Those who fight the truth and the real news:
. NUTRI-WASHING JUNK FOOD
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/08/EDGLE8JMHR1.DTL
"Years ago, the environmental movement coined the term
"greenwashing" to describe how corporations use public relations to
make themselves appear environmentally friendly. Now, nutrition
advocates need their own moniker for a similar trend among major
food companies - call it 'nutri-washing,'" writes Michele Simon, a
public health lawyer and director of the Center for Informed Food
Choices. "Some nutrition advocates have applauded such efforts as
an attempt by industry to make improvements, however minor. But to
praise companies for such 'reforms' too easily rewards them with
the positive public-relations spin they seek. Also, these voluntary
actions deliberately attempt to deflect any mandatory government
regulations - for, as we are starting to learn, voluntary acts can
easily be rescinded. ... Moreover, these PR efforts don't tell the
whole story. Behind the scenes, industry is lobbying hard to
undermine public-health advocacy, especially that aimed at
improving the nutrition environment of public schools."
SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, September 8, 2004
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/September_2004.html#1094616003
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1094616003
Thursday, September 16, 2004
What is freedom of speech? How free are you to speak what you think and believe? Of course the first step is knowing what you think and believe. Do you know what you think? Or are you just following the lemmings? At any rate read this and think about it:
POSTED AT 5:30 AM EDT
Wednesday, Sep 15, 2004
By JOE FRIESEN
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Adbusters, the Vancouver-based alternative media organization, is suing Canada's major television networks for refusing to broadcast advertisements that criticize consumerism.
It has hired prominent civil-rights lawyer Clayton Ruby to act as counsel in this case, which it describes as the opening salvo in a war for greater media democracy.
"For the last 10 years I've been trying to buy air time and by and large I've been unable to do that," said Kalle Lasn, editor-in-chief of Adbusters magazine.
"I think it's a violation of my right to freedom of speech."
The lawsuit, which was filed in Ontario Superior Court, names the CBC, CanWest Global, Bell Globemedia and CHUM Ltd. as respondents.
It also names the Government of Canada in its role as regulator of the airwaves.
Adbusters is seeking a declaration from the courts under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the broadcasters have infringed on its right to freedom of expression.
It hopes the court will force the networks to accept its ads.
The 10 ads, or "social marketing spots," submitted to the networks were all approved by Telecaster Services, a branch of the Television Bureau of Canada that acts as a guardian of good taste.
They include a spot promoting Buy Nothing Day, one that criticizes violence on TV, and one that points out how much fat is contained in a McDonald's Big Mac.
A CBC spokeswoman said its lawyers are considering their legal options.
In an e-mail, a CTV spokesman said the network told Mr. Lasn in April that it was prepared to air three of his commercials, but that it reserved the right to refuse the others on the grounds that they were bad for business.
"The idea of a TV executive lording it over me and telling me what I can and cannot say, it violates my democratic principles," Mr. Lasn said.
Transcripts of Adbusters' conversations with TV executives are included in the legal filing. In one case, a CHUM representative is quoted as saying the ads "were so blatantly against television and that is our entire core business. . . . You know we can't be selling our airtime and then telling people to turn their TVs off."
Another executive at CTV said the idea of Buy Nothing Day would go over "like a lead balloon" with major retail advertisers.
Adbusters first launched a legal challenge to get its television spots on the air in 1995. The suit wound its way through the British Columbia courts after the CBC terminated an advertising contract because an anti-car ad caused automobile advertisers to complain. The case eventually fizzled out when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear it.
But this time, with Mr. Ruby as counsel, Mr. Lasn believes his group has a better case.
Mr. Ruby cites as precedent a Supreme Court ruling from 2002 in which the court protected the right to counter-advertising that criticizes a product or service.
In the judgment, Mr. Justice Louis LeBel wrote that "this type of communication may be of considerable importance even beyond the merely commercial sphere. It is a form of expression of opinion that has an important effect on the social and economic life of a society. It is a right not only of consumers, but of citizens."
Mr. Ruby said Adbusters merely wants to present the other side of the argument on airwaves that are inundated with messages promoting consumerism.
"This is a public space which the government regulates," Mr. Ruby said. "Given that [the government] have monopolized it, they have an obligation to guarantee freedom of expression."
Most major networks in the United States have rejected Adbusters spots. But CNN has aired several over the past five years, which were paid for by donations made through the Adbusters website.
Mr. Lasn said he plans a court challenge later this year if U.S. networks continue to refuse his business.
But first, Canada has a historic opportunity to become the first country that "opens its airwaves and gives citizens the right to communicate," he said.
POSTED AT 5:30 AM EDT
Wednesday, Sep 15, 2004
By JOE FRIESEN
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Adbusters, the Vancouver-based alternative media organization, is suing Canada's major television networks for refusing to broadcast advertisements that criticize consumerism.
It has hired prominent civil-rights lawyer Clayton Ruby to act as counsel in this case, which it describes as the opening salvo in a war for greater media democracy.
"For the last 10 years I've been trying to buy air time and by and large I've been unable to do that," said Kalle Lasn, editor-in-chief of Adbusters magazine.
"I think it's a violation of my right to freedom of speech."
The lawsuit, which was filed in Ontario Superior Court, names the CBC, CanWest Global, Bell Globemedia and CHUM Ltd. as respondents.
It also names the Government of Canada in its role as regulator of the airwaves.
Adbusters is seeking a declaration from the courts under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the broadcasters have infringed on its right to freedom of expression.
It hopes the court will force the networks to accept its ads.
The 10 ads, or "social marketing spots," submitted to the networks were all approved by Telecaster Services, a branch of the Television Bureau of Canada that acts as a guardian of good taste.
They include a spot promoting Buy Nothing Day, one that criticizes violence on TV, and one that points out how much fat is contained in a McDonald's Big Mac.
A CBC spokeswoman said its lawyers are considering their legal options.
In an e-mail, a CTV spokesman said the network told Mr. Lasn in April that it was prepared to air three of his commercials, but that it reserved the right to refuse the others on the grounds that they were bad for business.
"The idea of a TV executive lording it over me and telling me what I can and cannot say, it violates my democratic principles," Mr. Lasn said.
Transcripts of Adbusters' conversations with TV executives are included in the legal filing. In one case, a CHUM representative is quoted as saying the ads "were so blatantly against television and that is our entire core business. . . . You know we can't be selling our airtime and then telling people to turn their TVs off."
Another executive at CTV said the idea of Buy Nothing Day would go over "like a lead balloon" with major retail advertisers.
Adbusters first launched a legal challenge to get its television spots on the air in 1995. The suit wound its way through the British Columbia courts after the CBC terminated an advertising contract because an anti-car ad caused automobile advertisers to complain. The case eventually fizzled out when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear it.
But this time, with Mr. Ruby as counsel, Mr. Lasn believes his group has a better case.
Mr. Ruby cites as precedent a Supreme Court ruling from 2002 in which the court protected the right to counter-advertising that criticizes a product or service.
In the judgment, Mr. Justice Louis LeBel wrote that "this type of communication may be of considerable importance even beyond the merely commercial sphere. It is a form of expression of opinion that has an important effect on the social and economic life of a society. It is a right not only of consumers, but of citizens."
Mr. Ruby said Adbusters merely wants to present the other side of the argument on airwaves that are inundated with messages promoting consumerism.
"This is a public space which the government regulates," Mr. Ruby said. "Given that [the government] have monopolized it, they have an obligation to guarantee freedom of expression."
Most major networks in the United States have rejected Adbusters spots. But CNN has aired several over the past five years, which were paid for by donations made through the Adbusters website.
Mr. Lasn said he plans a court challenge later this year if U.S. networks continue to refuse his business.
But first, Canada has a historic opportunity to become the first country that "opens its airwaves and gives citizens the right to communicate," he said.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Here is a great guide to how to comunicate with a columnist about their column:
Sept. 7, 2004
Notes on Reader Feedback
Sunday's column was my annual look back at the past year's reviews, focusing on some of the key developments that occurred in everything from digital music to Internet telephony to the Service Pack 2 upgrade to Windows XP. The purpose, as I noted in print, is to revisit some of the bigger issues facing technology consumers and see if any of my earlier thoughts are in need of revisiting. Check out the column here.
For the next week, I'll be doing something unnatural but thoroughly necessary: Taking my hands off the keyboard while enjoying a belated, badly needed vacation.
I expect to pay for this with a backlog of e-mail messages. Knowing how I work, I will read all of them and answer most of them in one way or another. It's just part of the job. I can't consider any review truly complete until I've heard from readers who have tried the same product; if their experiences depart radically from mine, I might have to take a second look to see what I missed.
I can't imagine doing this job without that kind of feedback -- the only really bad column is the one that gets no reader response at all.
However ... how can I put this politely? Not all of the mail I get is equally helpful. What I'd like to offer here is some advice, based on my own thoroughly unscientific and subjective experience, on how to communicate effectively with reporters -- or at least me.
First, the basics: Use a subject header that clearly communicates a) what you're writing about, and b) that you're not just another spammer. In other words, don't use a blank header, don't type in all caps or all lower case, and please don't use multiple exclamation points. I'd hate to trash your message by mistake, or have my mail program do that for me.
* If you're writing to say "great job:"
I won't complain! But don't be surprised if these e-mails get the briefest of replies: "thanks for the kind words" or "you're welcome." Time's short, and messages that don't invite an argument or request further information are the most likely to get a generic response. (That's right; I'll spend more time dealing with a hostile reply than a friendly one. Sick, eh?)
If you're writing a letter to the editor and are just cc'ing me on it, I'm probably not going to reply. Nothing personal -- just trying to conserve my time.
* If you're writing to say what an uninformed hack I am:
Hey, go right ahead. No reporter likes being told that he or she got it wrong, but if nobody told us that, the error would never get corrected. It'd live on in databases and the Web site to lead readers -- and other reporters -- astray for all time. Not good karma.
Obviously, if you can do this without gratuitously insulting my intelligence or ethics, I will be better able to deal with the substance of your message. Bonus points if you can point me to a source that proves what the story should have said -- a Web page or a story elsewhere.
On the other hand, messages that only consist of generic insults won't get any kind of a constructive response. And if a message looks like it's part of a letter-writing campaign, it's hard for me to give it much credibility. If somebody can't spent more than a minute to craft a concise note, I probably can't either.
Finally, you're welcome to vent to me about how our Web site looks or works, but I don't work there and I have no special influence on the people who do. All I can do is point you to washingtonpost.com's extensive help/reader feedback page.
* If you're writing to ask me a question:
Please realize that some queries are answer-proof. Asking me "what's a good computer for a student" is like asking our restaurant critic "what's a good restaurant in Fairfax County." Those are impossibly vague questions -- I can't begin to answer it without quizzing you at great length over what you're looking to do with that computer, what your preferences are like and so on.
The more specific your question, the better. If you're looking for advice on which of two different models of laptop to buy, I can probably provide some worthwhile guidance. If you cite the exact text of the error message you see, I've got a better shot at figuring out what might have gone wrong. If you tell me what you want to do with a particular gadget and how much you want to spend, I can offer more useful advice.
I try to answer mail as quickly as I can, but if you need a response immediately you're probably not going to get it from me. Sorry. Answering e-mail is something I do when time permits, not in place of reporting, writing and editing. For about the same reason, I'm less likely to answer a second or third e-mail from a reader on the same subject if—as always seems the case -- I have 30 other messages from other people to answer.
Anything I left out? Stop by next week for my next Web chat, or drop me an e-mail at the address below.
-- Rob Pegoraro (rob@twp.com)
Sept. 7, 2004
Notes on Reader Feedback
Sunday's column was my annual look back at the past year's reviews, focusing on some of the key developments that occurred in everything from digital music to Internet telephony to the Service Pack 2 upgrade to Windows XP. The purpose, as I noted in print, is to revisit some of the bigger issues facing technology consumers and see if any of my earlier thoughts are in need of revisiting. Check out the column here.
For the next week, I'll be doing something unnatural but thoroughly necessary: Taking my hands off the keyboard while enjoying a belated, badly needed vacation.
I expect to pay for this with a backlog of e-mail messages. Knowing how I work, I will read all of them and answer most of them in one way or another. It's just part of the job. I can't consider any review truly complete until I've heard from readers who have tried the same product; if their experiences depart radically from mine, I might have to take a second look to see what I missed.
I can't imagine doing this job without that kind of feedback -- the only really bad column is the one that gets no reader response at all.
However ... how can I put this politely? Not all of the mail I get is equally helpful. What I'd like to offer here is some advice, based on my own thoroughly unscientific and subjective experience, on how to communicate effectively with reporters -- or at least me.
First, the basics: Use a subject header that clearly communicates a) what you're writing about, and b) that you're not just another spammer. In other words, don't use a blank header, don't type in all caps or all lower case, and please don't use multiple exclamation points. I'd hate to trash your message by mistake, or have my mail program do that for me.
* If you're writing to say "great job:"
I won't complain! But don't be surprised if these e-mails get the briefest of replies: "thanks for the kind words" or "you're welcome." Time's short, and messages that don't invite an argument or request further information are the most likely to get a generic response. (That's right; I'll spend more time dealing with a hostile reply than a friendly one. Sick, eh?)
If you're writing a letter to the editor and are just cc'ing me on it, I'm probably not going to reply. Nothing personal -- just trying to conserve my time.
* If you're writing to say what an uninformed hack I am:
Hey, go right ahead. No reporter likes being told that he or she got it wrong, but if nobody told us that, the error would never get corrected. It'd live on in databases and the Web site to lead readers -- and other reporters -- astray for all time. Not good karma.
Obviously, if you can do this without gratuitously insulting my intelligence or ethics, I will be better able to deal with the substance of your message. Bonus points if you can point me to a source that proves what the story should have said -- a Web page or a story elsewhere.
On the other hand, messages that only consist of generic insults won't get any kind of a constructive response. And if a message looks like it's part of a letter-writing campaign, it's hard for me to give it much credibility. If somebody can't spent more than a minute to craft a concise note, I probably can't either.
Finally, you're welcome to vent to me about how our Web site looks or works, but I don't work there and I have no special influence on the people who do. All I can do is point you to washingtonpost.com's extensive help/reader feedback page.
* If you're writing to ask me a question:
Please realize that some queries are answer-proof. Asking me "what's a good computer for a student" is like asking our restaurant critic "what's a good restaurant in Fairfax County." Those are impossibly vague questions -- I can't begin to answer it without quizzing you at great length over what you're looking to do with that computer, what your preferences are like and so on.
The more specific your question, the better. If you're looking for advice on which of two different models of laptop to buy, I can probably provide some worthwhile guidance. If you cite the exact text of the error message you see, I've got a better shot at figuring out what might have gone wrong. If you tell me what you want to do with a particular gadget and how much you want to spend, I can offer more useful advice.
I try to answer mail as quickly as I can, but if you need a response immediately you're probably not going to get it from me. Sorry. Answering e-mail is something I do when time permits, not in place of reporting, writing and editing. For about the same reason, I'm less likely to answer a second or third e-mail from a reader on the same subject if—as always seems the case -- I have 30 other messages from other people to answer.
Anything I left out? Stop by next week for my next Web chat, or drop me an e-mail at the address below.
-- Rob Pegoraro (rob@twp.com)
Let's talk about spin in the first class back. What does spin mean. I'll try and get the video "Wag the Dog" to help demonstrate the concept and you should read the following:
All the President's Spin
By Ben Fritz and Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan, AlterNet. Posted September 7, 2004.
A new book studies the way that the Bush administration has dedicated itself to transforming the press from a watchdog to a mouthpiece for its spin.
Editor's Note: This is an excerpt from 'All the President's Spin,' by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan.
Bush’s White House has broken new ground in its press relations strategy, exploiting the weaknesses and failings of the political media more systematically than any of its predecessors. The administration combines tight message discipline and image management – Reagan’s trademarks – with the artful use of half- or partial truths and elaborate news management – Clinton’s specialties – in a combination that is near-lethal for the press.
These techniques are effective precisely because they prey on four key weaknesses of contemporary journalism. First and foremost, reporters are constrained by the norm of objectivity, which frequently causes them to avoid evaluating the truth of politicians’ statements. In addition, because reporters are dependent upon the White House for news, the administration can shape the coverage it receives by restricting the flow of information to the press. The media are also vulnerable to political pressure and reprisal, which the Bush White House has aggressively dished out against critical journalists. Finally, the press’ unending pursuit of scandal and entertaining news often blinds it to serious issues of public policy.
By aggressively deploying its communications strategy against a media establishment wary of giving credence to charges of liberal bias and fearful of challenging a self-described “war president” after Sept. 11, Bush has successfully dissembled about public policy on a far more consistent basis than his predecessors. Do President Bush’s tax cuts primarily benefit the wealthy or the middle class? Was there clear evidence that Iraq was attempting to produce nuclear weapons or was connected to al Qaeda? What role have tax cuts played in the recent growth of federal budget deficits? There are answers to all of these questions, but the media are frequently reluctant to point out the misinformation in Bush’s statements about such controversial policy issues. By using every advantage it can muster against the media, the Bush administration has dedicated itself to transforming the press from a watchdog to a mouthpiece for its spin.
