http://odeo.com/channels/3388-CounterSpin Reportoo no CounterSpin is FAIR's weekly radio show, hosted by Janine Jackson, Steve Rendall and Peter Hart. It's heard on more than 125 noncommercial stations across the United States and Canada. CounterSpin is FAIR's weekly radio show, hosted by Janine Jackson, Steve Rendall and Peter Hart. It's heard on more than 125 noncommercial stations across the United States and Canada. CounterSpin is FAIR's weekly radio show, hosted by Janine Jackson, Steve Rendall and Peter Hart. It's heard on more than 125 noncommercial stations across the United States and Canada. 40 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:00:00 -0800 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:00:00 -0800 http://odeo.com/episodes/25446212-Trudy-Lieberman-on-health-care-Laurie-Williams-amp-Allan-Zabel-on-cap-amp-trade This week on CounterSpin : a source from a senior citizens group quoted in the Washington Post said the group’s main challenge today is simply to try to keep the record straight about what's actually in the health care reform bill, as opposed to what’s being claimed about it. That would seem to be the basic challenge facing reporters, too, but have they been too caught up with coverage of congressional politicking to do justice to it? We’ll hear from journalist Trudy Lieberman on that. Also on the show: Two EPA lawyers have been speaking out against cap and trade climate legislation, saying that these schemes won't do enough to reduce carbon emissions. Making their position public has got them into trouble with the agency, and certainly puts them at odds with leading Democrats and the Obama White House. We'll speak with Laurie Williams and Alan Zabel about their position on cap and trade, and the problems they've encountered in trying to make their case. LINKS: --T... This week on CounterSpin : a source from a senior citizens group quoted in the Washington Post said the group’s main challenge today is simply to try to keep the record straight about what's actually in the health care reform bill, as opposed to what’s being claimed about it. That would seem to be the basic challenge facing reporters, too, but have they been too caught up with coverage of congressional politicking to do justice to it? We’ll hear from journalist Trudy Lieberman on that. Also on the show: Two EPA lawyers have been speaking out against cap and trade climate legislation, saying that these schemes won't do enough to reduce carbon emissions. Making their position public has got them into trouble with the agency, and certainly puts them at odds with leading Democrats and the Obama White House. We'll speak with Laurie Williams and Alan Zabel about their position on cap and trade, and the problems they've encountered in trying to make their case. LINKS: --Trudy Lieberman, CJR --Carbonfees.org This week on CounterSpin : a source from a senior citizens group quoted in the Washington Post said the group’s main challenge today is simply to try to keep the record straight about what's actually in the health care reform bill, as opposed to what’s being claimed about it. That would seem to be the basic challenge facing reporters, too, but have they been too caught up with coverage of congressional politicking to do justice to it? We’ll hear from journalist Trudy Lieberman on that. Also on the show: Two EPA lawyers have been speaking out against cap and trade climate legislation, saying that these schemes won't do enough to reduce carbon emissions. Making their position public has got them into trouble with the agency, and certainly puts them at odds with leading Democrats and the Obama White House. We'll speak with Laurie Williams and Alan Zabel about their position on cap and trade, and the problems they've encountered in trying to make their case. LINKS: --Trudy Lieberman, CJR --Carbonfees.org tag:odeo.com,2009-11-12,25446212 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:00:00 -0800 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/25412074-Greg-Gordon-on-Goldman-Sachs-Phyllis-Bennis-on-Israel-Palestine This week on CounterSpin: A new investigative series by McClatchy newspapers’ Greg Gordon reveals that in 2006 and 2007, Goldman Sachs sold more than $40 billion in securities backed by risky home mortgages, "but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting." Sounds important. We’ll talk to Greg Gordon about his story. Also on the show: Israel/Palestine is in headlines at the moment as the press engage both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's changing line on settlements and the continued fallout from a UN report critical of Israel's actions in Gaza early this year. We'll talk with Phyllis Bennis, author of, among other titles, "Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer." LINKS: --Goldman Sachs: Low Road to High Profits, by Greg Gordon --Phyllis Bennis This week on CounterSpin: A new investigative series by McClatchy newspapers’ Greg Gordon reveals that in 2006 and 2007, Goldman Sachs sold more than $40 billion in securities backed by risky home mortgages, "but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting." Sounds important. We’ll talk to Greg Gordon about his story. Also on the show: Israel/Palestine is in headlines at the moment as the press engage both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's changing line on settlements and the continued fallout from a UN report critical of Israel's actions in Gaza early this year. We'll talk with Phyllis Bennis, author of, among other titles, "Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer." LINKS: --Goldman Sachs: Low Road to High Profits, by Greg Gordon --Phyllis Bennis This week on CounterSpin: A new investigative series by McClatchy newspapers’ Greg Gordon reveals that in 2006 and 2007, Goldman Sachs sold more than $40 billion in securities backed by risky home mortgages, "but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting." Sounds important. We’ll talk to Greg Gordon about his story. Also on the show: Israel/Palestine is in headlines at the moment as the press engage both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's changing line on settlements and the continued fallout from a UN report critical of Israel's actions in Gaza early this year. We'll talk with Phyllis Bennis, author of, among other titles, "Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer." LINKS: --Goldman Sachs: Low Road to High Profits, by Greg Gordon --Phyllis Bennis tag:odeo.com,2009-11-05,25412074 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:00:00 -0800 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/25392119-David-Swanson-on-health-care-debate-Bruce-Dixon-on-the-public-option This week on CounterSpin: Making sense of the health care debate. In the past week we've supposedly seen the comeback of public and political support for the public option, in some form or another. We're also told that Democratic majority leader Harry Reid must gather 60 votes to pass any bill. Is any of that true or is media coverage of political possibilities off base? Author and activist David Swanson will join us to try and untangle these story lines. Also, Progressives and others interested in truly universal healthcare, as in healthcare that would cover everyone, have been more or less prodded in recent months to give up the idea of a single payer system—dismissed as it's been for years by not corporate press corps as not politically viable—and to get behind the public option, presented as single payer's less ideal but more achievable variant. But does the public option as it's now presented have anything at all to do with healthcare that covers everyone? We'll tal... This week on CounterSpin: Making sense of the health care debate. In the past week we've supposedly seen the comeback of public and political support for the public option, in some form or another. We're also told that Democratic majority leader Harry Reid must gather 60 votes to pass any bill. Is any of that true or is media coverage of political possibilities off base? Author and activist David Swanson will join us to try and untangle these story lines. Also, Progressives and others interested in truly universal healthcare, as in healthcare that would cover everyone, have been more or less prodded in recent months to give up the idea of a single payer system—dismissed as it's been for years by not corporate press corps as not politically viable—and to get behind the public option, presented as single payer's less ideal but more achievable variant. But does the public option as it's now presented have anything at all to do with healthcare that covers everyone? We'll talk with Bruce Dixon, managing editor of Black Agenda Report, about that. LINKS: —David Swanson —Black Agenda Report FULL TRANSCRIPT That's coming up, but first as usual, we'll take a look back at the week's press. —With all the attention on the public option in the health care debate, some important pundits are warning that there's something else going on. Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt warned on October 26 that the "public option" is just a backdoor way to bring a single-payer system to the United States: Private companies would have to raise their rates, so more people would choose the public plan, so private rates would rise further—and we could end up with only the public option and no competition at all. Single-payer national health insurance may be the best outcome, but we should get there after an honest debate, not through the back door. Well, on the same day Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson hit on the same theme: Many would say: Whoopee! Get rid of the sinister insurers. Bring on a single-payer system. But if that's the agenda, why not debate it directly?...That's the debate we need, but in truth, doctors, hospitals and patients don't want to be limited, whether by government or markets. Congress reflects public opinion. Fearing a real debate, we fake it. Two columns in the same paper declaring the need for a true single-payer debate? This is good news. One of these guys should speak to an editor at the Post who could encourage more op-eds about single payer, which has faced a virtual blackout in the corporate media debate. Maybe Fred Hiatt could speak to the person who runs the opinion pages at the Washington Post; after all, what better place to encourage a Washington debate? Wait—isn't that Fred Hiatt's job? —James Zogby used to be considered a reputable pollster. But of late he's made it clear that he'll ask just about any question someone pays him to ask—no matter how loaded or offensive. He hit a new low recently with a poll he did for right-wing pundit Brad O'Leary, that actually asked this question: Federal Communications Commission Chief Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wants the FCC to force good white people in positions of power in the broadcast industry to step down to make room for more African-Americans and gays to fill those positions. Do you agree or disagree that this presents a threat to free speech? Boy—forcing good white people to step down to make room for African-Americans and gays—kind of sounds as though Zogby were doing polling for the Ku Klux Klan. Strikingly, as slanted as this question is, he only got 51 percent of the people he polled to agree with it; maybe some of the other 49 percent rightly smelled a rat. The question, of course, is based on a distortion of something Lloyd actually said, which was an honest acknowledgment of the moral dilemma you face when certain classes of people have been systematically excluded from media power; as Lloyd put it, "Unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem." Zogby claimed that quality control processes had broken down, but really twisting words to offer red meat to McCarthyites like Glen Beck is something that no responsible pollster would having started doing in the first place. —On his October 22 show, CNN host Lou Dobbs had some supposedly big news on—you guessed it—immigration: New evidence that the American public wants action on the illegal immigration crisis in this country. A new CNN poll finds the vast majority of the American public wants illegal immigration stopped and most want illegal immigrants now in the country to leave. Well for starters, the poll he's talking about found that 37 percent of people want illegal immigrants removed immediately, which is not most people. But what Dobbs did with the results of a strangely-phrased poll was another matter. As CNN reporter Lisa Sylvester put it, "These polling numbers show that comprehensive immigration reform is going to be a tough sell." Sylvester added that Barack Obama still supports such reform. Funny, though, the poll never asked anything like that at all. But when you look at polls that do, you find that mostly people are open to some sort of overhaul of the country's immigration laws. An April survey from ABC/Washington Post, for example, asked if people supported giving illegal immigrants a path to legal citizenship, 61 percent said yes. A CBS poll around the same time found a similar result. So maybe some of the people who say they want illegal immigration stopped don't mean it the same way Lou Dobbs means it. So them this CNN poll by itself doesn't tell us much of anything about the immigration debate. It does, however, give Lou Dobbs one more chance to mislead viewers on his favorite subject. —It's not every day that a president is compared to Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all at the same time. No, we're not talking about right-wing talkers and Barack Obama; this is the November 2 issue of Newsweek magazine, and the president is the Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. As the magazine's Latin America correspondent Mac Margolis sees it, there's something a little creepy about the fact that Chávez has put money into a public film studio, including facilities that are intended to be used by Venezuelan filmmakers. They call it Cinemaville, though Newsweek tells us that "many Venezuelans just call it Hugowood." But building a movie studio is not the real problem as Margolis sees it; as he put it, Chávez "courts Hizbullah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is stockpiling Russian-made fighter jets and tanks, and has given aid and comfort to Colombian narcoguerrillas." That last one's actually just a charge made against Chávez by his opponents, but no matter—remember, it's Hugo Chávez's clunky propaganda that we're supposed to be concerned with. Margolis went on to write, "Like the 20th-century autocrats he emulates, Chávez is fascinated by the power of cinema. Ever since Hitler turned to Leni Riefenstahl..." well, you don't need to read much more than that. —And finally, investigative journalist Jack Nelson died October 21. Nelson played a key early role in unraveling the Watergate scandal but may be best remembered for his work covering the civil rights movement in the South, including the Selma to Montgomery freedom march. As Washington bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times, Nelson produced powerful stories about the FBI's use of informants and agents provocateur in the civil rights movement. In 1968, he uncovered the truth behind an incident in which three black students were shot to death and 27 others wounded by state troopers at South Carolina State College, a black college in Orangeburg. The troopers claimed that the students had charged them, throwing bottles and bricks. But Nelson got hold of victims' medical records, which told a different story, revealing shots in the soles of victims' feets and in the backs of their heads. But, as Nelson noted in an interview, Even today, if you ask somebody about the Orangeburg massacre, hardly anybody has a clue. But if you ask about Kent State, where it was white people, everybody knows about it. Deemed an official enemy by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI for his work, Nelson serves as a reminder that there are some reporters who prefer grilling powerful officials to sipping cocktails with them. DAVID SWANSON CounterSpin: It seems like every couple of weeks presents another turning point in the health care debate. As it stands now, the public option is apparently very popular, and that public shift has pushed the Democrats to take some sort of action. Either that or Harry Reid is merely trying to placate the left-wing base of the party, who are really the only ones who like this business about a public option to begin with. It might not matter anyway, because we're told that anything that passes the Senate requires 60 votes. Does any of this make any kind of sense? And what about an actual public health plan? Joining us now to talk about where things stand is author and activist David Swanson. His new book, Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union is out now from Seven Stories Press. David, welcome back to CounterSpin. David Swanson: Great to be back. CS: Let's start with that public option; we've talked about this before, but the media consensus seems to be that the public has warmed to the public option, based on some polls showing that the idea is getting support from over half the public. That has pushed the Democrats to be a little bolder about pushing an idea that the pundits have been saying for weeks is way too far to the left. How important, do you think, are these polls about the public option? DS: They're very important to me; I'm not convinced they're of the greatest importance to the Democrats in Congress. I think it's been the activism around it that's had significance and the actual taking of a stand by the more progressive members in the House, committing to voting no unless there is a so-called robust public option, which, for many of them, of course, was a dramatic compromise down from an actual Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. But, of course, what robust means has never been exactly agreed upon by everyone, and by most arguments what has come out in the House bill is not robust, and so it remains to be seen which of those members now is going to vote no having committed to vote no and which are going to say well this is better than nothing, I'm going to go with it. CS: Do you think there's something strange about the Washington Post pushing this poll idea so hard and even liberals, MSNBC like Keith Olbermann are giving a lot of weight to this. From where we sit, single payer has often been very popular in the polls, but I don't recall anyone saying the public has now demanded Medicare for all? DS: [Laughing] That's an excellent point. It has been by most polls, a strong majority of Americans for decades have been willing even to increase their taxes in order to provide Americans with a healthcare system like most wealthy countries have, where everyone is simply covered, and healthcare is a right rather than a perk or a privilege, and it's just been blocked out, blocked out by the media, blocked out by the more progressive members in the House who opened this negotiation by agreeing with the President to not mention single payer, and blocked out by activist groups who sort of do an astroturf maneuver where they go and ask the Democratic leadership in Congress, what should we ask our members to lobby you to do. Whereas, of course, most of the members of these labor unions and activist groups want single payer, they've been holding rallies around the country for months now where you're not supposed to mention single payer. The problem with that, of course, is that it makes the public option the left side of the debate, and then the middle ground and the compromise becomes something much less than that, which is where we are now. CS: I want to ask you about activism because all the while throughout all this single payer activism has actually been picking up especially in the last couple of weeks. Again the media blackout has been almost total. I think it was someone named David Swanson who once pointed out that not many people are pushing for or are willing to get arrested for a public option but people are willing to do that for single payer. DS: Oh, absolutely, and as we speak, some good friends of mine, doctors, are risking serious jail time, violating the probation they are under having protested previously in a Senate Committee hearing, chaired by Senator Baucus, having spoken up out of turn, having been denied a place at the table. And you can imagine the size of this movement were there a push by any of our elected officials for single payer here in Washington. Of course there's been a very marginal push, Congressman Kucinich successfully put in an amendment back in July that would have made it much easier for states to do single payer at the state level, which is the most likely path to success, I think. It parallels how Canada got it with one province first. And that was passed with bipartisan support in July. Speaker Pelosi has now unceremoniously stripped it out. In addition Congressman Anthony Weiner from New York, put in an amendment in another committee back in July to have a national Medicare for all plan, and Chairman Waxman told Congressman Weiner publicly in the committee hearing, Nancy Pelosi has agreed to give you a floor vote on that if you will back off and not insist on a committee vote, and Congressman Weiner said fine. Well, now Nancy Pelosi has gone back on her word and will deny that floor vote. So the single payer movement is left with nowhere to go but to say vote this bill down—it's worse than nothing, and those who have really pushed honestly for a robust public option where that meant something significant I think are in the same position. They have to push now for voting this bill down, and if those groups unite and push for that and are successful, then we start round two with a more honest and open and wide-ranging debate. CS: Now, you're in the phase now of counting votes and certainly that's what majority leader Harry Reid is doing and this is the big storyline that's I think washing over this entire debate: the idea he needs 60 votes in the Senate in order to pass some kind of public option. The Democratic caucus theoretically has 60 people in it, but this is still presented as some unusual hurdle, and it might strike readers or viewers as an odd thing anyway—why does something need to have 60 votes to pass by a majority vote? Explain where the 60 vote thing comes from since the media seem to not want to do that. DS: Well there's a rule in the Senate rule book that's been changed many times through our history. We got through most of our nation's history without it being there at all, it's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Holy Bible, it's just a rule, and 51 Senators can change any rule at any time, but it's a filibuster rule which says that you need three fifths of the Senators, that is to say 60 of the Senators, in order to cut off debate and have a vote. And so any 41 Senators can say we filibuster, and they're not made to stand up a made to read dictionaries all night, they just say we filibuster and that's the extent of it. They could be made to stand up and read dictionaries all night, but they typically are not. And so you can have 41 Senators representing at the lowest level 11 percent of Americans block all legislation in the Senate, and therefore most legislation in the House as well. And that is the most anti-democratic thing imaginable, and yet all the Senators from both parties, plus Senator Sanders treat it as inviolable as if it is much more important to Americans with untreated diseases and illnesses to maintain the filibuster rule than it is to get healthcare. And of course if they threw out the filibuster rule they would have a much better playing field across all issues, not just healthcare. Instead, the extreme of the proposals has been to use a reconciliation bill that could maneuver a healthcare bill through the Senate without facing a filibuster. But of course that would leave us with nowhere to go on the Employee Free Choice Act or any other issue. You would still have that 60 vote hurdle and the problem of course is that the Democrats don't effectively pressure their 60 members to get in line and the Republicans do successfully pressure their 40 members to get in line, and that puts all the power in the hands of someone like Senator Lieberman. CS: But technically, once they got past that cloture vote and were actually at the stage of voting for or against healthcare reform, it's a 50-vote margin again, isn't it? DS: Oh absolutely, yes. You may have a couple of cloture votes in the process, but once you have a cloture vote on whether to have the vote, then you just have the vote. And at that point you just need 50 plus 1, you just need a majority of Senators present, whoever's present—just a bare majority. And so it is entirely possible and has happened millions of times for a Senator to vote yes on cloture, that is let's have the up or down vote, and then turn around and vote no on the actual bill. