Blog

We Need To Put Our Foot Down On Net Neutrality

November 24, 2009 in Feature, Media Freedom by admin

By Justine Bateman

The web as you know it is going to end.

  • The ease with which to reach your favorite sites is going to end.
  • The speed with which to reach those sites is going to end.
  • The ease with which you share videos with friends is going to end.
  • The freedom to access the site of any organization from Planned Parenthood to The Christian Coalition is going to end.
  • Access to the wide selection of web-series is going to end.
  • Access to the amazing choice of shopping sites is going to end.
  • Access to information from a multitude of educational institutions is going to end.

This is because:

a) You are moving to China.

b) You are moving to Iran.

c) You are severing your ISP connection.

d) The efforts of ATT, Comcast, Time/Warner Cable, Verizon, Verizon Wireless, The NCTA

The correct answer is “d”. The list of restrictions above is currently the plan of the United States telecom companies, who are trying to erode a long-standing Internet principle — Net Neutrality — which keeps the Internet as an open platform. As it stands now, anyone can create and distribute content on the Web and anyone can access any number of sites at comparable speeds. Net Neutrality is what makes the Internet so great — and so vital for innovation and creativity.

These Telecom companies, the people who charge you every month for access to the Internet, have waged an extremely aggressive campaign against the very access for which you’re paying.

They don’t like that they can’t tell you what to watch.

They don’t like that they can’t control the information you are accessing.

They don’t like that with just a couple of bucks, you can build a website or a platform or a web-series that can garner the size of audience that only they used to command.

They don’t like that they can’t get a cut of all of it.

They grew accustom to controlling your phone rates (Hello, Skype). They grew accustom to controlling what you saw on cable. They grew accustom to their arrangement with the studios and the networks. And they grew accustom to the manner in which they financially participated in those arrangements. Now, because of the Internet, we have a different media landscape.

In Washington right now, the Federal Communications Commission is attempting to make Net Neutrality a hard and fast rule for the Internet. This would stop AT&T and other companies from destroying web content and your access to it. Because of this, the Telecom Companies have nearly 500 lobbyists in place to steal your Internet freedom. There are only 535 members of Congress. That’s nearly one lobbyist for every member of Congress. The telecom companies have also (at press time) already spent nearly $75 million dollars to convince lawmakers to restrict your unfettered Internet access.

This is serious business. For them and for us. A liberated Internet will continue to be a reality in your life (and in the lives of your children) if rules like Net Neutrality are in place.

You have to make that happen. Tell the FCC and your representatives that the removal of your Internet Freedoms will not stand. tell your representative that this is not happening.

If you get involved in just one cause this year, let it be the one to fight against having your Internet access strangled. Because if you don’t fight for this one, you will never be able to access the websites for all the other causes you care about and future generations will be robbed of an Internet Freedom that you had the power to maintain.

Internet Freedom is not for sale. Put your foot down.

– Justine Bateman is a writer, producer, actress, director, and founding partner of FM78.tv, a production company focused on the future of entertainment.

Post to Twitter

Share/Save/Bookmark

Moyers Message to Obama: Study History or Repeat its Mistakes

November 23, 2009 in Feature, War & Media by admin

By Danny Schechter
Author of “THE CRIME OF OUR TIME

How LBJ Was Sucked Into Escalation In Vietnam And Why Its Happening Again

Elders are considered wisdom keepers in most of the world’s cultures, perhaps just not our own. They are repositories of important lessons, keepers of the collective memory, and as such, usually revered. In our own midst, in our own time, one man deserves all praises due for the role he’s chosen to play as the sage of the electronic stage, as our educator in chief, as the voice of the national conscience, as the best journalist on television.

His name is Bill Moyers and he proved again on Friday night why he is such a giant and national treasure.

On the very day that the world’s media honored one of their richest and most powerful TV brands, Queen Oprah, who announced “the show was my life” but that she was stepping down two years hence, Bill Moyers delivered one of the most important programs of his career in an effort to call our young President to account, to prevent another similar tragedy in the making. As she reveled in the headlines as a a celebrity goddess, he went back to work.

Alas, like Oprah, Moyers will also be stepping down next year, not in 2011. Who got all the media attention? Ms. O, not Mr. M!

He aired this report on this weekend of the anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination to remind us what happened to the leader who replaced that generation’s young prince. I am talking about Lyndon Baines Johnson, the master of the Senate, who succeeded John F Kennedy on that terrible day in Dallas.

LBJ came to office with many heavy burdens, including a war raging in South East Asia. His Presidency would be defined by how he handled it, or failed to handle it. As fate would have it, a 30 year old Bill Moyers was one of Johnson’s aides and an eyewitness to the tragedy that followed that original sin.

On his Journal, Moyers went back to the historical record, to selected but revealing tapes of Johnson’s own phone calls with his colleagues and appointees-yes he wiretapped himself the way Nixon did years later-and those calls showed how he agonized over whether to escalate the war, a course of action he knew could not succeed. The parallels with the present day, and the upcoming decision by President Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan are unmistakable and undeniable.

There was the cunning LBJ boiling down the options to getting out or going in deeper, or perhaps “neutralizing” the situation with trainers and economic aid. He, of course opted for the third choice at first-just as Obama has-until it was clear it was not working and we and that our corrupt client state was losing. As his perceived options narrowed, so did his course of action.

As Republicans then demanded “victory,” as the military (The Joint Chiefs) clamored for a higher draft and more troops, LBJ began to fear being accused of tucking tail and running, a big no-no in a culture in which Americans see themselves as perpetual winners, the toughest guys on the block. He could not, in his view, be the President who “lost” Vietnam the way his predecessors were accused of losing China-as if those countries were ours to lose!

And so slowly-as we saw, or rather hear, Johnson escalated, stage by stage, often on the basis of false “intelligence” as in the Tonkin Gulf incident that wasn’t. Step by step, the third option was abandoned and the military option was embraced. One infusion of troops was followed by another as the war worsened with tens of thousands of US deaths and casualties and millions of Asian victims.

Trapped by his own limited logic, and cautiously pragmatic style. LBJ gave up his principles, compromised on his convictions, and his “Great Society” and Presidency became a disaster. He later quit politics, a broken man.

Will it happen again?

Moyers clear point in the poorly watched PBS Public Affairs Friday Night Ghetto was clear-it is about to happen again.

“We will never know what would have happened if Lyndon Johnson said no,” he concluded. “We do know what happened because he said yes.”

It was brilliant television, informative journalism of the kind we rarely see, all driven by the words and voice of the man who was once his own “boss.” We saw how the logic of escalation supplanted all other logic and, then, logic itself.

YOU CAN WATCH IT ON LINE RIGHT NOW AT PBS.ORG. Please watch it as you have watched few other shows. Let us urge Barack Obama to watch it too. Remember history repeats itself as farce.

Moyers himself told me about the subject of the show when I stopped by his office at New York’s Channel 13 on Friday afternoon. I was there to comment on Oprah’s announcement for the BBC which has its bureau just down the hall. (I also learned, sadly, that BBC will soon be closing the NY bureau and moving staffers to Washington-a big loss!) As it is, I am on the air more in other countries than my own.

Moyers was putting the final touches on the show yesterday but, graceful as usual, took a minute out to say hello. I wrote to him after last night’s show ended praising his work.

He responded almost immediately:

“Thanks, Danny. I was pleased to see you, too. You’re a brave and gutsy journalist – your columns on the media clear and strong and courageous; they are also true. Why is it our press is immune to criticism? Nothing seems to faze them.”

That is a crime as serious as the one The Bill Moyers Journal documented.

FROM THE TRANSCRIPT: Go online to LISTEN to the actual calls.

February 3, 1964 President Johnson has been in office only three months, and is told the situation in Vietnam is deteriorating. Here, Johnson sounds out an old friend’s opinion – newspaper publisher John Knight.

May 27, 1964 Beginning in 1959, the North Vietnamese Army moved supplies into South Vietnam using a route along the Cambodian border. In 1964, Johnson approved secret bombing of what was known as the Ho Chi Minh trail.