The Weaknesses of “Objective” Journalism
The gold standard of American journalism has long been “objective” reporting. Journalists at news outlets are expected to present the public with an unbiased account of the facts rather than their own views on the issue at hand. This is a laudable goal, but the expectation that reporters will present both sides of the story too often translates into the mistaken belief that they should refuse to sort out competing factual claims. This is the media’s greatest weakness in dealing with political dishonesty.
While the press generally does a reasonable job of pointing out the most blatant instances of political deception, reporters attempting to remain objective often fail to evaluate claims that are misleading but not obviously wrong. This is especially true when it comes to politicians who are generally seen as honest. As a result, Bush has frequently gotten away with misleading claims and language. Perversely, this strategy of dissembling and denial leaves journalists in the position of appearing to be “taking sides” if they point out deception.
The pressure to remain objective frequently reduces reporters to little more than stenographers transcribing the latest spin from politicians. Rather than sort out competing factual claims, they typically give equal play to both sides – even if one is misleading. This “he said/she said” form of journalism allows politicians to enter deceptive statements into the public record and leaves citizens with little or no basis to evaluate the truth of the matter at hand.
Coverage of the debate over the war in Iraq provides a particularly telling example of this sort of thinking. New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who has come under fire for her generally credulous reporting about the Bush administration’s case for war, told Michael Massing of the New York Review of Books, “My job isn’t to assess the government’s information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of the New York Times what the government thought about Iraq’s arsenal.” (Miller later claimed in a letter to the editor that she had actually stated, “I could not be an independent intelligence agency.” Massing disputed that claim, stating he read Miller her quote for approval and the reporter signed off.)
In a May 12, 2004, interview on MSNBC’s Hardball, veteran journalist Jim Lehrer, the host of PBS’ The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, expressed similar deference to the claims of government leaders. When asked by host Chris Matthews whether journalists had explored the issue of how Iraqis would respond to Americans running their country after the war, he responded, “The word ‘occupation,’ keep in mind, Chris, was never mentioned in the run-up to the war. It was ‘liberation.’ This was a war of liberation, not a war of occupation. So as a consequence, those of us in journalism never even looked at the issue of occupation.” When Matthews asked why reporters weren’t able to go beyond the Bush administration’s framing of the war as one of “liberation,” the answer was astonishing: “It just didn’t occur to us,” Lehrer said. “We weren’t smart enough to do it.”
In fact, Miller and Lehrer’s job (and the job of other reporters) is to go beyond government claims and uncover the truth. Their statements demonstrate an all-too-typical reluctance to sort out the facts for readers and a deference to authority that is troubling coming from any reporter, let alone two at prestigious national news outlets.
Reporters’ Dependence on the White House
The nature of the White House beat is that reporters depend on the officials they cover for access and information. If the administration decides to stonewall them, there is often little they can do. By controlling the flow of information available to the press, the White House can shape news coverage. Despite the media’s tendency to focus on negative stories, the absence of damaging information usually preempts critical coverage and creates a news vacuum that reporters must fill. If they are offered nothing other than the White House’s chosen message of the day, coverage tends to focus on that message.
To fill the news vacuum, the Bush administration offers reporters an unending supply of carefully scripted talking points, a standard public relations tactic that the White House has elevated to an art. When talking points are all officials will repeat, it gives reporters literally nothing else to quote.
For instance, during the July 2003 controversy over Bush’s claim that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Africa, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley pounded the spin point that the statement in question was only “sixteen words” long, repeating it six times each during an interview on CNN and a press briefing, respectively. This focus on a scripted message often defeats reporters’ attempts to provide coverage of topics other than administration talking points.
Two internal memos from the Treasury Department’s public affairs staff to Secretary Paul O’Neill graphically illustrate the disciplined message that the administration tries to enforce.
First, to prepare O’Neill for a February 2001 press conference announcing the President’s fiscal year 2002 budget, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Public Affairs Michele Davis wrote a memo telling O’Neill, “This event, more than anything you’ve participated in to date, requires that you be monotonously on-message.” Her advice was frank: “Roll-out events like this are the clearest examples of when staying on message is absolutely crucial. Any deviation during the unveiling of the budget will change the way coverage plays out from tomorrow forward. . . . Your remarks should be very focused and your answers during the Q and A should only repeat your remarks.” Davis’ comments demonstrate the strategic approach the Bush administration takes to its public statements.
The memo clearly had the desired effect on the often spontaneous O’Neill. During the press conference, the Secretary largely stuck to his message save for a testy exchange with reporters over the percentage of the tax cut going to the wealthiest Americans.
In a second memo to O’Neill, Davis gave him advice for a Jan. 6, 2002 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press. This time, she encouraged him to aggressively insert the administration’s talking points into the interview. Davis advised O’Neill to disregard host Tim Russert almost entirely: “first answer, no matter the question: We must act to ensure our economy recovers and people get back to work.” She later stated that “You need to interject the President’s message, even if the question has nothing to do with that.”
As she predicted, Russert’s first question concerned the state of the economy, not Bush’s agenda. When the host asked, “How bad is this recession?” O’Neill gave a short answer before turning to his talking points as Davis suggested, saying, “We need to get people back to work in this economy.” The memo also listed “key lines” and “word choices,” such as “economic security” (a phrase O’Neill used five times), and advised him to say that “the terrorist attacks and the recession caused the deficit,” which he did. In this way, the administration turned the interview from a spontaneous exchange into something closer to a prepared speech.
The Bush White House’s philosophy that the media serve no particular democratic function guides its relationship with journalists. Because it sees them as a hostile force in search of the next headline, the administration has no reservations about employing an arsenal of public relations and news management tools to try to shape coverage. These include half-truths and strategically ambiguous language that are difficult for “objective” reporters to expose, relentless message discipline, restrictions on press interaction with Bush, direct pressure on journalists, and dishonesty about policy issues that the media find boring. By wielding these tactics against reporters reluctant to criticize the President after Sept. 11, Bush was able to neuter the press corps for most of his first three years in office.
Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer, and Brendan Nyhan are founder-editors of Spinsanity.com, a nonpartisan watchdog dedicated to unspinning misleading claims from politicians, pundits and the press.
All the President's Spin
By Ben Fritz and Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan, AlterNet. Posted September 7, 2004.
A new book studies the way that the Bush administration has dedicated itself to transforming the press from a watchdog to a mouthpiece for its spin.
Editor's Note: This is an excerpt from 'All the President's Spin,' by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan.
Bush’s White House has broken new ground in its press relations strategy, exploiting the weaknesses and failings of the political media more systematically than any of its predecessors. The administration combines tight message discipline and image management – Reagan’s trademarks – with the artful use of half- or partial truths and elaborate news management – Clinton’s specialties – in a combination that is near-lethal for the press.
These techniques are effective precisely because they prey on four key weaknesses of contemporary journalism. First and foremost, reporters are constrained by the norm of objectivity, which frequently causes them to avoid evaluating the truth of politicians’ statements. In addition, because reporters are dependent upon the White House for news, the administration can shape the coverage it receives by restricting the flow of information to the press. The media are also vulnerable to political pressure and reprisal, which the Bush White House has aggressively dished out against critical journalists. Finally, the press’ unending pursuit of scandal and entertaining news often blinds it to serious issues of public policy.
By aggressively deploying its communications strategy against a media establishment wary of giving credence to charges of liberal bias and fearful of challenging a self-described “war president” after Sept. 11, Bush has successfully dissembled about public policy on a far more consistent basis than his predecessors. Do President Bush’s tax cuts primarily benefit the wealthy or the middle class? Was there clear evidence that Iraq was attempting to produce nuclear weapons or was connected to al Qaeda? What role have tax cuts played in the recent growth of federal budget deficits? There are answers to all of these questions, but the media are frequently reluctant to point out the misinformation in Bush’s statements about such controversial policy issues. By using every advantage it can muster against the media, the Bush administration has dedicated itself to transforming the press from a watchdog to a mouthpiece for its spin.
The Weaknesses of “Objective” Journalism
The gold standard of American journalism has long been “objective” reporting. Journalists at news outlets are expected to present the public with an unbiased account of the facts rather than their own views on the issue at hand. This is a laudable goal, but the expectation that reporters will present both sides of the story too often translates into the mistaken belief that they should refuse to sort out competing factual claims. This is the media’s greatest weakness in dealing with political dishonesty.
While the press generally does a reasonable job of pointing out the most blatant instances of political deception, reporters attempting to remain objective often fail to evaluate claims that are misleading but not obviously wrong. This is especially true when it comes to politicians who are generally seen as honest. As a result, Bush has frequently gotten away with misleading claims and language. Perversely, this strategy of dissembling and denial leaves journalists in the position of appearing to be “taking sides” if they point out deception.
The pressure to remain objective frequently reduces reporters to little more than stenographers transcribing the latest spin from politicians. Rather than sort out competing factual claims, they typically give equal play to both sides – even if one is misleading. This “he said/she said” form of journalism allows politicians to enter deceptive statements into the public record and leaves citizens with little or no basis to evaluate the truth of the matter at hand.
Coverage of the debate over the war in Iraq provides a particularly telling example of this sort of thinking. New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who has come under fire for her generally credulous reporting about the Bush administration’s case for war, told Michael Massing of the New York Review of Books, “My job isn’t to assess the government’s information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of the New York Times what the government thought about Iraq’s arsenal.” (Miller later claimed in a letter to the editor that she had actually stated, “I could not be an independent intelligence agency.” Massing disputed that claim, stating he read Miller her quote for approval and the reporter signed off.)
In a May 12, 2004, interview on MSNBC’s Hardball, veteran journalist Jim Lehrer, the host of PBS’ The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, expressed similar deference to the claims of government leaders. When asked by host Chris Matthews whether journalists had explored the issue of how Iraqis would respond to Americans running their country after the war, he responded, “The word ‘occupation,’ keep in mind, Chris, was never mentioned in the run-up to the war. It was ‘liberation.’ This was a war of liberation, not a war of occupation. So as a consequence, those of us in journalism never even looked at the issue of occupation.” When Matthews asked why reporters weren’t able to go beyond the Bush administration’s framing of the war as one of “liberation,” the answer was astonishing: “It just didn’t occur to us,” Lehrer said. “We weren’t smart enough to do it.”
In fact, Miller and Lehrer’s job (and the job of other reporters) is to go beyond government claims and uncover the truth. Their statements demonstrate an all-too-typical reluctance to sort out the facts for readers and a deference to authority that is troubling coming from any reporter, let alone two at prestigious national news outlets.
Reporters’ Dependence on the White House
The nature of the White House beat is that reporters depend on the officials they cover for access and information. If the administration decides to stonewall them, there is often little they can do. By controlling the flow of information available to the press, the White House can shape news coverage. Despite the media’s tendency to focus on negative stories, the absence of damaging information usually preempts critical coverage and creates a news vacuum that reporters must fill. If they are offered nothing other than the White House’s chosen message of the day, coverage tends to focus on that message.
To fill the news vacuum, the Bush administration offers reporters an unending supply of carefully scripted talking points, a standard public relations tactic that the White House has elevated to an art. When talking points are all officials will repeat, it gives reporters literally nothing else to quote.
For instance, during the July 2003 controversy over Bush’s claim that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Africa, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley pounded the spin point that the statement in question was only “sixteen words” long, repeating it six times each during an interview on CNN and a press briefing, respectively. This focus on a scripted message often defeats reporters’ attempts to provide coverage of topics other than administration talking points.
Two internal memos from the Treasury Department’s public affairs staff to Secretary Paul O’Neill graphically illustrate the disciplined message that the administration tries to enforce.
First, to prepare O’Neill for a February 2001 press conference announcing the President’s fiscal year 2002 budget, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Public Affairs Michele Davis wrote a memo telling O’Neill, “This event, more than anything you’ve participated in to date, requires that you be monotonously on-message.” Her advice was frank: “Roll-out events like this are the clearest examples of when staying on message is absolutely crucial. Any deviation during the unveiling of the budget will change the way coverage plays out from tomorrow forward. . . . Your remarks should be very focused and your answers during the Q and A should only repeat your remarks.” Davis’ comments demonstrate the strategic approach the Bush administration takes to its public statements.
The memo clearly had the desired effect on the often spontaneous O’Neill. During the press conference, the Secretary largely stuck to his message save for a testy exchange with reporters over the percentage of the tax cut going to the wealthiest Americans.
In a second memo to O’Neill, Davis gave him advice for a Jan. 6, 2002 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press. This time, she encouraged him to aggressively insert the administration’s talking points into the interview. Davis advised O’Neill to disregard host Tim Russert almost entirely: “first answer, no matter the question: We must act to ensure our economy recovers and people get back to work.” She later stated that “You need to interject the President’s message, even if the question has nothing to do with that.”
As she predicted, Russert’s first question concerned the state of the economy, not Bush’s agenda. When the host asked, “How bad is this recession?” O’Neill gave a short answer before turning to his talking points as Davis suggested, saying, “We need to get people back to work in this economy.” The memo also listed “key lines” and “word choices,” such as “economic security” (a phrase O’Neill used five times), and advised him to say that “the terrorist attacks and the recession caused the deficit,” which he did. In this way, the administration turned the interview from a spontaneous exchange into something closer to a prepared speech.
The Bush White House’s philosophy that the media serve no particular democratic function guides its relationship with journalists. Because it sees them as a hostile force in search of the next headline, the administration has no reservations about employing an arsenal of public relations and news management tools to try to shape coverage. These include half-truths and strategically ambiguous language that are difficult for “objective” reporters to expose, relentless message discipline, restrictions on press interaction with Bush, direct pressure on journalists, and dishonesty about policy issues that the media find boring. By wielding these tactics against reporters reluctant to criticize the President after Sept. 11, Bush was able to neuter the press corps for most of his first three years in office.
Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer, and Brendan Nyhan are founder-editors of Spinsanity.com, a nonpartisan watchdog dedicated to unspinning misleading claims from politicians, pundits and the press.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Journalists are responsible for freedom:Plan to Tame Journalists Just Stirs Them Up in Brazil
By LARRY ROHTER
Under the plan, a national journalists' council would be
empowered to "orient, discipline and monitor" journalists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/international/americas/06brazil.html?th
If everyday ordinary people cannot get the real story their freedoms are jeprodized. See you in a few weeks. Clark
By LARRY ROHTER
Under the plan, a national journalists' council would be
empowered to "orient, discipline and monitor" journalists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/international/americas/06brazil.html?th
If everyday ordinary people cannot get the real story their freedoms are jeprodized. See you in a few weeks. Clark
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Specialized Journalism:Doctors Without Behavioral Borders
THE pilot episode of "Medical Investigation," NBC's new medical science series, retells a famous old New York story about a rare type of food poisoning that produces blue patients. (The pilot will be broadcast on Thursday night at 10 Eastern; the following night at the same time, the show will assume its regular slot). Though its source isn't credited, the episode (written by Jason Horwitch) is an homage to "Eleven Blue Men," the great medical journalist Berton Roueché's classic account of a mysterious food poisoning that literally turned 11 New York City alcoholics blue.
Well, perhaps "homage" isn't the right term. Roueché's account, first published in The New Yorker in 1947, is careful and understated. As the narrator, he solicits the facts retrospectively from two seasoned, courteous investigators from the New York City public health department who seem to be competing for a modesty award. They have obviously done a clever, systematic and ultimately revealing investigation, working in collegial fashion with the doctors and nurses caring for the patients. And they succeeded: all but one patient survived, and the two sleuths traced the source of the toxic substance to bowls of oatmeal and a single salt shaker that contained sodium nitrite (rather than regular sodium chloride) from a mislabeled package. But the detectives also admit, with humility, to a few loose ends to their story; the survivors were discharged from the hospital before they could verify that they had eaten at the same table and used the salt shaker vigorously. In Roueché's account, as in real-life medicine, good investigators are left with a few nagging doubts.
The pilot's first departure from its source material is its setting. "Medical Investigation" features doctors from an elite (and fictional) unit of the National Institutes of Health. The producers say that the show is meant to celebrate the agency, and indeed, the opening credits mention that N.I.H. has spent more than 100 years improving the world's health.
However, contrary to the premise of "Medical Investigation," that work does not include flying off in helicopters to investigate outbreaks of bizarre maladies. As the millions who saw the film "Outbreak" could probably tell you, such work traditionally belongs in the domain of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, the agency that local hospitals and city health departments turn to when they are stymied by medical mysteries. (I know this, because aside from having seen "Outbreak," I spent six years as the director of the National Institutes of Health). The N.I.H., through its government labs and grant recipients, does medical research on diseases and basic biological problems in laboratories and hospitals; it does not organize the immediate response to medical emergencies: outbreaks of unexplained illnesses, seasonal epidemics, or evidence of bioterrorism. (Later in the season, the show's producers say, "Medical Investigation" will depict clinical tests of new therapies, which is closer to the institutes' actual work.)