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do if you can talk about respectability in such an anti-democratic institution. CS: We've been speaking with author and activist David Swanson. His new book, Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union is out now from Seven Stories Press. You can find David at DavidSwanson.org. Thanks for joining us this week, David Swanson. DS: My pleasure. Thank you. BRUCE DIXON CounterSpin: When our next guest asked back in July, "Is the Obama Health Care Plan Really Better Than Nothing?" some might have seen it as too negative. After all, the plan included something called a "public option" that sounded good, and it was being resisted by big insurance companies, so how bad could it be? Months later, as reporters slowly, slowly, start to ask substantive questions about the plan, it turns out to look, in fact, quite different from what many progressives imagine they were promised. But what are the alternatives? According to corporate media, there aren't any. But then according to corporate media, the single payer idea that majorities of Americans have said for years now they would support is not "politically viable", so how grounded is media coverage in reality, anyway? Here to help us find some solid ground on the issue is Bruce Dixon, he's managing editor of Black Agenda Report. He joins us now by phone from Marietta, Georgia. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Bruce Dixon! Bruce Dixon: Thanks for having me, Janine. CS: Well, Trudy Lieberman is covering healthcare at Columbia Journalism Review, and she recently pointed out that in more than 2000 stories on what's called the public option from August 15 to September 15, only 76 stories actually told people that in all likelihood the public option didn't apply to them. In other words, this is the story of the day, public option public option, but there's virtually no effort being made to connect it to most people's lives. Is it your sense also that media are having a healthcare conversation that's divorced from reality? And what else then are we not learning about this so-called "public option"? BD: Well, the first thing you need to know about the public option is that it doesn't apply to most of the public, that it only applies to a very, very small section of the public. Barack Obama in his early September healthcare speech described the public option that he said would only apply to at most 5 percent of the insurance market. Now if a public option is supposed to keep insurance companies honest by competing with them, it's got to be far, far larger than that. The guy Jacob Hatcher, who invented the term public option back around 2001, he envisioned a public option that would contain 120 million people, and that would have made it large enough to actually compete in the marketplace against private insurance companies, but the public option that's being described by Democrats now is just a tiny, tiny public option. So it's not going to be able to compete with the big guys on price, it's going to be restricted to people who can't get insurance any other way, and you won't be able to... well, it's neither public nor optional, I guess you could say for most people. It's not public because it's only open to a small number of people, and it's not an option that most of them will be able to avail themselves of because you won't be able to switch from your employer provided insurance to it, and you won't be able to switch from the insurance that they'll make you buy in most cases to it. So, it's neither public nor optional. CS: Well, what it could have, as you pointed out, is the effect of almost pitting the very poor against the slightly less poor who will be asked to subsidize that public option for the tiny fraction of the public to whom it applies. BD: It's going to be financed in part by taking money away from Medicaid, which provides coverage to the poor and also by a tax on people who are already getting decent benefits from their jobs, middle class people and working people in many cases. And they will be forced to pay for this, so it does have that magnificent effect of dividing the population one against the other. And it's going to be means tested so you're going to have to have a level of poverty to be able to avail yourself of it. So it's going to be stigmatized and means tested. So people are going to dislike people who are on the public option. They're going to be seen as freeloaders who are hitching a ride on the benefits of ordinary people who worked hard for their benefits. CS: And we can only imagine what media coverage will do to contribute to that situation. Well, when media aren't dismissing the universal coverage option that most people want, they're pretending that other things are that truly universal option. Back in the presidential campaign, when former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was running, reporting on health care in Massachusetts was calling that "universal health care". And that's kind of happening now, with things being called "universal" that really are emphatically not universal, isn't that true? BD: Well, the Massachusetts plan, and the plan that's being put forward by Democrats is something that's going to be a step closer to universal insurance coverage, and what it is is it's instead of being a universal healthcare program for people, it's a universal bailout for the insurance companies because people will be forced to buy their private insurance product, whether it actually covers anything or not and whether the deductibles and co-pays are affordable or not. And people who can't afford to buy their insurance product will be subsidized with tax money and also through the taxes on people with existing benefits. And a few of those people who can't afford to buy regular insurance even at the subsidized rates are going to be able to avail themselves of the so-called public option. CS: And many others will not, as folks like Steffie Woolhandler who've been looking at Massachusetts have made clear. It doesn't seem like it requires too much to say that requiring people to buy healthcare coverage is not the same as providing them healthcare coverage. BD: No, not even close, but that's the Massachusetts plan, that's what we're going to get. CS: Well, let's talk about those insurance companies, because I always remember a New York Times article from 2006 by David Leonhardt in which he was talking about single payer, and he said it really made the most sense in terms of cost containment, which is supposed to be the number one concern, and also in the matter of actually providing people healthcare. But, in that sort of standard corporate analysis, he said, single payer isn't gonna happen, but he said why not in terms that were unusually frank. He said, "Health insurers made $100 billion in profits last year, and industries of that size are just not legislated out of business." BD: Too big to sail, I guess. CS: Yeah, I can't help but think, though, that if the lines were drawn that clearly day after day, people would find it pretty easy to figure out which side they're on. BD: And that's exactly why media are not drawing lines in that way. And on the other hand, that's exactly why Democrats are painting a picture of the public option that makes it hard to tell their imaginary public option from Medicare for all. They want people to believe that they will be able to choose some alternative to the predatory private insurance with this bill, and it's hard to understand how they think they can keep fooling people like this forever. It's easy to do when the bills are a thousand pages long and obscure and cryptic and hard to read and hard to understand, but pretty soon they're going to actually have to pass something in the law and enact it, and the scales are going to fall off people's eyes when they see what they've really got here. CS: We've been speaking with Bruce Dixon, he's the managing editor of Black Agenda Report. You can find his work and the other work of that outlet on the web at BlackAgendaReport.com. Thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin! BD: Thank you for inviting me.-- This week on CounterSpin: Making sense of the health care debate. In the past week we've supposedly seen the comeback of public and political support for the public option, in some form or another. We're also told that Democratic majority leader Harry Reid must gather 60 votes to pass any bill. Is any of that true or is media coverage of political possibilities off base? Author and activist David Swanson will join us to try and untangle these story lines. Also, Progressives and others interested in truly universal healthcare, as in healthcare that would cover everyone, have been more or less prodded in recent months to give up the idea of a single payer system—dismissed as it's been for years by not corporate press corps as not politically viable—and to get behind the public option, presented as single payer's less ideal but more achievable variant. But does the public option as it's now presented have anything at all to do with healthcare that covers everyone? We'll talk with Bruce Dixon, managing editor of Black Agenda Report, about that. LINKS: —David Swanson —Black Agenda Report FULL TRANSCRIPT That's coming up, but first as usual, we'll take a look back at the week's press. —With all the attention on the public option in the health care debate, some important pundits are warning that there's something else going on. Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt warned on October 26 that the "public option" is just a backdoor way to bring a single-payer system to the United States: Private companies would have to raise their rates, so more people would choose the public plan, so private rates would rise further—and we could end up with only the public option and no competition at all. Single-payer national health insurance may be the best outcome, but we should get there after an honest debate, not through the back door. Well, on the same day Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson hit on the same theme: Many would say: Whoopee! Get rid of the sinister insurers. Bring on a single-payer system. But if that's the agenda, why not debate it directly?...That's the debate we need, but in truth, doctors, hospitals and patients don't want to be limited, whether by government or markets. Congress reflects public opinion. Fearing a real debate, we fake it. Two columns in the same paper declaring the need for a true single-payer debate? This is good news. One of these guys should speak to an editor at the Post who could encourage more op-eds about single payer, which has faced a virtual blackout in the corporate media debate. Maybe Fred Hiatt could speak to the person who runs the opinion pages at the Washington Post; after all, what better place to encourage a Washington debate? Wait—isn't that Fred Hiatt's job? —James Zogby used to be considered a reputable pollster. But of late he's made it clear that he'll ask just about any question someone pays him to ask—no matter how loaded or offensive. He hit a new low recently with a poll he did for right-wing pundit Brad O'Leary, that actually asked this question: Federal Communications Commission Chief Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wants the FCC to force good white people in positions of power in the broadcast industry to step down to make room for more African-Americans and gays to fill those positions. Do you agree or disagree that this presents a threat to free speech? Boy—forcing good white people to step down to make room for African-Americans and gays—kind of sounds as though Zogby were doing polling for the Ku Klux Klan. Strikingly, as slanted as this question is, he only got 51 percent of the people he polled to agree with it; maybe some of the other 49 percent rightly smelled a rat. The question, of course, is based on a distortion of something Lloyd actually said, which was an honest acknowledgment of the moral dilemma you face when certain classes of people have been systematically excluded from media power; as Lloyd put it, "Unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem." Zogby claimed that quality control processes had broken down, but really twisting words to offer red meat to McCarthyites like Glen Beck is something that no responsible pollster would having started doing in the first place. —On his October 22 show, CNN host Lou Dobbs had some supposedly big news on—you guessed it—immigration: New evidence that the American public wants action on the illegal immigration crisis in this country. A new CNN poll finds the vast majority of the American public wants illegal immigration stopped and most want illegal immigrants now in the country to leave. Well for starters, the poll he's talking about found that 37 percent of people want illegal immigrants removed immediately, which is not most people. But what Dobbs did with the results of a strangely-phrased poll was another matter. As CNN reporter Lisa Sylvester put it, "These polling numbers show that comprehensive immigration reform is going to be a tough sell." Sylvester added that Barack Obama still supports such reform. Funny, though, the poll never asked anything like that at all. But when you look at polls that do, you find that mostly people are open to some sort of overhaul of the country's immigration laws. An April survey from ABC/Washington Post, for example, asked if people supported giving illegal immigrants a path to legal citizenship, 61 percent said yes. A CBS poll around the same time found a similar result. So maybe some of the people who say they want illegal immigration stopped don't mean it the same way Lou Dobbs means it. So them this CNN poll by itself doesn't tell us much of anything about the immigration debate. It does, however, give Lou Dobbs one more chance to mislead viewers on his favorite subject. —It's not every day that a president is compared to Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all at the same time. No, we're not talking about right-wing talkers and Barack Obama; this is the November 2 issue of Newsweek magazine, and the president is the Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. As the magazine's Latin America correspondent Mac Margolis sees it, there's something a little creepy about the fact that Chávez has put money into a public film studio, including facilities that are intended to be used by Venezuelan filmmakers. They call it Cinemaville, though Newsweek tells us that "many Venezuelans just call it Hugowood." But building a movie studio is not the real problem as Margolis sees it; as he put it, Chávez "courts Hizbullah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is stockpiling Russian-made fighter jets and tanks, and has given aid and comfort to Colombian narcoguerrillas." That last one's actually just a charge made against Chávez by his opponents, but no matter—remember, it's Hugo Chávez's clunky propaganda that we're supposed to be concerned with. Margolis went on to write, "Like the 20th-century autocrats he emulates, Chávez is fascinated by the power of cinema. Ever since Hitler turned to Leni Riefenstahl..." well, you don't need to read much more than that. —And finally, investigative journalist Jack Nelson died October 21. Nelson played a key early role in unraveling the Watergate scandal but may be best remembered for his work covering the civil rights movement in the South, including the Selma to Montgomery freedom march. As Washington bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times, Nelson produced powerful stories about the FBI's use of informants and agents provocateur in the civil rights movement. In 1968, he uncovered the truth behind an incident in which three black students were shot to death and 27 others wounded by state troopers at South Carolina State College, a black college in Orangeburg. The troopers claimed that the students had charged them, throwing bottles and bricks. But Nelson got hold of victims' medical records, which told a different story, revealing shots in the soles of victims' feets and in the backs of their heads. But, as Nelson noted in an interview, Even today, if you ask somebody about the Orangeburg massacre, hardly anybody has a clue. But if you ask about Kent State, where it was white people, everybody knows about it. Deemed an official enemy by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI for his work, Nelson serves as a reminder that there are some reporters who prefer grilling powerful officials to sipping cocktails with them. DAVID SWANSON CounterSpin: It seems like every couple of weeks presents another turning point in the health care debate. As it stands now, the public option is apparently very popular, and that public shift has pushed the Democrats to take some sort of action. Either that or Harry Reid is merely trying to placate the left-wing base of the party, who are really the only ones who like this business about a public option to begin with. It might not matter anyway, because we're told that anything that passes the Senate requires 60 votes. Does any of this make any kind of sense? And what about an actual public health plan? Joining us now to talk about where things stand is author and activist David Swanson. His new book, Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union is out now from Seven Stories Press. David, welcome back to CounterSpin. David Swanson: Great to be back. CS: Let's start with that public option; we've talked about this before, but the media consensus seems to be that the public has warmed to the public option, based on some polls showing that the idea is getting support from over half the public. That has pushed the Democrats to be a little bolder about pushing an idea that the pundits have been saying for weeks is way too far to the left. How important, do you think, are these polls about the public option? DS: They're very important to me; I'm not convinced they're of the greatest importance to the Democrats in Congress. I think it's been the activism around it that's had significance and the actual taking of a stand by the more progressive members in the House, committing to voting no unless there is a so-called robust public option, which, for many of them, of course, was a dramatic compromise down from an actual Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. But, of course, what robust means has never been exactly agreed upon by everyone, and by most arguments what has come out in the House bill is not robust, and so it remains to be seen which of those members now is going to vote no having committed to vote no and which are going to say well this is better than nothing, I'm going to go with it. CS: Do you think there's something strange about the Washington Post pushing this poll idea so hard and even liberals, MSNBC like Keith Olbermann are giving a lot of weight to this. From where we sit, single payer has often been very popular in the polls, but I don't recall anyone saying the public has now demanded Medicare for all? DS: [Laughing] That's an excellent point. It has been by most polls, a strong majority of Americans for decades have been willing even to increase their taxes in order to provide Americans with a healthcare system like most wealthy countries have, where everyone is simply covered, and healthcare is a right rather than a perk or a privilege, and it's just been blocked out, blocked out by the media, blocked out by the more progressive members in the House who opened this negotiation by agreeing with the President to not mention single payer, and blocked out by activist groups who sort of do an astroturf maneuver where they go and ask the Democratic leadership in Congress, what should we ask our members to lobby you to do. Whereas, of course, most of the members of these labor unions and activist groups want single payer, they've been holding rallies around the country for months now where you're not supposed to mention single payer. The problem with that, of course, is that it makes the public option the left side of the debate, and then the middle ground and the compromise becomes something much less than that, which is where we are now. CS: I want to ask you about activism because all the while throughout all this single payer activism has actually been picking up especially in the last couple of weeks. Again the media blackout has been almost total. I think it was someone named David Swanson who once pointed out that not many people are pushing for or are willing to get arrested for a public option but people are willing to do that for single payer. DS: Oh, absolutely, and as we speak, some good friends of mine, doctors, are risking serious jail time, violating the probation they are under having protested previously in a Senate Committee hearing, chaired by Senator Baucus, having spoken up out of turn, having been denied a place at the table. And you can imagine the size of this movement were there a push by any of our elected officials for single payer here in Washington. Of course there's been a very marginal push, Congressman Kucinich successfully put in an amendment back in July that would have made it much easier for states to do single payer at the state level, which is the most likely path to success, I think. It parallels how Canada got it with one province first. And that was passed with bipartisan support in July. Speaker Pelosi has now unceremoniously stripped it out. In addition Congressman Anthony Weiner from New York, put in an amendment in another committee back in July to have a national Medicare for all plan, and Chairman Waxman told Congressman Weiner publicly in the committee hearing, Nancy Pelosi has agreed to give you a floor vote on that if you will back off and not insist on a committee vote, and Congressman Weiner said fine. Well, now Nancy Pelosi has gone back on her word and will deny that floor vote. So the single payer movement is left with nowhere to go but to say vote this bill down—it's worse than nothing, and those who have really pushed honestly for a robust public option where that meant something significant I think are in the same position. They have to push now for voting this bill down, and if those groups unite and push for that and are successful, then we start round two with a more honest and open and wide-ranging debate. CS: Now, you're in the phase now of counting votes and certainly that's what majority leader Harry Reid is doing and this is the big storyline that's I think washing over this entire debate: the idea he needs 60 votes in the Senate in order to pass some kind of public option. The Democratic caucus theoretically has 60 people in it, but this is still presented as some unusual hurdle, and it might strike readers or viewers as an odd thing anyway—why does something need to have 60 votes to pass by a majority vote? Explain where the 60 vote thing comes from since the media seem to not want to do that. DS: Well there's a rule in the Senate rule book that's been changed many times through our history. We got through most of our nation's history without it being there at all, it's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Holy Bible, it's just a rule, and 51 Senators can change any rule at any time, but it's a filibuster rule which says that you need three fifths of the Senators, that is to say 60 of the Senators, in order to cut off debate and have a vote. And so any 41 Senators can say we filibuster, and they're not made to stand up a made to read dictionaries all night, they just say we filibuster and that's the extent of it. They could be made to stand up and read dictionaries all night, but they typically are not. And so you can have 41 Senators representing at the lowest level 11 percent of Americans block all legislation in the Senate, and therefore most legislation in the House as well. And that is the most anti-democratic thing imaginable, and yet all the Senators from both parties, plus Senator Sanders treat it as inviolable as if it is much more important to Americans with untreated diseases and illnesses to maintain the filibuster rule than it is to get healthcare. And of course if they threw out the filibuster rule they would have a much better playing field across all issues, not just healthcare. Instead, the extreme of the proposals has been to use a reconciliation bill that could maneuver a healthcare bill through the Senate without facing a filibuster. But of course that would leave us with nowhere to go on the Employee Free Choice Act or any other issue. You would still have that 60 vote hurdle and the problem of course is that the Democrats don't effectively pressure their 60 members to get in line and the Republicans do successfully pressure their 40 members to get in line, and that puts all the power in the hands of someone like Senator Lieberman. CS: But technically, once they got past that cloture vote and were actually at the stage of voting for or against healthcare reform, it's a 50-vote margin again, isn't it? DS: Oh absolutely, yes. You may have a couple of cloture votes in the process, but once you have a cloture vote on whether to have the vote, then you just have the vote. And at that point you just need 50 plus 1, you just need a majority of Senators present, whoever's present—just a bare majority. And so it is entirely possible and has happened millions of times for a Senator to vote yes on cloture, that is let's have the up or down vote, and then turn around and vote no on the actual bill. