Is a Georgian Life Worth Less than a North American Life?
A Question CTV and NBC Need to Answer
By Paul D. Boin (Jan. 28, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
As millions of Canadians and Americans (and others worldwide) sat down last night to watch the opening ceremonies of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games, CTV and NBC seem to have made a barbaric and Machiavellian ratings decision to broadcast the Olympic equivalent of a snuff-film.
While CTV and NBC have made attempts to justify their decision, one really needs to wonder (little) if the nationality of Nodar Kumaritashvili had been Canadian or American, would the network executives have made a different decision.
It’s no secret that due to the economic recession CTV/Rogers and NBC stand to lose money on their securing of their respective Canadian and American broadcasting rights to the Vancouver Olympics as adverstising dollars are not projected to be enough to recover their initial investement. CTV made an executive decision to not only broadcast the death of Kumaritashvili on their prime-time opening show but also release their footage to other networks, while making it available for viewing on their website. NBC also decided to broadcast this death video to their American audience.
CTVglobemedia’s VP of corporate communications, Bonnie Brownlee, felt that CTV’s decision to broadcast the death of luger Kumaritashvili was “proper” and, according to a Vancouver Sun report (an outlet that decided to not feature the video on their website), Brownlee stated “After much consideration we decided to make available the images of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili’s run.”
Imagine, God forbid, if it had been Canadian sledding medal hopefuls Melissa Hollingsworth or Pierre Lueders, or American ‘Flying Tomato’ Shawn White or downhill skier Lindsey Vonn. Would CTV and NBC have decided to broadcaster their moments death? I think not.
While these are difficult questions, these are the questions that CTV and NBC should be made to answer (not rewarded) for their beyond callous decisions.
[On another matter: As to VANOC and the International Luge Federation (the groups responsible for the design and sanctioning of the sledding course, and today, the reopening of the course with a modest raising of the wall in the corner in question), why haven’t their technicians and engineers figured out, what many lay men and lay women have already, that they need to cover the area above the wall, with a protective additional wall of Plexiglas or even plywood, so that a sledder who jumps the wall would continue to bounce forward, not simply be stopped dead in their tracks from impacting a pillar at 140kms plus. VANOC and the ILF should consider themselves forewarned, and therefore responsible for any future injuries or deaths.]
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of media studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and is the research coordinator for the Haiti Media Research Project (If you’re interested in becoming involved in this media research project contact pboin@uwindsor.ca). His forthcoming book “Media for the Public Mind: Creating a Democratic and Informative News Media” will be published by Fernwood Publishing in the Fall of 2010.
At a time like this, it’s useful to reflect and ask hard questions about Haiti’s past if we are to truly help Haiti’s future. Click on this 2008 interview with Peter Hallward: Failing Haiti: An Interview with Peter Hallward
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of media studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and is the research coordinator for the Haiti Media Research Project (If you’re interested in becoming involved in this media research project contact pboin@uwindsor.ca). His forthcoming book “Media for the Public Mind: Creating a Democratic and Informative News Media” will be published by Fernwood Publishing in the Fall of 2010.
Sign the Quality News Manifesto
By Paul D. Boin (Feb. 24, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
The CRTC recently adopted a new policy regarding media cross-ownership. Unfortunately for citizens, this policy is totally inadequate and in no way addresses the problem of access to a diversity of quality news and information.
By adopting a new code of journalistic independence, the CRTC is effectively encouraging, if not accelerating, the consolidation of newsrooms under a single owner. The absence in this code of any conditions requiring autonomous newsgathering activities is deplorable and dangerous.
The concentration of media ownership in
Today, four conglomerates control 70% of the country’s daily papers, three corporations broadcast most of the televised news and two companies own the majority of radio stations.
The large media groups use the same information for all of their media platforms, resulting in centralized news production and dissemination. We are witnessing a reduction in the number of journalists paid to report the news, which is contributing directly to the homogenity of the information we receive.
Regions far from urban centres suffer most from this phenomenon, which became even more acute in 2007. Regional broadcasts and newspapers are inundated with “network” information and the communities they are supposed to serve do not see themselves reflected.
The quality of our democratic life is intimately linked to the quality and diversity of voices in information. Our civic life benefits directly from access to a plurality of media sources that present ideas, enrich our knowledge and provoke debate.
Media concentration is a serious issue that has concerned a number of observers for decades. In
Despite the numerous warnings, none of our successive governments has enacted measures guaranteeing the plurality of ownership of our news sources, nor has the CRTC.
The health of our democracy demands that the Broadcasting Act be amended to protect and promote the diversity of voices in programming and news.
We need to ensure that political parties and their candidates adopt the position that programming and information must serve the public interest rather than financial interests.
Media empires are eliminating the critical mass of journalists we have counted on to cover issues in our communities and around the world, and to report back information vital to the health of our democracy.
But the government is doing nothing to remedy this situation. We are therefore committing to this important reform to ensure a diversity of voices and to protect our fundamental rights.
To call for quality information and a true plurality of media sources, CLICK & SIGN THIS MANIFESTO.
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and a member of the Campaign for Democratic Media. His forthcoming book “Media for the Public Mind: Creating a Democratic and Informative News Media” will be published by Fernwood Publishing in the Fall of 2009.