Unlike the quietly competent municipal employees who solved the case on which the pilot is based, the staff in "Medical Investigation" looks and sounds like a terrorism response team from a military unit. The doctors have no charm, no uncertainty, and less modesty. The lead investigator, Stephen Connor (played by Neal McDonough), has admittedly useful qualities: extensive medical knowledge and a determination to cure the sick. With angry energy and unremitting focus, he gets the job done. But the trait that overwhelms the viewer, as Connor barks intimidating orders to associates and insults to local hospital personnel, is the man's insupportable arrogance. He marches into the hospital, commandeers the staff and upbraids the seemingly reasonable physician in charge by suggesting that contesting his authority would place eight million lives at risk. One of the producers, Laurence Andries, says the Connor character satisfies the American public's "aching for heroes." But has our fear of terrorism and outbreaks become so great that viewers will accept such uncooperative behavior as anything other than obnoxious?
he other members of Connor's team are not much more likable than he is — which says something about Hollywood's idea of a competent federal agent. Connor's female co-investigator is also his apologist (Connor "suffers from a bad case of high expectations," she says). An African-American technician portentously places Connor in historical context ("the unreasonable man makes the world adapt.") A public relations staffer teases, harasses and temporarily imprisons a reporter who is on to the mystery, successfully suppressing the story until it is solved. (According to Mr. Horwitch, this is supposed to be "comic relief," but it comes off as mean-spirited, lacking in purpose and even unethical.)
As in the original "Eleven Blue Men," the symptoms lead the investigators to a poisonous salt mistakenly placed in a single shaker at a busy diner. But the victims have changed along with the investigators. Instead of an outcast population of old alcoholic men — from whom viewers might feel disengaged — the patients are varied by age and gender. The only one we get to know is a middle-aged man who develops his symptoms as he walks through Midtown Manhattan talking smugly on his cellphone about Amgen shares and Martha Stewart. He's a good personality match for Connor.
Amid all the hectic helicoptering and hectoring behavior, there are a couple of moments of solid medical detective work. Connor tests the contents of the salt shakers by mixing them with drops of his blood in spoons; in one case the blood dramatically darkens. This is more fun to watch and, according to Dr. Robert Hoffman of the New York City Poison Control Center, more credible than the fancy analytic machine that earlier flashed "nitrate, nitrate" when processing the patients' blood. The show also briefly illuminates how a good epidemiologist might think when it portrays Connor reconstructing events: in a waking dream, he imagines the restaurant full of patrons, only a few of whom become the unlucky patients who sat at the wrong table and shook the contaminated salt onto their food.
Unfortunately, such moments are few, and the dominant impression is that epidemiology is about screaming, not about useful, difficult scientific work. It's hardly surprising: unlike the movies, in which scientists have made decent showings (think of the climatologist in "Day After Tomorrow" or the rocket engineers in "Apollo 13"), scientists have rarely if ever made it to prime time network television intact. In its better days, "E.R." used to create dramatic situations that displayed the scientific issues underlying treatment of H.I.V., drug abuse or organ transplantation. But television's efforts to portray medical scientists at work usually involve geeky sidekicks or connivers trying to boost their reputations or salaries with dishonest scientific practices. With its aggravating characters, distorted picture of the role of federal agencies and limited portrayal of medical investigation, this new show seems destined to be just another failure to present scientific work in a smart and appealing way.
If the producers wanted to convey a more realistic atmosphere of threatened terrorism, while sticking with chemically induced cyanosis, they might have scuttled the ambiguous tribute to Roueché and taken their cue from a case recently reported in the Centers for Disease Control's weekly online journal by Dr. Hoffman and his many co-workers. In 2002, five adults of Middle Eastern descent were poisoned in Yonkers by ingestion of sodium nitrite taken from a bag plainly labeled Table Salt. Was this a mix-up or a criminal act? Were other contaminated bags distributed around the country? You will have to read the article (online at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5129.pdf) to find out. When you do, you'll notice that the public health experts treated all five patients successfully before knowing the cause of cyanosis; Connor's team waited for his spoon test before treating his blue patients, therefore losing a patient. Which is just one more reason you might not want to entrust your Friday night — let alone your medical care — to a doctor like him.
Harold Varmus, president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, shared a Nobel Prize for studies of cancer viruses.
THE pilot episode of "Medical Investigation," NBC's new medical science series, retells a famous old New York story about a rare type of food poisoning that produces blue patients. (The pilot will be broadcast on Thursday night at 10 Eastern; the following night at the same time, the show will assume its regular slot). Though its source isn't credited, the episode (written by Jason Horwitch) is an homage to "Eleven Blue Men," the great medical journalist Berton Roueché's classic account of a mysterious food poisoning that literally turned 11 New York City alcoholics blue.
Well, perhaps "homage" isn't the right term. Roueché's account, first published in The New Yorker in 1947, is careful and understated. As the narrator, he solicits the facts retrospectively from two seasoned, courteous investigators from the New York City public health department who seem to be competing for a modesty award. They have obviously done a clever, systematic and ultimately revealing investigation, working in collegial fashion with the doctors and nurses caring for the patients. And they succeeded: all but one patient survived, and the two sleuths traced the source of the toxic substance to bowls of oatmeal and a single salt shaker that contained sodium nitrite (rather than regular sodium chloride) from a mislabeled package. But the detectives also admit, with humility, to a few loose ends to their story; the survivors were discharged from the hospital before they could verify that they had eaten at the same table and used the salt shaker vigorously. In Roueché's account, as in real-life medicine, good investigators are left with a few nagging doubts.
The pilot's first departure from its source material is its setting. "Medical Investigation" features doctors from an elite (and fictional) unit of the National Institutes of Health. The producers say that the show is meant to celebrate the agency, and indeed, the opening credits mention that N.I.H. has spent more than 100 years improving the world's health.
However, contrary to the premise of "Medical Investigation," that work does not include flying off in helicopters to investigate outbreaks of bizarre maladies. As the millions who saw the film "Outbreak" could probably tell you, such work traditionally belongs in the domain of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, the agency that local hospitals and city health departments turn to when they are stymied by medical mysteries. (I know this, because aside from having seen "Outbreak," I spent six years as the director of the National Institutes of Health). The N.I.H., through its government labs and grant recipients, does medical research on diseases and basic biological problems in laboratories and hospitals; it does not organize the immediate response to medical emergencies: outbreaks of unexplained illnesses, seasonal epidemics, or evidence of bioterrorism. (Later in the season, the show's producers say, "Medical Investigation" will depict clinical tests of new therapies, which is closer to the institutes' actual work.)
Unlike the quietly competent municipal employees who solved the case on which the pilot is based, the staff in "Medical Investigation" looks and sounds like a terrorism response team from a military unit. The doctors have no charm, no uncertainty, and less modesty. The lead investigator, Stephen Connor (played by Neal McDonough), has admittedly useful qualities: extensive medical knowledge and a determination to cure the sick. With angry energy and unremitting focus, he gets the job done. But the trait that overwhelms the viewer, as Connor barks intimidating orders to associates and insults to local hospital personnel, is the man's insupportable arrogance. He marches into the hospital, commandeers the staff and upbraids the seemingly reasonable physician in charge by suggesting that contesting his authority would place eight million lives at risk. One of the producers, Laurence Andries, says the Connor character satisfies the American public's "aching for heroes." But has our fear of terrorism and outbreaks become so great that viewers will accept such uncooperative behavior as anything other than obnoxious?
he other members of Connor's team are not much more likable than he is — which says something about Hollywood's idea of a competent federal agent. Connor's female co-investigator is also his apologist (Connor "suffers from a bad case of high expectations," she says). An African-American technician portentously places Connor in historical context ("the unreasonable man makes the world adapt.") A public relations staffer teases, harasses and temporarily imprisons a reporter who is on to the mystery, successfully suppressing the story until it is solved. (According to Mr. Horwitch, this is supposed to be "comic relief," but it comes off as mean-spirited, lacking in purpose and even unethical.)
As in the original "Eleven Blue Men," the symptoms lead the investigators to a poisonous salt mistakenly placed in a single shaker at a busy diner. But the victims have changed along with the investigators. Instead of an outcast population of old alcoholic men — from whom viewers might feel disengaged — the patients are varied by age and gender. The only one we get to know is a middle-aged man who develops his symptoms as he walks through Midtown Manhattan talking smugly on his cellphone about Amgen shares and Martha Stewart. He's a good personality match for Connor.
Amid all the hectic helicoptering and hectoring behavior, there are a couple of moments of solid medical detective work. Connor tests the contents of the salt shakers by mixing them with drops of his blood in spoons; in one case the blood dramatically darkens. This is more fun to watch and, according to Dr. Robert Hoffman of the New York City Poison Control Center, more credible than the fancy analytic machine that earlier flashed "nitrate, nitrate" when processing the patients' blood. The show also briefly illuminates how a good epidemiologist might think when it portrays Connor reconstructing events: in a waking dream, he imagines the restaurant full of patrons, only a few of whom become the unlucky patients who sat at the wrong table and shook the contaminated salt onto their food.
Unfortunately, such moments are few, and the dominant impression is that epidemiology is about screaming, not about useful, difficult scientific work. It's hardly surprising: unlike the movies, in which scientists have made decent showings (think of the climatologist in "Day After Tomorrow" or the rocket engineers in "Apollo 13"), scientists have rarely if ever made it to prime time network television intact. In its better days, "E.R." used to create dramatic situations that displayed the scientific issues underlying treatment of H.I.V., drug abuse or organ transplantation. But television's efforts to portray medical scientists at work usually involve geeky sidekicks or connivers trying to boost their reputations or salaries with dishonest scientific practices. With its aggravating characters, distorted picture of the role of federal agencies and limited portrayal of medical investigation, this new show seems destined to be just another failure to present scientific work in a smart and appealing way.
If the producers wanted to convey a more realistic atmosphere of threatened terrorism, while sticking with chemically induced cyanosis, they might have scuttled the ambiguous tribute to Roueché and taken their cue from a case recently reported in the Centers for Disease Control's weekly online journal by Dr. Hoffman and his many co-workers. In 2002, five adults of Middle Eastern descent were poisoned in Yonkers by ingestion of sodium nitrite taken from a bag plainly labeled Table Salt. Was this a mix-up or a criminal act? Were other contaminated bags distributed around the country? You will have to read the article (online at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5129.pdf) to find out. When you do, you'll notice that the public health experts treated all five patients successfully before knowing the cause of cyanosis; Connor's team waited for his spoon test before treating his blue patients, therefore losing a patient. Which is just one more reason you might not want to entrust your Friday night — let alone your medical care — to a doctor like him.
Harold Varmus, president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, shared a Nobel Prize for studies of cancer viruses.
Specialized Journalism:Doctors Without Behavioral Borders
THE pilot episode of "Medical Investigation," NBC's new medical science series, retells a famous old New York story about a rare type of food poisoning that produces blue patients. (The pilot will be broadcast on Thursday night at 10 Eastern; the following night at the same time, the show will assume its regular slot). Though its source isn't credited, the episode (written by Jason Horwitch) is an homage to "Eleven Blue Men," the great medical journalist Berton Roueché's classic account of a mysterious food poisoning that literally turned 11 New York City alcoholics blue.
Well, perhaps "homage" isn't the right term. Roueché's account, first published in The New Yorker in 1947, is careful and understated. As the narrator, he solicits the facts retrospectively from two seasoned, courteous investigators from the New York City public health department who seem to be competing for a modesty award. They have obviously done a clever, systematic and ultimately revealing investigation, working in collegial fashion with the doctors and nurses caring for the patients. And they succeeded: all but one patient survived, and the two sleuths traced the source of the toxic substance to bowls of oatmeal and a single salt shaker that contained sodium nitrite (rather than regular sodium chloride) from a mislabeled package. But the detectives also admit, with humility, to a few loose ends to their story; the survivors were discharged from the hospital before they could verify that they had eaten at the same table and used the salt shaker vigorously. In Roueché's account, as in real-life medicine, good investigators are left with a few nagging doubts.
The pilot's first departure from its source material is its setting. "Medical Investigation" features doctors from an elite (and fictional) unit of the National Institutes of Health. The producers say that the show is meant to celebrate the agency, and indeed, the opening credits mention that N.I.H. has spent more than 100 years improving the world's health.
However, contrary to the premise of "Medical Investigation," that work does not include flying off in helicopters to investigate outbreaks of bizarre maladies. As the millions who saw the film "Outbreak" could probably tell you, such work traditionally belongs in the domain of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, the agency that local hospitals and city health departments turn to when they are stymied by medical mysteries. (I know this, because aside from having seen "Outbreak," I spent six years as the director of the National Institutes of Health). The N.I.H., through its government labs and grant recipients, does medical research on diseases and basic biological problems in laboratories and hospitals; it does not organize the immediate response to medical emergencies: outbreaks of unexplained illnesses, seasonal epidemics, or evidence of bioterrorism. (Later in the season, the show's producers say, "Medical Investigation" will depict clinical tests of new therapies, which is closer to the institutes' actual work.)
Unlike the quietly competent municipal employees who solved the case on which the pilot is based, the staff in "Medical Investigation" looks and sounds like a terrorism response team from a military unit. The doctors have no charm, no uncertainty, and less modesty. The lead investigator, Stephen Connor (played by Neal McDonough), has admittedly useful qualities: extensive medical knowledge and a determination to cure the sick. With angry energy and unremitting focus, he gets the job done. But the trait that overwhelms the viewer, as Connor barks intimidating orders to associates and insults to local hospital personnel, is the man's insupportable arrogance. He marches into the hospital, commandeers the staff and upbraids the seemingly reasonable physician in charge by suggesting that contesting his authority would place eight million lives at risk. One of the producers, Laurence Andries, says the Connor character satisfies the American public's "aching for heroes." But has our fear of terrorism and outbreaks become so great that viewers will accept such uncooperative behavior as anything other than obnoxious?
he other members of Connor's team are not much more likable than he is — which says something about Hollywood's idea of a competent federal agent. Connor's female co-investigator is also his apologist (Connor "suffers from a bad case of high expectations," she says). An African-American technician portentously places Connor in historical context ("the unreasonable man makes the world adapt.") A public relations staffer teases, harasses and temporarily imprisons a reporter who is on to the mystery, successfully suppressing the story until it is solved. (According to Mr. Horwitch, this is supposed to be "comic relief," but it comes off as mean-spirited, lacking in purpose and even unethical.)
As in the original "Eleven Blue Men," the symptoms lead the investigators to a poisonous salt mistakenly placed in a single shaker at a busy diner. But the victims have changed along with the investigators. Instead of an outcast population of old alcoholic men — from whom viewers might feel disengaged — the patients are varied by age and gender. The only one we get to know is a middle-aged man who develops his symptoms as he walks through Midtown Manhattan talking smugly on his cellphone about Amgen shares and Martha Stewart. He's a good personality match for Connor.
Amid all the hectic helicoptering and hectoring behavior, there are a couple of moments of solid medical detective work. Connor tests the contents of the salt shakers by mixing them with drops of his blood in spoons; in one case the blood dramatically darkens. This is more fun to watch and, according to Dr. Robert Hoffman of the New York City Poison Control Center, more credible than the fancy analytic machine that earlier flashed "nitrate, nitrate" when processing the patients' blood. The show also briefly illuminates how a good epidemiologist might think when it portrays Connor reconstructing events: in a waking dream, he imagines the restaurant full of patrons, only a few of whom become the unlucky patients who sat at the wrong table and shook the contaminated salt onto their food.
Unfortunately, such moments are few, and the dominant impression is that epidemiology is about screaming, not about useful, difficult scientific work. It's hardly surprising: unlike the movies, in which scientists have made decent showings (think of the climatologist in "Day After Tomorrow" or the rocket engineers in "Apollo 13"), scientists have rarely if ever made it to prime time network television intact. In its better days, "E.R." used to create dramatic situations that displayed the scientific issues underlying treatment of H.I.V., drug abuse or organ transplantation. But television's efforts to portray medical scientists at work usually involve geeky sidekicks or connivers trying to boost their reputations or salaries with dishonest scientific practices. With its aggravating characters, distorted picture of the role of federal agencies and limited portrayal of medical investigation, this new show seems destined to be just another failure to present scientific work in a smart and appealing way.
If the producers wanted to convey a more realistic atmosphere of threatened terrorism, while sticking with chemically induced cyanosis, they might have scuttled the ambiguous tribute to Roueché and taken their cue from a case recently reported in the Centers for Disease Control's weekly online journal by Dr. Hoffman and his many co-workers. In 2002, five adults of Middle Eastern descent were poisoned in Yonkers by ingestion of sodium nitrite taken from a bag plainly labeled Table Salt. Was this a mix-up or a criminal act? Were other contaminated bags distributed around the country? You will have to read the article (online at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5129.pdf) to find out. When you do, you'll notice that the public health experts treated all five patients successfully before knowing the cause of cyanosis; Connor's team waited for his spoon test before treating his blue patients, therefore losing a patient. Which is just one more reason you might not want to entrust your Friday night — let alone your medical care — to a doctor like him.
Harold Varmus, president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, shared a Nobel Prize for studies of cancer viruses.