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do if you can talk about respectability in such an anti-democratic institution. CS: We've been speaking with author and activist David Swanson. His new book, Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union is out now from Seven Stories Press. You can find David at DavidSwanson.org. Thanks for joining us this week, David Swanson. DS: My pleasure. Thank you. BRUCE DIXON CounterSpin: When our next guest asked back in July, "Is the Obama Health Care Plan Really Better Than Nothing?" some might have seen it as too negative. After all, the plan included something called a "public option" that sounded good, and it was being resisted by big insurance companies, so how bad could it be? Months later, as reporters slowly, slowly, start to ask substantive questions about the plan, it turns out to look, in fact, quite different from what many progressives imagine they were promised. But what are the alternatives? According to corporate media, there aren't any. But then according to corporate media, the single payer idea that majorities of Americans have said for years now they would support is not "politically viable", so how grounded is media coverage in reality, anyway? Here to help us find some solid ground on the issue is Bruce Dixon, he's managing editor of Black Agenda Report. He joins us now by phone from Marietta, Georgia. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Bruce Dixon! Bruce Dixon: Thanks for having me, Janine. CS: Well, Trudy Lieberman is covering healthcare at Columbia Journalism Review, and she recently pointed out that in more than 2000 stories on what's called the public option from August 15 to September 15, only 76 stories actually told people that in all likelihood the public option didn't apply to them. In other words, this is the story of the day, public option public option, but there's virtually no effort being made to connect it to most people's lives. Is it your sense also that media are having a healthcare conversation that's divorced from reality? And what else then are we not learning about this so-called "public option"? BD: Well, the first thing you need to know about the public option is that it doesn't apply to most of the public, that it only applies to a very, very small section of the public. Barack Obama in his early September healthcare speech described the public option that he said would only apply to at most 5 percent of the insurance market. Now if a public option is supposed to keep insurance companies honest by competing with them, it's got to be far, far larger than that. The guy Jacob Hatcher, who invented the term public option back around 2001, he envisioned a public option that would contain 120 million people, and that would have made it large enough to actually compete in the marketplace against private insurance companies, but the public option that's being described by Democrats now is just a tiny, tiny public option. So it's not going to be able to compete with the big guys on price, it's going to be restricted to people who can't get insurance any other way, and you won't be able to... well, it's neither public nor optional, I guess you could say for most people. It's not public because it's only open to a small number of people, and it's not an option that most of them will be able to avail themselves of because you won't be able to switch from your employer provided insurance to it, and you won't be able to switch from the insurance that they'll make you buy in most cases to it. So, it's neither public nor optional. CS: Well, what it could have, as you pointed out, is the effect of almost pitting the very poor against the slightly less poor who will be asked to subsidize that public option for the tiny fraction of the public to whom it applies. BD: It's going to be financed in part by taking money away from Medicaid, which provides coverage to the poor and also by a tax on people who are already getting decent benefits from their jobs, middle class people and working people in many cases. And they will be forced to pay for this, so it does have that magnificent effect of dividing the population one against the other. And it's going to be means tested so you're going to have to have a level of poverty to be able to avail yourself of it. So it's going to be stigmatized and means tested. So people are going to dislike people who are on the public option. They're going to be seen as freeloaders who are hitching a ride on the benefits of ordinary people who worked hard for their benefits. CS: And we can only imagine what media coverage will do to contribute to that situation. Well, when media aren't dismissing the universal coverage option that most people want, they're pretending that other things are that truly universal option. Back in the presidential campaign, when former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was running, reporting on health care in Massachusetts was calling that "universal health care". And that's kind of happening now, with things being called "universal" that really are emphatically not universal, isn't that true? BD: Well, the Massachusetts plan, and the plan that's being put forward by Democrats is something that's going to be a step closer to universal insurance coverage, and what it is is it's instead of being a universal healthcare program for people, it's a universal bailout for the insurance companies because people will be forced to buy their private insurance product, whether it actually covers anything or not and whether the deductibles and co-pays are affordable or not. And people who can't afford to buy their insurance product will be subsidized with tax money and also through the taxes on people with existing benefits. And a few of those people who can't afford to buy regular insurance even at the subsidized rates are going to be able to avail themselves of the so-called public option. CS: And many others will not, as folks like Steffie Woolhandler who've been looking at Massachusetts have made clear. It doesn't seem like it requires too much to say that requiring people to buy healthcare coverage is not the same as providing them healthcare coverage. BD: No, not even close, but that's the Massachusetts plan, that's what we're going to get. CS: Well, let's talk about those insurance companies, because I always remember a New York Times article from 2006 by David Leonhardt in which he was talking about single payer, and he said it really made the most sense in terms of cost containment, which is supposed to be the number one concern, and also in the matter of actually providing people healthcare. But, in that sort of standard corporate analysis, he said, single payer isn't gonna happen, but he said why not in terms that were unusually frank. He said, "Health insurers made $100 billion in profits last year, and industries of that size are just not legislated out of business." BD: Too big to sail, I guess. CS: Yeah, I can't help but think, though, that if the lines were drawn that clearly day after day, people would find it pretty easy to figure out which side they're on. BD: And that's exactly why media are not drawing lines in that way. And on the other hand, that's exactly why Democrats are painting a picture of the public option that makes it hard to tell their imaginary public option from Medicare for all. They want people to believe that they will be able to choose some alternative to the predatory private insurance with this bill, and it's hard to understand how they think they can keep fooling people like this forever. It's easy to do when the bills are a thousand pages long and obscure and cryptic and hard to read and hard to understand, but pretty soon they're going to actually have to pass something in the law and enact it, and the scales are going to fall off people's eyes when they see what they've really got here. CS: We've been speaking with Bruce Dixon, he's the managing editor of Black Agenda Report. You can find his work and the other work of that outlet on the web at BlackAgendaReport.com. Thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin! BD: Thank you for inviting me.-- tag:odeo.com,2009-10-29,25392119 Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/25356385-Kristin-Thomson-on-the-Performance-Rights-Act-Jennifer-McLennan-on-Open-Access This week on CounterSpin: The Performance Rights Act would require broadcasters to pay royalties that would be split between recording artists and record companies. The bill has just passed through house and senate committees, and will presumably be debated and voted on. The legislation, naturally faces strong opposition from the broadcasting industry, who say it will hurt stations and artists alike. Kristin Thomson, of the Future of Music Coalition, a group that supports the bill, will join us to discuss the Performance Rights Act. Also on the show: October 19th marked the beginning of the first international Open Access Week, in which hundreds of academic, research and advocacy groups will show support for free, immediate, online access to the results of scholarly research. It's a growing movement with wider relevance than you may realize. We'll talk to Jennifer McLennan of SPARC, the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resource Coalition, about what it's all about. LINKS: --Futur... This week on CounterSpin: The Performance Rights Act would require broadcasters to pay royalties that would be split between recording artists and record companies. The bill has just passed through house and senate committees, and will presumably be debated and voted on. The legislation, naturally faces strong opposition from the broadcasting industry, who say it will hurt stations and artists alike. Kristin Thomson, of the Future of Music Coalition, a group that supports the bill, will join us to discuss the Performance Rights Act. Also on the show: October 19th marked the beginning of the first international Open Access Week, in which hundreds of academic, research and advocacy groups will show support for free, immediate, online access to the results of scholarly research. It's a growing movement with wider relevance than you may realize. We'll talk to Jennifer McLennan of SPARC, the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resource Coalition, about what it's all about. LINKS: --Future of Music Coalition --SPARC (Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resource Coalition) This week on CounterSpin: The Performance Rights Act would require broadcasters to pay royalties that would be split between recording artists and record companies. The bill has just passed through house and senate committees, and will presumably be debated and voted on. The legislation, naturally faces strong opposition from the broadcasting industry, who say it will hurt stations and artists alike. Kristin Thomson, of the Future of Music Coalition, a group that supports the bill, will join us to discuss the Performance Rights Act. Also on the show: October 19th marked the beginning of the first international Open Access Week, in which hundreds of academic, research and advocacy groups will show support for free, immediate, online access to the results of scholarly research. It's a growing movement with wider relevance than you may realize. We'll talk to Jennifer McLennan of SPARC, the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resource Coalition, about what it's all about. LINKS: --Future of Music Coalition --SPARC (Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resource Coalition) tag:odeo.com,2009-10-22,25356385 Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/25296010-Marie-Trigona-on-Argentina-media-law-Peter-Richardson-on-Ramparts This week on CounterSpin: Argentina just passed a media law that will severely curb the power of the country’s most powerful conglomerates by putting a majority of the country’s broadcast licenses in non-corporate hands. How did the law come about, and how is it expected to change Argentina’s media landscape. And what lessons might US media activists take from Argentina’s example? We’ll talk with Marie Trigona, an independent journalist and filmmaker based in Argentina. Also on CounterSpin today: "a bomb in every issue" was how Time magazine described the 60's muckraking magazine Ramparts. It's also the title of a new history of that publication. We'll talk to author Peter Richardson about Ramparts place in the history of alternative media, and what lessons can be learned from the publication's rise and fall. This week on CounterSpin: Argentina just passed a media law that will severely curb the power of the country’s most powerful conglomerates by putting a majority of the country’s broadcast licenses in non-corporate hands. How did the law come about, and how is it expected to change Argentina’s media landscape. And what lessons might US media activists take from Argentina’s example? We’ll talk with Marie Trigona, an independent journalist and filmmaker based in Argentina. Also on CounterSpin today: "a bomb in every issue" was how Time magazine described the 60's muckraking magazine Ramparts. It's also the title of a new history of that publication. We'll talk to author Peter Richardson about Ramparts place in the history of alternative media, and what lessons can be learned from the publication's rise and fall. This week on CounterSpin: Argentina just passed a media law that will severely curb the power of the country’s most powerful conglomerates by putting a majority of the country’s broadcast licenses in non-corporate hands. How did the law come about, and how is it expected to change Argentina’s media landscape. And what lessons might US media activists take from Argentina’s example? We’ll talk with Marie Trigona, an independent journalist and filmmaker based in Argentina. Also on CounterSpin today: "a bomb in every issue" was how Time magazine described the 60's muckraking magazine Ramparts. It's also the title of a new history of that publication. We'll talk to author Peter Richardson about Ramparts place in the history of alternative media, and what lessons can be learned from the publication's rise and fall. tag:odeo.com,2009-10-15,25296010 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/25259018-Cyrus-Safdari-on-Iran-Nomi-Prins-on-bailouts This week on CounterSpin: The story of Iran's nuclear program certainly isn't going away; glance at the newsstands this week and you might see the Newsweek cover story 'After Iran Gets the Bomb.' And a leaked report suggesting Iran is indeed pursuing nuclear weapons made its way to the front page of the New York Times. What should make of that story, and the general media consensus on the Iranian threat? Analyst and Iranaffairs.com blogger Cyrus Safdari will join us to share his thoughts. Also on the show: The implication from many corners of corporate media is that the government's bank bailout scheme for all its flaws has pretty much worked; we've avoided a great depression and are backing away from the abyss. It's a fair bet that most regular folks on the other hand don't really know what just happened, and the more they do know, the angrier they are. Nomi Prins calls it a 'toxic combination of rage and confusion' that makes it hard for us to know what to do to prevent it all fro... This week on CounterSpin: The story of Iran's nuclear program certainly isn't going away; glance at the newsstands this week and you might see the Newsweek cover story 'After Iran Gets the Bomb.' And a leaked report suggesting Iran is indeed pursuing nuclear weapons made its way to the front page of the New York Times. What should make of that story, and the general media consensus on the Iranian threat? Analyst and Iranaffairs.com blogger Cyrus Safdari will join us to share his thoughts. Also on the show: The implication from many corners of corporate media is that the government's bank bailout scheme for all its flaws has pretty much worked; we've avoided a great depression and are backing away from the abyss. It's a fair bet that most regular folks on the other hand don't really know what just happened, and the more they do know, the angrier they are. Nomi Prins calls it a 'toxic combination of rage and confusion' that makes it hard for us to know what to do to prevent it all from happening again. Nomi Prins is the author of It Takes A Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses and Backroom Deals From Washington to Wall Street and a former managing director for Goldman Sachs. We'll get an update on the heroic efforts to subsidize the country's financial sector from her. LINKS: --Iranaffairs.com --Nomi Prins This week on CounterSpin: The story of Iran's nuclear program certainly isn't going away; glance at the newsstands this week and you might see the Newsweek cover story 'After Iran Gets the Bomb.' And a leaked report suggesting Iran is indeed pursuing nuclear weapons made its way to the front page of the New York Times. What should make of that story, and the general media consensus on the Iranian threat? Analyst and Iranaffairs.com blogger Cyrus Safdari will join us to share his thoughts. Also on the show: The implication from many corners of corporate media is that the government's bank bailout scheme for all its flaws has pretty much worked; we've avoided a great depression and are backing away from the abyss. It's a fair bet that most regular folks on the other hand don't really know what just happened, and the more they do know, the angrier they are. Nomi Prins calls it a 'toxic combination of rage and confusion' that makes it hard for us to know what to do to prevent it all from happening again. Nomi Prins is the author of It Takes A Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses and Backroom Deals From Washington to Wall Street and a former managing director for Goldman Sachs. We'll get an update on the heroic efforts to subsidize the country's financial sector from her. LINKS: --Iranaffairs.com --Nomi Prins tag:odeo.com,2009-10-08,25259018 Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/25222204-Gareth-Porter-on-Iran-Christopher-Martin-on-ACORN This week on CounterSpin: Did the White House really disclose the existence of Iran’s new Uranium enrichment plant, and does the plant, as many news stories seem to indicate, really violate the law? And what evidence is there that the plant has anything to do with a nuclear weapons program, as certain prominent US media figures have claimed? We’ll talk to historian and free lance journalists Gareth Porter about the latest wave of allegations against Iran. Also this week: The community activist group ACORN has been in the news lately thanks to the efforts of two right-wing activists, who posed as a pimp and a prostitute seeking business advice at local offices. The story's become a national scandal, but a new study suggests that this is par for the course for ACORN and the corporate media. Who's behind the anti-ACORN campaign? We'll talk it over with Christopher Martin, professor of journalism at the University of Northern Iowa and co-author of a new report on ACORN and t... This week on CounterSpin: Did the White House really disclose the existence of Iran’s new Uranium enrichment plant, and does the plant, as many news stories seem to indicate, really violate the law? And what evidence is there that the plant has anything to do with a nuclear weapons program, as certain prominent US media figures have claimed? We’ll talk to historian and free lance journalists Gareth Porter about the latest wave of allegations against Iran. Also this week: The community activist group ACORN has been in the news lately thanks to the efforts of two right-wing activists, who posed as a pimp and a prostitute seeking business advice at local offices. The story's become a national scandal, but a new study suggests that this is par for the course for ACORN and the corporate media. Who's behind the anti-ACORN campaign? We'll talk it over with Christopher Martin, professor of journalism at the University of Northern Iowa and co-author of a new report on ACORN and the media. LINKS: --"U.S. Story on Iran Nuke Facility Doesn't Add Up," by Gareth Porter (CounterPunch, 9/30/09 --"Manipulating the Public Agenda: Why ACORN Was in the News, and What the News Got Wrong," by Christopher Martin and Peter Dreier This week on CounterSpin: Did the White House really disclose the existence of Iran’s new Uranium enrichment plant, and does the plant, as many news stories seem to indicate, really violate the law? And what evidence is there that the plant has anything to do with a nuclear weapons program, as certain prominent US media figures have claimed? We’ll talk to historian and free lance journalists Gareth Porter about the latest wave of allegations against Iran. Also this week: The community activist group ACORN has been in the news lately thanks to the efforts of two right-wing activists, who posed as a pimp and a prostitute seeking business advice at local offices. The story's become a national scandal, but a new study suggests that this is par for the course for ACORN and the corporate media. Who's behind the anti-ACORN campaign? We'll talk it over with Christopher Martin, professor of journalism at the University of Northern Iowa and co-author of a new report on ACORN and the media. LINKS: --"U.S. Story on Iran Nuke Facility Doesn't Add Up," by Gareth Porter (CounterPunch, 9/30/09 --"Manipulating the Public Agenda: Why ACORN Was in the News, and What the News Got Wrong," by Christopher Martin and Peter Dreier tag:odeo.com,2009-10-01,25222204 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/25182613-Joseph-Romm-on-Climate-Summit-Elinore-Longobardi-on-8216-Subprime-8217-vs This week on CounterSpin: the highest-level conference yet on climate change took place this week at the UN. The press made much of the obstacles faced on the way to any international agreement -- but if the front page of the country's paper of record is saying that temperatures haven't risen in 10 years, maybe one of those obstacles is media coverage? We'll talk to Joseph Romm of Climate Progress.org Also on the show: Words mean things and the way reporters use them can shade the way we