The CRTC Must Rule in Favour of Network Neutrality: A CRTC Submission
By Paul D. Boin (Feb. 24, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
(This specific blog entry/CRTC Submission is also posted at the Campaign for Democratic Media)
[Note: What follows is a slightly revised brief CRTC document I submitted yesterday as part of the CRTC’s Network Neutrality (Telecom Notice CRTC 2008-19 “Internet Traffic Management Practices of Internet Service Providers”) review. Submitted to the CRTC February 23, 2008]
CRTC Submission Re: Telecom Notice CRTC 2008-19 “Internet Traffic Management Practices of Internet Service Providers”
Date Submitted: February 23, 2009
Submitted By: Dr. Paul D. Boin, University of Windsor
The following are 5 brief points that I would like to make for this vitally important “Internet Traffic Management Practices of Internet Service Providers” CRTC public review and proceedings.
POINT 1: I DISAGREE WITH THE VERY TITLE OF THIS REVIEW.
As the CRTC, a body that is supposed to regulate in the public interest, you have selected an inappropriate title “Internet Traffic Management Practices of Internet Service Providers”) for this public review. I say this because by utilizing a slogan of the corporate/ISPs (”Traffic Management”) you may have wrongly skewed the debate, and provided an unfair advantage towards the very corporate groups who have started to violate the fundamental principles of network neutrality – that all information (bites or packets) be treated in an equal manner. The words that you chose in your review title, “Traffic Management,” are just as biased as if had you chosen “Internet Throttling.” Had this review been more objectively entitled “Network Neutrality in Canadian New Media (or the Internet)”, for example, you would likely have had many more Canadians participate in this debate and offer many more comments, in favor of network neutrality, to this proceeding. I hope that the CRTC will take this into consideration, and will endeavor to develop more neutral titles for future public review proceedings.
POINT 2: “TRAFFIC SHAPING” (”Internet Throttling”) ENSURES A “RACE TO THE BOTTOM” OF CANADIAN BROADBAND, UNDERMINING CANADIAN ECONOMIC GROWTH & OUR INFORMATION PROSPECTS.
For over two decades our telecom companies have been afforded both regulated monopoly rights and public (tax-payer funded) subsidies to develop their fiber optic broadband networks. These companies are therefore duty bound to improve their network capabilities, and manage these networks in a fair and equitable manner (as required in detail by the Telecommunications Act of 1993). Further, if they truly wish to “compete” in the “competitive marketplace” then they already have all the incentives they need to continually improve their broadband networks so as to gain their respective competitive advantages, and lure prospective customers by providing better and faster broadband service. Instead, Canada’s big telecom/ISP providers seem to be engaged in some type of “gentleman’s agreement” to try to get away with spending the least amount of money on upgrading their networks as possible. If they ALL do this (meaning, do nothing to substantively upgrade their networks) they think they can ALL be more profitable (for the wrong reason of providing poorer service). If the CRTC allows our Canadian Telecom/ISPs to engage in the practice of network “traffic shaping” (or “throttling” or “traffic management”) then you/the CRTC will also be allowing these irresponsible corporations to escape the rationality of the market, or the judgment of consumers, as they will be creating artificial broadband scarcity. Worse still, if the CRTC continues to allow these corporate telecom/ISPs to continue these irresponsible practices, in violation of network neutrality, you will be undermining the future development of the Canadian broadband system and damaging the prospects of Canadian economic growth and creative and information skill development. In short, if the CRTC allows our corporate/ISP providers to continue violating network neutrality, Canada and Canadians will not be able to compete in the 21st century new information-based economy.
POINT 3: IF THE CRTC DOESN’T REGULATE/UPHOLD NETWORK NEUTRALITY, TELCOS/ISPs WILL REGULATE/THROTTLE INSTEAD, AND PUT CANADA’s “INFORMATION HIGHWAY” IN REVERSE.
In the public notice for this review the CRTC states that you will “pronounce on whether such [”traffic management”] practices are consistent with the Act, and whether any measures are required to ensure that such practices are in accordance with the [Telecommunications] Act.” The CRTC should know quite well that issues dealing with compromising network neutrality (”throttling” or “traffic management”) are not consistent with the Telecommunications Act’s requirements for fair and equitable treatment of services and information. The CRTC is also aware that the principle of network neutrality (or “Traffic Shaping” or “Throttling”) is not directly addressed in the Telecom Act. By and large, this is unchartered territory, and if this regulatory vacuum is not filled with a firm CRTC commitment to network neutrality than the CRTC will be allowing the greatest medium in human history to become less than ordinary, while placing Canadians in reverse on the “information highway.” If the CRTC doesn’t regulate the principle of network neutrality, than the irresponsible and self-interested corporate/ISPs will undemocratically regulate in the opposite direction. It is time for the CRTC leaders and commissioners to live up to your titles as “public servants” not simply act as “corporate servants.” Please note, that these are not anti-business arguments, just pro-responsible business arguments. If all Canadians are thriving and developing, than businesses of all sizes will also thrive.
POINT 4: THE CRTC’s PREVIOUS DECISION ON BELL vs. CAIP (Telecom Decision 2008-108) WAS DEEPLY FLAWED AND MUST BE CORRECTED.
There is clear evidence that the CRTC erred significantly when making your Telecom Decision 2008-108 ruling in favor of Bell at the expense of CAIP and the public interest. This decision must be reversed and the principle of network neutrality must be enshrined and upheld.
The CRTC’s Telecom Decision 2008-108 was a deeply flawed decision in terms of process, technical misunderstandings, and a systematic bias in favor of Bell and large telecom/ISP interests at the expense of smaller telecom/ISP businesses and the public interests. In these regards, I refer you to the thorough technical investigation and analysis provided by Jean-Francois Mezei (see: http://www.vaxination.ca/crtc/2008_108_analysis1.pdf).