THE pilot episode of "Medical Investigation," NBC's new medical science series, retells a famous old New York story about a rare type of food poisoning that produces blue patients. (The pilot will be broadcast on Thursday night at 10 Eastern; the following night at the same time, the show will assume its regular slot). Though its source isn't credited, the episode (written by Jason Horwitch) is an homage to "Eleven Blue Men," the great medical journalist Berton Roueché's classic account of a mysterious food poisoning that literally turned 11 New York City alcoholics blue.
Well, perhaps "homage" isn't the right term. Roueché's account, first published in The New Yorker in 1947, is careful and understated. As the narrator, he solicits the facts retrospectively from two seasoned, courteous investigators from the New York City public health department who seem to be competing for a modesty award. They have obviously done a clever, systematic and ultimately revealing investigation, working in collegial fashion with the doctors and nurses caring for the patients. And they succeeded: all but one patient survived, and the two sleuths traced the source of the toxic substance to bowls of oatmeal and a single salt shaker that contained sodium nitrite (rather than regular sodium chloride) from a mislabeled package. But the detectives also admit, with humility, to a few loose ends to their story; the survivors were discharged from the hospital before they could verify that they had eaten at the same table and used the salt shaker vigorously. In Roueché's account, as in real-life medicine, good investigators are left with a few nagging doubts.
The pilot's first departure from its source material is its setting. "Medical Investigation" features doctors from an elite (and fictional) unit of the National Institutes of Health. The producers say that the show is meant to celebrate the agency, and indeed, the opening credits mention that N.I.H. has spent more than 100 years improving the world's health.
However, contrary to the premise of "Medical Investigation," that work does not include flying off in helicopters to investigate outbreaks of bizarre maladies. As the millions who saw the film "Outbreak" could probably tell you, such work traditionally belongs in the domain of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, the agency that local hospitals and city health departments turn to when they are stymied by medical mysteries. (I know this, because aside from having seen "Outbreak," I spent six years as the director of the National Institutes of Health). The N.I.H., through its government labs and grant recipients, does medical research on diseases and basic biological problems in laboratories and hospitals; it does not organize the immediate response to medical emergencies: outbreaks of unexplained illnesses, seasonal epidemics, or evidence of bioterrorism. (Later in the season, the show's producers say, "Medical Investigation" will depict clinical tests of new therapies, which is closer to the institutes' actual work.)
Unlike the quietly competent municipal employees who solved the case on which the pilot is based, the staff in "Medical Investigation" looks and sounds like a terrorism response team from a military unit. The doctors have no charm, no uncertainty, and less modesty. The lead investigator, Stephen Connor (played by Neal McDonough), has admittedly useful qualities: extensive medical knowledge and a determination to cure the sick. With angry energy and unremitting focus, he gets the job done. But the trait that overwhelms the viewer, as Connor barks intimidating orders to associates and insults to local hospital personnel, is the man's insupportable arrogance. He marches into the hospital, commandeers the staff and upbraids the seemingly reasonable physician in charge by suggesting that contesting his authority would place eight million lives at risk. One of the producers, Laurence Andries, says the Connor character satisfies the American public's "aching for heroes." But has our fear of terrorism and outbreaks become so great that viewers will accept such uncooperative behavior as anything other than obnoxious?
he other members of Connor's team are not much more likable than he is — which says something about Hollywood's idea of a competent federal agent. Connor's female co-investigator is also his apologist (Connor "suffers from a bad case of high expectations," she says). An African-American technician portentously places Connor in historical context ("the unreasonable man makes the world adapt.") A public relations staffer teases, harasses and temporarily imprisons a reporter who is on to the mystery, successfully suppressing the story until it is solved. (According to Mr. Horwitch, this is supposed to be "comic relief," but it comes off as mean-spirited, lacking in purpose and even unethical.)
As in the original "Eleven Blue Men," the symptoms lead the investigators to a poisonous salt mistakenly placed in a single shaker at a busy diner. But the victims have changed along with the investigators. Instead of an outcast population of old alcoholic men — from whom viewers might feel disengaged — the patients are varied by age and gender. The only one we get to know is a middle-aged man who develops his symptoms as he walks through Midtown Manhattan talking smugly on his cellphone about Amgen shares and Martha Stewart. He's a good personality match for Connor.
Amid all the hectic helicoptering and hectoring behavior, there are a couple of moments of solid medical detective work. Connor tests the contents of the salt shakers by mixing them with drops of his blood in spoons; in one case the blood dramatically darkens. This is more fun to watch and, according to Dr. Robert Hoffman of the New York City Poison Control Center, more credible than the fancy analytic machine that earlier flashed "nitrate, nitrate" when processing the patients' blood. The show also briefly illuminates how a good epidemiologist might think when it portrays Connor reconstructing events: in a waking dream, he imagines the restaurant full of patrons, only a few of whom become the unlucky patients who sat at the wrong table and shook the contaminated salt onto their food.
Unfortunately, such moments are few, and the dominant impression is that epidemiology is about screaming, not about useful, difficult scientific work. It's hardly surprising: unlike the movies, in which scientists have made decent showings (think of the climatologist in "Day After Tomorrow" or the rocket engineers in "Apollo 13"), scientists have rarely if ever made it to prime time network television intact. In its better days, "E.R." used to create dramatic situations that displayed the scientific issues underlying treatment of H.I.V., drug abuse or organ transplantation. But television's efforts to portray medical scientists at work usually involve geeky sidekicks or connivers trying to boost their reputations or salaries with dishonest scientific practices. With its aggravating characters, distorted picture of the role of federal agencies and limited portrayal of medical investigation, this new show seems destined to be just another failure to present scientific work in a smart and appealing way.
If the producers wanted to convey a more realistic atmosphere of threatened terrorism, while sticking with chemically induced cyanosis, they might have scuttled the ambiguous tribute to Roueché and taken their cue from a case recently reported in the Centers for Disease Control's weekly online journal by Dr. Hoffman and his many co-workers. In 2002, five adults of Middle Eastern descent were poisoned in Yonkers by ingestion of sodium nitrite taken from a bag plainly labeled Table Salt. Was this a mix-up or a criminal act? Were other contaminated bags distributed around the country? You will have to read the article (online at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5129.pdf) to find out. When you do, you'll notice that the public health experts treated all five patients successfully before knowing the cause of cyanosis; Connor's team waited for his spoon test before treating his blue patients, therefore losing a patient. Which is just one more reason you might not want to entrust your Friday night — let alone your medical care — to a doctor like him.
Harold Varmus, president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, shared a Nobel Prize for studies of cancer viruses.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Hope your all having a good summer. Heres the lates selected items from Muckracker:
2.
DON'T ASK, DON'T SHELL
Nigeria Hits Shell With $1.5 Billion Pollution Claim
The Nigerian parliament has hit Shell with a $1.5 billion claim after the Ijaw tribe of the Niger Delta demanded compensation for health and economic hardship caused by the company's polluting operations. The oil giant admits to 262 oil spill incidents in Nigeria in 2002, and that same year it identified 548 sites in the country that needed "remedial" action to prevent contamination. And Shell's reputation as a polluter and violator of human rights in the country goes back even further, with the nadir having come in 1995, when the company failed to intervene as Nigeria's military dictatorship executed activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, who had led locals in the fight against Shell's destructive drilling practices. It's unclear whether the parliament's resolution carries the force of law. Shell is, as one might imagine, rather desperate to rehabilitate its public image in Nigeria.
straight to the source: The Guardian, Terry Macalister, 26 Aug 2004
3.
DISMISSION: IMPOSSIBLE
New U.S. Government Report Acknowledges Human-Caused Climate Change
President Bush famously dismissed a 2002 U.S. government report that acknowledged the human causes of climate change as something "put out by the bureaucracy." Well, it looks like the bureaucracy's at it again: A new administration report to Congress indicates that human production of heat-trapping greenhouse gases is likely behind the rapid climate change of the past three decades. According to James R. Mahoney, director of government climate research, the report reflects "the best possible scientific information" on climate change. The White House, which has regularly followed the lead of industry groups in emphasizing the uncertainty of climate science, may have difficulty dismissing this report, as it is signed by the secretaries of energy and commerce and Bush's top science adviser, but you never know.
straight to the source: The New York Times, Andrew C. Revkin, 26 Aug 2004
straight to the report: Our Changing Planet
4.
SUNFLOWER POWER
Scientists Create Hydrogen Fuel from Sunflower Oil
British scientists have discovered a way to power cars with sunflower oil. While biodiesel cars that directly burn cooking oil are fairly common, researcher Valerie Dupont and her colleagues have something else in mind, as they reported this week at an American Chemical Society conference. They've figured out a way to use catalysts to extract pure hydrogen from a combination of air, water vapor, and sunflower oil. Hydrogen is frequently hailed as the clean fuel of the future, but most current methods of creating hydrogen burn the very fossil fuels responsible for pollution and greenhouse gases. Dupont's process could eventually use any vegetable oil and be miniaturized to the point that the converter could transform oil to hydrogen on the fly, in the car itself. Another researcher at the same conference claimed she was working on a process that could convert pure water directly to hydrogen using a catalyst and solar energy. For now, both veggie oil and water catalysts are prohibitively expensive, but still, maybe this whole hydrogen thing will work out after all.
straight to the source: BBC News, Richard Black, 26 Aug 2004
straight to the source: The Guardian, Tim Radford, 26 Aug 2004
2.
DON'T ASK, DON'T SHELL
Nigeria Hits Shell With $1.5 Billion Pollution Claim
The Nigerian parliament has hit Shell with a $1.5 billion claim after the Ijaw tribe of the Niger Delta demanded compensation for health and economic hardship caused by the company's polluting operations. The oil giant admits to 262 oil spill incidents in Nigeria in 2002, and that same year it identified 548 sites in the country that needed "remedial" action to prevent contamination. And Shell's reputation as a polluter and violator of human rights in the country goes back even further, with the nadir having come in 1995, when the company failed to intervene as Nigeria's military dictatorship executed activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, who had led locals in the fight against Shell's destructive drilling practices. It's unclear whether the parliament's resolution carries the force of law. Shell is, as one might imagine, rather desperate to rehabilitate its public image in Nigeria.
straight to the source: The Guardian, Terry Macalister, 26 Aug 2004
3.
DISMISSION: IMPOSSIBLE
New U.S. Government Report Acknowledges Human-Caused Climate Change
President Bush famously dismissed a 2002 U.S. government report that acknowledged the human causes of climate change as something "put out by the bureaucracy." Well, it looks like the bureaucracy's at it again: A new administration report to Congress indicates that human production of heat-trapping greenhouse gases is likely behind the rapid climate change of the past three decades. According to James R. Mahoney, director of government climate research, the report reflects "the best possible scientific information" on climate change. The White House, which has regularly followed the lead of industry groups in emphasizing the uncertainty of climate science, may have difficulty dismissing this report, as it is signed by the secretaries of energy and commerce and Bush's top science adviser, but you never know.
straight to the source: The New York Times, Andrew C. Revkin, 26 Aug 2004
straight to the report: Our Changing Planet
4.
SUNFLOWER POWER
Scientists Create Hydrogen Fuel from Sunflower Oil
British scientists have discovered a way to power cars with sunflower oil. While biodiesel cars that directly burn cooking oil are fairly common, researcher Valerie Dupont and her colleagues have something else in mind, as they reported this week at an American Chemical Society conference. They've figured out a way to use catalysts to extract pure hydrogen from a combination of air, water vapor, and sunflower oil. Hydrogen is frequently hailed as the clean fuel of the future, but most current methods of creating hydrogen burn the very fossil fuels responsible for pollution and greenhouse gases. Dupont's process could eventually use any vegetable oil and be miniaturized to the point that the converter could transform oil to hydrogen on the fly, in the car itself. Another researcher at the same conference claimed she was working on a process that could convert pure water directly to hydrogen using a catalyst and solar energy. For now, both veggie oil and water catalysts are prohibitively expensive, but still, maybe this whole hydrogen thing will work out after all.
straight to the source: BBC News, Richard Black, 26 Aug 2004
straight to the source: The Guardian, Tim Radford, 26 Aug 2004
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Here's some more from the alternate press:
1. DISINFOPEDIA VERSUS SWIFT BOAT VETS AND OTHER FRONT GROUPS
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=swift+boat&btnG=Google+Search
Last year we launched the Disinfopedia, a "wiki" website designed
to mobilize hundreds of volunteers to help us investigate and
expose front groups and propaganda campaigns. The Disinfopedia is
an experiment in participatory investigative journalism, and the
experiment seems to be succeeding. One recent example is the
Disinfopedia listing for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Not only is
the Disinfopeda entry on the group extensive, up to date and well
documented, it's being widely read by thousands daily and it
appears at or near the top in Google. There will always be
propaganda and deception, but Disinfopedia is proving a powerful
tool for getting to the truth. We invite you to help us to
research, edit and write the Disinfopedia; click here to learn how
to get started.
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/August_2004.html#1093406400
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1093406400
2. SECRET JUSTICE
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1183557.htm
After nearly three years of confinement at Guantanamo Bay,
Australian national David Hicks goes on trial for alleged terrorism
before a U.S. military court. "There'll be no pictures allowed of
David Hicks, no audio from the courtroom, no pictures of the
defence, prosecution or presiding officer entering the building,
and military camera operators will choose what images are broadcast
via closed circuit television to most journalists covering the
hearing," reports the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
According to reporter Leigh Sales, some of the restrictions on
press coverage "are bizarre and have no parallel. For example,
journalists in the courtroom can't use phone lines to file stories
during breaks in the proceedings. If you get up to go to the
toilet, you are then barred from the courtroom for the rest of the
day. ... Another restriction here, is that no sound or pictures
whatsoever will be taken of the military commissions, even though
they're one of the most important legal aspects of the Bush
administration's war on terrorism, and the first proceedings of
this kind since the Second World War."
SOURCE: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, August 24, 2004
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/August_2004.html#1093320001
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1093320001
3. SLICK - THE NOVEL
http://www.slicknovel.com/
Check out the new book SLICK by first-time novelist Daniel Price.
SLICK's anti-hero protagonist, Scott Singer, works "in the field of
perception management, although the less colorful term is 'media
manipulation.' We're the CIA of PR, the sublime little gremlins who
live just outside your senses, selling you products and concepts
without you even knowing. ... I've conspired with the gun people,
schemed with the liquor people, toiled for tobacco, and moiled for
Monsanto. I've pushed polluters and promoted porn. I've shilled for
Shell and lied for Tide. I've helped a major pharmaceutical company
sell a drug that does nothing by promoting a disease that doesn't
exist. And that's just the old stuff on my resume." Daniel Price is
both a brilliant novelist and a sharp media critic who also
publishes AbusedByTheNews.com, a website "dedicated to analyzing
the tricks, kinks and quirks of America's corporate news media."
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/August_2004.html#1093320000
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1093320000
4. SECONDHAND SMOKE SCREEN
http://www.prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=220175&site=3
A study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine
finds that Philip Morris attempted to influence media coverage of
secondhand smoke. Citing internal industry documents, the study's
author, Dr. Richard Hunt, says the company and its PR firm,
Burson-Marsteller, made "a controversy out of secondhand smoke when
there wasn't any." Hurt also said Philip Morris gave "hundreds of
thousands of dollars" to training programs at the Herndon, VA-based
National Journalism Center. "Hurt said the funds went to support
speakers who would discount research on the dangers of secondhand
smoke," PR Week writes. "They also backed an internship program to
place reporters who supported the tobacco industry's position, Hurt
said."
SOURCE: PR Week (sub req'd), August 23, 2004
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/August_2004.html#1093233601
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1093233601
5. BUSH CAMPAIGN GRABS FOR IRAQI GOLD
http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1288686,00.html
George W. Bush's re-election campaign has been accused of
appropriating the Olympics for political means. A recent
Bush/Cheney advertisement that links Iraq's and Afghanistan's
participation in the Olympic games with the White House's "war on
terror" is drawing criticism. "To the embarrassment of their media
handlers in Athens, members of the Iraqi football team have reacted
furiously to the news that their efforts are being used to aid Mr
Bush's efforts to win a second term in the White House," The
Guardian reports. The team's coach, Adnan Hamd, told Sports
Illustrated magazine, "My problem is not with the American people.
They are with what America has done; destroyed everything. The
American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom
when I go to the stadium and there are shootings on the road?" The
Guardian is also reporting that Bush may be "planning to visit
Athens later this week to watch some sporting events, including a
potential gold-medal winning bid by the Iraqi football team."
SOURCE: The Guardian (UK), August 23, 2004
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1093233600
6. FULL COURT PRESS RELEASE
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/19616/
"Over the past few weeks of Presidential WrestleMania MMIV, the
Bush campaign has fired off more than a dozen press releases about
John Kerry's policies on energy, nuclear-waste storage, forest and
water protections, and other environmental issues - a hodgepodge of
smears, exaggerations, and obfuscations intended to besmirch
Kerry's pro-environment reputation," Grist Magazine's Amanda
Griscom writes. Polls indicate that swing-state voters are
concerned about things like pollution and wilderness conservation,
prompting the Bush campaign to "neutralize" the environment as an
election issue. "They know they can't persuade voters that Bush is
good on the environment, so they're trying to create enough
confusion about Kerry's record that people decide it can't be the
issue that decides their vote," said Carl Pope, Sierra Club
executive director. "Most of the Bush team's environment-related
releases rely on one of two tired claims - that Kerry is a
flip-flopper, or that creating jobs and protecting the environment
are incompatible goals," Griscom writes.