In Saigon, where there’s been another military coup, Defense Secretary McNamara promises the new government that “We’ll stay for as long as it takes. We shall provide whatever help is required to win the battle against the Communist insurgents.” But he brings back news of an army nearing collapse, and tells the President he needs to increase military assistance quickly. With one eye on that deteriorating situation and another on the coming election, he turns for solace to his old friend and mentor in the Senate, Richard Russell of Georgia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee:

May 27, 1964 After speaking with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who inform the President that he has few good options in Vietnam. Johnson discusses the situation with McGeorge Bundy, his special assistant for national security:

June 9, 1964 Congress and the public are increasingly restless about Vietnam. Negative press reports undermine all the positive statements issued by the administration. Below, Johnson and McNamara discuss the bad press and the further deterioration of the situation in Vietnam – Vietcong guerrillas have extended their control of the countryside and South Vietnamese soldiers quit the fight faster than Americans can train them. The president reads McNamara a memo he received from Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield.

June 11, 1964 The Vietcong continue to gain strength, and a corrupt and incompetent government in South Vietnam is tottering again. The U.S. ambassador to Saigon, Henry Cabot Lodge, a Republican, is resigning, and the president thinks he may be coming home to campaign against him in the fall. Johnson turns again to his trusted friend Senator Russell. He tells him of advice he received from a his neighbor, a Texas rancher, Judge A.W. Moursund:

U.S. Escalates the War

August 2, 1964 The captain of a navy ship, the U.S.S. Maddox reports that his ship has been fired on and is about to be attacked. On August 4, the captain reports a second attack. Though it would later become clear no August 4 attack actually took place, President Johnson orders retaliatory air strikes against two North Vietnamese naval bases and an oil facility. Two American planes are shot down in the attacks.

In the conversations below, the President plans the American response with Secretary McNamara.

August 3, 1964, 10:30 am President Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara.

August 3, 1964, 1:21 pm President Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara.

August 4, 1964, 11:00 am In the midst of discussing the American response to the August 2 attack, McNamara informs President Johnson that an American ship is under torpedo attack.

August 7, 1964 Congress passes a joint resolution “to promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia.” The Tonkin Gulf Resolution stated that “Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repeal any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent any further aggression.” In other words, the resolution gave the President the right to pursue military action in Vietnam without a declaration of war. Both Johnson and Nixon would rely on the resolution as legal justification for the war.

Nov 3, 1964 Lyndon B. Johnson defeats Barry Goldwater, and is elected to the Presidency. There are just over 15,000 American troops in Vietnam.

February 13, 1965 President Johnson authorizes Operation Rolling Thunder, a campaign of bombing North Vietnam to force it to cease supporting guerrillas in the south. The raids would persist continually for nearly three years.

April 7, 1965 North Vietnam rejects an American offer of economic aid in exchange for peace.

April 20, 1965 The President’s top officials conclude that bombing alone is insufficient. Defense Secretary McNamara explains to President Johnson that the military leaders are requesting additional combat brigades.

June 5, 1965 The American ambassador has called Washington with news that the Saigon government is again in crisis. The Vietcong have launched a new offensive during the monsoon season, making it harder to defend ground forces from the air. The cable is blunt: “It will probably be necessary to commit U.S. ground forces to action.” An anxious President calls his secretary of defense:

June 8, 1965 President Johnson calls Senate Majority Leader Mansfield, who has written the president to urge him not to bomb Hanoi, the capital of North Vietnam. Wanting to keep Mansfield aboard, he asks him how he should approach Congress:

June 10, 1965 Another cable has arrived from Saigon, this one from General Westmoreland. He wants 41,000 combat troops in Vietnam and 52,000 more later. And he will need “even greater forces” later to “take the war to the enemy.” McNamara says “We’re in a hell of a mess.”

July 2, 1965 In a June 18 coup, South Vietnam formed its l0th government in 20 months. A few days later Vietcong mortars destroy three U.S. aircraft at Danang. During a conversation with Defense Secretary McNamara, Johnson begins to consider what has to happen to get the troops they will need to stay the course:

July 28, 1965 In a press conference, the president announces his decision to commit more troops to the conflict in Vietnam. I have asked the Commanding General, General [William C.] Westmoreland, what more he needs to meet this mounting aggression. He has told me. We will meet his needs.

I have today ordered to Vietnam the Air Mobile Division and certain other forces which will raise our fighting strength from 75,000 to 125,000 men almost immediately. Additional forces will be needed later, and they will be sent as requested. This will make it necessary to increase our active fighting forces by raising the monthly draft call from 17,000 over a period of time to 35,000 per month, and for us to step up our campaign for voluntary enlistments.

I do not find it easy to send the flower of our youth, our finest young men, into battle. I have spoken to you today of the divisions and the forces and the battalions and the units. But I know them all, every one. I have seen them in thousand streets, of a hundred towns, in every State in this Union – working and laughing and building, and filled with hope and life. I think that I know, too, how their mothers weep and how their families sorrow. This is the most agonizing and the most painful duty of your President. 1965 to 1973

By year’s end there would be 184,000 troops in Vietnam, even as 90,000 South Vietnamese soldiers deserted. In response to the deployment of U.S. ground troops in 1965, North Vietnamese army combat units officially entered the war in support of the Vietcong. By the war’s end in 1975, 2.5 million Americans would serve in Vietnam.

Johnson would not seek reelection in 1968.

As American’s casualties mounted, public opposition to the war grew at home, and President Nixon began decreasing troop levels in 1969. But the war would continue to grind on until a 1973 cease fire. In 1975, North Vietnamese troops took control of South Vietnam and united the country. Some 59,000 Americans died fighting in Vietnam, and more than 1 million Vietnamese.

– Mediachannel’s News Dissector Danny Schechter investigates the origins of the economic crisis in his new book Plunder: Investigating Our Economic Calamity and the Subprime Scandal (Cosimo Books via Amazon). Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org

Post to Twitter

Share/Save/Bookmark

Get Hip, Learn to Fear the Double-Dip — Barack Obama Does!

November 20, 2009 in Economy, Feature by admin

By Danny Schechter
Author of “THE CRIME OF OUR TIME

Why The President Warns of a Deeper Drop, Not a Recovery

When I was a kid, a “double dip” was an ice cream cone with two scoops. Yummy.

Today, the same expression is being used to warn us that the recession we are still struggling with, and is supposedly poised for recovery, could fall even deeper into another dip. That d word seems to be a substitute for another – a depression.

What’s going wrong? Isn’t the stock market sailing high? Hasn’t GM managed to cut its losses to only a billion? Isn’t Goldman Sachs setting aside a half a billion dollars to help small business and show how sorry it is for its role in the financial meltdown? (That pay out is over ten years—just 2.6% of its bonus pile, but who’s counting.) A half a billion still sounds like real money.

To hear Joe Bidden tell Jon Stewart how many jobs were created or saved, you would almost think it’s all under control. That’s what they want us to believe: we are on the way back baby, because the big dicks are swinging on Wall Street again.

And yet, when you read between the lines and figure out how to decode the lies and cheerleading, another picture emerges.

A Double Dip is not that remote.

There are structural problems like a growing wall of debt that, try as you might, cannot all be blamed on the Democrats, if you are of the other persuasion, or on the Repugs, if you stand with the Donkeys.

It’s a system thing, a cancer that is eating away at the economy. The Financial Times reported Wednesday night, “US President Barrack Obama warned that the US economy could head into a ‘double-dip recession’ unless urgent steps were taken to rein in mounting public debt.

Obama told Fox News—I guess they are talking again– “That’s when the economy begins to recover briefly from a recession only to be dragged back under. Obama told Fox News in an interview Wednesday that his administration is weighing tax breaks that could encourage businesses to begin hiring again.

But he added that it’s important to recognize that if the nation keeps adding to deficit spending through tax cuts or more stimulus spending, at some point people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy and that could “lead to a double-dip recession.”

What are the chances that can happen?

Quiet as its kept, the odds are pretty good.

Can a Congress addicted to financing from lobbyists and compromise and collusion do what needs to be done? The financial industry has 6 lobbyists playing every Congressman. (My new book, THE CRIME OF OUR TIME offers the details.)

While Obama was in China kowtowing to our nation’s real bankers, Tim Geithner was on the hill pleading for financial reforms, even as most observers believe that’s because the public thinks thing are getting better, and because our legislators don’t want to think about it, there is no passion for cracking down on the practices and people that got us into this mess.