This Telecom Decision 2008-108 must be reversed at best, in favor of CAIP and the public interest, or reviewed at worst.
POINT 5: THE PUBLIC INTEREST & THE TELECOM ACT RANKS HIGHER THAN THE “POLICY DIRECTION” OF ANY TEMPORARY MINORITY GOVERNMENT.
In the public notice for this review the CRTC refers to the fact that the Governor in Council (the Cabinet of the current sitting minority government) has issued a Policy Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives, (P.C. 2006-1534, 14 December 2006, entitled “The Policy Direction”). The CRTC leadership and commissioners must realize, and evidently be reminded, that this policy direction, issued by a minority and temporary government, must rank far below the public interest obligations and the letter and spirit of the Telecommunications Act of 1993. The public interest and the Act is where the guidance and direction should come from when the CRTC makes this monumental decision.
This point above is punctuated by the fact that the recent economic recession was largely brought about by the very same flawed advice (reliance on market forces over government regulation) contained in this low ranking Governor in Council “Policy Direction.”
I thank you for your consideration and time.
Dr. Paul D. Boin
Assistant Professor, Communication Studies
University of Windsor, 4105 Lambton Tower
Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4
pboin@uwindsor.ca http://www.mediajustice.ca/
http://mjblog.mediajustice.ca/
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and a member of the Campaign for Democratic Media. His forthcoming book “Media for the Public Mind: Creating a Democratic and Informative News Media” will be published by Fernwood Publishing in the Fall of 2009.
Finally Some Sensible Media Coverage On Iran
By Paul D. Boin (Feb. 23, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
While the rest of the western mainstream media (having not learned their lessons from their role in aiding and abetting the 2003 Iraq war) seem all too willing to let warmongers get the best of them, the Globe and Mail’s Doug Saunders has given the global public interest some hope for his profession and a more peaceful world.
This past Saturday (February 21, 2009, p. F3) Saunders wrote an article entitled “Iran: The Enemy that Almost Isn’t,” where he pointed out a number of inconvenient facts that are all-too-often left out of today’s mainstream media coverage on Iran, and pronouncements from irresponsible governments like our own Canadian government.
The following are some of the much needed points/quotes that Saunders makes by which we should all measure future, and hopefully more responsible, media reports and government news releases:
-”It is likely that simply by looking at
-”Imagine if, in response, the U.S. government made a public, formal apology for the 1953 Central Intelligence Agency overthrow of Iran’s elected government, the act that had sent the country on the path to extremism in the first place.”
-Madeleine Albright, the
-In 2003, moderate Iranian President Khatami “sent a Swiss official to
-”That diplomatic snub was one of several humiliations, diplomatic and economic, that led to the defeat of Mr. Khatami’s reformists in subsequent elections and the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s neo-conservative zealots.”
-”one State Department official directly involved with the Iranian offer told me, ‘It was like we missed the biggest Middle East peace opportunity of the decade, just so we could keep saying ‘axis of evil.’”
-”Most of the objection to this scenario [friendly relations with
-”
-”It was reported this week, based on a new IAEA report, that
-“As long as we are monitoring their facilities,” IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei said recently, ‘they cannot develop nuclear weapons. And they still do not have the ingredients to make a bomb overnight.’”
-”The countries that have actually produced atom bombs on the sly in recent years – India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel – have done so by refusing to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so there are no inspectors.”
-”Most informed observers, including Mr. ElBaradei, believe that Iran is merely “hedging” by keeping open the possibility of building a bomb within five to 10 years – exactly what Canada once did.”
Let’s hope that Doug Saunders will inspire his journalistic colleagues to ask the right and hard questions of those who would want to see our 21st century continue to be embroiled in a culture of war.
With Saunder’s example of responsible journalism there is more hope that our global society can enter into what former Secretary General of UNESCO Federico Mayor called a Culture of Peace.
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and a member of the Campaign for Democratic Media. His forthcoming book “Media for the Public Mind: Creating a Democratic and Informative News Media” will be published by Fernwood Publishing in the Fall of 2009.
Last Chance to Speak on New Media
By Paul D. Boin (Feb. 20, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
If you’re reading this, you have just until Monday February 23 (extended from Feb. 17) to offer your opinion to the CRTC as to how you want the best characteristics of new media (the Internet) to be protected. Before you issue your opinion, however, you might want to review the CRTC’s Internet Traffic Management terms of reference , visit the numerous resources of Save Our Net, and consider the following.
Despite what you read in superficial mainstream media criticisms and editorials, the Internet (New Media) is already being “regulated” in favour of large private business interests at the potential (and increasingly real) expense of the public interest. Organizations like ICANN and WIPO, and mega-media ISP corporations like Bell, Telus, Rogers, Shaw and Verizon are already compromising net neutrality by throttling our broadband ability to access and visit our free choice of content and Web sites. If the CRTC continues to refuse to fill this regulatory vacuum in favor of the public interest by not enshrining in law policy the principle of net neutrality, it will simultaneously be undermining citizen communication rights, consumer choice, and the democratic potential of the Internet and society itself. So let the CRTC know (click on #pt 2008-19-2 at bottom of page) that you want it to represent citizens and consumers by establishing Net Neutrality as a rock solid principle and policy that cannot be undermined by any telecommunication company providing Internet access.