SOURCE: Alternet, August 20, 2004
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1092974403
1. DISINFOPEDIA VERSUS SWIFT BOAT VETS AND OTHER FRONT GROUPS
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=swift+boat&btnG=Google+Search
Last year we launched the Disinfopedia, a "wiki" website designed
to mobilize hundreds of volunteers to help us investigate and
expose front groups and propaganda campaigns. The Disinfopedia is
an experiment in participatory investigative journalism, and the
experiment seems to be succeeding. One recent example is the
Disinfopedia listing for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Not only is
the Disinfopeda entry on the group extensive, up to date and well
documented, it's being widely read by thousands daily and it
appears at or near the top in Google. There will always be
propaganda and deception, but Disinfopedia is proving a powerful
tool for getting to the truth. We invite you to help us to
research, edit and write the Disinfopedia; click here to learn how
to get started.
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/August_2004.html#1093406400
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1093406400
2. SECRET JUSTICE
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1183557.htm
After nearly three years of confinement at Guantanamo Bay,
Australian national David Hicks goes on trial for alleged terrorism
before a U.S. military court. "There'll be no pictures allowed of
David Hicks, no audio from the courtroom, no pictures of the
defence, prosecution or presiding officer entering the building,
and military camera operators will choose what images are broadcast
via closed circuit television to most journalists covering the
hearing," reports the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
According to reporter Leigh Sales, some of the restrictions on
press coverage "are bizarre and have no parallel. For example,
journalists in the courtroom can't use phone lines to file stories
during breaks in the proceedings. If you get up to go to the
toilet, you are then barred from the courtroom for the rest of the
day. ... Another restriction here, is that no sound or pictures
whatsoever will be taken of the military commissions, even though
they're one of the most important legal aspects of the Bush
administration's war on terrorism, and the first proceedings of
this kind since the Second World War."
SOURCE: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, August 24, 2004
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/August_2004.html#1093320001
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1093320001
3. SLICK - THE NOVEL
http://www.slicknovel.com/
Check out the new book SLICK by first-time novelist Daniel Price.
SLICK's anti-hero protagonist, Scott Singer, works "in the field of
perception management, although the less colorful term is 'media
manipulation.' We're the CIA of PR, the sublime little gremlins who
live just outside your senses, selling you products and concepts
without you even knowing. ... I've conspired with the gun people,
schemed with the liquor people, toiled for tobacco, and moiled for
Monsanto. I've pushed polluters and promoted porn. I've shilled for
Shell and lied for Tide. I've helped a major pharmaceutical company
sell a drug that does nothing by promoting a disease that doesn't
exist. And that's just the old stuff on my resume." Daniel Price is
both a brilliant novelist and a sharp media critic who also
publishes AbusedByTheNews.com, a website "dedicated to analyzing
the tricks, kinks and quirks of America's corporate news media."
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/August_2004.html#1093320000
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1093320000
4. SECONDHAND SMOKE SCREEN
http://www.prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=220175&site=3
A study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine
finds that Philip Morris attempted to influence media coverage of
secondhand smoke. Citing internal industry documents, the study's
author, Dr. Richard Hunt, says the company and its PR firm,
Burson-Marsteller, made "a controversy out of secondhand smoke when
there wasn't any." Hurt also said Philip Morris gave "hundreds of
thousands of dollars" to training programs at the Herndon, VA-based
National Journalism Center. "Hurt said the funds went to support
speakers who would discount research on the dangers of secondhand
smoke," PR Week writes. "They also backed an internship program to
place reporters who supported the tobacco industry's position, Hurt
said."
SOURCE: PR Week (sub req'd), August 23, 2004
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/August_2004.html#1093233601
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1093233601
5. BUSH CAMPAIGN GRABS FOR IRAQI GOLD
http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1288686,00.html
George W. Bush's re-election campaign has been accused of
appropriating the Olympics for political means. A recent
Bush/Cheney advertisement that links Iraq's and Afghanistan's
participation in the Olympic games with the White House's "war on
terror" is drawing criticism. "To the embarrassment of their media
handlers in Athens, members of the Iraqi football team have reacted
furiously to the news that their efforts are being used to aid Mr
Bush's efforts to win a second term in the White House," The
Guardian reports. The team's coach, Adnan Hamd, told Sports
Illustrated magazine, "My problem is not with the American people.
They are with what America has done; destroyed everything. The
American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom
when I go to the stadium and there are shootings on the road?" The
Guardian is also reporting that Bush may be "planning to visit
Athens later this week to watch some sporting events, including a
potential gold-medal winning bid by the Iraqi football team."
SOURCE: The Guardian (UK), August 23, 2004
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1093233600
6. FULL COURT PRESS RELEASE
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/19616/
"Over the past few weeks of Presidential WrestleMania MMIV, the
Bush campaign has fired off more than a dozen press releases about
John Kerry's policies on energy, nuclear-waste storage, forest and
water protections, and other environmental issues - a hodgepodge of
smears, exaggerations, and obfuscations intended to besmirch
Kerry's pro-environment reputation," Grist Magazine's Amanda
Griscom writes. Polls indicate that swing-state voters are
concerned about things like pollution and wilderness conservation,
prompting the Bush campaign to "neutralize" the environment as an
election issue. "They know they can't persuade voters that Bush is
good on the environment, so they're trying to create enough
confusion about Kerry's record that people decide it can't be the
issue that decides their vote," said Carl Pope, Sierra Club
executive director. "Most of the Bush team's environment-related
releases rely on one of two tired claims - that Kerry is a
flip-flopper, or that creating jobs and protecting the environment
are incompatible goals," Griscom writes.
SOURCE: Alternet, August 20, 2004
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1092974403
Monday, July 19, 2004
Big Brother Comes to Canada
By Paul Weinberg, Inter Press Service. Posted July 16, 2004.
U.S. security priorities are driving policy decisions in Ottawa.
Earlier this month, CNN reported that police officers across the United States are carrying handheld wireless computers on which they can access private details from large commercial databases about anyone they encounter on their beat.
Emboldened by a new post-Cold War role in the U.S.-led "war on terrorism,' security and intelligence agencies are exploring new electronic technologies that will enhance the collection and dissemination of the private records of citizens across international borders.
"It's all about data gathering and integration of databases, information sharing and risk assessment by computer-generated profiling,' says Roch Tasse, coordinator of the Ottawa-based International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG), a coalition made up of NGOs, churches, unions, environmental and civil rights advocates and groups representing immigrant and refugee communities in Canada.
But the questionable accuracy of the information stored in files collected on citizens, the lack of clear protocols governing their use by police and security officials and the reliance on racial profiling to detain citizens with Third World backgrounds at airports concerns civil libertarians like Tasse.
The role that information-sharing between the RCMP and its U.S. counterparts played in the detention of Canadian citizen Maher Arar is now being probed by a government appointed inquiry in Ottawa.
Arar was seized by U.S. authorities in a New York airport in 2002 on suspicion of being a terrorist and subsequently deported to Syria, his country of birth, where he says he was tortured for nearly a year.
Lloyd Axworthy, former Liberal foreign affairs minister, says he wonders if Arar's treatment can be connected to the cross-border agreements Canada and the United States entered into starting in December 2001 (just months after the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon), which he says give police and immigration agencies all kind of leeway on cooperation, including information-sharing.
"My position has always been that we are in fact in danger of actually limiting established rights in Canada, without knowing whether we are or not,' Axworthy told IPS.
Arar, a 34-year-old telecommunications engineer, claims Syrian authorities used torture to force him to make a false confession. Details allegedly from that interrogation that were leaked to the Canadian media by anonymous intelligence sources helped spark the public outcry that pushed Ottawa to call the inquiry.
But Canadian government lawyers are balking at full disclosure of the RCMP's communications with their U.S. counterparts while Arar was detained because, they say, revealing details might jeopardize existing international agreements involving the two countries.
A York University professor is suggesting that Ottawa seriously examine the relationship between Canadian and U.S. police and intelligence authorities, particularly when officials north of the border are kept "out of the loop 90 per cent of the time' on security matters involving the United States.
Daniel Drache, author of Borders Matter: Homeland Security and the Search for North America, wants the Canadian government to conduct an "audit' of the impact that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – the powerful agency set up to protect the United States following 9/11 – has had on Canada, including on immigration matters and on the rights guaranteed in the constitution.
In the absence of a "made in Canada security policy' under the current Liberal government, U.S. security priorities are driving policy decisions in Ottawa, argues Drache. Canadian authorities "are taking an ad hoc approach. They have no framework and they haven't made any assessment of Homeland Security,' he adds.
Tasse suggests the Canadian government will be forced to adopt a version of the database system being developed by Bermuda-based Accenture (formerly Anderson Consulting) in a multi-billion contract for DHS. The system will be designed to collect and track foreign nationals entering the United States, using digital photographs, fingerprints and other biometric information.
Accenture is a controversial name in Ontario, where the previous Conservative government contracted the firm to design a computerized system to administer its social welfare programmes. It has since proven to be so inflexible that it will cost the current administration a reported $7.6 million (U.S.) to fix.
Nevertheless, Tasse expects that the Accenture project and more advanced databases in the European Union will set the stage for development of compatible information systems that will be used by police and intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic. "Basically, all of the developed countries will use the same technology; so all of the systems will be compatible everywhere.'
Toronto-based information technology consultant Jesse Hirsh says that citizens in democratic nations do have a say, through their elected representatives, on the accuracy of the information stored on them in databanks.
But shared global databases out of reach of the average citizen, argues Hirsh, "transcend whatever democratic institutions we have for checks and balances. We have lost control of that data representation of ourselves. We can no longer influence its accuracy; we can no longer determine its level of privacy, in terms of who else gets to see our data representation.'
Paul Weinberg is a freelance writer based in Toronto.
By Paul Weinberg, Inter Press Service. Posted July 16, 2004.
U.S. security priorities are driving policy decisions in Ottawa.
Earlier this month, CNN reported that police officers across the United States are carrying handheld wireless computers on which they can access private details from large commercial databases about anyone they encounter on their beat.
Emboldened by a new post-Cold War role in the U.S.-led "war on terrorism,' security and intelligence agencies are exploring new electronic technologies that will enhance the collection and dissemination of the private records of citizens across international borders.
"It's all about data gathering and integration of databases, information sharing and risk assessment by computer-generated profiling,' says Roch Tasse, coordinator of the Ottawa-based International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG), a coalition made up of NGOs, churches, unions, environmental and civil rights advocates and groups representing immigrant and refugee communities in Canada.
But the questionable accuracy of the information stored in files collected on citizens, the lack of clear protocols governing their use by police and security officials and the reliance on racial profiling to detain citizens with Third World backgrounds at airports concerns civil libertarians like Tasse.
The role that information-sharing between the RCMP and its U.S. counterparts played in the detention of Canadian citizen Maher Arar is now being probed by a government appointed inquiry in Ottawa.
Arar was seized by U.S. authorities in a New York airport in 2002 on suspicion of being a terrorist and subsequently deported to Syria, his country of birth, where he says he was tortured for nearly a year.
Lloyd Axworthy, former Liberal foreign affairs minister, says he wonders if Arar's treatment can be connected to the cross-border agreements Canada and the United States entered into starting in December 2001 (just months after the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon), which he says give police and immigration agencies all kind of leeway on cooperation, including information-sharing.
"My position has always been that we are in fact in danger of actually limiting established rights in Canada, without knowing whether we are or not,' Axworthy told IPS.
Arar, a 34-year-old telecommunications engineer, claims Syrian authorities used torture to force him to make a false confession. Details allegedly from that interrogation that were leaked to the Canadian media by anonymous intelligence sources helped spark the public outcry that pushed Ottawa to call the inquiry.
But Canadian government lawyers are balking at full disclosure of the RCMP's communications with their U.S. counterparts while Arar was detained because, they say, revealing details might jeopardize existing international agreements involving the two countries.
A York University professor is suggesting that Ottawa seriously examine the relationship between Canadian and U.S. police and intelligence authorities, particularly when officials north of the border are kept "out of the loop 90 per cent of the time' on security matters involving the United States.
Daniel Drache, author of Borders Matter: Homeland Security and the Search for North America, wants the Canadian government to conduct an "audit' of the impact that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – the powerful agency set up to protect the United States following 9/11 – has had on Canada, including on immigration matters and on the rights guaranteed in the constitution.
In the absence of a "made in Canada security policy' under the current Liberal government, U.S. security priorities are driving policy decisions in Ottawa, argues Drache. Canadian authorities "are taking an ad hoc approach. They have no framework and they haven't made any assessment of Homeland Security,' he adds.
Tasse suggests the Canadian government will be forced to adopt a version of the database system being developed by Bermuda-based Accenture (formerly Anderson Consulting) in a multi-billion contract for DHS. The system will be designed to collect and track foreign nationals entering the United States, using digital photographs, fingerprints and other biometric information.
Accenture is a controversial name in Ontario, where the previous Conservative government contracted the firm to design a computerized system to administer its social welfare programmes. It has since proven to be so inflexible that it will cost the current administration a reported $7.6 million (U.S.) to fix.
Nevertheless, Tasse expects that the Accenture project and more advanced databases in the European Union will set the stage for development of compatible information systems that will be used by police and intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic. "Basically, all of the developed countries will use the same technology; so all of the systems will be compatible everywhere.'
Toronto-based information technology consultant Jesse Hirsh says that citizens in democratic nations do have a say, through their elected representatives, on the accuracy of the information stored on them in databanks.
But shared global databases out of reach of the average citizen, argues Hirsh, "transcend whatever democratic institutions we have for checks and balances. We have lost control of that data representation of ourselves. We can no longer influence its accuracy; we can no longer determine its level of privacy, in terms of who else gets to see our data representation.'
Paul Weinberg is a freelance writer based in Toronto.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
One of the best sources for well thought out essays on current news is the following: You should look through and check out some of the stories.
From: update@butterfliesandwheels.com
Date: Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:03:01 PM Asia/Tokyo
To: carsurf@dragon.email.ne.jp
Subject: Butterflies and Wheels weekly update
Hello
This email provides details of the content that has been added to ButterfliesandWheels.com over the last week.
NEW ARTICLES
Machiavellian Monkeys
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=64
Lesson Plans
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=65
NOTES AND COMMENT
There are new notes and comments to view:
--The Moore Files
--Judy, Judy, Judy
--There Are Limits, After All
--Blunkett on Today
--How About Religious Mild Dislike?
--Borrowing From Chomsky
--A Quick Twirl
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notes.php
LATEST NEWS
The Hubble's Last Years?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian/issues04/jul04/hubble.html
NASA has canceled missions to service telescope.
High Art v Low is a False Dichotomy
http://www.azcentral.com/ent/arts/articles/0704artinamerica04.html
'In America, even the intellectuals are anti-intellectual.'
Tupac Shakur not Some Sort of Byron
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4960930-110760,00.html
John McWhorter says rap teaches 'recreational outrage.'
The 'No Ectoplasm Clause'
http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/rationallyspeaking_more.php?id=820_0_7_0_M
Massimo Pigliucci on the neurobiology of regret.
Arab News Media and the 'Blood of Martyrs'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24987-2004Jul3
'al Qaeda has become mainstream and being part of the movement is "cool" in the eyes of young people.'
Moore Could be Better and Still Be Moore
http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-3-1988.jsp#
'He could show us that war kills and Bush is appalling, and yet be more scrupulous.'
Sucking Up to Judith Butler
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/07/06/butler/print.html
Superstar, classic, defining work, platinum album, seminal work, provocative, immense success, etc.
Open Democracy on Multiculturalism
http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/ViewPopUpArticle.jsp?id=1&articleId=1991
Does multiculturalism lead to cultural relativism? What about the universal standards of human rights?
The Nuances of That Word
http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2103467/
You? Yourself? Or off? Hitchens suggests off is best.
In Biology Everyone Stands in Mayr's Shadow
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/05/MNGFV7GBAS1.DTL&type=printable
'Mayr's life defies the myth that elderly scientists are incapable of changing their minds.'
Interview with Ernst Mayr
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C
'Biology is an autonomous science and should not be mixed up with physics.'
On Alexis de Tocqueville
http://www.the-tls.co.uk/this_week/story.aspx?story_id=2107722
The physics of democracy.
Is There a Shortage of Scientists in the US?
http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i44/44a01001.htm
The inaccuracy of past pronouncements creates a woof-woof problem.
BHL Has Views That Annoy
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-levy6jul06,1,5078897,print.story?coll=la-headlines-world
'The Palestinian "victimocracy" has a tendency to hide wars that are infinitely longer and more murderous.'
A Theosophical Heir to the Throne
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/ArticleView.asp?P_Article=12672
'Much of this assault on contemporary rationalism flows from the prince's rather eclectic spiritualism.'