AP reported: “Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress on Tuesday that efforts to strengthen the global financial system to prevent another deep crisis will falter if the United States drops the ball on overhauling regulation of its own banking system.

“We need to move on the reform agenda when the memory of the crisis is still acute.”

Sorry Tim: We have no memory in our United States of Amnesia where the national attention span finds twittered messages too long.

Already the Obama Administration is preaching reform while also killing reform, as in watering down the Sarbanes Oxley rules, enacted after the Enron Scandal and passed by Busheviks, for companies making less than $75 billion. That’s considered “small business.”

And what about protecting Consumers from abuses that EVERYONE knows are outrageous. Mike Kranish writes in the Boston Globe that reforms to lower credit card rates are fading:

” Efforts in Congress to cap credit-card interest rates are faltering because of opposition from Democrats and a lack of specific support from the White House, despite growing consumer outrage over a rush by banks to impose rates as high as 30 percent.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama vowed to back a strict limit on credit-card interest rates. But the White House is not yet behind any particular plan this year. While Obama has chastised credit-card companies, his spokeswoman declined to say this week how he planned to follow through on his campaign pledge.”

And what about jobs? New organizing efforts are underway to press Congress to act. The reason, according to the Economic Policy Institute:

“The U.S. unemployment rate exceeded 10% in October for the first time in a quarter century. Nearly 16 million Americans who are able and willing to work cannot find a job. More than one out of every three unemployed workers has been out of a job for six months or more. The situation facing African-American and Latino workers is even bleaker, with unemployment at 15.7% and 13.1%, respectively.”

What to do?

For starters, we have to get hip about the dangers of a double dip. We have to care more about these issues than we do. Enough bloviating about Sarah Palin and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad.

Enough about Rush and Beck and company and other distractions.

Educate yourself about how serious the crisis still is. Get engaged with economic justice issues. Press for financial reform with groups like ANewWayForward.org.

Lets start focusing on stopping a more serious collapse before it occurs.

– News Dissector Danny Schechter is finishing the film Plunder: the Crime of Our Time and has a companion book on the financial meltdown as a crime story. Visit: Plunderthecrimeofourtime.com Write: dissector@mediachannel.org

Post to Twitter

Share/Save/Bookmark

CPJ to Honor Five International Journalists

November 19, 2009 in Africa, Asia, Awards, Feature, Media Freedom by admin

By The Committee to Protect Journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists will honor courageous journalists from Somalia, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, and Azerbaijan with its 2009 International Press Freedom Awards at a ceremony in November.

Mustafa Haji Abdinur of Somalia, Naziha Réjiba of Tunisia, Eynulla Fatullayev of Azerbaijan, and J.S. Tissainayagam of Sri Lanka have faced imprisonment, threats of violence, and censorship to stand up for press freedom in their countries.

“These are reporters who risk their personal freedom and often their lives to ensure that independent voices resonate within their nations and across the globe,” said CPJ Board Chairman Paul Steiger. “Their fearlessness to report the news in the face of great obstacles is an inspiration to us all.”

“These journalists are being honored not only because they embody what CPJ stands for, but because they have fought against injustice to uphold the values of press freedom,” CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon said. “Imprisonment, harassment, and threat of death cannot deter these extraordinary journalists from continuing their work.”

Anthony Lewis, noted author, journalist, and scholar, will receive CPJ’s Burton Benjamin Memorial Award for lifetime achievement in recognition of his continued efforts to ensure a free press around the world.

The awards will be presented at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City on Tuesday, November 24. Robert Thomson, editor-in-chief of Dow Jones and managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, is chairman of the black-tie dinner. Christiane Amanpour, CPJ board member and CNN’s Chief International Correspondent, will be the host.

Here are the recipients of CPJ’s 2009 International Press Freedom Awards:

Ø Mustafa Haji Abdinur, Somalia: Haji has seen six of his colleagues die this year on the streets of Mogadishu—caught in the crossfire of battling insurgents, or gunned down for their work. He is one of a very small number of courageous journalists still working in Mogadishu despite ongoing violence and a shattered economy. As a correspondent for Agence France-Presse in Mogadishu and editor-in-chief of independent radio station Radio Simba, Haji faces danger and threats on a daily basis to report from Mogadishu’s once-bustling Bakara Market, which has become a stronghold of insurgents in the war-torn city. In 2007, with the help of a small businessman, Haji started Radio Simba in Mogadishu, which now reaches more than 2 million listeners across southern and central Somalia. His work for AFP and several other Western media outlets has made him a target of both Islamic insurgents and government authorities. He was beaten by insurgents for assisting two Japanese journalists from the Kyoto News Agency and arrested by government security forces for airing an interview with an Islamic militant leader of the Al-Shabaab insurgency. Despite receiving death threats and seeing his colleagues from Radio Shabelle and HornAfrik killed, Mustafa has insisted on staying in Mogadishu to report the unfolding Somali crisis, even while having to move his family three hours north for their safety.

Ø Naziha Réjiba, Tunisia: As editor of the independent online news journal Kalima, which is blocked in Tunisia, Réjiba is one of Tunisia’s most critical journalists. In a country where the media is heavily restricted and the government actively harasses the few independent journalists who attempt to write critically of the government, Réjiba, also known as Um Ziad, has been the target of intimidation and harassment since November 1987, when President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali came to power in a coup. Rejiba’s home is under constant surveillance, her phones lines are monitored, and she has been summoned for questioning repeatedly. Réjiba co-founded Kalima in 2000 with prominent journalist Sihem Ben Sedrine, herself a frequent target of the government. A year later, the pair founded the press freedom group Observatoire de la Liberté de la Presse, de L’Edition et de la Création (OLPEC). Both Kalima, which went online after being denied the right to publish in print, and OLPEC, are banned in Tunisia. In 2007, after ignoring numerous anonymous threats to ruin her reputation and that of her family if she continued her critical journalism, Rejiba was subject to a vile smear campaign featuring fabricated pornographic pictures of her husband, lawyer and former Member of Parliament Mokhtar Jellali. In October 2008, Kalima was hacked into and shut down. When Réjiba wrote an article accusing the government of being behind the hacking of Kalima, she was summoned to appear before a public prosecutor. Although she has not been charged, lawyers said that under the press law she could still face up to three years in prison for publishing “false news.”

Ø Eynulla Fatullayev, Azerbaijan: When Fatullayev’s friend and colleague Elmar Huseynov was murdered, the journalist set out to find his killer—and ended up facing more than eight years in prison. In 2005, Fatullayev was working as an investigative reporter for the opposition magazine Monitor when his colleague and Editor-in-Chief Elmar Huseynov was assassinated. In 2007, he published an article in Realny Azerbaijan, a newspaper he founded after Huseynov’s assassination. The article, “Lead and Roses,” accused Azerbaijani authorities of obstructing the investigation into the killing and alleged that Huseynov’s murder was ordered by high-ranking officials in Baku and carried out by a criminal group, including five Georgian citizens who had arrived in Baku two months prior to the assassination. Four days later, Fatullayev began receiving death threats. In the months following, he was convicted on charges of libeling and insulting Azerbaijanis in an Internet posting that was attributed to him but which he denied making, and his newspaper’s offices were raided and shut down. Then in July 2007, Fatullayev was hit with a series of politicized charges including “terrorism” for an analysis of Azerbaijan’s policies toward Iran. He was convicted in October and slammed with an eight-year sentence. In June 2008, the Supreme Court of Azerbaijan upheld Fatullayev’s convictions. CPJ Europe and Central Asia Program Coordinator Nina Ognianova reported on Fatullayev’s case in CPJ’s special report, “Finding Elmar’s Killers.”

Ø J.S. Tissainayagam, Sri Lanka: On March 7, 2008, Tissainayagam, editor of news web site OutreachSL and a columnist for the English-language Sri Lankan Sunday Times, went to the offices of the Terrorism Investigation Division to ask about a colleague who had been arrested the day before. He never made it back home. Tissainayagam, also known as Tissa, was one of the dozens of ethnic Tamil journalists who were swept up during the 26-year-long conflict between the Sinhalese-dominated government and Tamil separatists, which ended this year. Terrorism Investigation Division officials arrested Tissainayagam and held him without charge for six months. Then in August 2008, he was charged with inciting “communal disharmony,” an offense under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, in two articles written nearly three years earlier in a defunct magazine called North Eastern Monthly. In September 2009, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Local journalists say Tissainayagam wrote political columns about Tamil issues that were frequently critical of the government but not considered partisan to the separatist group the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. U.S. President Barack Obama highlighted Tissainayagam’s case during his World Press Freedom Day address in May.