There are many other very important issues currently being discussed on new media, and ultimately decided upon, such as the CRTC’s New Media Broadcasting terms of reference detail (deadline for commenting on this review is March 27, 2008, click on #2008-1-1 at top of page) . Another key issue being discussed, as more and more Canadian content migrates from radio and television to the Internet), is to what degree should Canadian cultural creations be assisted in having a solid and lasting place in new media.
But, by far, the most critical issue that is at stake at this moment is for the CRTC to make net neutrality not only a cornerstone principle and policy of new media, but make it a fundamental condition of doing business for those companies providing Canadians with Internet service. If telecommunications and media companies don’t practice authentic net neutrality (this means not “throttling” or “traffic-shaping” or any new neutrality compromising tactic) then the CRTC should not allow them to do business.
This net neutrality issue, more than anything else, is what will determine how, and how democratically, we will communicate in our 21st Century. Give your opinion now (click on #pt 2008-19-2 at bottom of page), or don’t be surprised when you (or your child’s) ability to issue your opinion is compromised in the future.
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and a member of the Campaign for Democratic Media. His forthcoming book “Media for the Public Mind: Creating a Democratic and Informative News Media” will be published by Fernwood Publishing in the Fall of 2009.
ALTERNATIVE AND INDEPENDENT MEDIA SOURCES
By Paul D. Boin (Jan. 26, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
In today’s hyper/new-mediated society the mainstream media’s version of real-world-events seems ever more suspect. This has become especially more apparent in light of ever decreasing newsroom resources amongst western mainstream news media outlets, whether due to the pursuit of profit maximization or the latest economic downturn. Regardless, people world-wide are turning to alternative and independent news sources. The following is just a preliminary list of independent news sources that will hopefully help to keep citizens informed and the mainstream outlets more honest:
An Alternative & Independent News Media List:
Rabble.ca (www.rabble.ca)
Democracy Now! (www.democracynow.org)
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (www.fair.org)
Aljazeera (English) (http://english.aljazeera.net/)
Free Speech Radio News (www.freespeech.org)
ZNet (www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm)
Alternet (www.alternet.org)
The Dominion Paper (http://www.dominionpaper.ca/)
Independent Media Centre (www.indymedia.org)
Global Vision News (www.gvnewsnet.com/html/index.html)
The Straight Goods (www.straightgoods.com)
The Media Channel (www.mediachannel.org)
The New Internationalist (www.oneworld.org/ni)
Making Contact: (www.radioproject.org)
Tao.ca (www.tao.ca) – Canadian
Toronto Video Activists Collective (www.tvac.ca)
Alternative Radio (www.alternativeradio.org)
Guerilla News Network (www.guerrillanews.com)
Flashpoints Radio (www.flashpoints.net)
Narco News (www.narconews.com)
Google News Search (www.news.google.com)
Media Lens (www.medialens.org)
Radio Nation (www.nationinstitute.org/radionation)
Covert Action (www.covertaction.org)
Anti War (www.antiwar.com)
Foreign Policy Focus (www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org)
Newseum (www.newseum.org)
War Times (www.war-times.org)
Education for Peace (http://epic-usa.org)
Counter Punch (www.counterpunch.org)
…….& many others (please email me at pboin@uwindsor.ca with your suggestions)
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and a member of the Campaign for Democratic Media
LABOUR CREATES WEALTH: Party Founder Says
By Paul D. Boin (Jan. 25, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
Quick. Who said this?
“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration.”
No. It’s not Marx or Lenin.
No. It’s not Tommy Douglas
No. It’s not Hargrove or Lewenza or Getlefinger.
No. It’s not Layton or
It’s ABRAHAM LINCOLN. The Founder of the Republican Party & the “Greatest President.”
Lincoln also said this in 1864:
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country…corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
Therefore; please judge our “leaders” and their “budgets/stimuli” accordingly!
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and a member of the Campaign for Democratic Media
WHAT WOULD OBAMA DO? Revisiting 9/11
By Paul D. Boin (Jan. 20, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
As American and global citizens look forward to President Obama’s historic and hopeful day today, I wonder how, or if or how much, the world would be different if Barack Obama had been President on September 11, 2001. This was before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and before “The War on Terror.” How might our world today be different had an Obama administration been in Washington over the past 8 years? How could/should have western nations responded differently? How could American and global citizens have responded differently? How could western media and journalists have acted differently? How will we all respond in the future? What have we learned? Below is an article I wrote for my Real News Network a week after 9/11 (September 18, 2001). [Note: a follow-up investigative article will be published on Semptember 18, 2009, 8 years later; and any comments/feedback/criticisms/thoughts readers have would be very much appreciated.]
TRUTH IN TERROR AND IN WAR (Written September 18, 2001)
Providing the fullness of truth and understanding is vital for world peace and security
By Paul D. Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca)
It has been said that the first casualty in war is the truth. This usually pertains to the propensity for about-to-be warring nations to conjure up a pretext for war that can be justified in the public mind. Often this means that the truth is compromised prior to the shedding of blood. When terrorists strike, however, blood is drawn first, and the victim’s pretext for retaliation is determined second. In the midst of both war or terror truth can be compromised by the selective exclusion of important information, the elevation of hearsay or opinion to the status of fact, or by the outright fabrication of misinformation. In this regard, our governments and our mainstream news media have much to answer for.