What Price 'Life of Brian'?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3871867.stm
David Blunkett wants to outlaw 'inciting religious hatred'.
Blunkett Renews Bid to Outlaw Religious Hatred
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/07/nrace07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/07/ixhome.html
Inappropriate to punish those who merely offend people's religious sensibilities?
That's a Relief
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA5D8.htm
We can criticise religion, as long as we do it sensibly.
Blunkett's Well-meaning Waffle
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/08/dl0801.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/07/08/ixopinion.html
Beyond the remit and power of home secretaries to compel people to be kind.
Hormonal Birth Control as 'Silent' Abortionist
http://www.prevention.com/cda/feature2002/0,2479,s1-7342-P,00.html
Pharmacists and doctors are denying patients access to birth control pills.
Hear Blunkett on Today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_blunkett_20040707.ram
No worry, we can say what we like about religion, as long as it's sensible.
Campaigns Against Vaccinations Can Do Harm
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n13/penn01_.html
How can doctors be persuaded to comport themselves as scientists?
Surely Ethical Tobacco is an Oxymoron?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1256877,00.html
Well but they grow it with ever such nice organic fertilizer.
Study of Environmental Causes of Autism
http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,1256741,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704
Colin Blakemore says MRC's 2001 review of autism research highlighted gaps in knowledge.
Meghnad Desai on Religious Hatred Laws
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=539082&host=3&dir=70
Secular democracy should get away from privileging religion, not give it special status.
Polly Toynbee Named 'Islamophobe of Year'
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6AAA43FD-D8BE-4188-BE72-B2D5D64799BA.htm
Perhaps it's time to start naming 'Secularophobe of the Year'.
Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp?Id=921
Chris Mooney reports on their press conference.
Surgeon Rebukes Prince over Alternative Therapy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=SORGB0XM0PYR5QFIQMGSM54AVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2004/07/09/nsurg09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/07/09/ixportal.html
Authority via study and research v. authority via accident of birth.
Surprise! Americans Don't Read Much
http://chronicle.com/free/2004/07/2004070901n.htm
From On Native Grounds to Amusing Ourselves to Death.
Yusuf al-Qaradawi Will Not Face Charges
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1258170,00.html
Insufficient evidence, cautious speech, interest in the truth.
Doubts About Religious Hatred Law
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1256001,00.html
'...where people feel free to be able to express sensible views and have sensible arguments.'
How to End 'Honour' Killings
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1254995,00.html
Create communities where people believe there is no honour in honour killing.
Swami Agnivesh Opposes Hindutva
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373602732&p=1012571727132
'If the BJP comes back, it will come back with a vengeance. I fear it will.'
Some Arguments Against a Religious-Hatred Law
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/religiousHatred.php
From Civitas, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society.
A Cultural Change
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=5625949
Bush administration still packing science advisory panels with ideologues.
Washington Post on MMR and Wakefield
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41450-2004Jul10?language=printer
Media panics create a debate where there isn't one.
See Gwyneth Paltrow's Cupping Bruises!
http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/2004/07/allsorted_quack.html
Hey, it's an ancient Chinese practice, so it must be healthy, right?
With Respect, YH, You've Got it Wrong
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7457/118
Michael Baum tells Charles Windsor what's wrong with anecdotal 'evidence'.
Nick Cohen on Blunkett's Cunning Plan
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1258540,00.html
'a religion is a system of ideas like any other.'
*********************************
To remove yourself from the Butterflies and Wheels update service, click on the link below (or copy it into your web browser):
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/mailing_del.php?id=527&email=carsurf@dragon.email.ne.jp
Please address any questions about this update service to: jerry@butterfliesandwheels.com
Hosting services for Butterflies and Wheels are provided by The Philosophers' Magazine:
http://www.philosophers.co.uk
From: update@butterfliesandwheels.com
Date: Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:03:01 PM Asia/Tokyo
To: carsurf@dragon.email.ne.jp
Subject: Butterflies and Wheels weekly update
Hello
This email provides details of the content that has been added to ButterfliesandWheels.com over the last week.
NEW ARTICLES
Machiavellian Monkeys
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=64
Lesson Plans
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=65
NOTES AND COMMENT
There are new notes and comments to view:
--The Moore Files
--Judy, Judy, Judy
--There Are Limits, After All
--Blunkett on Today
--How About Religious Mild Dislike?
--Borrowing From Chomsky
--A Quick Twirl
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notes.php
LATEST NEWS
The Hubble's Last Years?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian/issues04/jul04/hubble.html
NASA has canceled missions to service telescope.
High Art v Low is a False Dichotomy
http://www.azcentral.com/ent/arts/articles/0704artinamerica04.html
'In America, even the intellectuals are anti-intellectual.'
Tupac Shakur not Some Sort of Byron
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4960930-110760,00.html
John McWhorter says rap teaches 'recreational outrage.'
The 'No Ectoplasm Clause'
http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/rationallyspeaking_more.php?id=820_0_7_0_M
Massimo Pigliucci on the neurobiology of regret.
Arab News Media and the 'Blood of Martyrs'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24987-2004Jul3
'al Qaeda has become mainstream and being part of the movement is "cool" in the eyes of young people.'
Moore Could be Better and Still Be Moore
http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-3-1988.jsp#
'He could show us that war kills and Bush is appalling, and yet be more scrupulous.'
Sucking Up to Judith Butler
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/07/06/butler/print.html
Superstar, classic, defining work, platinum album, seminal work, provocative, immense success, etc.
Open Democracy on Multiculturalism
http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/ViewPopUpArticle.jsp?id=1&articleId=1991
Does multiculturalism lead to cultural relativism? What about the universal standards of human rights?
The Nuances of That Word
http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2103467/
You? Yourself? Or off? Hitchens suggests off is best.
In Biology Everyone Stands in Mayr's Shadow
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/05/MNGFV7GBAS1.DTL&type=printable
'Mayr's life defies the myth that elderly scientists are incapable of changing their minds.'
Interview with Ernst Mayr
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C
'Biology is an autonomous science and should not be mixed up with physics.'
On Alexis de Tocqueville
http://www.the-tls.co.uk/this_week/story.aspx?story_id=2107722
The physics of democracy.
Is There a Shortage of Scientists in the US?
http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i44/44a01001.htm
The inaccuracy of past pronouncements creates a woof-woof problem.
BHL Has Views That Annoy
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-levy6jul06,1,5078897,print.story?coll=la-headlines-world
'The Palestinian "victimocracy" has a tendency to hide wars that are infinitely longer and more murderous.'
A Theosophical Heir to the Throne
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/ArticleView.asp?P_Article=12672
'Much of this assault on contemporary rationalism flows from the prince's rather eclectic spiritualism.'
What Price 'Life of Brian'?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3871867.stm
David Blunkett wants to outlaw 'inciting religious hatred'.
Blunkett Renews Bid to Outlaw Religious Hatred
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/07/nrace07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/07/ixhome.html
Inappropriate to punish those who merely offend people's religious sensibilities?
That's a Relief
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA5D8.htm
We can criticise religion, as long as we do it sensibly.
Blunkett's Well-meaning Waffle
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/08/dl0801.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/07/08/ixopinion.html
Beyond the remit and power of home secretaries to compel people to be kind.
Hormonal Birth Control as 'Silent' Abortionist
http://www.prevention.com/cda/feature2002/0,2479,s1-7342-P,00.html
Pharmacists and doctors are denying patients access to birth control pills.
Hear Blunkett on Today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_blunkett_20040707.ram
No worry, we can say what we like about religion, as long as it's sensible.
Campaigns Against Vaccinations Can Do Harm
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n13/penn01_.html
How can doctors be persuaded to comport themselves as scientists?
Surely Ethical Tobacco is an Oxymoron?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1256877,00.html
Well but they grow it with ever such nice organic fertilizer.
Study of Environmental Causes of Autism
http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,1256741,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704
Colin Blakemore says MRC's 2001 review of autism research highlighted gaps in knowledge.
Meghnad Desai on Religious Hatred Laws
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=539082&host=3&dir=70
Secular democracy should get away from privileging religion, not give it special status.
Polly Toynbee Named 'Islamophobe of Year'
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6AAA43FD-D8BE-4188-BE72-B2D5D64799BA.htm
Perhaps it's time to start naming 'Secularophobe of the Year'.
Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp?Id=921
Chris Mooney reports on their press conference.
Surgeon Rebukes Prince over Alternative Therapy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=SORGB0XM0PYR5QFIQMGSM54AVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2004/07/09/nsurg09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/07/09/ixportal.html
Authority via study and research v. authority via accident of birth.
Surprise! Americans Don't Read Much
http://chronicle.com/free/2004/07/2004070901n.htm
From On Native Grounds to Amusing Ourselves to Death.
Yusuf al-Qaradawi Will Not Face Charges
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1258170,00.html
Insufficient evidence, cautious speech, interest in the truth.
Doubts About Religious Hatred Law
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1256001,00.html
'...where people feel free to be able to express sensible views and have sensible arguments.'
How to End 'Honour' Killings
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1254995,00.html
Create communities where people believe there is no honour in honour killing.
Swami Agnivesh Opposes Hindutva
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373602732&p=1012571727132
'If the BJP comes back, it will come back with a vengeance. I fear it will.'
Some Arguments Against a Religious-Hatred Law
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/religiousHatred.php
From Civitas, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society.
A Cultural Change
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=5625949
Bush administration still packing science advisory panels with ideologues.
Washington Post on MMR and Wakefield
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41450-2004Jul10?language=printer
Media panics create a debate where there isn't one.
See Gwyneth Paltrow's Cupping Bruises!
http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/2004/07/allsorted_quack.html
Hey, it's an ancient Chinese practice, so it must be healthy, right?
With Respect, YH, You've Got it Wrong
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7457/118
Michael Baum tells Charles Windsor what's wrong with anecdotal 'evidence'.
Nick Cohen on Blunkett's Cunning Plan
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1258540,00.html
'a religion is a system of ideas like any other.'
*********************************
To remove yourself from the Butterflies and Wheels update service, click on the link below (or copy it into your web browser):
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/mailing_del.php?id=527&email=carsurf@dragon.email.ne.jp
Please address any questions about this update service to: jerry@butterfliesandwheels.com
Hosting services for Butterflies and Wheels are provided by The Philosophers' Magazine:
http://www.philosophers.co.uk
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
THE BLOG IS THE MESSAGE
http://www.globalprblogweek.com/archives/jay_rosen_pr_needs_t.php
"Public relations should first understand that to the extent that
its art is a form of 'spin' - whether it's reasonable spin,
accepted spin, good spin, bad spin, terrible spin - it is selling a
service for which there is less and less value, and less mind is
paid to it. Spin was possible in the era of few-to-many media, and
a small number of gatekeepers who could be spun," media critic and
Press Think blogger Jay Rosen tells Micro Presuasion blogger Steve
Rubel, who also takes part in Global PR Blog Week 1.0, an online
forum on PR and blogs. With the rise of participatory journalism,
which has been facilitated by the Internet and weblogs, Rosen says
journalistic bloggers create a "second wave" effect that has an
impact on the traditional press. "A little orchestra of
interpreters instantly comes along and does something to
journalism, plays back its significance, but first editing out all
the noise. It's like a reply. Smart journalists are tuning into
that because its an intelligent use of their work - and a departure
point, a place where criticism flashes," Rosen says.
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/July_2004.html#1089673543
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1089673543
http://www.globalprblogweek.com/archives/jay_rosen_pr_needs_t.php
"Public relations should first understand that to the extent that
its art is a form of 'spin' - whether it's reasonable spin,
accepted spin, good spin, bad spin, terrible spin - it is selling a
service for which there is less and less value, and less mind is
paid to it. Spin was possible in the era of few-to-many media, and
a small number of gatekeepers who could be spun," media critic and
Press Think blogger Jay Rosen tells Micro Presuasion blogger Steve
Rubel, who also takes part in Global PR Blog Week 1.0, an online
forum on PR and blogs. With the rise of participatory journalism,
which has been facilitated by the Internet and weblogs, Rosen says
journalistic bloggers create a "second wave" effect that has an
impact on the traditional press. "A little orchestra of
interpreters instantly comes along and does something to
journalism, plays back its significance, but first editing out all
the noise. It's like a reply. Smart journalists are tuning into
that because its an intelligent use of their work - and a departure
point, a place where criticism flashes," Rosen says.
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/July_2004.html#1089673543
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1089673543
Monday, July 12, 2004
Social Lives of a Cell Phone
Say you’re young and single, and you’re out on the town one Saturday night. With a hot new service called Dodgeball, you take out your mobile phone and tap in the name of the restaurant where you are hanging out. You get a list of friends, and friends of friends, within 10 blocks. You can message each other about getting together, and maybe send a photo of yourself. Social connection services like this, based on mobile wireless devices, are about to radically changes how we communicate with friends, family, and colleagues.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_bender071204.asp?trk=nl
Say you’re young and single, and you’re out on the town one Saturday night. With a hot new service called Dodgeball, you take out your mobile phone and tap in the name of the restaurant where you are hanging out. You get a list of friends, and friends of friends, within 10 blocks. You can message each other about getting together, and maybe send a photo of yourself. Social connection services like this, based on mobile wireless devices, are about to radically changes how we communicate with friends, family, and colleagues.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_bender071204.asp?trk=nl
Social Lives of a Cell Phone
Say you’re young and single, and you’re out on the town one Saturday night. With a hot new service called Dodgeball, you take out your mobile phone and tap in the name of the restaurant where you are hanging out. You get a list of friends, and friends of friends, within 10 blocks. You can message each other about getting together, and maybe send a photo of yourself. Social connection services like this, based on mobile wireless devices, are about to radically changes how we communicate with friends, family, and colleagues.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_bender071204.asp?trk=nl
Say you’re young and single, and you’re out on the town one Saturday night. With a hot new service called Dodgeball, you take out your mobile phone and tap in the name of the restaurant where you are hanging out. You get a list of friends, and friends of friends, within 10 blocks. You can message each other about getting together, and maybe send a photo of yourself. Social connection services like this, based on mobile wireless devices, are about to radically changes how we communicate with friends, family, and colleagues.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_bender071204.asp?trk=nl
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
FUTURE PAPERS WILL BE E-PAPERS;
ONLINE NEWSPAPER READERSHIP UP 350% OVER 5 YEARS
The audience for online versions of newspapers has grown 350% over
the past five years, according to the World Association of Newspapers,
which notes that while print circulation figures have declined in mature
markets like Europe and the U.S., they are sharply up in emerging markets
like China and India. In Russia, the number of published dailies has nearly
doubled in two years. WAN attributed the increase in online newspaper
popularity to the growth of broadband in many countries, noting that in
those countries where broadband Internet access is more readily available,
people are watching TV less and surfing the Web more, both for news and for
entertainment. (BBC News 1 Jun 2004)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3767267.stm
ONLINE NEWSPAPER READERSHIP UP 350% OVER 5 YEARS
The audience for online versions of newspapers has grown 350% over
the past five years, according to the World Association of Newspapers,
which notes that while print circulation figures have declined in mature
markets like Europe and the U.S., they are sharply up in emerging markets
like China and India. In Russia, the number of published dailies has nearly
doubled in two years. WAN attributed the increase in online newspaper
popularity to the growth of broadband in many countries, noting that in
those countries where broadband Internet access is more readily available,
people are watching TV less and surfing the Web more, both for news and for
entertainment. (BBC News 1 Jun 2004)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3767267.stm
Hi we were talking about voice a few weeks ago. Here is a rather difficult part of an article from The New Yorker magazine by by LOUIS MENAND about voice that is worth reading:
One of the most mysterious of writing’s immaterial properties is what people call “voice.” Editors sometimes refer to it, in a phrase that underscores the paradox at the heart of the idea, as “the voice on the page.” Prose can show many virtues, including originality, without having a voice. It may avoid cliché, radiate conviction, be grammatically so clean that your grandmother could eat off it. But none of this has anything to do with this elusive entity the “voice.” There are probably all kinds of literary sins that prevent a piece of writing from having a voice, but there seems to be no guaranteed technique for creating one. Grammatical correctness doesn’t insure it. Calculated incorrectness doesn’t, either. Ingenuity, wit, sarcasm, euphony, frequent outbreaks of the first-person singular—any of these can enliven prose without giving it a voice. You can set the stage as elaborately as you like, but either the phantom appears or it doesn’t.
When it does appear, the subject is often irrelevant. “I do not care for movies very much and I rarely see them,” W. H. Auden wrote to the editors of The Nation in 1944. “Further, I am suspicious of criticism as the literary genre which, more than any other, recruits epigones, pedants without insight, intellectuals without love. I am all the more surprised, therefore, to find myself not only reading Mr. Agee before I read anyone else in The Nation but also consciously looking forward all week to reading him again.” A lot of the movies that James Agee reviewed between 1942 and 1948, when he was The Nation’s film critic, were negligible then and are forgotten now. But you can still read his columns with pleasure. They continue to pass the ultimate test of good writing: it is more painful to stop reading them than it is to keep going. When you get to the end of Agee’s sentences, you wish, like Auden, that there were more sentences.