Burton Benjamin Memorial Award: Anthony Lewis, United States

CPJ will honor Anthony Lewis with the Burton Benjamin Memorial Award given for a lifetime of distinguished achievement in the cause of press freedom. Twice awarded the Pulitzer Prize, Lewis is a former columnist for The New York Times. He is widely recognized as one of the United States’ foremost thinkers on freedom of speech and First Amendment rights. Lewis has been a tireless scholar of journalism, having taught and lectured at Columbia’s School of Journalism as well as at Harvard University. His book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment was published in 2008.

“For more than 50 years, Tony Lewis has been a frontline observer and eloquent chronicler of the issues surrounding press freedom,” CPJ’s Steiger said. “Two generations of readers owe to him much of their understanding of the crucial role that the First Amendment—and journalism—serve in democracy.”

The Burton Benjamin Memorial Award is named in honor of the late CBS News senior producer and former CPJ chairman who died in 1988.

CPJ will also finally present an award to 2001 winner Jiang Weiping from China, who was in jail and could not receive his award at the time.

The International Press Freedom Awards, now in their 19th year, are the centerpiece in CPJ’s annual fund-raising effort, providing more than a third of the budget for our press freedom advocacy efforts around the world.

To attend the awards dinner, please call CPJ’s Development Office at 212-465-1004 x 113.

– For more information about the award winners, and for information about CPJ’s work or CPJ, visit our Web site at www.cpj.org or call 212-465-1004 x105.

Post to Twitter

Share/Save/Bookmark

Fox News’ Faux News

November 18, 2009 in Feature, Media Bias, Politics by admin

Brad Friedman, Guardian

Fox News presents an alternative, right-wing reality where up
is down and Tea Party protest misinformation is legion

It must be stated over and over again: the Fox News Channel is not a news channel. It’s a Republican party propaganda channel. As such, its first amendment right to say whatever it likes ought to be protected, but not its “right” to call itself “news”. That’s false advertising, and it ought to be outlawed by whoever regulates such things.

Perhaps if they changed the name to the Republican News Channel (RNC for short), there would be no complaint. Until they do, however, they need to be called out by the rest of us for exactly what they are.

To that end, recent statements by the White House are right on the money: Fox should be treated not like a news organisation but like a television network that exists to promote a specific political agenda.

This public recognition of the perfectly obvious is long overdue from Democrats, many of whom continue, foolishly, to treat Fox as merely a news outlet with a conservative bent. These Democrats fall into the false equivalence brier patch when they say Fox is merely a conservative counterpart to rival network MSNBC. Sure, several of the GE-owned news outlet’s primetime shows cover real news from a progressive perspective, but progressivism does not equal liberalism, whatever that is, nor even Democratic-ism.

For the intellectually honest who bother to pay attention to MSNBC’s primetime coverage (distinct from its all-rightwing morning coverage hosted for several hours by former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough) the news outlet’s progressive viewpoint is obvious. So is their well-documented penchant for reporting on the scoundrels in, and failings of, the Democratic party. Such failings are not hidden from viewers.

By contrast, Fox presents an alternative reality where Republican hypocrisy, scandals and abuses of power are either spun into something they are not or, more frequently, simply not mentioned at all. As such, the depths of the historically unprecedented failure that was George Bush’s presidency remain virtually unknown to Fox viewers. In the bargain, as the young Obama administration moves forward, attempting to deal with countless disasters they’ve inherited, issue after issue now comes as a complete surprise to the majority of Fox’s audience.

The resultant spectacle might be amusing were it not so dangerous to our country’s future. It’s also rather sad to see so many well-meaning Americans pushed into speeding traffic by cynical rightwing power brokers using and abusing their good nature.

It is with a sense of both shame and bemusement that we now witness good Americans agitated and drafted into protests over the very policies that the Republican failure has itself created and supported uncritically for years: record government expansion and deficits; massive Big Brother invasion of privacy; bureaucratic intrusion between patients and doctors; corporate bailouts courtesy of taxpayer largesse….

The list goes on and on, but the frothing teabaggers protest as if the last eight years never happened. Rather, these poor saps were presented with a phony version of reality produced with Hollywood-style special effects and distractions (missing blonds, steroids in baseball, terrorists around every corner, non-existent voter fraud). Now these confused souls roam the streets, town halls and email lists as clueless zombies, unaware of who and what they are fighting for (government-supported corporatocracy) or against (their own self-interest).

Its a breath of fresh air to see a White House finally willing to offer an official definition of what the Fox News Channel actually is and, in turn, to witness the nattering nabobs of nincompoopery waste their time by spinning viewers with tales of yet another imaginary war – this one where Fox and the first amendment are both imagined to be under attack. At least in trumping up this war, the folks at Fox are only hurting themselves.

And if anybody needed more evidence that the White House is absolutely right about Fox not being a news organisation, on Wednesday night primetime anchor Sean Hannity was forced to admit that he’d falsified footage of a recent Tea Party protest on Capitol Hill. When the attendance wasn’t large enough to give the impression of the angry Republican mobs Hannity might have hoped for, he and fellow Republican Michele Bachmann told viewers the crowd was tens of thousands of angry voters larger than it actually was while showing two-month-old footage from a completely different rally to underscore their point.

To make matters even more embarrassing, the video that was deceptively spliced in was from a September rally where a Fox News producer had been caught stage-managing the crowd, urging them to cheer loudly while on camera.

Hannity’s admission to an “inadvertent mistake” (how incorrect video inadvertently edits itself into a new report went unexplained) came after the doctored video was discovered by Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, which offers far more accurate, fair and balanced news on a daily basis than Fox could ever dream of.

Post to Twitter

Share/Save/Bookmark

‘Daily Show’ Producers, Writers Say They’re Serious about Media Criticism

November 17, 2009 in Feature, Humor, Journalism by admin

By Mallary Jean Tenore, Poynter Online

“Daily Show” producer Ramin Hedayati spends his morning flipping back and forth between the “Today Show” and “The Early Show,” glancing at major news sites and political blogs and reading The New York Times. When he gets into the office, he scans through news shows recorded on the office’s 13 TiVos and looks for glaring inconsistencies, misleading reports and humorous soundbites.

While watching Sean Hannity’s coverage of an anti-health-care-reform rally at the Capitol last week, he knew something wasn’t quite right. “I remember saying to myself …’There couldn’t be a more beautiful day for this rally.’ Then all of a sudden it went to cloudy footage,” said Hedayati. “Hannity used footage from Glenn Beck’s 9/12 rally to make his rally look bigger … We were surprised that no one else caught it.”

Hannity responded last week to the show’s uncovering of the inconsistency, saying the video switch-up was an “inadvertent mistake.”

While its touts itself as a comedy show first and foremost, “The Daily Show” is also an unabashed media critic and ombudsman of sorts that exposes journalists’  wrongdoings and shortcomings.

“I feel like there are lot of critics of the government but there are very few critics of the media who have an audience and are credible and keep a watch on things,” said “Daily Show” writer Elliott Kalan. “That’s a role that we provide that we take very seriously.”

Kalan said the biggest mistakes he sees the mainstream media make involve overreaction and early reaction to the news. On television especially, he said, everything is “a scoop” or “breaking news” even when it’s not. He noted that presenting the coverage in such a way leads networks to give news a level of speed and intensity that can sometimes get in the way of facts.

The liberal-leaning “Daily Show” more often than not picks on Fox News and conservative commentators such as Hannity, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly.

But it also takes satirical jabs at other mainstream media outlets. Recently, it criticized CNN for saying “let’s leave it there” during critical parts of an interview and, in another show, made light of nightly news broadcasters getting too excited about having covered the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago.

At the same time that “The Daily Show” is critiquing the media, it’s also establishing itself as a “trusted” news source, even though it doesn’t refer to itself as one.