While it could be argued that the terrorist act already constitutes the pretext for a retaliatory response, any response is an exercise in decision-making. Even our basest and seemingly automatic human responses still inextricably involve a series of choices. Do we, in the case of the United States and its allies, respond immediately? Do we confirm, beyond a reasonable doubt, who the terrorists were? Do we retaliate (punish) in a manner that is equal to the initial terrorist act (crime)? Are we also going to sacrifice the lives of innocent civilians in our chosen response? Who is to participate in this retaliatory action? And what range of repercussions may follow from our chosen response?
When deciding among these monumental choices, if we are to have any hope of making good decisions, our elected representatives, and the citizens in whose name they act, must have access to and demand the full range of facts. In order to make good, or truth-based, decisions we require complete and accurate information which is grounded in a broad context that is appreciative of history, the present, and the future. What happened on September 11, 2001 was unspeakably evil and insane. Before we respond to this terrorist act however, we must first ensure that the truth, or at least as full a truth as possible, is provided. In a world where there are enough nuclear warheads to kill all of the world’s 6 billion people dozens of times over, nothing less is acceptable.
GETTING TO “WHY?”
In times like these we not only need to work towards understanding what?, who, or how, but if we are truly concerned for future world peace and security, we must ask the most important question: Why? Many pro-democracy advocates (elsewhere referred to as ‘anti-globalization protesters’) have expressed fear that the new heightened sense of security, augmented by last week’s US Congressional approval of $40 billion in new emergency and security spending, will be used to roll back civil liberties and crush out all forms of dissent. The very viewpoints that offer our best hope of eliminating terrorism.
Many critics of US foreign policy (both official and clandestine) will be, and have been, quick to conclude that September 11th was simply a case of “Chickens coming home to roost.” By this, people will point to a litany of examples of the US role in imposing both incidental terrorism and systemic terrorism on countries - Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, East Timor, El Salvador, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Iran, Iraq, Panama, etc. The US government’s own documents, recently declassified and meticulously catalogued by the non-profit National Security Archives (www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv), will serve as a valuable lesson on the real conduct of governments, so often kept from public knowledge. So, people will say that September 11th was, in the minds of the terrorists, a simple act of revenge for previous US government indiscretions. But while this analysis, and the evidence now available, is clearly important, it is still an analysis of a symptom. We must dig down to the roots of the problem.
The deeper and underlying cause of systemic terrorism, and the incidental terrorism that follows from it, is the unjust global economic system that rich Western governments (not just the US) have imposed on the poorer countries and, increasingly so, upon their own citizenry. This global system - from the colonial/mercantile period to its new incarnation of corporate-led globalization - is resulting in a world where an elite few nations and individuals benefit at the expense of an ever increasing number of poorer nations and people. Such an unjust and unsustainable system can only be held together by force (systemic terrorism), and will ceaselessly produce responses (incidental terrorism) to it.
In reacting to last week’s events Thomas Homer Dixon, Director of the University of Toronto’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, stated “We have to step back and reflect on what’s happening in the world that is leading to the kind of tensions that produce this kind of hatred against the west….There are disparities in this world, there are structural problems with the world economy that aren’t being addressed. The envy, the frustration, and the anger that arises out of those problems will be directed against us.” Homer Dixon goes on to say “We have to remember…this is a very small planet now…they can bring weapons everywhere. And other things like diseases, and pollution flow across boundaries. We have to recognize that the world has changed in a fundamental respect.” {CBC Radio 2001}
In fact, the US and Canadian government’s defense departments also quietly admit (more honestly than our politicians, who keep misleading us into believing that this globalization tide will “raise all boats”.) that the present version of unjust corporate-led globalization is, and will continue to be, directly contributing to the escalation of terrorism. In a document entitled Global Trends 2015, jointly researched and produced by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Intelligence Council, the US intelligence community states that the benefits of globalization “will not be universal. In contrast to the Industrial Revolution, the process of globalization is more compressed. Its evolution will be rocky, marked by chronic financial volatility and a widening economic divide….Regions, countries, and groups feeling left behind will face deepening economic stagnation, political instability, and cultural alienation. They will foster political, ethnic, ideological, and religious extremism, along with the violence that often accompanies it.” {Central Intelligence Agency & National Intelligence Council 2001} In a 1999 document entitled Shaping the Future of the Canadian Forces: A Strategy for 2020, Canada’s Department of National Defense concludes that “Ethnic unrest, religious extremism and resource disputes will likely remain the main sources of conflict, but environmental degradation and the threat to the nation-state by globalization may arise as new sources….Disparities between the developed and developing nations will remain.” {Canadian Department of National Defense 1999}.
In 1999, the US Intelligence Community (the Central Intelligence Community, the National Intelligence Council, and the State Department) conducted a workshop entitled Alternative Global Futures: 2000-2015. This think tank-type workshop, couched within the framework of our present version of globalization, yielded four different scenarios or alternative futures. Scenario 1, somehow labeled ‘Inclusive Globalization,’ represents the best our world could expect. Even within this rosiest of scenarios, however, the US intelligence community holds that while “A virtuous circle develops among…a majority of the world’s people,” they go onto to say that “A minority of the world’s people - in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and the Andean region - do not benefit from these positive changes, and internal conflicts persist in and around those countries left behind.” This workshop, and the document that followed from it, then goes on to describe the other 3 scenarios – ‘Pernicious Globalization’ (Scenario 2), ‘Regional Competition’ (Scenario 3), and ‘ Post-Polar World’ (Scenario 4) – each of which contain outcomes worse than our best hope of ‘Inclusive Globalization.’ {Central Intelligence Agency & National Intelligence Council 2001} If Scenario 1 represents the best we can derive from the present bill of goods (corporate-led globalization) our Western politicians keep selling us, it’s about time we stopped buying it.