see the world. A new study published in the Columbia Journalism review looks at the way "predatory," as in the term "predatory loans," a term that puts the onus on lenders, has been eclipsed in business reporting by the term "subprime," which puts the spotlight on the borrower. We'll talk to Elinore Longobardi the author of the new study "How 'Subprime' Killed 'Predatory.'" This week on CounterSpin: the highest-level conference yet on climate change took place this week at the UN. The press made much of the obstacles faced on the way to any international agreement -- but if the front page of the country's paper of record is saying that temperatures haven't risen in 10 years, maybe one of those obstacles is media coverage? We'll talk to Joseph Romm of Climate Progress.org Also on the show: Words mean things and the way reporters use them can shade the way we see the world. A new study published in the Columbia Journalism review looks at the way "predatory," as in the term "predatory loans," a term that puts the onus on lenders, has been eclipsed in business reporting by the term "subprime," which puts the spotlight on the borrower. We'll talk to Elinore Longobardi the author of the new study "How 'Subprime' Killed 'Predatory.'" This week on CounterSpin: the highest-level conference yet on climate change took place this week at the UN. The press made much of the obstacles faced on the way to any international agreement -- but if the front page of the country's paper of record is saying that temperatures haven't risen in 10 years, maybe one of those obstacles is media coverage? We'll talk to Joseph Romm of Climate Progress.org Also on the show: Words mean things and the way reporters use them can shade the way we see the world. A new study published in the Columbia Journalism review looks at the way "predatory," as in the term "predatory loans," a term that puts the onus on lenders, has been eclipsed in business reporting by the term "subprime," which puts the spotlight on the borrower. We'll talk to Elinore Longobardi the author of the new study "How 'Subprime' Killed 'Predatory.'" tag:odeo.com,2009-09-24,25182613 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/25142928-Daniel-Ellsberg-and-Rick-Goldsmith-on-The-Most-Dangerous-Man-in-America This week on CounterSpin: The Most Dangerous Man in America. That's how Henry Kissinger described whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who famously leaked a top-secret study of the Vietnam War in 1971 to the NY Times and other news outlets. The publication resulted in a landmark Supreme Court decision on freedom of the press, increased pressure to end the Vietnam War and was a key factor in the resignation of Richard Nixon. A new film tells that story. This week on a special edition of CounterSpin we'll talk to Daniel Ellsberg and Rick Goldsmith, co-director of the new film "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers." LINKS: --Daniel Ellsberg --The Most Dangerous Man in America This week on CounterSpin: The Most Dangerous Man in America. That's how Henry Kissinger described whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who famously leaked a top-secret study of the Vietnam War in 1971 to the NY Times and other news outlets. The publication resulted in a landmark Supreme Court decision on freedom of the press, increased pressure to end the Vietnam War and was a key factor in the resignation of Richard Nixon. A new film tells that story. This week on a special edition of CounterSpin we'll talk to Daniel Ellsberg and Rick Goldsmith, co-director of the new film "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers." LINKS: --Daniel Ellsberg --The Most Dangerous Man in America This week on CounterSpin: The Most Dangerous Man in America. That's how Henry Kissinger described whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who famously leaked a top-secret study of the Vietnam War in 1971 to the NY Times and other news outlets. The publication resulted in a landmark Supreme Court decision on freedom of the press, increased pressure to end the Vietnam War and was a key factor in the resignation of Richard Nixon. A new film tells that story. This week on a special edition of CounterSpin we'll talk to Daniel Ellsberg and Rick Goldsmith, co-director of the new film "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers." LINKS: --Daniel Ellsberg --The Most Dangerous Man in America tag:odeo.com,2009-09-17,25142928 Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/25107711-Mark-Cook-on-Honduras-Diana-Duarte-on-quot-Saving-the-World-s-Women-quot This week on CounterSpin: The media lie that will not die about the Honduras coup is that ousted president Manuel Zelaya was attempting to change the Honduran constitution in order to extend his time in office. But there is nothing new about this current set up; the same lie was used 45 years ago to remove another democratically elected president from office. Journalist Mark Cook has written about the eerie parallels in the September issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!. We'll talk to Mark Cook about his piece and the latest on Honduras. Also this week: 'Saving the World's Women' was the theme of a recent special issue of the New York Times magazine. The centerpiece was an article co-written by Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. While the focus on supporting women in the developing world might be laudable, what are the blindspots in Kristof's analysis? We'll talk to Diana Duarte of MADRE. LINKS: --"Rerun in Honduras," by Mark Cook (Extra!, 9/09) --"Women Need Rights, Not Rescue," by Yifat... This week on CounterSpin: The media lie that will not die about the Honduras coup is that ousted president Manuel Zelaya was attempting to change the Honduran constitution in order to extend his time in office. But there is nothing new about this current set up; the same lie was used 45 years ago to remove another democratically elected president from office. Journalist Mark Cook has written about the eerie parallels in the September issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!. We'll talk to Mark Cook about his piece and the latest on Honduras. Also this week: 'Saving the World's Women' was the theme of a recent special issue of the New York Times magazine. The centerpiece was an article co-written by Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. While the focus on supporting women in the developing world might be laudable, what are the blindspots in Kristof's analysis? We'll talk to Diana Duarte of MADRE. LINKS: --"Rerun in Honduras," by Mark Cook (Extra!, 9/09) --"Women Need Rights, Not Rescue," by Yifat Susskind and Diana Duarte (MADRE, 9/3/09) This week on CounterSpin: The media lie that will not die about the Honduras coup is that ousted president Manuel Zelaya was attempting to change the Honduran constitution in order to extend his time in office. But there is nothing new about this current set up; the same lie was used 45 years ago to remove another democratically elected president from office. Journalist Mark Cook has written about the eerie parallels in the September issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!. We'll talk to Mark Cook about his piece and the latest on Honduras. Also this week: 'Saving the World's Women' was the theme of a recent special issue of the New York Times magazine. The centerpiece was an article co-written by Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. While the focus on supporting women in the developing world might be laudable, what are the blindspots in Kristof's analysis? We'll talk to Diana Duarte of MADRE. LINKS: --"Rerun in Honduras," by Mark Cook (Extra!, 9/09) --"Women Need Rights, Not Rescue," by Yifat Susskind and Diana Duarte (MADRE, 9/3/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-09-10,25107711 Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/25072875-Jordan-Flaherty-on-Katrina-anniversary-Sarah-Anderson-on-executive-pay This week on CounterSpin: Corporate media promised to pay more attention to poverty and race after the Gulf Coast's Katrina disasters in 2005, and for a short time they did a little more reporting. But where was the followup on this year’s August anniversary, when papers like the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, and networks like ABC and Fox offered virtually no coverage. We'll talk to journalist Jordan Flaherty, reporting the story since 2005, about the stories from the continuing Katrina crisis that the corporate media don't seem to care much about. Also on the show-- a new report on executive pay might make you see red: the top executives at the banks that got the biggest bailouts, and laid off more than a hundred thousand workers, took home bigger paychecks than executives in less-troubled industries. But corporate media seem to only want to discuss economic 'incentives' for behavior when they're debating whether to allow recipients of government aid another nickel a... This week on CounterSpin: Corporate media promised to pay more attention to poverty and race after the Gulf Coast's Katrina disasters in 2005, and for a short time they did a little more reporting. But where was the followup on this year’s August anniversary, when papers like the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, and networks like ABC and Fox offered virtually no coverage. We'll talk to journalist Jordan Flaherty, reporting the story since 2005, about the stories from the continuing Katrina crisis that the corporate media don't seem to care much about. Also on the show-- a new report on executive pay might make you see red: the top executives at the banks that got the biggest bailouts, and laid off more than a hundred thousand workers, took home bigger paychecks than executives in less-troubled industries. But corporate media seem to only want to discuss economic 'incentives' for behavior when they're debating whether to allow recipients of government aid another nickel a month; somehow it's not on the table when the subject is guys in suits taking home tens of millions. We'll hear from Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies on what can be done about 'America's Bailout Barons.' This week on CounterSpin: Corporate media promised to pay more attention to poverty and race after the Gulf Coast's Katrina disasters in 2005, and for a short time they did a little more reporting. But where was the followup on this year’s August anniversary, when papers like the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, and networks like ABC and Fox offered virtually no coverage. We'll talk to journalist Jordan Flaherty, reporting the story since 2005, about the stories from the continuing Katrina crisis that the corporate media don't seem to care much about. Also on the show-- a new report on executive pay might make you see red: the top executives at the banks that got the biggest bailouts, and laid off more than a hundred thousand workers, took home bigger paychecks than executives in less-troubled industries. But corporate media seem to only want to discuss economic 'incentives' for behavior when they're debating whether to allow recipients of government aid another nickel a month; somehow it's not on the table when the subject is guys in suits taking home tens of millions. We'll hear from Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies on what can be done about 'America's Bailout Barons.' tag:odeo.com,2009-09-03,25072875 Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/25034236-Spencer-Ackerman-on-CIA-torture-documents-Ed-Herman-on-Lockerbie tag:odeo.com,2009-08-27,25034236 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24998881-Matt-Taibbi-on-Goldman-Sachs This week on CounterSpin: Goldman Sachs, Wall Street profiteering and... vampire squids. Wait... what was that last one? Journalist Matt Taibbi wrote a long takedown of the venerable Wall Street firm in Rolling Stone. Business journalists pronounced themselves mostly unimpressed with Taibbi's analysis, and troubled by his language—like calling the company 'a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.' Subtle it is not. But what should we make of the reaction to the piece, from Wall Street and from other reporters? And does reporting like Taibbi's shine a different sort of light on the financial industry, or—as some of Taibbi's critics have it—distract us from more important matters? We'll put those questions to Matt Taibbi today on a special edition of CounterSpin. This week on CounterSpin: Goldman Sachs, Wall Street profiteering and... vampire squids. Wait... what was that last one? Journalist Matt Taibbi wrote a long takedown of the venerable Wall Street firm in Rolling Stone. Business journalists pronounced themselves mostly unimpressed with Taibbi's analysis, and troubled by his language—like calling the company 'a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.' Subtle it is not. But what should we make of the reaction to the piece, from Wall Street and from other reporters? And does reporting like Taibbi's shine a different sort of light on the financial industry, or—as some of Taibbi's critics have it—distract us from more important matters? We'll put those questions to Matt Taibbi today on a special edition of CounterSpin. This week on CounterSpin: Goldman Sachs, Wall Street profiteering and... vampire squids. Wait... what was that last one? Journalist Matt Taibbi wrote a long takedown of the venerable Wall Street firm in Rolling Stone. Business journalists pronounced themselves mostly unimpressed with Taibbi's analysis, and troubled by his language—like calling the company 'a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.' Subtle it is not. But what should we make of the reaction to the piece, from Wall Street and from other reporters? And does reporting like Taibbi's shine a different sort of light on the financial industry, or—as some of Taibbi's critics have it—distract us from more important matters? We'll put those questions to Matt Taibbi today on a special edition of CounterSpin. tag:odeo.com,2009-08-20,24998881 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24961631-Trudy-Lieberman-on-health-care-reform-Gary-Schwitzer-on-health-news-study This week on CounterSpin: Healthcare reform is still the top political story of the moment. But the coverage seems to have gone from bad to worse, with noisy town hall meetings standing in the way of any coherent discussion of the dysfunctional healthcare system in this country, and what can be done about it. Trudy Lieberman has been watching healthcare coverage for Columbia Journalism Review; she'll join us to talk about what she's found. Also on CounterSpin today: An ongoing review of network morning shows' stories of health issues finds a dangerous pattern of coverage providing faulty information, hyping medical products and drugs, and generally badly serving the public. We’ll talk to Gary Scwhitzer, professor of journalism at the University of Minnesota, and the leader of the research team about unhealthy morning news show coverage of health issues. Links: — Health Care Homework for the L.A. Times: How Does the Canadian Medical System Actually Work?, by Trudy Lieberm... This week on CounterSpin: Healthcare reform is still the top political story of the moment. But the coverage seems to have gone from bad to worse, with noisy town hall meetings standing in the way of any coherent discussion of the dysfunctional healthcare system in this country, and what can be done about it. Trudy Lieberman has been watching healthcare coverage for Columbia Journalism Review; she'll join us to talk about what she's found. Also on CounterSpin today: An ongoing review of network morning shows' stories of health issues finds a dangerous pattern of coverage providing faulty information, hyping medical products and drugs, and generally badly serving the public. We’ll talk to Gary Scwhitzer, professor of journalism at the University of Minnesota, and the leader of the research team about unhealthy morning news show coverage of health issues. Links: — Health Care Homework for the L.A. Times: How Does the Canadian Medical System Actually Work?, by Trudy Lieberman (CJR.org, 8/4/09) — Network TV Morning Health News Segments May Be Harmful to Your Health, by Gary Scwhitzer (HealthNewsReview.org, 8/3/09) This week on CounterSpin: Healthcare reform is still the top political story of the moment. But the coverage seems to have gone from bad to worse, with noisy town hall meetings standing in the way of any coherent discussion of the dysfunctional healthcare system in this country, and what can be done about it. Trudy Lieberman has been watching healthcare coverage for Columbia Journalism Review; she'll join us to talk about what she's found. Also on CounterSpin today: An ongoing review of network morning shows' stories of health issues finds a dangerous pattern of coverage providing faulty information, hyping medical products and drugs, and generally badly serving the public. We’ll talk to Gary Scwhitzer, professor of journalism at the University of Minnesota, and the leader of the research team about unhealthy morning news show coverage of health issues. Links: — Health Care Homework for the L.A. Times: How Does the Canadian Medical System Actually Work?, by Trudy Lieberman (CJR.org, 8/4/09) — Network TV Morning Health News Segments May Be Harmful to Your Health, by Gary Scwhitzer (HealthNewsReview.org, 8/3/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-08-13,24961631 Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24925264-Alfie-Kohn-on-education-reform-Iyanna-Jones-on-Disappearing-Voices This week on CounterSpin: Charter schools raise a lot of concerns for educators interested in the future of truly public education; the corporate press have tended more toward boosterism of charters and their high profile promoter, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. That's the subject of a story in the current issue of Extra! and CounterSpin discussed the phenomenon on the occasion of Duncan's nomination with education expert Alfie Kohn, author of The Schools Our Children Deserve, among other titles. We'll hear that conversation this week. Also on the show: Press handling of the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates at his home, in which a chance to talk about blacks' and whites' widely divergent experience of the criminal justice system was reduced to individual personalities and preferences in beer--is just the latest reminder of the media void when it comes to many black Americans' daily concerns. The void has grown greater with the drying up of black radio, a decline de... This week on CounterSpin: Charter schools raise a lot of concerns for educators interested in the future of truly public education; the corporate press have tended more toward boosterism of charters and their high profile promoter, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. That's the subject of a story in the current issue of Extra! and CounterSpin discussed the phenomenon on the occasion of Duncan's nomination with education expert Alfie Kohn, author of The Schools Our Children Deserve, among other titles. We'll hear that conversation this week. Also on the show: Press handling of the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates at his home, in which a chance to talk about blacks' and whites' widely divergent experience of the criminal justice system was reduced to individual personalities and preferences in beer--is just the latest reminder of the media void when it comes to many black Americans' daily concerns. The void has grown greater with the drying up of black radio, a decline described in the documentary film, Disappearing Voices. CounterSpin spoke last summer with the film's executive producer, Iyanna Jones. Links: — Beware School 'Reformers', by Alfie Kohn (Nation, 12/10/08) — DisappearingVoices.com This week on CounterSpin: Charter schools raise a lot of concerns for educators interested in the future of truly public education; the corporate press have tended more toward boosterism of charters and their high profile promoter, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. That's the subject of a story in the current issue of Extra! and CounterSpin discussed the phenomenon on the occasion of Duncan's nomination with education expert Alfie Kohn, author of The Schools Our Children Deserve, among other titles. We'll hear that conversation this week. Also on the show: Press handling of the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates at his home, in which a chance to talk about blacks' and whites' widely divergent experience of the criminal justice system was reduced to individual personalities and preferences in beer--is just the latest reminder of the media void when it comes to many black Americans' daily concerns. The void has grown greater with the drying up of black radio, a decline described in the documentary film, Disappearing Voices. CounterSpin spoke last summer with the film's executive producer, Iyanna Jones. Links: — Beware School 'Reformers', by Alfie Kohn (Nation, 12/10/08) — DisappearingVoices.com tag:odeo.com,2009-08-06,24925264 Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24890308-Sonali-Kolhatkar-on-Afghan-women-and-the-war-Dedrick-Muhammad-on-Obama-s-NAACP-speech-and This week on CounterSpin: Some prominent feminist and liberal voices have recently lent their endorsement to the ongoing U.S. war in Afghanistan, based on the idea that the war is an effort to improve the lives of Afghan women and girls. That was a major argument at the war's onset, but how does it stand up 8 years later? We'll talk with Sonali Kolhatkar, co-director of the group Afghan Women's Mission and host/producer of Uprising Radio. Also on the show: Have you noticed how President Barack Obama always seems to be delivering a "tough love" message to certain groups and communities? According to many news reports his speech to the NAACP earlier this month was little more than a lecture on the faults of African Americans. Ditto his speeches to Africans from Ghana, and to Muslims from Egypt. Was "tough love" really Obama's main message in those addresses, or is there something about the "tough love" theme that corporate media just like to report? We'll talk to Dedrick Muhammad of t... This week on CounterSpin: Some prominent feminist and liberal voices have recently lent their endorsement to the ongoing U.S. war in Afghanistan, based on the idea that the war is an effort to improve the lives of Afghan women and girls. That was a major argument at the war's onset, but how does it stand up 8 years later? We'll talk with Sonali Kolhatkar, co-director of the group Afghan Women's Mission and host/producer of Uprising Radio. Also on the show: Have you noticed how President Barack Obama always seems to be delivering a "tough love" message to certain groups and communities? According to many news reports his speech to the NAACP earlier this month was little more than a lecture on the faults of African Americans. Ditto his speeches to Africans from Ghana, and to Muslims from Egypt. Was "tough love" really Obama's main message in those addresses, or is there something about the "tough love" theme that corporate media just like to report? We'll talk to Dedrick Muhammad of the Institute for Policy Studies about how structural inequality impacts the way the news is reported. Links: — War Does Not Equal Liberation, by Sonali Kolhatkar (Afghan Women's Mission, 7/09) — Structural Inequality: News Not Fit to Print?, by Dedrick Muhammad (Institute for Policy Studies, 7/21/09) This week on CounterSpin: Some prominent feminist and liberal voices have recently lent their endorsement to the ongoing U.S. war in Afghanistan, based on the idea that the war is an effort to improve the lives of Afghan women and girls. That was a major argument at the war's onset, but how does it stand up 8 years later? We'll talk with Sonali Kolhatkar, co-director of the group Afghan Women's Mission and host/producer of Uprising Radio. Also on the show: Have you noticed how President Barack Obama always seems to be delivering a "tough love" message to certain groups and communities? According to many news reports his speech to the NAACP