Writing that has a voice is writing that has something like a personality. But whose personality is it? As with all art, there is no straight road from the product back to the producer. There are writers loved for their humor who are not funny people, and writers admired for their eloquence who swallow their words, never look you in the eye, and can’t seem to finish a sentence. Wisdom on the page correlates with wisdom in the writer about as frequently as a high batting average correlates with a high I.Q.: they just seem to have very little to do with one another. Witty and charming people can produce prose of sneering sententiousness, and fretful neurotics can, to their readers, seem as though they must be delightful to live with. Personal drabness, through some obscure neural kink, can deliver verbal blooms. Readers who meet a writer whose voice they have fallen in love with usually need to make a small adjustment afterward in order to hang on to the infatuation.
The uncertainty about what it means for writing to have a voice arises from the metaphor itself. Writers often claim that they never write something that they would not say. It is hard to know how this could be literally true. Speech is somatic, a bodily function, and it is accompanied by physical inflections—tone of voice, winks, smiles, raised eyebrows, hand gestures—that are not reproducible in writing. Spoken language is repetitive, fragmentary, contradictory, limited in vocabulary, loaded down with space holders (“like,” “um,” “you know”)—all the things writing teachers tell students not to do. And yet people can generally make themselves understood right away. As a medium, writing is a million times weaker than speech. It’s a hieroglyph competing with a symphony.
The other reason that speech is a bad metaphor for writing is that writing, for ninety-nine per cent of people who do it, is the opposite of spontaneous. Some writers write many drafts of a piece; some write one draft, at the pace of a snail after a night on the town. But chattiness, slanginess, in-your-face-ness, and any other features of writing that are conventionally characterized as “like speech” are usually the results of laborious experimentation, revision, calibration, walks around the block, unnecessary phone calls, and recalibration. Writers, by nature, tend to be people in whom l’esprit de l’escalier is a recurrent experience: they are always thinking of the perfect riposte after the moment for saying it has passed. So they take a few years longer and put it in print. Writers are not mere copyists of language; they are polishers, embellishers, perfecters. They spend hours getting the timing right—so that what they write sounds completely unrehearsed.
Does this mean that the written “voice” is never spontaneous and natural but always an artificial construction of language? This is not a proposition that most writers could accept. The act of writing is personal; it feels personal. The unfunny person who is a humorous writer does not think, of her work, “That’s not really me.” Critics speak of “the persona,” a device for compelling, in the interests of licensing the interpretative impulse, a divorce between author and text. But no one, or almost no one, writes “as a persona.” People write as people, and if there were nothing personal about the result few human beings would try to manufacture it for a living. Composition is a troublesome, balky, sometimes sleep-depriving business. What makes it especially so is that the rate of production is beyond the writer’s control. You have to wait, and what you are waiting for is something inside you to come up with the words. That something, for writers, is the voice.
A better basis than speaking for the metaphor of voice in writing is singing. You can’t tell if someone can sing or not from the way she talks, and although “natural phrasing” and “from the heart” are prized attributes of song, singing that way requires rehearsal, preparation, and getting in touch with whatever it is inside singers that, by a neural kink or the grace of God, enables them to turn themselves into vessels of musical sound. Truss is right (despite what she preaches) when she implies, by her own practice, that the rules really don’t have that much to do with it. Before Luciano Pavarotti walked onstage at the opera house, he was in the habit of taking a bite of an apple. That’s how he helped his voice to sound spontaneous and natural.
What writers hear when they are trying to write is something more like singing than like speaking. Inside your head, you’re yakking away to yourself all the time. Getting that voice down on paper is a depressing experience. When you write, you’re trying to transpose what you’re thinking into something that is less like an annoying drone and more like a piece of music. This writing voice is the voice that people are surprised not to encounter when they “meet the writer.” The writer is not so surprised. Writers labor constantly under the anxiety that this voice, though they have found it a hundred times before, has disappeared forever, and that they will never hear it again. Some writers, when they begin a new piece, spend hours rereading their old stuff, trying to remember how they did it, what it’s supposed to sound like. This rarely works; nothing works reliably. Sooner or later, usually later than everyone involved would have preferred, the voice shows up, takes a bite of the apple, and walks onstage.
One of the most mysterious of writing’s immaterial properties is what people call “voice.” Editors sometimes refer to it, in a phrase that underscores the paradox at the heart of the idea, as “the voice on the page.” Prose can show many virtues, including originality, without having a voice. It may avoid cliché, radiate conviction, be grammatically so clean that your grandmother could eat off it. But none of this has anything to do with this elusive entity the “voice.” There are probably all kinds of literary sins that prevent a piece of writing from having a voice, but there seems to be no guaranteed technique for creating one. Grammatical correctness doesn’t insure it. Calculated incorrectness doesn’t, either. Ingenuity, wit, sarcasm, euphony, frequent outbreaks of the first-person singular—any of these can enliven prose without giving it a voice. You can set the stage as elaborately as you like, but either the phantom appears or it doesn’t.
When it does appear, the subject is often irrelevant. “I do not care for movies very much and I rarely see them,” W. H. Auden wrote to the editors of The Nation in 1944. “Further, I am suspicious of criticism as the literary genre which, more than any other, recruits epigones, pedants without insight, intellectuals without love. I am all the more surprised, therefore, to find myself not only reading Mr. Agee before I read anyone else in The Nation but also consciously looking forward all week to reading him again.” A lot of the movies that James Agee reviewed between 1942 and 1948, when he was The Nation’s film critic, were negligible then and are forgotten now. But you can still read his columns with pleasure. They continue to pass the ultimate test of good writing: it is more painful to stop reading them than it is to keep going. When you get to the end of Agee’s sentences, you wish, like Auden, that there were more sentences.
Writing that has a voice is writing that has something like a personality. But whose personality is it? As with all art, there is no straight road from the product back to the producer. There are writers loved for their humor who are not funny people, and writers admired for their eloquence who swallow their words, never look you in the eye, and can’t seem to finish a sentence. Wisdom on the page correlates with wisdom in the writer about as frequently as a high batting average correlates with a high I.Q.: they just seem to have very little to do with one another. Witty and charming people can produce prose of sneering sententiousness, and fretful neurotics can, to their readers, seem as though they must be delightful to live with. Personal drabness, through some obscure neural kink, can deliver verbal blooms. Readers who meet a writer whose voice they have fallen in love with usually need to make a small adjustment afterward in order to hang on to the infatuation.
The uncertainty about what it means for writing to have a voice arises from the metaphor itself. Writers often claim that they never write something that they would not say. It is hard to know how this could be literally true. Speech is somatic, a bodily function, and it is accompanied by physical inflections—tone of voice, winks, smiles, raised eyebrows, hand gestures—that are not reproducible in writing. Spoken language is repetitive, fragmentary, contradictory, limited in vocabulary, loaded down with space holders (“like,” “um,” “you know”)—all the things writing teachers tell students not to do. And yet people can generally make themselves understood right away. As a medium, writing is a million times weaker than speech. It’s a hieroglyph competing with a symphony.
The other reason that speech is a bad metaphor for writing is that writing, for ninety-nine per cent of people who do it, is the opposite of spontaneous. Some writers write many drafts of a piece; some write one draft, at the pace of a snail after a night on the town. But chattiness, slanginess, in-your-face-ness, and any other features of writing that are conventionally characterized as “like speech” are usually the results of laborious experimentation, revision, calibration, walks around the block, unnecessary phone calls, and recalibration. Writers, by nature, tend to be people in whom l’esprit de l’escalier is a recurrent experience: they are always thinking of the perfect riposte after the moment for saying it has passed. So they take a few years longer and put it in print. Writers are not mere copyists of language; they are polishers, embellishers, perfecters. They spend hours getting the timing right—so that what they write sounds completely unrehearsed.
Does this mean that the written “voice” is never spontaneous and natural but always an artificial construction of language? This is not a proposition that most writers could accept. The act of writing is personal; it feels personal. The unfunny person who is a humorous writer does not think, of her work, “That’s not really me.” Critics speak of “the persona,” a device for compelling, in the interests of licensing the interpretative impulse, a divorce between author and text. But no one, or almost no one, writes “as a persona.” People write as people, and if there were nothing personal about the result few human beings would try to manufacture it for a living. Composition is a troublesome, balky, sometimes sleep-depriving business. What makes it especially so is that the rate of production is beyond the writer’s control. You have to wait, and what you are waiting for is something inside you to come up with the words. That something, for writers, is the voice.
A better basis than speaking for the metaphor of voice in writing is singing. You can’t tell if someone can sing or not from the way she talks, and although “natural phrasing” and “from the heart” are prized attributes of song, singing that way requires rehearsal, preparation, and getting in touch with whatever it is inside singers that, by a neural kink or the grace of God, enables them to turn themselves into vessels of musical sound. Truss is right (despite what she preaches) when she implies, by her own practice, that the rules really don’t have that much to do with it. Before Luciano Pavarotti walked onstage at the opera house, he was in the habit of taking a bite of an apple. That’s how he helped his voice to sound spontaneous and natural.
What writers hear when they are trying to write is something more like singing than like speaking. Inside your head, you’re yakking away to yourself all the time. Getting that voice down on paper is a depressing experience. When you write, you’re trying to transpose what you’re thinking into something that is less like an annoying drone and more like a piece of music. This writing voice is the voice that people are surprised not to encounter when they “meet the writer.” The writer is not so surprised. Writers labor constantly under the anxiety that this voice, though they have found it a hundred times before, has disappeared forever, and that they will never hear it again. Some writers, when they begin a new piece, spend hours rereading their old stuff, trying to remember how they did it, what it’s supposed to sound like. This rarely works; nothing works reliably. Sooner or later, usually later than everyone involved would have preferred, the voice shows up, takes a bite of the apple, and walks onstage.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Where is the Sudan? Read this and guess. Then find out were it is and check it out. Why is this happening there? This is your assignment for this week. What would be the resons for this to happen there and now? Find some outside sources like the U.N. and CIA sites on countries. Good Luck. See you on Thur. Clark
Search AlterNet:
Enter any text to search.
Advanced Search »
IN SPECIAL COVERAGE
Election 2004:
Californians Head East to Make a Difference
Jan Frel
EnviroHealth:
Ford Gets an 'F' for Fuel Efficiency
Kari Lydersen
Movie Mix:
A Eulogy for Marlon Brando
Dave Zirin
MediaCulture:
Fahrenheit 9/11: Firing Up the Choir
Peter Y. Sussman
Rights and Liberties:
A Patriotic Celebration of Civil Liberties
Mona Lisa Yuchengo
DrugReporter:
From Abu Ghraib to Your Local Prison
Matthew Briggs
War on Iraq:
The 'Prop-agenda' War
Miren Gutierrez
WireTap:
Teens Getting Breast Implants for Graduation
Susan Kreimer
SUPPORT ALTERNET
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
FEEDBACK
Tell us how we're doing.
Another Problem From Hell
By John HeffernanThe American Prospect. Posted July 3, 2004.
A human-rights expert who has witnessed the persecution in Darfur insists that genocide is occuring. A dispatch from Sudan.
Thirty-five-year-old Azine (not her real name) is still in shock at what happened to her in Western Darfur, Sudan, four months ago. One morning, soldiers entered her village, burned her house, and forced her to flee with her four children. She and her family now live in a refugee camp in Farchana, Chad, in a tent provided by the United Nations. On a recent day at the camp, she described what happened to her in the Sudan:
"At around 5 a.m., helicopters and Sudanese military Antonovs circled the village," she said. Later, four men wearing Sudanese military uniforms entered her house and took all her property, then set the house on fire.
"My husband had fled first for fear that he might be killed," she continued, describing what appears to be a common pattern among Darfurian villagers attacked over the last several months. As the men in the village get wind of impending attacks, they flee at once – knowing that they will be killed if they stay – leaving the women and children behind. The male villagers know that the women will be raped, but probably not killed. That is, unless they resist.
Of the 300 families from this village, about 25 people were killed and about 15 wounded. Azine's sister ran away from the attackers and was shot and killed, along with her 3-year-old daughter.
Since early 2003, tens of thousands of Sudanese citizens of African descent who live in the Darfur region have been systematically killed, raped, and displaced as their villages have been destroyed. Through coordinated land and air attacks; the burning of homes and crops; the rounding up of livestock; the destruction of wells, granaries, and irrigation works; the uprooting of trees; and the theft of all possessions, the government of Sudan and the government-supported Arab militia, Janjaweed, have displaced more than 1 million people.
Thousands are now wandering the drought-stricken, barren landscape, while tens of thousands are reportedly being held in prison enclaves in cities and villages throughout Darfur. An additional 200,000 Darfurians have crossed the eastern border of Sudan, seeking refuge in Chad, as Azine did after her village was destroyed.
For several months, experts from humanitarian and human-rights groups and the United Nations have predicted that tens of thousands of internally displaced persons in Sudan will die unless they receive major international humanitarian support. According to some reports, the early stages of those grim predictions have already been realized.
In May 2004, as part of a Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) emergency investigation, in partnership with the Open Society Institute's Justice Initiative, I arrived in this region along the Chadian-Sudanese border to assess human-rights and humanitarian law violations of the Darfur civilians and the risk of morbidity and mortality among the refugees driven from their homes in that region.
Jennifer Leaning, a physician who teaches a course in humanitarian emergencies, and I spent two weeks traveling extensively throughout eastern Chad. We traversed several thousand kilometers in order to assess the situation and to conduct interviews with refugees in camps and in other places along the Chadian-Sudanese border. We wanted to gather testimony from refugees who came from different parts of Darfur about the timing, nature, and targets of the attacks, to collect information on the attacking forces and the way they pursued villagers and local Sudanese to the border of Chad.
We recorded dozens of refugee testimonies that indigenous African civilians – primarily from the Fur, Masilit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups – are being targeted by the Sudanese government and its Arab-Janjaweed militia because of their ethnicity. There is ample evidence to indicate that an organized campaign on the part of the Sudanese government is under way, targeting several million people from this region of the country either by killing them or forcing them to migrate. Without an immediate and concerted international intervention, a substantial part of the targeted group may be eliminated. Current predictions from governmental and nongovernmental sources suggest that the toll could be between 300,000 and 1 million if a robust intervention does not occur.
PHR is calling the forcible removal of black African Darfurians from their land, the total destruction of villages and livelihood, and the deliberate obstruction of aid indicators of genocide that warrant immediate intervention. An intervention, ideally backed by a UN Security Council resolution – which supports the protection of humanitarian supply lines, disarms the militia groups, ensures the cessation of violence and a withdrawal of Sudanese government forces in Darfur, allows for the safe return of internally displaced persons and refugees to their land, and provides human-rights monitors – is necessary. Simultaneously, PHR calls on the United States to ramp up its humanitarian assistance and to impose targeted sanctions on Sudanese government officials (including freezing assets and access to U.S. capital markets). In addition, PHR is discovering signs of genocide that may put international agencies and other countries under an obligation to act to prevent and punish the perpetrators.
The Bush administration has been a leading force on the UN Security Council on matters concerning Darfur, but it has not determined that genocide has taken place. In addition, the Bush administration has been unwilling to push for a UN resolution seeking an intervention.
The administration should take a harder position with the Khartoum government, including support for a UN Security Council resolution that calls for intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Its current approach may be the result of the administration's concern about jeopardizing the long-awaited peace-signing process that would end the decades-long war between the Arab north and the Christian south. Talks between the Sudanese government and rebels from the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) will soon take place in Naivasha, Kenya, focusing on security and a permanent ceasefire – as well as possible autonomy for the South. Moreover, the Iraq conflict may have taken its toll on U.S. diplomatic efforts elsewhere.
Without a more robust response to the crisis in Darfur, thousands will perish inside Sudan and refugees like Azine will continue to languish in refugee camps with little hope of returning home anytime soon. What's at stake here is enormous and clear: a moral obligation by the United States and the international community to prevent another genocide from occurring under their watch.
Copyright © 2004 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation: John Heffernan, "Another Problem From Hell", The American Prospect Online, Jun 30, 2004. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.
John Heffernan, who has worked in Khartoum, Sudan, documenting persecution stories of Eritrean and Ethiopian refugees, is a senior communications associate for Physicians for Human Rights. He lives in Washington, D.C
Search AlterNet:
Enter any text to search.
Advanced Search »
IN SPECIAL COVERAGE
Election 2004:
Californians Head East to Make a Difference
Jan Frel
EnviroHealth:
Ford Gets an 'F' for Fuel Efficiency
Kari Lydersen
Movie Mix:
A Eulogy for Marlon Brando
Dave Zirin
MediaCulture:
Fahrenheit 9/11: Firing Up the Choir
Peter Y. Sussman
Rights and Liberties:
A Patriotic Celebration of Civil Liberties
Mona Lisa Yuchengo
DrugReporter:
From Abu Ghraib to Your Local Prison
Matthew Briggs
War on Iraq:
The 'Prop-agenda' War
Miren Gutierrez
WireTap:
Teens Getting Breast Implants for Graduation
Susan Kreimer
SUPPORT ALTERNET
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
FEEDBACK
Tell us how we're doing.