It would seem, therefore, that retaliatory responses to incidents of terrorism are simply Band-Aid ’solutions’ at best. What is needed to truly “root-out the problem” is to fundamentally alter our disparity-creating and terrorism-producing model of globalization. While not given mainstream media recognition, there are inspiring alternative visions and versions of globalization that are being presented. Forums such as the International Forum on Globalization (www.ifg.org/index.html), the annual World Social Forum (www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/eng/index.asp), and initiatives like the Council of Canadians’ Citizens’ Agenda (www.canadians.org/actionlink/citizen_agenda.pdf) are expanding our imaginations and our range of possibilities. Collectively these organizations, and their initiatives, are providing blueprints for achieving a 21st century society that is economically sustainable, socially just, and environmentally responsible – a world that both nurtures, and is based on, world peace and security.
In the McCarthy era, government officials, and much of the general public for that matter, were jumping over themselves to pin the ‘communist’ label on anyone who questioned the simplistic and faulty notion of “My country right or wrong.” After last week’s attacks, there are those in authority and in the public who are eager to usher in a new anti-terrorist era which would see the label ‘terrorist’ pinned on anyone remotely critical of government actions, or the general state of global affairs. While people in the US, and worldwide, are experiencing incredibly intense and raw feelings of horror, sorrow, fear and anger, this anger is directed, understandably so, towards the perpetrators of this act, and most shamefully and unjustly towards innocent people of colour. This irrational and misplaced fear - towards any and all criticism and against people of colour - must be resisted vehemently and overcome. While the immediate impulse of governments is to put all people under surveillance and suspicion, it is the people themselves who must conjure up the courage and the consciousness to put our governments under the microscope. As our governments represent us in carrying out actions over this critical period, we must become ever vigilant and vocal.
INTERRUPTING THE DRUMBEAT FOR WAR
We must all realize that during times of would-be war, the full truth is severely bottlenecked. As we all watch, read, and listen to accounts coming from the leading media outlets in our respective countries, we must treat every story as an unconfirmed report. Our news media is, and will likely be for months to come, in the midst of extensive pressure and strategic editing. This editing usually serves to provide a strategic context that is in line with each government’s ‘national interest’. For example, Canadian viewers were shown repeated video footage of Yasser Arafat giving blood on September 12th, while American viewers were not. Russia has taken the atrocities to justify their own brutal treatment of Chechnya, and Israel has utilized the events to step up attacks against Palestinians. This, while India has used it to condemn its main political rival, Pakistan.
Earlier this year it was also revealed - and has since been reluctantly confirmed by CNN’s President of News Gathering and International Networks, Eason Jordan - that the US Military’s special Psy-ops unit [Psychological Operations Group based in North Carolina] had at least five of its personnnel working at CNN during the Serbia/Kosovo conflict. The Dutch journalist who brought this story to public attention, Abe de Vries, quoted Major Thomas Collins of the US Army Information Service as saying, “Psy-ops personnel, soldiers and officers, have been working in CNN’s headquarters in Atlanta through our program, ‘Training with Industry.’ They worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They helped in the production of news.” Devries first became aware of the story by reading a French military newsletter, Intelligence On-line, which detailed Colonel Christopher St. John, commander of the US Army’s 4th Psy-ops Group, speaking candidly at a military symposium this past February in Virginia. Intelligence On-line revealed that the colonel was discussing the use of the press in military operations when he stressed that the military needed even “greater cooperation between the armed forces and media giants.” While CNN’s Jordan claims that the five Psy-ops personnel did not contribute to the production of news, he was forced to admit, however, that they were indeed at CNN [2 in television, 2 in radio, and 1 in satellite operations), and had only recently been terminated. {Cockburn 2001} One has to wonder, in the aftermath of last week, whether Psy-ops personnel have now been re-deployed.
On Friday (September 14) thousands gathered in New York’s Union Square to mark the national day of mourning for the victims of the week’s terrorism and to criticize plans to deploy massive military action, possibly consisting of tens of thousands of ground troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere. {NYC Indy Media 2001} Yet when this event, and similar gatherings throughout the US, was covered in the mainstream media, the peaceful sentiments of thousands were conveniently edited out. Earlier this year, Pacifica Radio and Democracy Now! journalist Amy Goodman asked CNN’s veteran reporter and V.P. of Political Coverage Frank Sesno, the following question. “If you support the practice of putting ex-military men - generals - on the payroll to share their opinion during a time of war, would you also support putting peace activists on the payroll to give a different opinion during a time of war? To be sitting there with the military generals talking about why they feel that war is not appropriate?” Sesno’s response - “We bring the generals in because of their expertise in a particular area. We call them analysts. We don’t bring them in as advocates.” {Cockburn 2001} - helps to explain why there doesn’t seem to be any interruptions to the mainstream media’s drumbeat for war.
Not only is CNN, with its gargantuan reach into over 150 countries, directly influential, but mainstream media outlets (with far fewer news resources) throughout the world follow CNN’s lead. Whether it be through the re-airing of video images or the repeating of analysis, CNN’s strategic framing of world issues and events is seen, heard and (mis)understood far and wide.