earlier this month was little more than a lecture on the faults of African Americans. Ditto his speeches to Africans from Ghana, and to Muslims from Egypt. Was "tough love" really Obama's main message in those addresses, or is there something about the "tough love" theme that corporate media just like to report? We'll talk to Dedrick Muhammad of the Institute for Policy Studies about how structural inequality impacts the way the news is reported. Links: — War Does Not Equal Liberation, by Sonali Kolhatkar (Afghan Women's Mission, 7/09) — Structural Inequality: News Not Fit to Print?, by Dedrick Muhammad (Institute for Policy Studies, 7/21/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-07-30,24890308 Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24856574-David-Swanson-on-healthcare-reform-Harold-Meyerson-on-California-8217-s-budget-crisis This week on CounterSpin: "Obama May Have To Wait for Health Reform" explained one July 22 headline. Leave it to corporate media to take a life-and-death issue for millions of Americans and reduce it to an item on a president's wish list. But if they're going to mainly cover healthcare policy as inside the Beltway politicking, how good a job are they doing even of that? We'll hear from activist and author David Swanson about the current state of play in healthcare reform efforts and what the media may have to do with it. Also on the show: California’s budget crisis may be coming to a close and that may be good for governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state politicians, but what about the potential crises to come, caused by a budget that severely cuts programs serving the elderly and the young, especially in the areas of health and education? And what are the prospects of any permanent solution for the wealthiest state in the union which seems perpetually broke? We’ll talk ... This week on CounterSpin: "Obama May Have To Wait for Health Reform" explained one July 22 headline. Leave it to corporate media to take a life-and-death issue for millions of Americans and reduce it to an item on a president's wish list. But if they're going to mainly cover healthcare policy as inside the Beltway politicking, how good a job are they doing even of that? We'll hear from activist and author David Swanson about the current state of play in healthcare reform efforts and what the media may have to do with it. Also on the show: California’s budget crisis may be coming to a close and that may be good for governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state politicians, but what about the potential crises to come, caused by a budget that severely cuts programs serving the elderly and the young, especially in the areas of health and education? And what are the prospects of any permanent solution for the wealthiest state in the union which seems perpetually broke? We’ll talk to Washington Post columnist and editor at large for the American Prospect Harold Meyerson. Links: — If Media Were Any Good, by David Swanson (AfterDowningStreet.org, 7/21/09) — California: A Dream Decimated, by Harold Meyerson (Washington Post, 7/1/09) This week on CounterSpin: "Obama May Have To Wait for Health Reform" explained one July 22 headline. Leave it to corporate media to take a life-and-death issue for millions of Americans and reduce it to an item on a president's wish list. But if they're going to mainly cover healthcare policy as inside the Beltway politicking, how good a job are they doing even of that? We'll hear from activist and author David Swanson about the current state of play in healthcare reform efforts and what the media may have to do with it. Also on the show: California’s budget crisis may be coming to a close and that may be good for governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state politicians, but what about the potential crises to come, caused by a budget that severely cuts programs serving the elderly and the young, especially in the areas of health and education? And what are the prospects of any permanent solution for the wealthiest state in the union which seems perpetually broke? We’ll talk to Washington Post columnist and editor at large for the American Prospect Harold Meyerson. Links: — If Media Were Any Good, by David Swanson (AfterDowningStreet.org, 7/21/09) — California: A Dream Decimated, by Harold Meyerson (Washington Post, 7/1/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-07-23,24856574 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24847690-Gerald-LeMelle-on-Obama-in-Africa-Katha-Pollitt-on-Caitlin-Flanagan-in-Time This week on CounterSpin: Barack Obama's recent trip to Africa gave the press corps a chance to opine predictably on Obama's "unique role" as a "son of Africa" who was specially suited to "tell African leaders hard truths". It should've also been a chance for a serious look at the substance of U.S. Africa policy. How'd they do on that score? We'll hear from Gerald LeMelle of Africa Action. Also on the show: In her Time magazine cover story, "Why Marriage Matters," Caitlin Flanagan argues for "intact" marriage because there is "no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage." Do it for the kids, says Flanagan. Is this just the latest chapter in the treatise that brought us the Mommy Wars and other anti-feminist arguments? We’ll talk with the Nation’s Katha Pollitt. Links: — Africa Action — Subject to Debate: Can This Marriage Be Saved?, by Katha Pollitt (Nation, 7/15/09) FULL TRANSCRIPT Al... This week on CounterSpin: Barack Obama's recent trip to Africa gave the press corps a chance to opine predictably on Obama's "unique role" as a "son of Africa" who was specially suited to "tell African leaders hard truths". It should've also been a chance for a serious look at the substance of U.S. Africa policy. How'd they do on that score? We'll hear from Gerald LeMelle of Africa Action. Also on the show: In her Time magazine cover story, "Why Marriage Matters," Caitlin Flanagan argues for "intact" marriage because there is "no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage." Do it for the kids, says Flanagan. Is this just the latest chapter in the treatise that brought us the Mommy Wars and other anti-feminist arguments? We’ll talk with the Nation’s Katha Pollitt. Links: — Africa Action — Subject to Debate: Can This Marriage Be Saved?, by Katha Pollitt (Nation, 7/15/09) FULL TRANSCRIPT All that's coming up but first, as usual, we'll take a look back at the week's press. —Whatever you may think of the White House-backed healthcare legislation currently working its way through Congress, it's only fair that it should be held to the same standards of reporting as other legislation. That's why a July 15 front-page story in USA Today caught our eye. The headline, "How Much Healthcare Can You Get for This?" ran over a graphic portraying a trillion dollar bill. The gist of the piece is stated in the headline over the jump on page two: "If plans' costs top $1 trillion, lawmakers risk losing public support." This all might seem to suggest to some, perhaps even many, that the program's projected cost is a trillion dollars a year, as budget costs are usually expressed as annual appropriations. It's not until further into the story that the reader learns that the trillion dollars is not per year, but over ten years. Well, if the public is averse to paying more than a trillion dollars over ten years, you can just imagine how much less appealing the plan would be with price tag of a trillion dollars per year, as suggested by USA Today's muddled headline and graphic. Not to suggest that the health of our people is nearly as important as our ability to wage war, but just imagine how it might affect public support for defense spending if news outlets similarly expressed that spending as ten year totals. We can just imagine it, a USA Today headline reading "Defense Spending to Reach 12 Trillion"—well actually we can't, but you get the point. —Some things can be said with numbers. So: The number of stories in the Nexis news database dated July 15 that mentioned Alabaman Republican Senator Jeff Sessions' questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, in which Sessions accused Sotomayor of harboring ethnic prejudices: 69. Number of such stories that recalled that Sessions was rejected as a judicial nominee in 1986 in part because of his approving remarks about the Ku Klux Klan: 2. Sessions, who once complained that the NAACP was "trying to force civil rights down the throats of people," who concurred that a white lawyer working on a civil rights case was a "disgrace to his race," who was accused of calling a black assistant "boy," also got in trouble for "joking" about the Klan that "I used to think they were okay" until learning that some of them smoked pot, according to sworn statements. It's too bad so many media accounts missed it; readers and viewers might've more fully appreciated the grilling of a Latina woman about ethnic bias had they known it was coming from an unreconstructed racist. —Did a major poll show that a plurality of Hondurans support the military coup against democratically elected President Zelaya? If you read accounts in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor and the Reuters newswire, you'd say yes. As Robert Naiman of the blog Just Foreign Policy discovered, all of those outlets, over July 9 through the 11th, reported that a CID-Gallup poll showed 41 percent of Hondurans in favor of the coup, with only 28 percent opposed. In reality, the poll showed that 46 percent—a plurality—were opposed to the coup, as correctly noted by AP and the New York Times. Noting that even majority support for a coup would not legitimize it, Naiman suggests the confident misreporting of what ought to have been counterintuitive findings of public opinion is a significant error, suggesting "the U.S. press is out of touch with the majority of the population in Honduras, and therefore credulous to results which misreport Honduran public opinion as being much more similar than it is to the opinions of Honduran elites." The Journal and the Monitor, so far, have published "clarifications" in response to reader complaints, but only future reporting will show how they address the deeper questions about how they got the wrong information and why they believed it. —New York Times reporter John Burns had a piece on July 12 about the British debate over Afghanistan that had some big news about the U.S. debate over Iraq—news anyway to those who get there news form the Times. Talking about an increase in British war deaths in recent weeks, Burns wrote "So far...the reaction in Britain has not run to the kind of popular groundswell for withdrawal that President George W. Bush faced when the war in Iraq worsened after his re-election in 2004." So, there was a popular groundswell for withdrawal from Iraq in the U.S. after 2004? Funny, that's not what the Times was telling us back then. Instead, the paper spent its time suggesting that withdrawal was not a very popular idea. For instance, a June 14, 2006, article warned that a vote on a withdrawal deadline "could create a hard choice for Democrats in the Senate, antagonize the party's anti-war base or provide fodder for Republican attacks." Well, now the Times tells us that it wasn't just an anti-war base that wanted withdrawal, but a large sector of the public. Better late than never, we suppose. But could the paper maybe try to report on anti-war opinion in real-time, rather than several years later? Apparently not—the same piece by John Burns asserts that there's not a groundswell in Britain for withdrawal from Afghanistan, but rather a grassroots call for a bigger British military budget. But the London Guardian the next day reported a poll saying 42 percent of the UK public wanted troops out immediately, and another 14 percent wanted them back home by the end of the year. That's 56 percent who want troops out in the next six months. We'll find out from the Times if that constitutes a "groundswell" somewhere around 2014. —Finally, still glaringly absent from the healthcare debate is an option that's remarkably popular among the public: a single-payer national health insurance program. Single-payer, or "Medicare-for-all," as listeners will know, would eliminate the role of the private health insurance industry. It would also expand coverage to everybody and it has the support of about 60 percent of Americans, and about an equal percentage of physicians. Yet a recent FAIR study found that of hundreds of stories about healthcare in major outlets earlier this year, only five stories included the views of advocates of single-payer—none of those appearing on the television networks. Thousands of people have now signed on to FAIR's petition that demands that the TV networks cover single-payer proposals and stop silencing their advocates. If you'd like to join folks like Michael Moore, Phil Donahue, Mike Farrell, Donna Smith of the California Nurses Association, and Obama's own former physician, Dr. David Scheiner, you can find the petition at FAIR's website at FAIR.org. GERALD LEMELLE CounterSpin: A July 11 New York Times story pronounced, "The gulf separating the West and many African leaders on fundamental issues like human rights was on display just last week." What indicated the gap between some African countries and more enlightened nations? Well, the African Union "announced that it would refuse to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in its attempt to prosecute the Sudanese president, Omar Hassan Al-Bashir." The claim is near nonsensical—given the U.S.' own history of determined opposition to the ICC, such that if enthusiasm for the court were a test of being Western, well then the U.S. would fail. So it doesn't seem too much to ask whether such silliness can pass editorial muster because it shores up a familiar narrative of an African continent that is basically lawless, chaotic and, well, backward. Africa has always deserved better treatment of course; but what does the lack of more serious debate mean now, as we try to assess the Obama White House's policy on the region? We're joined now by phone from Virginia by Gerald LeMelle, executive director of Africa Action. Welcome back to CounterSpin!, Gerald LeMelle. Gerald Lemelle: Well, it's a pleasure to be here, Janine. Thank you for having me. CS: Africans are high on the list of those talked about more than talked to in the U.S. press. In a recent column you pointed to the public reception in Africa to the founding of the new U.S. Africa Command, AFRICOM, as an instance where the U.S. press really missed the story. Since AFRICOM is a keystone of U.S.-Africa policy, the way it was received in Africa is a pretty big story to miss. I wonder, what about this time around? What's being left out or underinvestigated in coverage of Obama's recent trip to Africa? GL: Well, you hit the nail on the head. It is amazing that right now we are going to be investing almost $3 billion, and that's $3 billion that we know of, in AFRICOM, the U.S. Africa Military Command—$3 billion and yet we can't even mention it in the press. It's like a major foreign policy initiative. The fact of the matter is many of us have been complaining for the last 10 years of the militarization of U.S. foreign policy, that we have seen the numbers—2001: $10 million for U.S. military initiatives in Africa, today: over $3 billion. How can this be done without any mention or any critique in the press, let alone amongst the policy circles because you find this strange sort of silence about it, despite the attempts of some activist groups to engage in conversation, to answer some very important questions about AFRICOM, but yet no one seems to be willing to do this. It's the kind secrecy, the kind of hidden policy that is very very concerning to Africans. CS: Well, something is being said by these diplomats and officials. I mean we're hearing about democracy promotion and the promotion of economic growth. I guess what I'm hearing you say is if the big question right now, if we're to consider it a question whether U.S.-Africa policy is being militarized, you seem to be saying there's evidence we can look at, which might be at odds with these official pronouncements. And I guess that's kind of a road map for journalists: don't just follow the official talk, but look at the facts on the ground. GL: Absolutely, I mean, you know, we've got to remember: the military is not seen as a force for protection in Africa. The military has always been seen as an instrument of destructive self-interest whether it's domestic or foreign. You look at a place like Ghana. In 1999 the evidence was presented, the CIA admitted that they were involved in the overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana. They practically introduced the concept of the military coups in Africa, so now as we're talking about the military is supposed to have a role for good across the continent, there are definitely going to be questions. Anybody who has even cursorily studied African history would have questions as to how this is going to be done. The truth of the matter is the military is going in to professionalize and support and to arm a lot of regimes across the continent that have not demonstrated any interest in democracy or rule of law or human rights at all. And I'm talking about Ethiopia, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Chad—a number of these countries where there are serious questions about how they have used the military in the past. Professionalizing the military and giving a strengthened instrument to these dictators—I don't know how this is going to translate into rule of law, democracy and accountability. CS: Well of course it would seriously reshape that media conversation if, and we're kind of coming back where we started, if Africans themselves appeared more often in coverage. Clearly there'd be much more of a debate. GL: Absolutely, I mean one of the things we've found, and particularly for an organization like Africa Action that for 56 years has developed very strong ties with civil society groups on the ground in Africa, we have seen throughout the continent a series of op-eds, articles, speeches, papers, whatever have you, all condemning or raising many of the questions about AFRICOM that need to be answered for people to accept this. It seems, however, that the U.S. position is that Africans aren't worth spending the time having to explain it to them. This is the de facto racist policy. This is the policy that goes back to the colonial period, actually the pre-colonial period, going back to the days of slavery. So, you know, why can't Africans be spoken to, why can't there be conversation the way it's done in democracies in the west. Is it because there are things we are doing in Africa that we really can't explain? That's the question. Certainly many Africans are thinking about these things, they're discussing this, they're debating this, but they're all very very concerned, based on the history, what is ultimately the role of the U.S. military in Africa? And why we can't raise it? President Obama can't raise it in his speech in Ghana, or raise it as a matter of fact in various comments about the future of Africa, seems a bit strange. It's going to beg the question: Why? CS: Let me ask you, finally, you do media appearances on Africa and African issues here in the U.S.. Do you find reporters disinterested, underinformed? What's driving this kind of void in the coverage? GL: Well, I think you know, the perception that Africa is so underdeveloped extends to reporters not thinking that Africans actually think these things through. And perhaps because many Africans do not have the power to influence policy at home people think that well, they're just irrelevant to the conversation. But it'd be a huge mistake, we've got a billion people on the continent; only a handful are in the leadership positions. You've got a billion people, many of whom debate these issues every day. If you want to follow the trends, if you want to follow the needs, if you're looking to establish rule of law, democracy, human rights—then you've got to know what these folks are thinking, and there, I think that most reporters have been a bit lazy in trying to figure out what's going on in Africa. I think many of them do not know, in fact, we have a press conference that we host any time the president goes to Africa, when Bush went twice and then when Obama just went, we have these press conferences where we try to inform the press corps surrounding the president. And you would be amazed at the kinds of questions you get. It's really very clear that while they can give you chapter and verse of what's going on in countries around the world where the presidents are visiting, they can't tell you a thing about Africa. And it's really like, "Well I spoke to my driver and he said things are good"—you know that kind of analysis. When that kind of thinking comes from the reporters, then you're in trouble. CS: We've been speaking with Gerald LeMelle; he's executive director of Africa Action. Find them online at AfricaAction.org. Thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin! GL: Thank you for having me. KATHA POLLITT CounterSpin: In her June 13 Time magazine cover story, "Why Marriage Matters," anti-feminist Caitlin Flanagan manages to argue at once that marriage is a thing many desire to escape, and a thing that must be saved, because there is "no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage." The damage divorce causes children, writes Flanagan, is pervasive, crossing all socioeconomic barriers: "on every single significant outcome ... children from intact, two-parent families outperform those from single-parent households ... If you can measure it, a sociologist has; and in all cases, the kids living with both parents drastically outperform the others." Joining us now to talk about Flanagan's story is Katha Pollitt. Katha Pollitt writes the "Subject to Debate" column for the Nation magazine. She is author of, most recently, the poetry collection, The Mind-Body Problem. She joins us now on the phone. Katha Pollitt, welcome back to CounterSpin! Katha Pollitt: Hi Steve, thanks for having me. CS: Well, you’ve been fielding these anti-feminist arguments for some time, from Flanagan and others—before we get down to specifics, what was your impression on first reading this Time cover story? KP: I thought it was over the top, irresponsible, and if it wasn't sexist, I would even say hysterical. CS: Well, the print cover headline was "Unfaithfully Yours," with a subhead that referred without irony to "our most sacred institution"—that's marriage. Isn't that kind of a lot of presumption, before you've even opened the magazine? KP: Well, yeah, and also the rest of the tagline is "how to make marriage matter again," which they actually don't tell you how to do. They just say it should matter again, it really should, it really should. CS: Well, in a piece in Psychology Today taking on Flanagan’s Time essay, psychologist Bella DePaulo goes after the science, refuting Flanagan's claim that by every measure, children in two-parent families do "drastically" better—and DePaulo asks the important question: What happens to children living in "intact" married-parent homes in which the two parents aren't really getting along? Isn't that kind of an important question? KP: Well, yeah, I mean if you compare children in divorced households with the children of rapturously happy, sane, prosperous, loving, nurturing parents, it could well be that the latter do better. We'd all like to be in a family like that, whatever age we are. But that's not the choice that couples that are contemplating divorce have. They have the choice of well, do we stay together and fight a lot? Or maybe there's drinking and drugs, and infidelity and a lot of screaming and depression and not having any time for our children because we're too busy fighting each other and etc., etc. That's not a good situation. CS: Well, Flanagan seems to put all her eggs in the marriage basket, diminishing the possibility that any other factors may play a detrimental role in child development. But even if some studies show modest differences in the