take Back The Media (takebackthemedia.com) and Information Clearing House (informationclearinghouse.info), and had noticed that there were a few people out there creating these flash slideshows with political/antiwar content.
I was unemployed at the time and had a bit of free time on my hands. I knew flash, had an extensive collection of obscure European industrial music, and knew how to mine images off of the web. I figured "what the hell; I'll put together a flash animation about how much I hate this drive to war, and put it online..."
Now, this was before "viral video" entered the popular lexicon. I figured that maybe a few hundred people would download the (admittedly) amateurish and inarticulate visual screed I had put together, but was surprised when, the next morning, I found that it was being downloaded hundreds of times per hour. The guys who were hosting my stuff at the time were screaming bloody murder, because the demand for the piece was slowing their server down. I then invested 200 bucks in 200 gigs of transfer, but it was all used up, within 12 hours - 50,000 people had viewed my video, while I had been sleeping and eating breakfast.
It became apparent that there was a hunger for this sorta stuff out there. I chalked it up to the MTV generation; as long as it's short, set to good music, and visually compelling, people will pay attention.
I figured to push it a bit further. The reason that most Americans were really cheering for war at the time, was because to a great extent, none of them knew what war actually looked like. They saw it as a bunch of explosions on their televisions, and went to sleep, comforted in the knowledge that those pretty blossoms of flame were the result of "smart bombs", which never really hurt anyone, because they're just so danged accurate...
I used my small media pulpit to show people the grotesque bestiality of war. Dead children - ruins - sadness - hopelessness - sorrow - violence - and hoped to hell it would make people think...
- JL: Why do you think the corporate media is "dutifully echoing this administration's case for war", while deliberately not covering the biological effects of depleted uranium (uranium 238) on our troops. What does this say to you about the news, free press and journalism in the 21st century?
- EB: When you ask me: "Why do you think the corporate media is 'dutifully echoing this administration's case for war'", I have to assume that you or your readers haven't watched a minute of American network TV in the past five years. I could write a dozen paragraphs, citing universal media bias towards this administration, and not even scratch the surface. I'll just recommend that people regularly visit http://www.mediamatters.org, for a daily rundown. If you want a more broad view, read Eric Alterman's book "What Liberal Media?"
(http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0465001777&itm=2).
As far as the media ignoring the effects of Depleted Uranium, well, there are a lot of reasons. First off, there have been a ton of government studies done, and while they've all concluded that:
1: In the areas in which DU has been used, ambient radiation is significantly higher than in uncontaminated areas, and:
2: In areas littered with DU, cancer and birth defects are skyrocketing, as opposed to uncontaminated areas.
The reports conclude with the "tobacco company defense": "There's no conclusive proof that the use of DU results in higher ambient radiation and higher rates of cancer or birth defects. The matter is being investigated; after all, these extant conditions may be coincidences, influenced by phenomena yet to be determined."
Another reason is that just about all media outlets in this country are controlled by five major corporations, most of which have significant government contracts and ties to the military industries. It's not wise business sense to bite the hand that feeds you.
The sad part is: even if the media reported this, a lot of Americans would just refuse to believe the facts staring them in the face, because, well, it would require the average American to sorely re-evaluate what it means to be an American. It would demand that people ask themselves some very important questions. Unfortunately, too many Americans are not emotionally or psychologically prepared to handle such a dilemma; it's easier to just turn on the latest episode of "Lost" or "American Idol", and just hope it all goes away.
What does it say about journalism? It says that pretty much, the corporate media here in the United States is useless, and bereft of any legitimacy. There are exceptions, but they are sadly few and far between. The only reason I watch CNN or any other corporate media outlet is to examine "spin"...
As far as the free press goes, it's still alive, but it is in no position to challenge the entrenched media establishment. A lot of people laud the internet as a breakthrough that might challenge the mainstream media, but currently, it's just a free-for-all. Yeah, Democracy Now, Daily Kos, and a thousand other great sites fight the good fight, but when you have Alex Jones, David Icke, and thousands upon thousands of other sites pumping out hysterical noise, the truth gets lost in alla the chaff...
JL: Yeah, you're absolutely right. I can't speak for the readers, but it's a lot more than five years since I've watched the news on mainstream television; it's been closer to 15 years, Gulf War 1.- Have you seen the RAI documentary on the use of WP "Whisky Pete", white phosphorous in Fallujah? The so called "shake and bake" incendiary strikes. If you have, what are your thoughts on this film? Please see link below.
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/en/video.asp
Also, if the information in the RAI film is true, what does this situation say to you about the Chemical Weapons Conventions?
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's message on the Remembrance Day for Victims of Chemical Warfare, observed 29 April, 2006, had this to say.
"More than 90 years have passed since modern-day chemical weapons were first used, during the 1915 Battle of Ypres in World War I. The British war poet Wilfred Owen described the horror of seeing a fellow soldier guttering, choking, drowning, as if under a green sea of chlorine gas."
Since then, chemical weapons have continued to be developed and deployed against both soldiers and civilians, with the arsenal reaching its zenith during the Cold War. It wasn't until 29 April 1997, after long and difficult negotiations, that the Chemical Weapons Convention entered into force. By banning these weapons, the Convention heralded the beginning of the work to destroy the stockpiles that had been amassed.
That is the milestone we mark today, as we pay tribute to the victims of chemical warfare -- for whom the universality of this Convention, when it comes, will come too late".
- EB: I can say in response to both questions: The use of these horrific weapons by my government shocks and horrifies me.
There's little else I can say.
- For more visit www.bushflash.com
|