Last week, the US Senate voted 98-0 to make $40 billion available to President Bush, and a war resolution which states that “The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” It has already been reported that the $40 billion is just the start of an ever-growing war chest. According to Normon Soloman, of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), this resolution has given the Bush administration a “blank check” which will be “payable with vast quantities of human corpses.” {Soloman 2001}
Since it is no secret that Republican administrations highly favour military solutions over diplomatic ones, we can expect President Bush to do his best to treat this war chest as one without a bottom. In fact, the UK-based investment journal Barrons reported in February of this year that “Defense stocks have surged mightily in the past year, partly on the expectation that the Bush administration would spend lavishly on traditional defense programs.” Even though the S&P Index fell by 10%, the average share prices of the Big Five military contractors - Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon - “jumped 46% last year.,” upon news of the controversial Bush election victory. Prior to last week, Pentagon spending for the current fiscal year was to total $293 billion, which amounts to roughly 3% of the US economy.{Arvedlund 2001} The $40 billion allotted last week puts the total well over $300 billion, and counting.
In an era of mutual-fund-mania, weapons manufacturers aren’t the only companies set to profit from increased military spending and new (prolonged) wars. Former Reagan Administration Defense Secretary, Frank Calucci recently became the point man for an investment firm called the Carlyle Group, which specializes in holding stock in the weapons industry. According to Barrons, Carlyle, which has $12.5 billion in its investment portfolio, “boasts in its literature that it has generated annual returns of 34% for the past 10 years.” Calucci, whose “plush Pennsylvania Avenue offices…are just a three-buck cab ride from either Capitol Hill or the White House,” has regular working lunches with government officials, including the present Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Carlyle, which also has former Prime Minister of Great Britain John Major on its advisory board, was founded by William Conway Jr. in 1987. Conway, lamenting back in February on his firm’s predicament, stated “The problem for investors is that it’s impossible for President Bush to fit all current weapons development programs into former President Bill Clinton’s defense budget.” {McTague 2001} It now seems that this problem has been solved.
While the mainstream media were quick to voice their absolute disgust at opportunistic, and small-time, T-shirt vendors in New York City (just days after the terrorist attack), they repeatedly fail to even question the obscene blood-profits made from the weapons industry.
In a May 2001 Congressional Statement, and plea for more funding for counter-terrorism measures, entitled the Threat of Terrorism to the United States, the FBI and Department of State list among its terrorism risks what they call “state sponsors of terrorism.” Afghanistan aside, this list includes Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea. {Federal Bureau of Investigation 2001} Does this mean the heinous events of September 11th will be used to carry out a “sustained war” against all of these nations? Or perhaps, ‘America’s New War’ effort will be used to justify a concentrated and permanent presence in the Middle East - an area that President Eisenhower called the most “strategically important [i.e., Oil] area in the world.” {Chomsky 1996}
If retaliation and/or war does occur, which all western governments and their media seem to keep telling us it will “soon,” we can be sure of two things. One, is that innocent civilians will die; and two, that the mainstream media will keep the full impact of our actions from our eyes and ears. We need only to look back to the Gulf War travesty of journalism, when NBC journalist John Alpert was blacklisted from US media circles for submitting video footage of US bomb damage to civilians in Iraq. {Hazen & Winokur 1997: 11} Not only would these truth-based images have contradicted the US government’s line that the Gulf War was an exercise using ’smart’ bombs with surgical precision (of military targets), but it would have injected some much needed sobriety into the popular support for the war.
The terrorists of September 11th must indeed be brought to justice. But bringing the world to the brink of World War III, and risking a nuclear holocaust, is not a justified response.
TOWARDS WORLD PEACE AND SECURITY
In his book Necessary Illusions Noam Chomsky states that “Citizens of democratic societies should undertake a course in intellectual self-defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control and lay the basis for more meaningful democracy.” {Chomsky 1989} While this is good advice for citizens at all times, it is especially relevant today. In this regard, people can turn to independent media sources - Democracy Now! (www.democracynow.org), Free Speech Radio News (www.freespeech.org), the Independent Media Centre (www.indymedia.org), Common Dreams News Center (www.commondreams.org), Rabble.ca (www.rabble.ca), The Straight Goods (www.straightgoods.com), the Media Channel (www.mediachannel.org), Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (www.fair.org), the New Internationalist (www.oneworld.org/ni), ZNet (www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm), and the media of countries that might be on the receiving end of a US-led response. These news sources will help us develop a fuller context, and hence, a fuller truth at this crucial time. My earlier warning, to take all media reports with critical grains of salt, also applies to independent media sites (or for that matter, this article). For example, after checking with the original sources of recent, and widely circulating, stories alleging that CNN used old (1991) footage depicting celebratory Palestinians last week, or that the hijackers on United Airlines Flight 93 were American citizens, I found both of these rumors to be baseless.
Last week President Bush stated that this “war on terrorism” would be “The First War of the 21st century.” This, while NATO invoked, for the first time in its 52-year history, Article V, which effectively means that an act against one NATO nation is an act against all. While some NATO foreign ministers have attempted to deflect the gravity of this resolution, ludicrously stating that it is merely “symbolic”, it is in fact a giant step towards world war. Thankfully, there are some NATO allies that have said that they will require solid proof before agreeing to any retaliatory action, and that they will not support an unjustified and overbearing use of force – which would only serve to create that (terrorism) which it is trying to destroy.