U.S., this doesn't hold true in many other countries. Doesn’t that sort of suggest, I think as you're already getting at, that marriage may be less important and other factors may be more so? KP: What I say in my column is that in our society the family is a major safety net for people and does for people some of the things that in other societies, social welfare democracies, are done by the state. And I think if you look at the Netherlands, if you look at Scandinavia, if you look at France, or Germany, the outcomes are different there because people aren't so poor and desperate. They're not going to fall through the floor if they lose the major breadwinner in the family. There's healthcare, there's day care, there's all kinds of things for people, and that makes a big difference. CS:This is Janine Jackson. Katha, so in a way it's kind of like this is really a social policy article in disguise as a piece about Jon and Kate. It really has social policy implications while it's sort of pretending to be about individuals and individual choices. KP: Yes, I think that's true. You know an interesting feature of conservative writing in general, and of Caitlin Flanagan's writing in particular, is that the only time they ever express interest in and concern for low income and especially black people is when they can use it as a stick to beat liberals with. So Caitlin Flanagan writes a piece about you know, feminists don't pay their cleaning women enough. But she's never interested in cleaning women at any other time. She was very sympathetic to women in prison because ex-SLA member Kathleen Soliah got a special deal, a special parole deal, but she never writes about women in prison at any other time. And it's the same here, it's like she actually says—and this is a very common sort-of right wing think tank idea—is that well okay, maybe it's okay for upper-class parents, and it's not great, but upper class parents getting divorced, but this irresponsible behavior percolates down into "the underclass" and destroys it. And you could say, but according to you it was already the underclass, something else has to be going on, you know. But she's not interested in poor people at any other time except when it can be, when we have to get them married. It's not we have to get them some great housing, and some decent transportation, and some healthcare, and some jobs, it's never that. CS: Well, besides everything else, this is a trend piece in search of a trend: despite Flanagan's hand-wringing on the "increasingly fragile construct" of marriage, divorce rates are actually down. They've been down almost a third since 1992. You've just spoken to Flanagan's motivations, but seriously now, what makes a story like this so very appealing to a national magazine? KP: Well, I think it's the summertime, trend stories are always big, and they usually have a conservative slant. The big national magazines, news magazines like Time are desperate to have people buy them. And I think they're just so cynical, that's the other thing, I think the people who edit these things, who are probably all divorced themselves, are so cynical that even if you pick holes in all the facts, and all the arguments as Bella DePaulo does in her very good article in Psychology Today, and a lot of bloggers have done, too—they don't care, it's just "Oh, people are talking about it," you know. They can just put something out there and people can talk about it, and they're happy. CS: Well, and finally, doesn't it also tap into, in terms of moving it off the newsstand, it taps into very real anxieties that people have, you know, about whether what they're doing is good for their children—about their family difficulties? They're always going to find those tensions there if they want to play on that. KP: Yes, and there's also the whole theme of political infidelity that we're having quite a rash of now, what with Governor Mark Sanford and Senator Ensign and looking back we had Eliot Spitzer and David Vitter and Larry Craig—so you know that puts this all in the news. I thought an interesting feature of this article was that she goes on and on about infidelity as if this is big problem. And she never gives any evidence of that, that the reason marriages end in divorce is more infidelity than things that people bicker about when they're married like, well, money, substance abuse, realizing that you made a big mistake, things like that, just really not having a good relationship. And if it is infidelity, then there's really no hope because the chances of people as they're currently constituted in the United States suddenly saying you know infidelity, we're just not going to do that anymore—that would be unprecedented in world history and it isn't going to happen. CS: We've been speaking with Katha Pollitt. You can read her piece on the Caitlin Flanagan Time magazine cover story at TheNation.com. Katha Pollitt, thanks again for joining us today on CounterSpin. KP: Thanks so much for having me. This week on CounterSpin: Barack Obama's recent trip to Africa gave the press corps a chance to opine predictably on Obama's "unique role" as a "son of Africa" who was specially suited to "tell African leaders hard truths". It should've also been a chance for a serious look at the substance of U.S. Africa policy. How'd they do on that score? We'll hear from Gerald LeMelle of Africa Action. Also on the show: In her Time magazine cover story, "Why Marriage Matters," Caitlin Flanagan argues for "intact" marriage because there is "no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage." Do it for the kids, says Flanagan. Is this just the latest chapter in the treatise that brought us the Mommy Wars and other anti-feminist arguments? We’ll talk with the Nation’s Katha Pollitt. Links: — Africa Action — Subject to Debate: Can This Marriage Be Saved?, by Katha Pollitt (Nation, 7/15/09) FULL TRANSCRIPT All that's coming up but first, as usual, we'll take a look back at the week's press. —Whatever you may think of the White House-backed healthcare legislation currently working its way through Congress, it's only fair that it should be held to the same standards of reporting as other legislation. That's why a July 15 front-page story in USA Today caught our eye. The headline, "How Much Healthcare Can You Get for This?" ran over a graphic portraying a trillion dollar bill. The gist of the piece is stated in the headline over the jump on page two: "If plans' costs top $1 trillion, lawmakers risk losing public support." This all might seem to suggest to some, perhaps even many, that the program's projected cost is a trillion dollars a year, as budget costs are usually expressed as annual appropriations. It's not until further into the story that the reader learns that the trillion dollars is not per year, but over ten years. Well, if the public is averse to paying more than a trillion dollars over ten years, you can just imagine how much less appealing the plan would be with price tag of a trillion dollars per year, as suggested by USA Today's muddled headline and graphic. Not to suggest that the health of our people is nearly as important as our ability to wage war, but just imagine how it might affect public support for defense spending if news outlets similarly expressed that spending as ten year totals. We can just imagine it, a USA Today headline reading "Defense Spending to Reach 12 Trillion"—well actually we can't, but you get the point. —Some things can be said with numbers. So: The number of stories in the Nexis news database dated July 15 that mentioned Alabaman Republican Senator Jeff Sessions' questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, in which Sessions accused Sotomayor of harboring ethnic prejudices: 69. Number of such stories that recalled that Sessions was rejected as a judicial nominee in 1986 in part because of his approving remarks about the Ku Klux Klan: 2. Sessions, who once complained that the NAACP was "trying to force civil rights down the throats of people," who concurred that a white lawyer working on a civil rights case was a "disgrace to his race," who was accused of calling a black assistant "boy," also got in trouble for "joking" about the Klan that "I used to think they were okay" until learning that some of them smoked pot, according to sworn statements. It's too bad so many media accounts missed it; readers and viewers might've more fully appreciated the grilling of a Latina woman about ethnic bias had they known it was coming from an unreconstructed racist. —Did a major poll show that a plurality of Hondurans support the military coup against democratically elected President Zelaya? If you read accounts in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor and the Reuters newswire, you'd say yes. As Robert Naiman of the blog Just Foreign Policy discovered, all of those outlets, over July 9 through the 11th, reported that a CID-Gallup poll showed 41 percent of Hondurans in favor of the coup, with only 28 percent opposed. In reality, the poll showed that 46 percent—a plurality—were opposed to the coup, as correctly noted by AP and the New York Times. Noting that even majority support for a coup would not legitimize it, Naiman suggests the confident misreporting of what ought to have been counterintuitive findings of public opinion is a significant error, suggesting "the U.S. press is out of touch with the majority of the population in Honduras, and therefore credulous to results which misreport Honduran public opinion as being much more similar than it is to the opinions of Honduran elites." The Journal and the Monitor, so far, have published "clarifications" in response to reader complaints, but only future reporting will show how they address the deeper questions about how they got the wrong information and why they believed it. —New York Times reporter John Burns had a piece on July 12 about the British debate over Afghanistan that had some big news about the U.S. debate over Iraq—news anyway to those who get there news form the Times. Talking about an increase in British war deaths in recent weeks, Burns wrote "So far...the reaction in Britain has not run to the kind of popular groundswell for withdrawal that President George W. Bush faced when the war in Iraq worsened after his re-election in 2004." So, there was a popular groundswell for withdrawal from Iraq in the U.S. after 2004? Funny, that's not what the Times was telling us back then. Instead, the paper spent its time suggesting that withdrawal was not a very popular idea. For instance, a June 14, 2006, article warned that a vote on a withdrawal deadline "could create a hard choice for Democrats in the Senate, antagonize the party's anti-war base or provide fodder for Republican attacks." Well, now the Times tells us that it wasn't just an anti-war base that wanted withdrawal, but a large sector of the public. Better late than never, we suppose. But could the paper maybe try to report on anti-war opinion in real-time, rather than several years later? Apparently not—the same piece by John Burns asserts that there's not a groundswell in Britain for withdrawal from Afghanistan, but rather a grassroots call for a bigger British military budget. But the London Guardian the next day reported a poll saying 42 percent of the UK public wanted troops out immediately, and another 14 percent wanted them back home by the end of the year. That's 56 percent who want troops out in the next six months. We'll find out from the Times if that constitutes a "groundswell" somewhere around 2014. —Finally, still glaringly absent from the healthcare debate is an option that's remarkably popular among the public: a single-payer national health insurance program. Single-payer, or "Medicare-for-all," as listeners will know, would eliminate the role of the private health insurance industry. It would also expand coverage to everybody and it has the support of about 60 percent of Americans, and about an equal percentage of physicians. Yet a recent FAIR study found that of hundreds of stories about healthcare in major outlets earlier this year, only five stories included the views of advocates of single-payer—none of those appearing on the television networks. Thousands of people have now signed on to FAIR's petition that demands that the TV networks cover single-payer proposals and stop silencing their advocates. If you'd like to join folks like Michael Moore, Phil Donahue, Mike Farrell, Donna Smith of the California Nurses Association, and Obama's own former physician, Dr. David Scheiner, you can find the petition at FAIR's website at FAIR.org. GERALD LEMELLE CounterSpin: A July 11 New York Times story pronounced, "The gulf separating the West and many African leaders on fundamental issues like human rights was on display just last week." What indicated the gap between some African countries and more enlightened nations? Well, the African Union "announced that it would refuse to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in its attempt to prosecute the Sudanese president, Omar Hassan Al-Bashir." The claim is near nonsensical—given the U.S.' own history of determined opposition to the ICC, such that if enthusiasm for the court were a test of being Western, well then the U.S. would fail. So it doesn't seem too much to ask whether such silliness can pass editorial muster because it shores up a familiar narrative of an African continent that is basically lawless, chaotic and, well, backward. Africa has always deserved better treatment of course; but what does the lack of more serious debate mean now, as we try to assess the Obama White House's policy on the region? We're joined now by phone from Virginia by Gerald LeMelle, executive director of Africa Action. Welcome back to CounterSpin!, Gerald LeMelle. Gerald Lemelle: Well, it's a pleasure to be here, Janine. Thank you for having me. CS: Africans are high on the list of those talked about more than talked to in the U.S. press. In a recent column you pointed to the public reception in Africa to the founding of the new U.S. Africa Command, AFRICOM, as an instance where the U.S. press really missed the story. Since AFRICOM is a keystone of U.S.-Africa policy, the way it was received in Africa is a pretty big story to miss. I wonder, what about this time around? What's being left out or underinvestigated in coverage of Obama's recent trip to Africa? GL: Well, you hit the nail on the head. It is amazing that right now we are going to be investing almost $3 billion, and that's $3 billion that we know of, in AFRICOM, the U.S. Africa Military Command—$3 billion and yet we can't even mention it in the press. It's like a major foreign policy initiative. The fact of the matter is many of us have been complaining for the last 10 years of the militarization of U.S. foreign policy, that we have seen the numbers—2001: $10 million for U.S. military initiatives in Africa, today: over $3 billion. How can this be done without any mention or any critique in the press, let alone amongst the policy circles because you find this strange sort of silence about it, despite the attempts of some activist groups to engage in conversation, to answer some very important questions about AFRICOM, but yet no one seems to be willing to do this. It's the kind secrecy, the kind of hidden policy that is very very concerning to Africans. CS: Well, something is being said by these diplomats and officials. I mean we're hearing about democracy promotion and the promotion of economic growth. I guess what I'm hearing you say is if the big question right now, if we're to consider it a question whether U.S.-Africa policy is being militarized, you seem to be saying there's evidence we can look at, which might be at odds with these official pronouncements. And I guess that's kind of a road map for journalists: don't just follow the official talk, but look at the facts on the ground. GL: Absolutely, I mean, you know, we've got to remember: the military is not seen as a force for protection in Africa. The military has always been seen as an instrument of destructive self-interest whether it's domestic or foreign. You look at a place like Ghana. In 1999 the evidence was presented, the CIA admitted that they were involved in the overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana. They practically introduced the concept of the military coups in Africa, so now as we're talking about the military is supposed to have a role for good across the continent, there are definitely going to be questions. Anybody who has even cursorily studied African history would have questions as to how this is going to be done. The truth of the matter is the military is going in to professionalize and support and to arm a lot of regimes across the continent that have not demonstrated any interest in democracy or rule of law or human rights at all. And I'm talking about Ethiopia, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Chad—a number of these countries where there are serious questions about how they have used the military in the past. Professionalizing the military and giving a strengthened instrument to these dictators—I don't know how this is going to translate into rule of law, democracy and accountability. CS: Well of course it would seriously reshape that media conversation if, and we're kind of coming back where we started, if Africans themselves appeared more often in coverage. Clearly there'd be much more of a debate. GL: Absolutely, I mean one of the things we've found, and particularly for an organization like Africa Action that for 56 years has developed very strong ties with civil society groups on the ground in Africa, we have seen throughout the continent a series of op-eds, articles, speeches, papers, whatever have you, all condemning or raising many of the questions about AFRICOM that need to be answered for people to accept this. It seems, however, that the U.S. position is that Africans aren't worth spending the time having to explain it to them. This is the de facto racist policy. This is the policy that goes back to the colonial period, actually the pre-colonial period, going back to the days of slavery. So, you know, why can't Africans be spoken to, why can't there be conversation the way it's done in democracies in the west. Is it because there are things we are doing in Africa that we really can't explain? That's the question. Certainly many Africans are thinking about these things, they're discussing this, they're debating this, but they're all very very concerned, based on the history, what is ultimately the role of the U.S. military in Africa? And why we can't raise it? President Obama can't raise it in his speech in Ghana, or raise it as a matter of fact in various comments about the future of Africa, seems a bit strange. It's going to beg the question: Why? CS: Let me ask you, finally, you do media appearances on Africa and African issues here in the U.S.. Do you find reporters disinterested, underinformed? What's driving this kind of void in the coverage? GL: Well, I think you know, the perception that Africa is so underdeveloped extends to reporters not thinking that Africans actually think these things through. And perhaps because many Africans do not have the power to influence policy at home people think that well, they're just irrelevant to the conversation. But it'd be a huge mistake, we've got a billion people on the continent; only a handful are in the leadership positions. You've got a billion people, many of whom debate these issues every day. If you want to follow the trends, if you want to follow the needs, if you're looking to establish rule of law, democracy, human rights—then you've got to know what these folks are thinking, and there, I think that most reporters have been a bit lazy in trying to figure out what's going on in Africa. I think many of them do not know, in fact, we have a press conference that we host any time the president goes to Africa, when Bush went twice and then when Obama just went, we have these press conferences where we try to inform the press corps surrounding the president. And you would be amazed at the kinds of questions you get. It's really very clear that while they can give you chapter and verse of what's going on in countries around the world where the presidents are visiting, they can't tell you a thing about Africa. And it's really like, "Well I spoke to my driver and he said things are good"—you know that kind of analysis. When that kind of thinking comes from the reporters, then you're in trouble. CS: We've been speaking with Gerald LeMelle; he's executive director of Africa Action. Find them online at AfricaAction.org. Thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin! GL: Thank you for having me. KATHA POLLITT CounterSpin: In her June 13 Time magazine cover story, "Why Marriage Matters," anti-feminist Caitlin Flanagan manages to argue at once that marriage is a thing many desire to escape, and a thing that must be saved, because there is "no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage." The damage divorce causes children, writes Flanagan, is pervasive, crossing all socioeconomic barriers: "on every single significant outcome ... children from intact, two-parent families outperform those from single-parent households ... If you can measure it, a sociologist has; and in all cases, the kids living with both parents drastically outperform the others." Joining us now to talk about Flanagan's story is Katha Pollitt. Katha Pollitt writes the "Subject to Debate" column for the Nation magazine. She is author of, most recently, the poetry collection, The Mind-Body Problem. She joins us now on the phone. Katha Pollitt, welcome back to CounterSpin! Katha Pollitt: Hi Steve, thanks for having me. CS: Well, you’ve been fielding these anti-feminist arguments for some time, from Flanagan and others—before we get down to specifics, what was your impression on first reading this Time cover story? KP: I thought it was over the top, irresponsible, and if it wasn't sexist, I would even say hysterical. CS: Well, the print cover headline was "Unfaithfully Yours," with a subhead that referred without irony to "our most sacred institution"—that's marriage. Isn't that kind of a lot of presumption, before you've even opened the magazine? KP: Well, yeah, and also the rest of the tagline is "how to make marriage matter again," which they actually don't tell you how to do. They just say it should matter again, it really should, it really should. CS: Well, in a piece in Psychology Today taking on Flanagan’s Time essay, psychologist Bella DePaulo goes after the science, refuting Flanagan's claim that by every measure, children in two-parent families do "drastically" better—and DePaulo asks the important question: What happens to children living in "intact" married-parent homes in which the two parents aren't really getting along? Isn't that kind of an important question? KP: Well, yeah, I mean if you compare children in divorced households with the children of rapturously happy, sane, prosperous, loving, nurturing parents, it could well be that the latter do better. We'd all like to be in a family like that, whatever age we are. But that's not the choice that couples that are contemplating divorce have. They have the choice of well, do we stay together and fight a lot? Or maybe there's drinking and drugs, and infidelity and a lot of screaming and depression and not having any time for our children because we're too busy fighting each other and etc., etc. That's not a good situation. CS: Well, Flanagan seems to put all her eggs in the marriage basket, diminishing the possibility that any other factors may play a detrimental role in child development. But even if some studies show modest differences in the U.S., this doesn't hold true in many other countries. Doesn’t that sort of suggest, I think as you're already getting at, that marriage may be less important and other factors may be more so? KP: What I say in my column is that in our society the family is a major safety net for people and does for people some of the things that in other societies, social welfare democracies, are done by the state. And I think if you look at the Netherlands, if you look at Scandinavia, if you look at France, or