Calling out the media when it takes things out of context, overplays the news


“The Daily Show” often points out when the media doesn’t do their job — such as when host Jon Stewart called out CNBC’s Jim Cramer for repeating corporate spin instead of investigating the truth.

“Daily Show” Segment Producer Patrick King said the episode exposing Cramer’s contradictions “was less about finding inconsistencies as it was about going at the heart of what that network reports itself to be. It holds itself to be the ‘end all, be all’ of economic journalism, but when you actually watch it leading up to the recession, you see they were really giving terrible advice based on conventional wisdom on Wall Street.”

One of the show’s rules is to not trust any source too much until it’s been confirmed by another source. The show’s 11 writers and eight producers — who range in age from their early 20s to mid 40s and four of whom are women — say they often check The New York Times and other newspapers to verify the facts and figures they hear on TV or read about on blogs. They also have a researcher and fact-checker, Adam Chodikoff, who makes sure any information that’s used has been verified by multiple sources.

“We work very hard to make sure that we don’t take anything out of context,” King explained, “just because we like to think at the end of the day that what we’re doing is right and correct, but also because while the networks don’t respond to us all that much, people attack us and criticize us and we don’t want to give them ammunition than they need.”

They’re not afraid to provide that ammunition, however, if they believe it will make a point. During a 2004 interview on the now-defunct “Crossfire,” for instance, Stewart said the show was “hurting America,” and that “we need help from the media, and they’re hurting us.” It’s this type of stance on issues that King said he wishes more mainstream journalists would take when interviewing politicians.

Seeing the value in analysis & informed opinion

Too often, King said, journalists’ political coverage — and that of media critics — ends up being sanitized and nothing but a perfunctory he said/she said exchange. “If you were going to talk about whether the earth is flat, and 99 percent of scientists are saying it’s round, and 1 percent are saying it’s flat, you wouldn’t bring on the 1 percent guy,” he said. “That viewpoint is factually inaccurate and they shouldn’t bring him on just to give the illusion of balance.”

When both sides are represented, writer Elliott Kalan said, there needs to be more fact-checking and deeper questioning: “A senator or governor will be on the news and will say something completely biased, and newscasters won’t call them on it. They should be checking these people. Instead they don’t want to alienate them and they let them say whatever they want.”

He argued that the news media — and political commentators — need to look more critically at both sides of an issue, and spend more time breaking down complicated talking points for news consumers. Too often, Kalan said, journalists adhere to neutrality to the point where it paralyzes their ability to ask tough questions and undermines the power of objective, informed opinion.

Kalan described objectivity as having opinions that are pro-facts, and neutrality as meaning you have no stake and no say. “The Daily Show,” he said, aims to be objective. And funny.

“The fact is, we are a comedy show, and if it’s not funny we’re not doing it, no matter how big of an issue it is,” King said. “We care really passionately about the things we do, but first and foremost we have to make people laugh.”

“I think we have to find a way for well-researched, intelligent programming to become entertaining again,” said Hedayati. “Sensationalism may prove just too damn fun to watch, though.”

Post to Twitter

Share/Save/Bookmark

Too Big to Block? Why Obama Must Stop the Comcast-NBC Merger

November 16, 2009 in Feature, Ownership by admin

By Josh Silver, FreePress

By next week, cable giant Comcast is expected to announce a deal to buy NBC-Universal, the biggest proposed media merger in recent memory. Comcast, the largest cable company and the No. 1 Internet service provider in the nation, would take over the NBC empire: a television network, Universal Studios, MSNBC, CNBC, USA Network, Telemundo, the Weather Channel, Hulu.com, 27 television stations and a host of other properties. UPDATE: The latest rumors indicate a merger announcement on Monday.

This train wreck of a deal will hurt all over. It will mean increased costs for cable television service; currently free online NBC content locked behind a pay wall; less opportunity for the distribution of independent media; even fewer choices and less programming diversity. On average, nearly one quarter of all channels offered to cable subscribers will be owned by the bloated Comcast.

News reports about the deal are citing the “conventional wisdom” echoed by industry analysts from Wall Street and Washington: Judicial and agency precedent indicates that the Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission will not be able to stop the merger — even if they know that the cost to the public interest will be grave. This is the same kind of regulatory precedent that permitted the renegade banking industry to run amok, until the system came crashing down. Our lawmakers should have been reining in these out-of-control corporations long ago. But therein lies the problem: Corporate-friendly judges, appointed by corporate-friendly politicians, elected with contributions from their corporate patrons, have created a body of legal precedent that makes even the most common sense antitrust rulings difficult to impossible.

It was just 18 months ago that candidate Barack Obama said, “I strongly favor diversity of ownership of outlets and protection against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group.” Five months later, Obama was swept into office promising to bring change to Washington.

If President Obama really wants to change the system that green-lighted the bailout of “too big to fail” banks and would allow the looming crisis of too-big-to-block media mergers, he will have to overhaul federal antitrust laws so that they actually protect the greater good.

Until such change is realized, there are several reasons why current antitrust laws — albeit weak — can and should block the Comcast-NBC deal during the review process, which will likely take a year or more:

  1. The merger would eliminate the hard bargaining for distribution and content that normally occurs between distributors (like Comcast) and content producers (like NBC). That competitive bargaining will only intensify as more video is distributed over the Internet in the coming years.
  2. The Comcast-NBC behemoth would control several distribution platforms — a major television network, the largest cable company and the largest Internet service provider. The merged company will have strong incentives and the market power to discriminate in granting access to its wealth of programming. It will have the incentive and market power to enforce anticompetitive “bundling” and price-gouge other cable companies, especially smaller cable companies.
  3. As the largest cable company and Internet service provider, Comcast will have the motive to move NBC’s video content behind a pay wall that will mean higher costs for consumers, and it would stunt the growth of the Internet as an alternative medium for video service. Placing video content behind a pay wall that is only available to Comcast cable customers is a classic example of “anticompetitive bundling.” That is, consumers who want Internet access to NBC programming will be forced to buy the bundle of cable and Internet.
  4. Perhaps the most dangerous risk of this deal — and one we have seen many times in years -past – is that it will trigger a “merger wave” throughout the industry as distribution companies and content companies seek to “muscle up” to match the new threat that the vertically integrated Comcast poses. Consumer choice will be restricted and prices will rise. With diminishing competition, the likelihood of similar behavior by other companies grows stronger, as does the threat of collusion among competitors.

The Comcast-NBC deal is black and white: It would create a company with too much market power, and it would further starve Americans of the diversity already missing from our media marketplace. It raises the most basic antitrust issues for an administration that has declared both the importance of media diversity and an intention to be far more vigilant against anticompetitive conduct and abuses of market power.

President Obama, Congress and federal agencies must acknowledge the serious threat that this merger poses and take the necessary measures to prevent harm to competition and consumers. That means putting the American people first and corporate greed second. It means stopping the merger.

Take Action: Tell Washington to Stop This Merger »

Post to Twitter

Share/Save/Bookmark

A Need to ‘Dig Beneath the Corporate Surface’

November 13, 2009 in Economy, Feature by admin

By John Hanrahan, Nieman Watchdog

Simon Johnson of MIT says reporting like Ida Tarbell’s of 100 years ago is badly needed today. One suggestion: the press should take on the financial institutions that helped cause the financial collapse, and are even benefiting from it.

(Part of the Nieman Watchdog series on “Reporting the Economic Collapse.”)

Economist Simon Johnson wants to see modern-day muckrakers take on the nation’s economic collapse and the financial institutions that helped precipitate — and are even benefiting from — the collapse.

In an interview with Nieman Watchdog, Johnson, professor of global economics and management at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, emphasized that he believes there are many fine journalists doing a good job of covering the economic news on a day-to-day basis. What’s largely missing from the mainstream press coverage of the last year, though, is “the long, in-depth, comprehensive dissection of a financial institution, going through all the nuances and details of how the institution is run, taking a skeptical look at the people who run it, and investigating how we got to where we are today.”

“I would like to see serious journalism, blow-by-blow exposes of these [financial institutions], in the manner of Ida Tarbell,” he said of one of the most prominent of the early 20th-century muckraking journalists, a group that also included Lincoln Steffens, Ray Stannard Baker, and Jacob Riis.