The 21st century does not belong to our government leaders, nor even to us. This new century, which we are just beginning, belongs to the world’s children. Do we want our children, and their children, growing up in a culture of war? Or do we want them to grow up in what former Secretary General of UNESCO Federico Mayor called a culture of peace. {Goodman Adelson 2000} If we hope to achieve a culture of peace, we will need our mainstream media to create a culture of truth. It’s about time that our mainstream media got with the program - the truth program.
This most important choice is for each of us to make. We must do all that we can (e.g., call, e-mail, fax, teach, learn, protest) to hold our governments and our media to account. By not taking a stand for peace and restraint today, you are refusing to participate in the most important decision of your life. RNN/ Media Justice Project
REFERENCES
1. CBC Radio, This Morning, September 13 2001.
2. Central Intelligence Agency and National Intelligence Council, “Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future with Nongovernment Experts,” , 2001.
3. Canadian Department of National Defense, “Shaping the Future of the Canadian Forces: A Strategy for 2020,” , June 1999.
4. Alexander Cockburn, Counterpunch March 26 2001, .
5. NYC Indy Media, “Thousands of NYC Mourners Call For Peace,” New York City IMC September 15 2001, .
6. Cockburn, CNN and Psy-ops.
7. Norman Soloman, “A Unanimous Triumph for Masters of War,” , September 15 2001.
8. Erin E. Arvedlund, “Starship Troopers: New Weaponry Will Shake up the Defense Industry - and Investors,” Barron’s, February 12 2001, 23-26.
9. Jim McTague, “Ex-Pentagon Chief Targets Defense Plays,” Barron’s, February 12 2001, 26.
10. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Threat of Terrorism to the United States: Congressional Statement,” , May 10 2001.
11. Noam Chomsky, Powers and Prospects (Boston: South End Press, 1996).
12. Don Hazen and Julie Winokur, We the Media: A Citizen’s Guide to Fighting for Media Democracy (New York: The New Press, 1997), 11.
13. Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions: Though Control in Democratic Societies (Boston: South End Press, 1989).
14. Anne Goodman Adelson, “The Culture of Peace and the Evolution of Human Beings” (Toronto, 2000).
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and a member of the Campaign for Democratic Media. This Blog For Media Justice is co-sponsored by Rabble.ca.
White Phosphorus Finally Confirmed By Canadian Media
By Paul D. Boin (Jan. 9, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
Despite numerous UK new reports over 5 days ago (e.g., Evening Standard, The Times) regarding the Israeli government’s use of the chemical white phosphorus in Gaza, (along with stories of Israeli official denials e.g., Financial Times) Canadian mainstream media outlets have completely ignored the story up to this point. Yesterday, there were further
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and a member of the Campaign for Democratic Media
A SHOCKING LOSS OF MEDIA NERVE: Locked out of Gaza
By Paul D. Boin (Jan. 8, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
Regardless of where you stand on the current Mideast crisis between
Since the crisis broke out on December 27th, I have been collecting and reading all the editorials published by the major mainstream North American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Star). In these numerous media outlet opinion pieces that carefully detail their official stances on the current crisis, only the New York Times (January 6th editorial, yet still not enough) mentioned a word about the fact that their organizations were being prevented from doing their primary job – being a witness and recorder of world events for the publics they are supposed to be serving.
When one recalls how numerous and ferocious these same media outlets have issued their ‘brave’ editorial positions against being blocked from the courtrooms of a sexy murder case, the hypocrisy is unbearable. During these far less important events, the editorials vehemently blather forth about “The public’s right to know!” and how “A free press is the first and most important measure of a democratic society”. Two weeks after being blocked from covering the most important story in the world at this moment, and five of these six (and all three Canadian) mainstream media popinjays still have not issued a word in protest? Why are there not dozens/hundreds of lead editorials protesting this blatant crime against media freedom?
What makes this even worse is that these very same media organizations have their own brave journalists at the fence of the scene of this critical story just chomping at the bit to get in and do their jobs . The corporate masters and official editorial writers of the major mainstream media organizations are not only letting down the people of the world, and the civilians (on both sides) being killed and maimed, they are letting down their own journalists.
“All the news that’s fit to print.” “
“We have defaulted on our profession,” said Helen Thomas upon reflecting on how her mainstream media journalist colleagues covered the lead-up to the
The disgraceful and cowardly game is up mainstream media. Your hypocrisy has now been laid bare for all the world to see. Will you mainstream media decision-makers summon up enough nerve to honour your profession and your journalists, and to truly serve the public? Will you finally take a real stand for media freedom and the public’s right to know? The world, the victims of this crisis, and your future await your decision.
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and a member of the Campaign for Democratic Media
IMPROVING THE CANADIAN (& Global) MEDIA SYSTEM
By Paul D. Boin (Jan. 7, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
If Canadian citizens and organizations want to see a media system that is more democratic, informative, and reflective of Canadian voices and perspectives; please consider joining and supporting the Campaign for Democratic Media. Please visit this website and join the positive media club!
The Media Justice Project (www.MediaJustice.ca), which is a proud contributor to the Campaign for Democratic Media, is a positive action legacy project that was inspired by the 20 Years of Propaganda conference in May of 2007. The Media Justice Project is committed to improving our media system (Canadian and global) by engaging in Media Research (forthcoming), Media Education (forthcoming), and Media Activism (Campaign for Democratic Media).
This first (of many) blog entries to A Blog for Media Justice is meant to contribute towards all of the above.
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and a member of the Campaign for Democratic Media