Germany, the outcomes are different there because people aren't so poor and desperate. They're not going to fall through the floor if they lose the major breadwinner in the family. There's healthcare, there's day care, there's all kinds of things for people, and that makes a big difference. CS:This is Janine Jackson. Katha, so in a way it's kind of like this is really a social policy article in disguise as a piece about Jon and Kate. It really has social policy implications while it's sort of pretending to be about individuals and individual choices. KP: Yes, I think that's true. You know an interesting feature of conservative writing in general, and of Caitlin Flanagan's writing in particular, is that the only time they ever express interest in and concern for low income and especially black people is when they can use it as a stick to beat liberals with. So Caitlin Flanagan writes a piece about you know, feminists don't pay their cleaning women enough. But she's never interested in cleaning women at any other time. She was very sympathetic to women in prison because ex-SLA member Kathleen Soliah got a special deal, a special parole deal, but she never writes about women in prison at any other time. And it's the same here, it's like she actually says—and this is a very common sort-of right wing think tank idea—is that well okay, maybe it's okay for upper-class parents, and it's not great, but upper class parents getting divorced, but this irresponsible behavior percolates down into "the underclass" and destroys it. And you could say, but according to you it was already the underclass, something else has to be going on, you know. But she's not interested in poor people at any other time except when it can be, when we have to get them married. It's not we have to get them some great housing, and some decent transportation, and some healthcare, and some jobs, it's never that. CS: Well, besides everything else, this is a trend piece in search of a trend: despite Flanagan's hand-wringing on the "increasingly fragile construct" of marriage, divorce rates are actually down. They've been down almost a third since 1992. You've just spoken to Flanagan's motivations, but seriously now, what makes a story like this so very appealing to a national magazine? KP: Well, I think it's the summertime, trend stories are always big, and they usually have a conservative slant. The big national magazines, news magazines like Time are desperate to have people buy them. And I think they're just so cynical, that's the other thing, I think the people who edit these things, who are probably all divorced themselves, are so cynical that even if you pick holes in all the facts, and all the arguments as Bella DePaulo does in her very good article in Psychology Today, and a lot of bloggers have done, too—they don't care, it's just "Oh, people are talking about it," you know. They can just put something out there and people can talk about it, and they're happy. CS: Well, and finally, doesn't it also tap into, in terms of moving it off the newsstand, it taps into very real anxieties that people have, you know, about whether what they're doing is good for their children—about their family difficulties? They're always going to find those tensions there if they want to play on that. KP: Yes, and there's also the whole theme of political infidelity that we're having quite a rash of now, what with Governor Mark Sanford and Senator Ensign and looking back we had Eliot Spitzer and David Vitter and Larry Craig—so you know that puts this all in the news. I thought an interesting feature of this article was that she goes on and on about infidelity as if this is big problem. And she never gives any evidence of that, that the reason marriages end in divorce is more infidelity than things that people bicker about when they're married like, well, money, substance abuse, realizing that you made a big mistake, things like that, just really not having a good relationship. And if it is infidelity, then there's really no hope because the chances of people as they're currently constituted in the United States suddenly saying you know infidelity, we're just not going to do that anymore—that would be unprecedented in world history and it isn't going to happen. CS: We've been speaking with Katha Pollitt. You can read her piece on the Caitlin Flanagan Time magazine cover story at TheNation.com. Katha Pollitt, thanks again for joining us today on CounterSpin. KP: Thanks so much for having me. tag:odeo.com,2009-07-16,24847690 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24819949-Gerald-Lemelle-on-Obama-in-Africa-Katha-Pollitt-on-Caitlin-Flanagan-in-Time This week on CounterSpin: Barack Obama's recent trip to Africa gave the press corps a chance to opine predictably on Obama's "unique role" as a "son of Africa" who was specially suited to "tell African leaders hard truths". It should've also been a chance for a hard look at the nature of U.S. Africa policy. How'd they do on that score? We'll hear from Gerald Lemelle of Africa Action. Also on the show: In her Time magazine cover story, "Why Marriage Matters," Caitlin Flanagan argues for "intact" marriage because there is "no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage." Do it for the kids, says Flanagan. Is this just the latest chapter in the treatise that brought us the Mommy Wars and other anti-feminist arguments? We’ll talk with the Nation’s Katha Pollitt. Links: — Africa Action — Subject to Debate: Can This Marriage Be Saved?, by Katha Pollitt (Nation, 7/15/09) This week on CounterSpin: Barack Obama's recent trip to Africa gave the press corps a chance to opine predictably on Obama's "unique role" as a "son of Africa" who was specially suited to "tell African leaders hard truths". It should've also been a chance for a hard look at the nature of U.S. Africa policy. How'd they do on that score? We'll hear from Gerald Lemelle of Africa Action. Also on the show: In her Time magazine cover story, "Why Marriage Matters," Caitlin Flanagan argues for "intact" marriage because there is "no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage." Do it for the kids, says Flanagan. Is this just the latest chapter in the treatise that brought us the Mommy Wars and other anti-feminist arguments? We’ll talk with the Nation’s Katha Pollitt. Links: — Africa Action — Subject to Debate: Can This Marriage Be Saved?, by Katha Pollitt (Nation, 7/15/09) This week on CounterSpin: Barack Obama's recent trip to Africa gave the press corps a chance to opine predictably on Obama's "unique role" as a "son of Africa" who was specially suited to "tell African leaders hard truths". It should've also been a chance for a hard look at the nature of U.S. Africa policy. How'd they do on that score? We'll hear from Gerald Lemelle of Africa Action. Also on the show: In her Time magazine cover story, "Why Marriage Matters," Caitlin Flanagan argues for "intact" marriage because there is "no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage." Do it for the kids, says Flanagan. Is this just the latest chapter in the treatise that brought us the Mommy Wars and other anti-feminist arguments? We’ll talk with the Nation’s Katha Pollitt. Links: — Africa Action — Subject to Debate: Can This Marriage Be Saved?, by Katha Pollitt (Nation, 7/15/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-07-16,24819949 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24777990-Sasha-Abramsky-on-Breadline-USA-Jim-Naureckas-on-the-future-of-journalism This week on CounterSpin: Some 25 million Americans, nearly 9 percent of the population--rely on food pantries. But with rare exceptions, and despite its devastating impact, big media just don't seem to find a reportable story in chronic hunger. A new book hopes to make the issue more visible, by actually talking to people. It's called Breadline USA: The Hidden Scandal of American Hunger and How to Fix It; we'll speak with author Sasha Abramsky. Also on the show: Hard times and decreasing ad revenues have prompted a spate of seminars and discussion about the future of journalism among traditional journalism organizations. But what’s missing from most of these talk fests are hard questions about what exactly we want to save? FAIR’s monthly magazine Extra! devotes its current edition to our take on the future of journalis—we’ll talk to Extra! editor Jim Naureckas. Links: — Breadline USA: The Hidden Scandal of American Hunger and How to Fix It , by Sasha A... This week on CounterSpin: Some 25 million Americans, nearly 9 percent of the population--rely on food pantries. But with rare exceptions, and despite its devastating impact, big media just don't seem to find a reportable story in chronic hunger. A new book hopes to make the issue more visible, by actually talking to people. It's called Breadline USA: The Hidden Scandal of American Hunger and How to Fix It; we'll speak with author Sasha Abramsky. Also on the show: Hard times and decreasing ad revenues have prompted a spate of seminars and discussion about the future of journalism among traditional journalism organizations. But what’s missing from most of these talk fests are hard questions about what exactly we want to save? FAIR’s monthly magazine Extra! devotes its current edition to our take on the future of journalis—we’ll talk to Extra! editor Jim Naureckas. Links: — Breadline USA: The Hidden Scandal of American Hunger and How to Fix It , by Sasha Abramsky — FAIR's special coverage on The Future of Journalism (Extra!, 6/09) This week on CounterSpin: Some 25 million Americans, nearly 9 percent of the population--rely on food pantries. But with rare exceptions, and despite its devastating impact, big media just don't seem to find a reportable story in chronic hunger. A new book hopes to make the issue more visible, by actually talking to people. It's called Breadline USA: The Hidden Scandal of American Hunger and How to Fix It; we'll speak with author Sasha Abramsky. Also on the show: Hard times and decreasing ad revenues have prompted a spate of seminars and discussion about the future of journalism among traditional journalism organizations. But what’s missing from most of these talk fests are hard questions about what exactly we want to save? FAIR’s monthly magazine Extra! devotes its current edition to our take on the future of journalis—we’ll talk to Extra! editor Jim Naureckas. Links: — Breadline USA: The Hidden Scandal of American Hunger and How to Fix It , by Sasha Abramsky — FAIR's special coverage on The Future of Journalism (Extra!, 6/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-07-09,24777990 Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24748815-Greg-Grandin-on-Honduras-coup-Nomi-Prins-on-Madoff-verdict This week on CounterSpin: Coverage of the Honduran coup ousting president Manuel Zelaya has often included the claim that the coup was prompted by Zelaya’s move to change the constitution, removing term limits so he could stay in power. The false claim is central to the anti-Zelaya propaganda that has gone with little challenge in U.S. media. We’ll talk to New York University history professor Greg Grandin about the real reasons certain parts of Honduran society wanted Zelaya out of the picture. Also on the show: The sentence of 150 years for convicted Wall Street financier Bernard Madoff is gratifying on many levels, certainly. But no one disagrees that Madoff was emblematic of larger problems; does putting him under the jail do anything to address those? We’ll talk with Nomi Prins, author of Other People's Money: The Corporate Mugging of America, and the forthcoming It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Stree... This week on CounterSpin: Coverage of the Honduran coup ousting president Manuel Zelaya has often included the claim that the coup was prompted by Zelaya’s move to change the constitution, removing term limits so he could stay in power. The false claim is central to the anti-Zelaya propaganda that has gone with little challenge in U.S. media. We’ll talk to New York University history professor Greg Grandin about the real reasons certain parts of Honduran society wanted Zelaya out of the picture. Also on the show: The sentence of 150 years for convicted Wall Street financier Bernard Madoff is gratifying on many levels, certainly. But no one disagrees that Madoff was emblematic of larger problems; does putting him under the jail do anything to address those? We’ll talk with Nomi Prins, author of Other People's Money: The Corporate Mugging of America, and the forthcoming It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street. Links: — Democracy Derailed in Honduras, by Greg Grandin (Nation, 6/30/09) — Other People's Money: The Corporate Mugging of America , by Nomi Prins — It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street , by Nomi Prins This week on CounterSpin: Coverage of the Honduran coup ousting president Manuel Zelaya has often included the claim that the coup was prompted by Zelaya’s move to change the constitution, removing term limits so he could stay in power. The false claim is central to the anti-Zelaya propaganda that has gone with little challenge in U.S. media. We’ll talk to New York University history professor Greg Grandin about the real reasons certain parts of Honduran society wanted Zelaya out of the picture. Also on the show: The sentence of 150 years for convicted Wall Street financier Bernard Madoff is gratifying on many levels, certainly. But no one disagrees that Madoff was emblematic of larger problems; does putting him under the jail do anything to address those? We’ll talk with Nomi Prins, author of Other People's Money: The Corporate Mugging of America, and the forthcoming It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street. Links: — Democracy Derailed in Honduras, by Greg Grandin (Nation, 6/30/09) — Other People's Money: The Corporate Mugging of America , by Nomi Prins — It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street , by Nomi Prins tag:odeo.com,2009-07-02,24748815 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24735926-David-Barsamian-on-Iran-upheaval-Chandra-Bhatnagar-on-UN-racism-report This week on CounterSpin: Events in Iran continue to unfold with protesters still in the street in what seemed to begin as a rejection of the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Has it become something more now? And how are the press corps--not famously nuanced on Iran--handling events? We'll hear from David Barsamian, founder and director of Alternative Radio and co-author of the book Targeting Iran. Also on the show: The UN Human Rights Council's report on racism in the U.S., released this month, fell on deaf ears in the U.S. media, despite the fact that it was done at the invitation of the U.S. government. We'll talk to Chandra Bhatnagar, staff attorney at the ACLU's Human Rights Program about the UN report and its noteworthy if not newsworthy findings. Links: — Targeting Iran , by David Barsamian — ACLU Biography of Chandra Bhatnaga This week on CounterSpin: Events in Iran continue to unfold with protesters still in the street in what seemed to begin as a rejection of the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Has it become something more now? And how are the press corps--not famously nuanced on Iran--handling events? We'll hear from David Barsamian, founder and director of Alternative Radio and co-author of the book Targeting Iran. Also on the show: The UN Human Rights Council's report on racism in the U.S., released this month, fell on deaf ears in the U.S. media, despite the fact that it was done at the invitation of the U.S. government. We'll talk to Chandra Bhatnagar, staff attorney at the ACLU's Human Rights Program about the UN report and its noteworthy if not newsworthy findings. Links: — Targeting Iran , by David Barsamian — ACLU Biography of Chandra Bhatnaga This week on CounterSpin: Events in Iran continue to unfold with protesters still in the street in what seemed to begin as a rejection of the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Has it become something more now? And how are the press corps--not famously nuanced on Iran--handling events? We'll hear from David Barsamian, founder and director of Alternative Radio and co-author of the book Targeting Iran. Also on the show: The UN Human Rights Council's report on racism in the U.S., released this month, fell on deaf ears in the U.S. media, despite the fact that it was done at the invitation of the U.S. government. We'll talk to Chandra Bhatnagar, staff attorney at the ACLU's Human Rights Program about the UN report and its noteworthy if not newsworthy findings. Links: — Targeting Iran , by David Barsamian — ACLU Biography of Chandra Bhatnaga tag:odeo.com,2009-06-25,24735926 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24731287-D-D-Guttenplan-on-I-F-Stone This week on CounterSpin: I.F. Stone was not only among the greatest American investigative reporters, he was also an activist and man of the left, according to D.D. Guttenplan, who has just published the latest biography of the journalist. Because he challenged U.S. power, often simply by reporting on the contents of official documents, and because he was a leftist, Stone's reputation has been under assault by vestigial McCarthyites who have been claiming for decades that Stone was a Soviet agent. According to Guttenplan, Stone was never an unbending ideologue but a progressive who was quick to change his mind when new information intervened. A singular man, whose story, even after his death, has much to tell us about U.S. media and politics. Today on CounterSpin, we'll hear a special extended interview with D.D. Guttenplan, author of American Radical: the Life and Times of I.F. Stone. Links: — American Radical: the Life and Times of I.F. Stone This week on CounterSpin: I.F. Stone was not only among the greatest American investigative reporters, he was also an activist and man of the left, according to D.D. Guttenplan, who has just published the latest biography of the journalist. Because he challenged U.S. power, often simply by reporting on the contents of official documents, and because he was a leftist, Stone's reputation has been under assault by vestigial McCarthyites who have been claiming for decades that Stone was a Soviet agent. According to Guttenplan, Stone was never an unbending ideologue but a progressive who was quick to change his mind when new information intervened. A singular man, whose story, even after his death, has much to tell us about U.S. media and politics. Today on CounterSpin, we'll hear a special extended interview with D.D. Guttenplan, author of American Radical: the Life and Times of I.F. Stone. Links: — American Radical: the Life and Times of I.F. Stone This week on CounterSpin: I.F. Stone was not only among the greatest American investigative reporters, he was also an activist and man of the left, according to D.D. Guttenplan, who has just published the latest biography of the journalist. Because he challenged U.S. power, often simply by reporting on the contents of official documents, and because he was a leftist, Stone's reputation has been under assault by vestigial McCarthyites who have been claiming for decades that Stone was a Soviet agent. According to Guttenplan, Stone was never an unbending ideologue but a progressive who was quick to change his mind when new information intervened. A singular man, whose story, even after his death, has much to tell us about U.S. media and politics. Today on CounterSpin, we'll hear a special extended interview with D.D. Guttenplan, author of American Radical: the Life and Times of I.F. Stone. Links: — American Radical: the Life and Times of I.F. Stone tag:odeo.com,2009-06-18,24731287 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24695386-Phyllis-Bennis-on-Obama-s-Cairo-speech-Jonathan-Tasini-on-the-Boston-Globe-GM This week on CounterSpin: Barack Obama has either been currying favor with Muslims or extending an olive branch in the Middle East depending on which media you consume. We'll talk with Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies about Obama's major speech in Cairo, and the size of the gap between words and actions. Also on the show: The Boston Globe says it will impose a 23 percent wage cut on its employees on June 14. This is needed, says the Globe’s parent New York Times Company, because the paper is losing money. What more is there to the story? We'll hear from Jonathan Tasini, he blogs at WorkingLife.org and is executive director of the Labor Research Association. Links: — Obama in Egypt: Changing the Discourse, by Phyllis Bennis (Institute for Policy Studies, 6/4/09) — Globe Cuts, by Jonathan Tasini (WorkingLife.org, 6/8/09) This week on CounterSpin: Barack Obama has either been currying favor with Muslims or extending an olive branch in the Middle East depending on which media you consume. We'll talk with Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies about Obama's major speech in Cairo, and the size of the gap between words and actions. Also on the show: The Boston Globe says it will impose a 23 percent wage cut on its employees on June 14. This is needed, says the Globe’s parent New York Times Company, because the paper is losing money. What more is there to the story? We'll hear from Jonathan Tasini, he blogs at WorkingLife.org and is executive director of the Labor Research Association. Links: — Obama in Egypt: Changing the Discourse, by Phyllis Bennis (Institute for Policy Studies, 6/4/09) — Globe Cuts, by Jonathan Tasini (WorkingLife.org, 6/8/09) This week on CounterSpin: Barack Obama has either been currying favor with Muslims or extending an olive branch in the Middle East depending on which media you consume. We'll talk with Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies about Obama's major speech in Cairo, and the size of the gap between words and actions. Also on the show: The Boston Globe says it will impose a 23 percent wage cut on its employees on June 14. This is needed, says the Globe’s parent New York Times Company, because the paper is losing money. What more is there to the story? We'll hear from Jonathan Tasini, he blogs at WorkingLife.org and is executive director of the Labor Research Association. Links: — Obama in Egypt: Changing the Discourse, by Phyllis Bennis (Institute for Policy Studies, 6/4/09) — Globe Cuts, by Jonathan Tasini (WorkingLife.org, 6/8/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-06-11,24695386 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24655691-Fred-Clarkson-on-Tiller-murder-Adam-Serwer-on-Sotomayor This week on CounterSpin: There’s been a lot of coverage of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, allegedly killed by and anti-abortion activist. But there has been relatively little discussion of the culture that such violence arises from, where mainstream anti-abortion figures regularly demonize abortion providers—and we’re not just talking about Bill O’Reilly. We’ll talk to Fred Clarkson, who has been monitoring and writing about anti-abortion violence for years. Also on the show: As the vetting process of prospective Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor goes forward, Americans can be forgiven for not actually knowing very much specific about the candidate's record; that's because big media have so far seemed more concerned that you know what Rush Limbaugh thinks of her. We'll discuss what's missing from that coverage with Adam Serwer of the American Prospect blog TAPPED. This week on CounterSpin: There’s been a lot of coverage of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, allegedly killed by and anti-abortion activist. But there has been relatively little discussion of the culture that such violence arises from, where mainstream anti-abortion figures regularly demonize abortion providers—and we’re not just talking about Bill O’Reilly. We’ll talk to Fred Clarkson, who has been monitoring and writing about anti-abortion violence for years. Also on the show: As the vetting process of prospective Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor goes forward, Americans can be forgiven for not actually knowing very much specific about the candidate's record; that's because big media have