Another Problem From Hell
By John HeffernanThe American Prospect. Posted July 3, 2004.
A human-rights expert who has witnessed the persecution in Darfur insists that genocide is occuring. A dispatch from Sudan.
Thirty-five-year-old Azine (not her real name) is still in shock at what happened to her in Western Darfur, Sudan, four months ago. One morning, soldiers entered her village, burned her house, and forced her to flee with her four children. She and her family now live in a refugee camp in Farchana, Chad, in a tent provided by the United Nations. On a recent day at the camp, she described what happened to her in the Sudan:
"At around 5 a.m., helicopters and Sudanese military Antonovs circled the village," she said. Later, four men wearing Sudanese military uniforms entered her house and took all her property, then set the house on fire.
"My husband had fled first for fear that he might be killed," she continued, describing what appears to be a common pattern among Darfurian villagers attacked over the last several months. As the men in the village get wind of impending attacks, they flee at once – knowing that they will be killed if they stay – leaving the women and children behind. The male villagers know that the women will be raped, but probably not killed. That is, unless they resist.
Of the 300 families from this village, about 25 people were killed and about 15 wounded. Azine's sister ran away from the attackers and was shot and killed, along with her 3-year-old daughter.
Since early 2003, tens of thousands of Sudanese citizens of African descent who live in the Darfur region have been systematically killed, raped, and displaced as their villages have been destroyed. Through coordinated land and air attacks; the burning of homes and crops; the rounding up of livestock; the destruction of wells, granaries, and irrigation works; the uprooting of trees; and the theft of all possessions, the government of Sudan and the government-supported Arab militia, Janjaweed, have displaced more than 1 million people.
Thousands are now wandering the drought-stricken, barren landscape, while tens of thousands are reportedly being held in prison enclaves in cities and villages throughout Darfur. An additional 200,000 Darfurians have crossed the eastern border of Sudan, seeking refuge in Chad, as Azine did after her village was destroyed.
For several months, experts from humanitarian and human-rights groups and the United Nations have predicted that tens of thousands of internally displaced persons in Sudan will die unless they receive major international humanitarian support. According to some reports, the early stages of those grim predictions have already been realized.
In May 2004, as part of a Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) emergency investigation, in partnership with the Open Society Institute's Justice Initiative, I arrived in this region along the Chadian-Sudanese border to assess human-rights and humanitarian law violations of the Darfur civilians and the risk of morbidity and mortality among the refugees driven from their homes in that region.
Jennifer Leaning, a physician who teaches a course in humanitarian emergencies, and I spent two weeks traveling extensively throughout eastern Chad. We traversed several thousand kilometers in order to assess the situation and to conduct interviews with refugees in camps and in other places along the Chadian-Sudanese border. We wanted to gather testimony from refugees who came from different parts of Darfur about the timing, nature, and targets of the attacks, to collect information on the attacking forces and the way they pursued villagers and local Sudanese to the border of Chad.
We recorded dozens of refugee testimonies that indigenous African civilians – primarily from the Fur, Masilit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups – are being targeted by the Sudanese government and its Arab-Janjaweed militia because of their ethnicity. There is ample evidence to indicate that an organized campaign on the part of the Sudanese government is under way, targeting several million people from this region of the country either by killing them or forcing them to migrate. Without an immediate and concerted international intervention, a substantial part of the targeted group may be eliminated. Current predictions from governmental and nongovernmental sources suggest that the toll could be between 300,000 and 1 million if a robust intervention does not occur.
PHR is calling the forcible removal of black African Darfurians from their land, the total destruction of villages and livelihood, and the deliberate obstruction of aid indicators of genocide that warrant immediate intervention. An intervention, ideally backed by a UN Security Council resolution – which supports the protection of humanitarian supply lines, disarms the militia groups, ensures the cessation of violence and a withdrawal of Sudanese government forces in Darfur, allows for the safe return of internally displaced persons and refugees to their land, and provides human-rights monitors – is necessary. Simultaneously, PHR calls on the United States to ramp up its humanitarian assistance and to impose targeted sanctions on Sudanese government officials (including freezing assets and access to U.S. capital markets). In addition, PHR is discovering signs of genocide that may put international agencies and other countries under an obligation to act to prevent and punish the perpetrators.
The Bush administration has been a leading force on the UN Security Council on matters concerning Darfur, but it has not determined that genocide has taken place. In addition, the Bush administration has been unwilling to push for a UN resolution seeking an intervention.
The administration should take a harder position with the Khartoum government, including support for a UN Security Council resolution that calls for intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Its current approach may be the result of the administration's concern about jeopardizing the long-awaited peace-signing process that would end the decades-long war between the Arab north and the Christian south. Talks between the Sudanese government and rebels from the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) will soon take place in Naivasha, Kenya, focusing on security and a permanent ceasefire – as well as possible autonomy for the South. Moreover, the Iraq conflict may have taken its toll on U.S. diplomatic efforts elsewhere.
Without a more robust response to the crisis in Darfur, thousands will perish inside Sudan and refugees like Azine will continue to languish in refugee camps with little hope of returning home anytime soon. What's at stake here is enormous and clear: a moral obligation by the United States and the international community to prevent another genocide from occurring under their watch.
Copyright © 2004 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation: John Heffernan, "Another Problem From Hell", The American Prospect Online, Jun 30, 2004. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.
John Heffernan, who has worked in Khartoum, Sudan, documenting persecution stories of Eritrean and Ethiopian refugees, is a senior communications associate for Physicians for Human Rights. He lives in Washington, D.C
Sunday, June 13, 2004
Friday, May 21, 2004
THIS MAY BE ONE OF THE BIG - BIG STORIES IN JAPAN OVER THE NEXT FEW MILLENIUM.
Doubt cast on nuclear recycling policy
Plans to reprocess spent fuel opposed on grounds of danger, cost
AOMORI (Kyodo) Doubt has been cast on Japan's atomic fuel recycling policy, with lawmakers of the ruling parties calling for changes to the nation's long-term plan for nuclear power development.
Central to the debate is the plan to reprocess all spent nuclear fuel in order to obtain plutonium for reuse as a fuel, industry sources said.
Taro Kono, a House of Representatives member of the Liberal Democratic Party, told a meeting of citizens here on May 8, "Let's stop and deepen the nationwide debate."
Kono, the son of House of Representatives Speaker Yohei Kono, advocated the postponement of a uranium test to confirm the ability of a plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, to reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
The reprocessing plant, which is being built by Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. with investment from electric power companies, is the pillar of Japan's nuclear fuel recycling policy, but the work has been delayed due to construction problems.
The plant was originally scheduled to open in 2005 but is now scheduled to start operating in 2006.
Kono's remark has sparked controversy because the Aomori governor and other officials have repeatedly asked the central government to continue with existing plans.
Japan already has a stockpile of 33 tons of plutonium obtained by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel overseas, as well as 5.4 tons of plutonium extracted at home.
There are numerous problems with using plutonium as a fuel. It is one of the world's most toxic substances and is the raw material used to make atomic bombs.
The largest consumers of plutonium would be high-speed breeder reactors, but these reactors have been plagued with trouble across the globe.
A massive leak of sodium coolant at the the Monju fast-breeder reactor in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture, in 1995 forced a suspension of operations. It remains unclear when, if ever, it will restart.
Under the so-called pluthermal (plutonium thermal) project to burn plutonium at conventional nuclear power plants, 16 to 18 plants were to be converted by 2010.
However, there is a long way to go before Kansai, the Kyushu and Shikoku Electric Power companies can reach this goal, industry sources said.
Even if the reprocessing plant in Rokkasho starts operating, its annual reprocessing capacity will be 800 tons, compared with the 1,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel that comes from domestic nuclear power stations annually.
An interim storage facility is scheduled to be built in order to hold the spent nuclear fuel until the completion of a second reprocessing plant.
But there is little likelihood the plan will be carried out.
"We have no intention whatsoever to build a second reprocessing plant," said an executive of an electric power company.
According to an estimate by the Federation of Electric Power Companies, the cost of reprocessing at the Rokkasho plant, including the disposal of radioactive waste, would be 18.8 trillion yen.
Industry sources said it is quite natural for electric power companies, facing challenges as a result of deregulation, to rethink the building of a second plant.
There are calls to bury the spent fuel underground instead, as is the case in the United States.
The government's Atomic Power Commission will create a forum next month to review the long-term plan over a period of one year, sources said.
The Japan Times: May 21, 2004
(C) All rights reserved
Doubt cast on nuclear recycling policy
Plans to reprocess spent fuel opposed on grounds of danger, cost
AOMORI (Kyodo) Doubt has been cast on Japan's atomic fuel recycling policy, with lawmakers of the ruling parties calling for changes to the nation's long-term plan for nuclear power development.
Central to the debate is the plan to reprocess all spent nuclear fuel in order to obtain plutonium for reuse as a fuel, industry sources said.
Taro Kono, a House of Representatives member of the Liberal Democratic Party, told a meeting of citizens here on May 8, "Let's stop and deepen the nationwide debate."
Kono, the son of House of Representatives Speaker Yohei Kono, advocated the postponement of a uranium test to confirm the ability of a plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, to reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
The reprocessing plant, which is being built by Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. with investment from electric power companies, is the pillar of Japan's nuclear fuel recycling policy, but the work has been delayed due to construction problems.
The plant was originally scheduled to open in 2005 but is now scheduled to start operating in 2006.
Kono's remark has sparked controversy because the Aomori governor and other officials have repeatedly asked the central government to continue with existing plans.
Japan already has a stockpile of 33 tons of plutonium obtained by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel overseas, as well as 5.4 tons of plutonium extracted at home.
There are numerous problems with using plutonium as a fuel. It is one of the world's most toxic substances and is the raw material used to make atomic bombs.
The largest consumers of plutonium would be high-speed breeder reactors, but these reactors have been plagued with trouble across the globe.
A massive leak of sodium coolant at the the Monju fast-breeder reactor in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture, in 1995 forced a suspension of operations. It remains unclear when, if ever, it will restart.
Under the so-called pluthermal (plutonium thermal) project to burn plutonium at conventional nuclear power plants, 16 to 18 plants were to be converted by 2010.
However, there is a long way to go before Kansai, the Kyushu and Shikoku Electric Power companies can reach this goal, industry sources said.
Even if the reprocessing plant in Rokkasho starts operating, its annual reprocessing capacity will be 800 tons, compared with the 1,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel that comes from domestic nuclear power stations annually.
An interim storage facility is scheduled to be built in order to hold the spent nuclear fuel until the completion of a second reprocessing plant.
But there is little likelihood the plan will be carried out.
"We have no intention whatsoever to build a second reprocessing plant," said an executive of an electric power company.
According to an estimate by the Federation of Electric Power Companies, the cost of reprocessing at the Rokkasho plant, including the disposal of radioactive waste, would be 18.8 trillion yen.
Industry sources said it is quite natural for electric power companies, facing challenges as a result of deregulation, to rethink the building of a second plant.
There are calls to bury the spent fuel underground instead, as is the case in the United States.
The government's Atomic Power Commission will create a forum next month to review the long-term plan over a period of one year, sources said.
The Japan Times: May 21, 2004
(C) All rights reserved
Read this one carefully! The reporter uses a lot of maybe's and migh be's. However if the government does work a deal which allows the N. Korean ship to enter Japan on a special case basis the government has joined in a conspiracy to commit a crime which means that you go to jail for doing it. Do you want a criminal for a P.M.?
Harassment of Korean residents may come up in Koizumi-Kim talks
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi might express concern over the harassment of Korean residents in Japan that followed North Korea's admission in 2002 that it had abducted Japanese nationals in the 1970s and 1980s, government sources said Thursday.
By expressing such concerns during his Saturday meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, Koizumi apparently hopes to show that he takes the matter seriously. The move is an apparent attempt to soften Pyongyang's stance on pending bilateral issues.
He might also tell Kim that if the family members of five repatriated abductees are allowed to leave North Korea for Japan, the government would not invoke an envisioned law that would allow it to ban the port entry of certain ships, particularly those from North Korea, the sources said.
The bill is apparently aimed at the North Korean ferry Mangyongbong-92, which travels between Japan and North Korea. Police suspect it is involved in espionage and other illegal activities.
A government source said North Korea "suspects Japan does not really intend to normalize bilateral ties" because anti-North Korea sentiment among Japanese heightened after the five abductees were allowed to return to Japan in October 2002.
Koizumi might say he intends to address the harassment problem, while strongly urging Kim to allow the abductees' families go to Japan and provide more information on other missing Japanese.
Some in the government have urged that the harassment problem be treated separately from the abduction issue, and that steps be taken to prevent further harassment.
The pro-Pyongyang General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chongryun) said it received about 300 reports of harassment against students of pro-Pyongyang schools in the week after North Korea owned up to the abductions at the 2002 landmark summit between Koizumi and Kim.
Jenkins a problem
WASHINGTON (Kyodo) Japanese Ambassador to the United States Ryozo Kato said Wednesday that Japan must work to find a solution to the case of Charles Robert Jenkins, who faces court-martial for desertion by the U.S. if North Korea allows him to come to Japan.
Jenkins is married to freed Japanese abductee Hitomi Soga.
At the same time, however, Kato told reporters that the United States will also have to take legal action against Jenkins under military law.
"The current situation does not allow me to tell how the issue will develop," he said.
Jenkins, 64, whose 45-year-old wife is one of five Japanese nationals abducted by North Korean agents in 1978 and repatriated to Japan in 2002, remains in North Korea with the couple's two daughters.
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi will visit Pyongyang on Saturday to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in the hope of securing the passage to Japan of the repatriated abductees' kin.
If Jenkins comes to Japan, the U.S. government is expected to ask Tokyo to hand him over for court-martial. Japan has been asking the United States to give Jenkins "special consideration," including a pardon.
On Tuesday, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage described Jenkins' case as "very sensitive."
Media muzzle sought
The five Japanese repatriated after being abducted to North Korea asked media organizations Thursday to refrain from reporting on their family members if they come to Japan from North Korea.
They filed the request with the Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association, the National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan, and the Japan Magazine Publishers Association, saying they do not want their eight family members to participate in news conferences "until they understand the circumstances they are placed in."
The Japan Times: May 21, 2004
Harassment of Korean residents may come up in Koizumi-Kim talks
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi might express concern over the harassment of Korean residents in Japan that followed North Korea's admission in 2002 that it had abducted Japanese nationals in the 1970s and 1980s, government sources said Thursday.
By expressing such concerns during his Saturday meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, Koizumi apparently hopes to show that he takes the matter seriously. The move is an apparent attempt to soften Pyongyang's stance on pending bilateral issues.
He might also tell Kim that if the family members of five repatriated abductees are allowed to leave North Korea for Japan, the government would not invoke an envisioned law that would allow it to ban the port entry of certain ships, particularly those from North Korea, the sources said.
The bill is apparently aimed at the North Korean ferry Mangyongbong-92, which travels between Japan and North Korea. Police suspect it is involved in espionage and other illegal activities.
A government source said North Korea "suspects Japan does not really intend to normalize bilateral ties" because anti-North Korea sentiment among Japanese heightened after the five abductees were allowed to return to Japan in October 2002.
Koizumi might say he intends to address the harassment problem, while strongly urging Kim to allow the abductees' families go to Japan and provide more information on other missing Japanese.
Some in the government have urged that the harassment problem be treated separately from the abduction issue, and that steps be taken to prevent further harassment.
The pro-Pyongyang General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chongryun) said it received about 300 reports of harassment against students of pro-Pyongyang schools in the week after North Korea owned up to the abductions at the 2002 landmark summit between Koizumi and Kim.
Jenkins a problem
WASHINGTON (Kyodo) Japanese Ambassador to the United States Ryozo Kato said Wednesday that Japan must work to find a solution to the case of Charles Robert Jenkins, who faces court-martial for desertion by the U.S. if North Korea allows him to come to Japan.
Jenkins is married to freed Japanese abductee Hitomi Soga.
At the same time, however, Kato told reporters that the United States will also have to take legal action against Jenkins under military law.
"The current situation does not allow me to tell how the issue will develop," he said.
Jenkins, 64, whose 45-year-old wife is one of five Japanese nationals abducted by North Korean agents in 1978 and repatriated to Japan in 2002, remains in North Korea with the couple's two daughters.
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi will visit Pyongyang on Saturday to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in the hope of securing the passage to Japan of the repatriated abductees' kin.
If Jenkins comes to Japan, the U.S. government is expected to ask Tokyo to hand him over for court-martial. Japan has been asking the United States to give Jenkins "special consideration," including a pardon.
On Tuesday, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage described Jenkins' case as "very sensitive."
Media muzzle sought
The five Japanese repatriated after being abducted to North Korea asked media organizations Thursday to refrain from reporting on their family members if they come to Japan from North Korea.
They filed the request with the Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association, the National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan, and the Japan Magazine Publishers Association, saying they do not want their eight family members to participate in news conferences "until they understand the circumstances they are placed in."
The Japan Times: May 21, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