Tarbell, writing for McClure’s Magazine, published between November 1902 and October 1904 a 19-part series exposing the monopoly powers and collusive practices of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company. With the help of an assistant, she began in 1900 to research the series that formed the basis for her book, “The History of the Standard Oil Company.” Her investigation was credited as the main underpinning of the federal antitrust action that led to the 1911 Supreme Court decision ordering the breakup of Standard Oil.

In 1999 a 36-person panel of prominent journalists, under the aegis of New York University’s journalism department, selected Tarbell’s investigation of Standard Oil as fifth in a list of the top 100 works of American journalism in the 20th century.

Tarbell’s methodology remains as valid for investigative reporters today as it was 100 years ago when there were no computers, no Internet, no shortcuts to obtaining information. As described in Columbia Journalism Review, Tarbell investigated Rockefeller and Standard Oil “by using documents – hundreds of thousands of pages scattered throughout the nation – then fleshing out her findings through well-informed interviews with the company’s current and former executives, competitors, government regulators, antitrust lawyers, and academic experts.” The dramatic story of Tarbell’s historic expose is vividly recounted by longtime investigative journalist and author Steve Weinberg in his book “Taking on the Trust: The Epic Battle of Ida Tarbell and John D. Rockefeller.”

Unlike Tarbell who was given so much time by McClure’s to do her monumental, in-depth research, most of today’s good financial journalists, Johnson said, are under daily pressures to produce stories. He said these reporters should be given the time and resources to step back and investigate the major financial institutions involved in the economic crisis. Johnson urged reporters to approach their task with a skepticism that was often lacking in the run-up to the financial collapse. Too often before the collapse, Johnson said, some financial journalists became enamored of the heads of financial institutions they were covering and didn’t dig beneath the corporate surface.

In addition to the lack in the daily news media of in-depth investigations of the major financial institutions, Johnson said that this economic crisis thus far has not produced books equivalent to those from the “greed-is-good” era of the 1980s – books such as “Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco” and “Liar’s Poker: Rising Through the Wreckage on Wall Street.”

“Barbarians at the Gate,” by Bryan Burrough and John Helyar, was characterized by Jon Friedman of MarketWatch in October 2008 – as  the economy was collapsing – as “the best business book ever published.” Friedman said the book chronicled “the wild and crazy 1988 takeover battle for RJR Nabisco” – the biggest in U.S. history. He commented that it was “especially relevant today” as the nation suffers the consequences of economic excesses such as the 1980s signified

“Liar’s Poker,” by Michael Lewis, was described by one reviewer as a partly autobiographical account that traces “the rise and fall of Salomon Brothers, mainly focusing on the mortgage bond department whose fortune closely traced the speculative bubble in various mortgage backed securities in the 80s.” The reviewer deemed the book as relevant today because the “current subprime crisis indeed echoes some of the themes in that book.”

As one prime example among many that would be worthy of the Tarbell treatment, Johnson cited the banks’ credit card companies. How, he asked, did we get to the point “where these companies can take such advantage of their customers? Where are the detailed stories that put a human face on this? Who are the people who run these companies? How can they justify what they do?” And who are the customers who suffer “because of the credit card industry’s practices.”

And, we would add, who are the credit card lobbyists and how do they operate? Which politicians protect the industry and benefit most from its largesse?

Johnson is not the only economist we talked to recently who raised the credit card issue. Harvard School of Government Professor Linda J. Bilmes told Nieman Watchdog that she would also like to see the mainstream press pursue in-depth investigations of credit card companies. In an interview, Bilmes said that her students, as well as other citizens who phone in when she appears on television or radio call-in programs, all ask the same thing, namely:

Why are credit card rates so high? At a time when banks can borrow money from the U.S. Treasury at the lowest rate possible — zero percent as set by the Federal Reserve — how can credit card companies charge their customers interest rates of 30 percent and possibly even more? Why are we, the consumers, not getting any advantage from those low interest rates that benefit the banks?

Students and callers to the call-in shows likewise flag another issue that Bilmes said merits more investigation by the press: What benefits are we consumers getting from the TARP (troubled asset relief program) funds? The implication of the questions is that the answer is none.

“This is a subject that requires the press to connect the dots — how did consumers benefit from the bank bailouts?” Bilmes said. Also, “what was the effect of the decision not to nationalize the banks? These are questions I get all the time.”

Earlier this year, Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act (or Credit CARD Act) that imposed new restrictions on credit card companies. These included prohibitions on raising rates on outstanding card balances (still allowing rate changes for new purchases); prohibitions on rate increases in the first year an individual has a new credit card; limits on when rate increases can occur; requirements of fuller disclosures of card terms and conditions; and a requirement of 45 days’ notice to cardholders of interest rate, fee and finance charge increases. Most of these consumer protection provisions of the new law — which was signed by President Obama in May — will not take effect until February 22. Some provisions will not be phased in until late next year.

Although the Credit CARD Act does afford greater protections for consumers, an industry-oriented web site creditcard.com noted: “The new law does not cap how high interest rates can go. Nor does it limit when APRs [annual percentage rates] can be hiked on future purchases.” Additionally, the new law applies only to consumer credit cards, so “People with business or corporate credit cards will not have the same protections as people with personal credit cards…”

Separate from the Credit CARD Act, Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent-Vermont) has proposed legislation to cap credit card interest rates at 15 percent to halt what he calls “loan-sharking.” Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) has proposed legislation with a much higher cap — 36 percent — on credit card interest rates. Although some states have usury laws, a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision defanged those laws by allowing the law that applied in the state where the credit card company is headquartered to apply to all of the other states where the company does business. Consequently, most credit card issuers base their operations in those states — Delaware and South Dakota — with no (or lenient) usury laws.

Given a nine-month grace period from the date the new law was signed, the credit card companies immediately began “rushing to raise rates and tack on extra fees ahead” of the February 22 effective date, according to a recent Associated Press article. “In some cases,” the article continued, “rates are doubling to as high as 30 percent or more, even for people who pay their bills on time.”

Although the mainstream press has reported these rate increases, it has not delved deeply into how the credit card companies can justify such usurious rates. Perhaps profits are their ultimate justification. Banks generated $19 billion in 2008 from credit card interest charges and late fees and penalties. An industry analyst estimated that figure will climb to $20.5 billion for this year.

Recently introduced legislation to move the effective date for the credit card law from February to December 1 is pending in the House Financial Services Committee. But as the Associated Press reported recently, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, “while acknowledging that change would benefit consumers, rejected the idea. He said it would force the Fed to implement provisions of the new law without adequate public comment and could lead to ‘unintended consequences’.”

All of this and more make the credit card industry ripe for investigative journalists, said Johnson and Bilmes.

We’ll let Ida Tarbell have the last word on the philosophy of business ethics that reporters should apply in investigating financial institutions today:

“There is no man more dangerous, in a position of power, than he who refuses to accept as a working truth that all a man does should make for rightness and soundness, that even the fixing of a tariff rate must be moral.”

One does not have to wonder what Tarbell and other muckrakers of the progressive and trust-busting era would have made of our modern-day, would-be financial titans.

Next: The costs of war, studiously ignored by the press.

– John Hanrahan is on special assignment for Nieman Watchdog as the lead writer in the “Reporting the Collapse” series. He is a former executive director of The Fund for Investigative Journalism and reporter for The Washington Post, The Washington Star, UPI and other news organizations.

E-mail: hanrahan@niemanwatchdog.org

Post to Twitter

Share/Save/Bookmark

Media, Money and Sun Myung Moon

November 12, 2009 in Feature, Politics by admin

By Rory O’Connor
This article was originally published on Media is a Plural.

“Moon looked on the media as almost the nervous system for a global empire. Moon was the brain, and the media are to be, or were to be, the communications vehicle for his body politic surrounding the globe.”

In January 1992, PBS Frontline broadcast a film I directed that documented the amazing rise, fall and subsequent resurrection of Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church movement. The documentary showed how, through an adroit combination of money, media and the consistent promotion of a conservative political agenda, a self-styled Messiah and convicted felon had rapidly reinvented himself and was soon hailed at the White House.

At the time, few Americans paid much attention to Reverend Moon – and those that did had bizarre recollections of him and the “Moonies,” as his followers once called themselves: mass weddings of complete strangers, flower-peddling in the street, and repeated allegations of mind control and brainwashing.

Even back then, Moon’s movement, once labeled a cult, was more accurately described as a conglomerate. As my film stated, “From media operations in the nation’s capital… To substantial real estate holdings throughout the United States… And from large commercial fishing operations… To advanced high-tech and computer industries, a Fifth Avenue publishing house, and literally dozens of other businesses, foundations, associations, institutes, and political and cultural groups… Moon and his money have become a force to be reckoned with.”

One of the primary vehicles for Moon’s rising power and influence was the daily newspaper the Washington Times, now back in the news because of the mysterious departure of its top executives, and facing an uncertain future.

But back then the Times was the fulcrum of Moon’s mission to use money and media as a path to power. As James Whelan, once the newspaper’s editor and publisher, told me at the time, “They are spending a great, great deal in this country…. probably more on influence and the obtaining of influence, of power, than of any organization I know of in this country, and that includes the AFL-CIO, that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that includes General Motors, that includes anybody.”

As he sought to influence America’s political agenda by pouring more than a billion dollars into media, Moon began to move among the country’s political elite: From Dwight Eisenhower…to Strom Thurmond…to Richard Nixon…to Ronald Reagan, he glad-handed and corresponded with an astonishing array of major American political figures.

Michael Warder was once one of the most important Americans in the Unification movement. Warder, who had close contact with Moon for years, told me, “Moon looked on the media as almost the nervous system for a global empire. Moon was the brain, and the media are to be, or were to be, the communications vehicle for his body politic surrounding the globe.”

Warder was responsible for managing News World, then Moon’s daily newspaper in New York City. “Moon wanted total control of the media, so there would be no independent media with journalistic integrity,” he said. “ It would be a media totally loyal to Moon.”

Moon’s troubles in America had begun in the mid-Seventies, when Minnesota Democratic Congressman Donald Fraser launched the so-called “Koreagate” investigation — in part a probe into Moon’s relationship to the Korean CIA and the buying of political influence on Capitol Hill. Using its own media, Moon’s organization struck back in an all-out effort to discredit Fraser.

“Moon wanted a whole series of articles going after poor Congressman Fraser, who was heading up the congressional investigations there,” Warder confided. “We would assign reporters to try and dig up all the dirt we could find on Congressman Fraser, and of course I would say to Moon, I said, ‘On one hand, we’re supposed to be doing this — but on the other hand, we’re competing with the New York Times. And so there’s matters of credibility here.’ And he would, you know, bluster and get angry at these kinds of things and say, ‘Just do what I’m ordering you to do and don’t ask so many questions.”

The Fraser Committee’s final report concluded that Moon was the “key figure” in an “international network of organizations engaged in economic and political” activities. It uncovered evidence that the Moon Organization “had systematically violated U.S. tax, immigration, banking, currency, and Foreign Agents Registration Act laws,” and detailed how the Korean CIA paid Moon to stage demonstrations at the United Nations and run a pro-South Korean propaganda effort.

Michael Hershman was the Fraser Committee’s chief investigator. He told me, “We determined that their primary interest, at least in the United States at that time, was not religious at all, but was political. It was an attempt to gain power and influence and authority.” The Fraser Committee recommended that the White House form a task force to continue to investigate Moon – but that never happened.

Perhaps the election of Ronald Reagan – hailed as the beginning of a conservative revolution – had something to do with that. In any event, Moon, a VIP guest at Reagan’s inauguration, soon became a major funder of Washington’s new conservative establishment.

Brent Bozell, now founder and president of the Media Research Center, was then one of the young Reagan Revolutionaries. “When the Moonies entered the political scene in the early Nineteen Eighties,” Bozell said, “One school of thought said…that because of their anti-communist commitment, conservatives ought to work with them.”

Moon’s most expensive political work involved the Washington Times. As former editor Whelan noted, “Washington is the most important single city in the world. If you can achieve influence, if you can achieve visibility, if you can achieve a measure of respect in Washington, then you fairly automatically are going to achieve these things in the rest of the world. There is no better agency, or entity or instrument that I know of for achieving power here or almost anywhere else — than a newspaper.”

And the Times had an immediate impact. After all, the President of the United States said it was the first paper he read in the morning. Soon its columnists found even greater exposure on television.

“If the Washington Times did not carry the conservative columnists that they carry — like a Pat Buchanan, like a Bill Rusher, like a Mona Charen,” Bozell said, “I wonder if the television community would be aware of them and would tap them to use them in television.”

But by 1984, despite his paper’s growing influence, editor James Whelan was increasingly unhappy. “When we started the paper there was never any question that it would in any fashion project the views or the agenda of Sun Myung Moon or the Unification Church — all to the contrary,” said Whelan. “We said, ‘Look, we are going to put a high wall in place. It is going to be a sturdy wall. And it will divide us from you.’”

But Whelan’s wall of editorial independence was often breached.

“Moon himself gave direct instructions to the editors,” he averred. “Who in fact calls the shots? Ultimately Moon calls the shots….”

Whelan eventually resigned, announcing at a press conference, “The Washington Times has become a Moonie newspaper.”Times spokesmen said the dispute was really over money. Former Newsweek editor Arnaud de Borchgrave later replaced Whelan.

De Borchgrave consistently denied taking orders from Moon — but the man who ran the editorial pages under de Borchgrave, William Cheshire, told a different story. “I protested to de Borchgrave,” Cheshire told me. “I went up to his office when I saw this happening, I told him this was unethical, improper, unprofessional, and it ought to stop. Also, it was dumb.”

Cheshire and four others resigned after de Borchgrave ordered an about-face on an editorial critical of the South Korean government. “I said, ‘Arnaud, we have a problem,’ ” Cheshire recalled. “He said, ‘What’s the problem?’ I said, ‘The problem is you’ve conferred with the owners of this newspaper, come back downstairs and demanded a reversal of editorial policy on their say so.”

Questions about control of the Washington Times persisted for years. Several journalists, including Lars Erik Nelson of the New York Daily News, called for a Justice Department investigation to determine if the paper violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act. “The Justice Department doesn’t seem to want to know, and I’ve never gotten a clear answer from them as to why they don’t want to know,” Nelson said. “They’ve said, ‘Hmmm, that’s an interesting point.’ They say, ‘Hmmm, we’ll think about that.’ And they never get back to me.”

Times officials sent a statement in reply, noting, “The complete editorial independence of the Washington Times is well-known, and envied, throughout the newspaper industry.”

Throughout the Reagan years, the paper gained respect and influence by lending editorial support – and money — to causes favored by the Administration. The contra forces battling the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, for example, received editorial support and money from the Times. Here’s how it worked:

In March 1985, Oliver North wrote a top-secret memo proposing the formation of a private foundation called the Nicaraguan Freedom Fund. Its purpose was to circumvent a Congressional ban on aid to the contras. Less than two months later, the Times announced the birth of the Nicaraguan Freedom Fund in a front-page editorial. Editor de Borchgrave insisted he was “surprised” at the coincidence between his paper’s initiative and North’s secret project, but the Times contributed the first $100,000 to the Fund.

Another pet project of the Reagan Administration was the Strategic Defense Initiative — SDI, or “Star Wars.” It too received support from the Times.

“Reverend Moon’s organization has been very supportive of the Strategic Defense Initiative,” former Defense and Central Intelligence official Daniel Graham told me. Graham had co-produced a pro-Star Wars video that was seen on four hundred televisions stations.

“It’s called ‘One Incoming,’” Graham said, “And it includes a scenario that I got Tom Clancy to write for us, and I got Charlton Heston to do the voiceover. It cost a lot of money to produce it — $200,000 … and I’m sure that’s where the money came from to produce that movie.”

Moon’s media tentacles also reached into book publishing, including one called Inquisition, a purportedly independent investigation of Moon’s 1982 tax fraud prosecution, released by the right-wing publishing house Regnery-Gateway. Its author, Carlton Sherwood, was a reporter who once worked for the Washington Times. (Sherwood made headlines in 2004 when he produced the controversial video Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, which featured interviews with American POW’s in North Vietnam who complained that they had been maltreated as a direct result of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s Fulbright Hearing Testimony in 1971.

Inquisition had a curious history. An obscure publishing house called Andromeda had printed it once before. The phone number listed for Andromeda was the home phone of former Reagan National Security Council official Roger Fontaine — also an ex-reporter at the Washington Times. But when we called Fontaine’s house, his wife Judy answered and told us that the company was bankrupt and that Inquisition was published by Regnery-Gateway. Alfred Regnery is the head of Regnery-Gateway.

According to former Times editor Whelan, himself a Regnery-Gateway author, Alfred Regnery was told by Carlton Sherwood that the Moon Organization would purchase at least one hundred thousand copies of Inquisition. Alfred Regnery denied it, and although he refused an on-camera interview, Sherwood said the Unification Movement had exerted no editorial control over his book.

In the wake of the current turmoil and uncertainty at the Washington Times, many questions about the Unification Movement remain unanswered. But none is more pressing — or perplexing — than this: Where did all the money come from? At the time of the broadcast of the PBS Frontline film – seventeen years ago — the Moon Organization had already spent an astonishing amount in the United States:

• more than $800 million on the Washington Times;
• hundreds of millions on national periodicals;
• tens of millions on electronic media;
• at least $40 million on New York newspapers;
• more than $10 million on a New York publishing house;
• millions on World Media Association junkets and conferences;
• millions more on New Right organizations, including the American Freedom Coalition;
• well over $100 million on real estate, including the New Yorker Hotel in midtown Manhattan;
• at least $40 million on commercial fishing operations;
• and at least $75 million on related projects…

It all added up to more than a billion dollars – at a time when most of Moon’s operations in America were losing substantial sums of money money. The best example was the Washington Times itself, which was then losing as much as fifty million dollars a year.

What did all the money buy Reverend Moon? Like many others, he refused to talk to me for the film. But in a Church-sponsored film, Reverend Moon in America –one of the many media efforts he spun out in the Eighties — he had this to say:

“Now whether positively or negatively, America knows me — and it happened quickly. At least I have America’s attention. Because of that, I will be able to tell the people the truth of God, the new revelation. The worst treatment America could give me is to ignore me. Now I can preach the truth. ”

(Coming soon, in Part Two of this series: Where did all Moon’s money come from?)

Post to Twitter

Share/Save/Bookmark

Will Anyone Ever Go To Jail In Connection With Wall Street Crimes?

November 11, 2009 in Economy, Feature, North America by admin

Danny Schechter Reports On How The Prosecutors Blew The First Big Case

Hedge Fund Perps Walk Free From Criminal Trial

PARIS: I had come from a heated financial journalism conference in a far more orderly Brussels where I had been thundering against Wall Street crime. The first news I saw from “the homeland” was that the only two big shots busted for crimes against their investors, when they ran Hedge Funds that imploded at Bear Stears, were acquitted in a New York courtroom dramatizing the difficulties prosecutors face in achieving the “jail-out” I have been calling for.

Here’s how the NY Times covered it:

“It was, prosecutors claimed, a clear case of Wall Street crime — and a chance to bring to account two culprits of the subprime age.

But jurors disagreed, and on Tuesday, two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers were found not guilty of securities fraud in federal court in Brooklyn, in what legal experts called a setback for prosecutors hoping for easy victories in this era of bailouts and foreclosures.

The verdict, the first in a major criminal case stemming from the current financial crisis, brought to an end a two-year ordeal for the managers, Ralph R. Cioffi and Matthew M. Tannin. They had been led away in handcuffs in June 2008 and accused of lying to their investors about the precarious state of the funds they oversaw.

Investors lost $1.6 billion when the funds, heavily invested in mortgage securities, collapsed in the summer of 2007. The fiasco presaged the financial turmoil that would later upend Wall Street and the broader economy.”

The jury deliberated for six hours. The key evidence were emails that said that they considered their own products bogus while encouraging their customers to buy them. A juror said the case had not proven, and that a bad investment was not a crime. The SEC will also be taking civil action.

At issue was what their emails said. Bear Stearns was a big promoter of Sub-crime subprime securities, which were NOT an issue in the trial. Explained the report:

“One of the main documents in the case was an e-mail message that Mr. Tannin sent from his private Gmail account to the e-mail account of Mr. Cioffi’s wife. He wrote that the subprime market — the market to which the funds were tied — ‘looked pretty damn ugly,’ and that if a recent report was correct, ‘then the entire subprime market is toast.’ Days later, during a conference call, Mr. Tannin told investors that “we’re very comfortable with exactly where we are.”

They may have been “comfortable,” but the families who subsequently faced foreclosure were victimized.

Securities laws protect investors, not homeowners or people who were talked into buying mortgages that were part of what the FBI later called an “epidemic of mortgage fraud.” So once again, as the late Lenny Bruce once quipped, “in the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls.”

This case was also said to be poorly brought by prosecutors. Reported Bloomberg: “Prosecutors missed the mark so widely in the fraud trial of Bear Stearns Cos. hedge fund managers Ralph Cooffi and Matthew Tanin that a juror said after their acquittal she would invest with them if she had the money.” Reuters had reported that the defense lawyers had focused on weakness in the prosecutor’s case.

One legal challenge was the need to prove criminal intent, hard to show when defendants, as is usually the case, deny they had bad motives. In this case, as throughout the subprime industry, it was all about making money, homeowners be dammed.

Reuters described the defense: “The government’s allegations of fraud against two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers were built on ‘hindsight bias,’ including emails selected out of context, a defense lawyer told a jury in closing arguments on Friday at their trial in New York.” “Hindsight bias” suggests that the Bear Stearns duo did not know the consequences of their actions, something many in the business admit now they did realize.

“Hindsight Bias?”

The FBI has been denouncing an “epidemic” of subprime fraud as far back as 2004. On July 22, President Obama said Wall Street was “pedaling loans they knew could never be paid back.” But this issue was not raised in the trial.

CBC earlier reported that the Government blew its own case: “CNBC’s Charlie Gasparino reports that numerous signs, including the court’s refusal to admit some key evidence and the ‘blow up’ of a witness, indicate that the government’s case against Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Cioffi and Tannin may be slipping away.”

So here you have the biggest crime of our time, massive predatory lending, widespread fraud and abuse. In the first instance the government did not regulate it, and now they can’t get it together to prosecute it.

Widely perceived criminals of all kinds will now walk while the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee proposes new avenues for civil law suits, but not cracking down. Dow Jones reports:

“Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd’s (D., Conn.) broad financial overhaul bill, unveiled Tuesday, includes several investor protection devices, including investors’ ability to sue people who help commit securities fraud.

The provision would permit private civil actions for any person who ‘knowingly or recklessly provides substantial assistance’ to securities fraudsters.

The “aiding and abetting provisions” in Dodd’s bill could be seen as something of a change for the veteran senator, who also sponsored the controversial 1995 Securities Litigation Reform Act, which limited individual investors’ ability to sue securities and accounting firms in class-action stock fraud cases.”

Again, the focus mostly is on protecting investors, not other victims like the American people who consume these flawed products. Although, the New American reports that the real purpose is to protect consumers:

“Senator Christopher Dodd and fellow Senate Democrats are proposing to scale back the regulatory authority of the Federal Reserve and eliminate the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, among many other provisions in a new 1,136-page bill made public on Tuesday. Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, blamed the Fed for alleged failures in consumer protection and regulatory oversight that contributed to last year’s financial implosion.

Senator Dodd’s bill would create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers against so-called ‘predatory lending practices.’ It would also create a Financial Institutions Regulatory Administration that would impose tighter regulatory oversight on banks. A new Agency for Financial Stability would have the power not only to enforce new financial regulations but also to break up large financial firms whose activities are deemed a threat to the economy as a whole.”

Predictably Republicans and business interests are opposing new rules. As for reform, look at how health care reform has been gutted and you can see what awaits financial reform.

Meanwhile, at least the big banks are being criticized: “Many senior banking executives failed to accept responsibility for the financial crisis and neglected the need to change their behavior, Hector Sants, the chief executive at Britain’s financial industry regulatory body, said Monday.”

Ooops, sorry, that’s in Britain.

– MediaChannel’s News Dissector Danny Schechter has made a film (Plunder) and written a book, The Crime of Our Time,” on the financial crisis as a crime story. Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org

Post to Twitter

Share/Save/Bookmark