so far seemed more concerned that you know what Rush Limbaugh thinks of her. We'll discuss what's missing from that coverage with Adam Serwer of the American Prospect blog TAPPED. This week on CounterSpin: There’s been a lot of coverage of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, allegedly killed by and anti-abortion activist. But there has been relatively little discussion of the culture that such violence arises from, where mainstream anti-abortion figures regularly demonize abortion providers—and we’re not just talking about Bill O’Reilly. We’ll talk to Fred Clarkson, who has been monitoring and writing about anti-abortion violence for years. Also on the show: As the vetting process of prospective Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor goes forward, Americans can be forgiven for not actually knowing very much specific about the candidate's record; that's because big media have so far seemed more concerned that you know what Rush Limbaugh thinks of her. We'll discuss what's missing from that coverage with Adam Serwer of the American Prospect blog TAPPED. tag:odeo.com,2009-06-04,24655691 Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24642366-John-Feffer-on-North-Korea-Han-Shan-on-Shell-amp-Ken-Saro-Wiwa This week on CounterSpin: When the media talks foreign affairs, there's generally an assumption that countries have identifiable interests and rationally pursue them as best they can. All that's thrown out the window when it comes to North Korea. That country's apparent decision to conduct an underground nuclear test and test-fire several missiles has re-engaged the media discussion about the nuclear-armed dictatorship. But what do we still not understand about that country's behavior? And is all of this really a "test" for Barack Obama? John Feffer of the Institute for Policy Studies will join us to discuss that. Also on CounterSpin today: Fourteen years ago Nigeria executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other activists who were organizing nonviolent protests against the military government and Shell oil's exploitation of the Ogoni people and their environment. Shell is long believed to have been complicit in those and other violations and now a lawsuit making that case may soon have its... This week on CounterSpin: When the media talks foreign affairs, there's generally an assumption that countries have identifiable interests and rationally pursue them as best they can. All that's thrown out the window when it comes to North Korea. That country's apparent decision to conduct an underground nuclear test and test-fire several missiles has re-engaged the media discussion about the nuclear-armed dictatorship. But what do we still not understand about that country's behavior? And is all of this really a "test" for Barack Obama? John Feffer of the Institute for Policy Studies will join us to discuss that. Also on CounterSpin today: Fourteen years ago Nigeria executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other activists who were organizing nonviolent protests against the military government and Shell oil's exploitation of the Ogoni people and their environment. Shell is long believed to have been complicit in those and other violations and now a lawsuit making that case may soon have its day in court. We'll hear from Han Shan of the ShellGuilty campaign on this historic and still unfolding story. Links: — Strategic Dialogue on North Korea, by Brent Choi, Joowoon Jung & John Feffer (Foreign Policy In Focus, 5/22/09) — ShellGuilty.com FULL TRANSCRIPT: All that's coming up, but first we'll take a look back at the week's press. —The confirmation battle over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor could very well hinge on whether the media want to fact-check her critics. And in one early case, the press is largely failing. Right-wing pundits and politicians have pounced on comments Sotomayor made in 2001 at UC Berkeley. The quote, taken out of context, has been replayed endlessly: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Well that sure sounds like she believes that Latina judges are smarter than white judges. That message has been carried uncritically in the media. In the May 27 Washington Post, Howard Kurtz relayed the sentence and a Fox News host called Sotomayor a reverse racist. On May 28, the New York Times ran that quote, followed by a reaction from Newt Gingrich— he thinks she's a racist who should withdraw her name—and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. That leaves the misinterpretation of this quote intact. But if you actually read her speech, you see that this is totally misleading. Sotomayor was speaking about race and sex discrimination cases, and was wrestling with the argument that wise judges always reach wise conclusions. Her point was that this isn't always the case; wise white judges have rendered progressive decisions in some cases, and at other times have not. The point was that a person's background affects how they see the world—a fact that other justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have acknowledged, without similar controversy. She stressed that this fact should not determine how a actually judge rules—which is why she also spoke of "complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives" and her desire "to be greater than the sum total of my experiences." If reporters can't be bothered to read her speech, then right-wingers will be free to misrepresent it. —If you've got a TV, you've probably been seeing a lot of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who is on a campaign to push the message that Barack Obama has made the country more dangerous by dropping such Bush era policies as torture. By giving Cheney such prominent airtime, the media have allowed him to shift the torture debate away from the legal and moral angles, to the more self-serving argument that torture works. Cheney claims that secret intelligence proves that many attacks on the U.S. were averted because of information gleaned through abusive interrogations. These claims go largely unchallenged, even though there's plenty of evidence that undercuts Cheney. Vanity Fair reported last December that FBI director Robert Mueller says he knows of no such averted attacks. In 2004 the CIA's inspector general similarly concluded that torture had not been useful. And many experts and historians on the subject torture say that non-coercive techniques are far better at obtaining accurate information than abusive ones. There is also, of course, the fact that Cheney has a history of telling falsehoods based on alleged secret intelligence—remember Iraq’s nuclear program, WMDs and links with al-Qaeda? But instead of being confronted, the former veep gets a pass. The dean of Washington journalists, David Broder, was respectful of Cheney's argument, describing him in the May 24 Washington Post as "scornful of the simplistic formulas that politicians tend to favor." Yes, that’s right, Dick Cheney is averse to simplistic formulas; the one who's saying that those who don't follow his discredited policies are endangering the country. —Well, it wasn't just Dick Cheney. The New York Times published a front-page article May 21st that bolstered the notion that former Guantánamo prisoners "return" to terrorist activity—fueling the argument of those who oppose plans to close the prison. Elisabeth Bumiller's piece, based on a leaked Pentagon report, emphasized the idea that former prisoners "returned to terrorism or militant activity"—without adequately defining either term, or examining whether the detainees were ever "terrorists" in the first place. Even the headline "1 in 7 Freed Detainees Rejoins Fight, Report Finds," glossed over the Defense Department's own distinction between "confirmed" and "suspected" cases. Also missing: a full explanation of the Pentagon's history of releasing such studies, which have been widely challenged. As Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall has explained, the Pentagon has been forced to correct numerous errors in these studies—including naming people who were never in Guantánamo, or counting people as "returning to the fight" for writing a New York Times op-ed or appearing in a documentary. His examination of the Pentagon's own tribunal records also found that only 4 percent of the summaries even alleged that the detainee "had ever been on any battlefield" in the first place. Bumiller went on MSNBC and seemed to walk the story back, acknowledging that "there is some debate about whether you should say 'returned' because some of them were perhaps not engaged in terrorism, as we know—some of them are being held there on vague charges." Too bad about that front page article then, I guess. The Times itself tried to close the barn door by changing the story for the website, to say that former detainees "are engaged in terrorism or militant activity" rather than having "returned" to it. But Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet told Politico that those changes weren't significant. So... your front-page story about people "returning" to the "fight" was wrong on the "return"-ing part and on the "fight" part, and based on a leak from an agency with a history of lying on this issue... but everything's fine. —Well, it's good when newspapers do correct their mistakes, but sometimes you'd like a bit more in the way of explanation. On May 21, the New York Times notified readers that in their first reports about the so-called Newburgh terrorist plot—four guys in New York who were seemingly egged on by an FBI informant to hatch a plan to bomb synagogues—they identified the suspects as Arabs. Turns out that exactly none of them are, though. That's a mistake, to be sure. I wonder how that happened? But a bigger error was in the Washington Post; on the same day the paper corrected its report on a speech by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The paper had claimed that he had "linked his country's test-firing of a medium-range missile to its nuclear program. Ahmadinejad made no such link and maintains that the nuclear program is for strictly civilian purposes." Well, it's troubling that the Times would make their error; the Post's mistake, though, is hard to fathom, since Iran has always maintained that they have no nuclear weapons program. If their president had admitted they did, that would be rather big news. —And finally—Time magazine's "10 Questions" feature spotlights Larry King in the June 1 issue. King has a new autobiography out—though it might be somewhat fictional. The New York Times has already taken apart one of his anecdotes: A filly he says he won a trifecta on at the track wasn't born the year he says it happened... But never mind, King's in the spotlight and reminding us of his strange definition of the work he does. Asked in Time about the heat he gets for using his show to feature "'tabloid guests," King answers, "I don't know that I deserve the heat, because I don't pick the guests. Never pick the guests. And a lot of times, I don't like it either. However, when the light goes on, I've got a job to do. So if we have to discuss the missing child or the beauty star who's divorcing her husband, it's the nature of the beast. You have to do it." If here he makes his job sound like some sort of work release program, King has made clear that he tries to make it as easy as possible. He famously told the Washington Post in 1996 that he doesn't trouble to read the books his guests come on to discuss; indeed, King says he "prepares as little as possible for each interview, and speaks proudly of the nights when he finds himself, as he drives into CNN's Washington studio, unable to remember who his guest will be." "If I know too much, I feel inhibited," he said. Presumably that's his concern for his viewers as well. JOHN FEFFER CounterSpin: When North Korea re-emerges on the media radar, it's usually because there is some sort of crisis. That's what has unfolded in the past week or so, as North Korea has apparently conducted an underground nuclear test of some sort, and test-fired several missiles. The story is often framed as a test of some sort for the Obama administration, with plenty of space given to those who argue that the lesson here is that the White House must pursue something other than diplomacy. Is ratcheting up the tension really a wise strategy right now? And how do media misread North Korea generally? Joining us now to talk about this is John Feffer, he's co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies and he's author of North Korea / South Korea: U.S. Policy at a Time of Crisis. Welcome back to CounterSpin, John Feffer. John Feffer:Thanks for having me on the show. CS: Now the coverage of North Korea seems to more or less start with the proposition that the country's actions are irrational. A New York Times editorial begins: "Erratic, frightening and hugely self-destructive. Those are the words we would use to describe North Korea's behavior." And that's in a piece that calls for more diplomacy. Is there a better way to interpret North Korea's actions—particularly some way the media here aren't interpreting them? JF:Well, North Korea's actions in many respects are entirely rational. North Korea's looked at the diplomatic record over the last 15 years, and it has seen that only when it has made a big fuss, only when it has acted as the West has decided is provocative, has it gotten any response, has it been able to get a seat at the table, has it gotten any kind of action on the agenda it wants to see pushed forward—which is naturally to get some kind of a deal with the United States, with South Korea, and with Japan. And in terms of being erratic, well, North Korea said that it was going to do this. It said it was going to launch a rocket; in April it said that a month before it did. So, it said it was going to conduct this nuclear test as soon as the U.N. issued a condemning statement. So it's not quite as erratic as the Western press would portray it. CS:Troubling, I guess, but maybe not erratic. I want to ask you about that diplomatic record. Also in the New York Times there was this story that conveyed the message from the White House, and the White House was saying that every policy option over the past 12 years has been "fruitless in stopping North Korea." There is this line of thinking in the Times and elsewhere that the Bush Administration really changed course in 2006, started pursuing diplomacy, and look, it hasn't gotten us anywhere. JF:Right, well, obviously it's not easy to work with North Korea and the reason why is because it is what we might call the tyranny of the weak. North Korea's actually quite a weak country and because it's in a weak position, it is prone to brinksmanship because it has no other levers at its disposal. However, I would say that a number of the techniques that we've followed in the past showed promise—if they didn't succeed entirely, the blame lies not simply on North Korea but with ourselves. For instance, the agreed framework: we were able to freeze North Korea's plutonium facilities and that freeze held for eight years. Unfortunately, the United States did not fulfill its side of the bargain entirely; in North Korea also there were some problems meeting its obligations. Also, in 2006 we saw some progress, we saw North Korea actually dismantle 70?80 percent of its nuclear program, its plutonium program, before we got into some disagreements over verification. Again, here too, you could say the United States did not entirely fulfill the obligations. We were supposed to provide an enormous amount of fuel oil. Well, we did, the United States did, but our allies, South Korea and Japan, did not actually fulfill our side of the bargain. North Korea also expected us to take them off a series of sanction lists, and we did remove them from one important sanction list—a terrorism-supporting nations sanctions list—but it didn't translate into what North Korea expected, which was a significant inflow of capital into the country. So basically North Korea didn't get what it wanted or it expected, and therefore felt it had to resort to other strategies. CS: There is one way the story seems to be framed as a test for this new White House. There's a headline in the Washington Post: "An Early Test for Obama's Engagement Policy"—the New York Times: "Tested Early by North Korea, Obama Has Few Options." There is this sense that the foreign policy establishment is kind of sending a message to the White House to say "You wanted to talk to the bad guys, well here's your chance." Is it really that dramatic right now? JF:Well, the Obama administration came into the White House really without any strategy on North Korea. The six party talks were basically stalled over this issue of verification and the assessment of North Korea's declarations of its nuclear program. The Obama administration came in and basically didn't know what to do. And had too much else to deal with—a huge foreign policy agenda that basically pushed North Korea down in the list of priorities. I think that the Obama administration was rather hoping that they could get to the North Korea issue eventually, and perhaps then the issue of talking with North Korea substantively would be addressed over the summer or in the fall, but North Korea was not interested in waiting. North Korea is in, we can talk about the internal situation there, but they're operating according to a different timeline, and I think this conflict between these two timelines has produced this rather unfortunate set of events over the last couple of months. CS:In talking about internal politics, it is one of the themes, and you do get the sense that reporting on North Korea has always been somewhat of a puzzle. It's so difficult to get access to the country, that explains some of it, but you do see these curious stories. The New York Times, for example, had one piece that was trying to explain the different interpretations of pictures of Kim Jong-Il—are the North Koreans trying to show that he looks sick but he's still in charge, or are they trying to say he's ill and he's trying to pass the baton to his son or son-in-law? We see this analysis that says this is really—both of these tests are really about internal politics, but we also see, "Oh, but also North Korea's trying to send a message to the rest of the world." What are we supposed to make of all this tea leaf reading? JF:Well, you're right. I mean, we don't have really much access in North Korea even compared to say the Soviet Union in the 1970s when also people would scrutinize photographs and positions of people in the Politburo lineup to figure out what the relationships were and who was in and who was out. We don't even really have the kind of access we had back then. It means we resort to rumors. We depend a great deal on hearsay. Looking at the situation internally in Pyongyang, we can safely say that, yes, Kim Jong-Il had some kind of a health problem, probably a stroke, back in the fall. He's clearly recovered to a certain degree, but it has accelerated the discussions of succession—who's going to come after Kim Jong-Il. I think also the fact that there's been a tremendous turn in politics in South Korea—a turn towards a conservative approach to North Korea, under new president Lee Myung-Bak—that that has also affected the discussion in Pyongyang. I think that anything that the leadership does right there is going to have an internal and an external message. The internal message is clearly going to be "Look we are still a strong country, regardless of what you might hear from the rumor mill within North Korea," and the message outside is very similar: "We are a strong country." You may compare our military spending, for instance. North Korea spends about a half a billion dollars a year on its military. South Korea alone spends 40 times that amount. So, you know, North Korea's in this position where it constantly has to prove that it is a powerful country. It's nuclear test in 2006 was generally assessed to be a dud. It's rocket launches have all been declared failures. In that environment, North Korea feels that it must somehow give the impression that it is a strong country or else it will be treated as a weak country and the consequences could be devastating. CS: We've been speaking with John Feffer, he's the co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. He's the author of numerous books, including North Korea / South Korea: U.S. Policy at a Time of Crisis. You can read his work at FPIF.org or JohnFeffer.com. Thanks for joining us this week John Feffer. JF:Thank you for having me on the show. HAN SHAN CounterSpin: Fourteen years ago CounterSpin reported on the story of Nigerian organizer Ken Saro-Wiwa, founder and leader of a group that used nonviolent activism to protest their exploitation and that of their land by the Nigerian government and by the oil industry giant Royal Dutch Shell. It was called MOSOP, the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People. Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists were hanged in 1995 and one year later a lawsuit was filed charging Shell with complicity in those executions and other acts of repression against the Ogoni. That trial was scheduled to begin May 26; it's been delayed, but that it has come this far is despite years of vigorous effort from the oil company, which is still the largest multinational operating in Nigeria and which is still charged with environmental and human rights violations. We're joined now by phone by Han Shan, coordinator of the ShellGuilty campaign, which is a coalition initiative of the groups Friends of the Earth, Oil Change International, and PLATFORM/Remember Saro-Wiwa. Welcome to CounterSpin, Han Shan! Han Shan: Thank you for having us. CS: Well, those with a cursory knowledge of Wiwa v. Shell may believe it to be a merely "symbolic" trial—to call Shell to public account for taking advantage of, or generally showing insufficient concern for, the Ogoni in Nigeria. I know some of the legal details are a little bit complicated, but give us a sense of what the actual charges are here? HS: There are a number of charges. They include crimes against humanity, summary executions, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, and the reason for these very serious sounding charges is because what Shell did is very serious. They actively colluded with the Nigerian miliary dictatorship to suppress MOSOP, to suppress this popular nonviolent movement for environmental justice and human rights, and they did it in a variety of ways. They literally armed, financed, requested soldiers to incidents of nonviolent protest at which soldiers shot people, and later praised them for their restraint—paid them. They also of course, in the most famous case, conspired with the military in the prosecution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues, leading of course to their execution. CS: And the charge there is they actually bribed people, right? HS: Well yeah, there are a couple of witnesses that spoke at the military tribunal that tried Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues, who signed affidavits saying that they were offered bribes with Shell lawyers present—bribes of money and job at Shell to testify against Saro-Wiwa. And of course ultimately they're found guilty and hanged—nine of them. CS: Well, now the trial Wiva vs. Shell has been delayed. What do you know or hear about that, and what does it mean for organizing? HS: Well, I think, you know, with such a landmark trial that has been on the way for 13 1/2 years, a lot of us are waiting with baited breath. It's really difficult to know, and it's impossible not to speculate because it is something that we're following so closely and so carefully, but the truth of the matter is we really have no idea. The plaintiffs' attorneys, the defense counsel, and the court are all being very, very tight lipped. Certainly rumors are swirling that there's an eleventh hour attempt by Shell to try to escape some of the negative publicity that's already begun as people reckon with what Shell did back in the '90s in Nigeria and of course what's still going on in the Niger Delta today. As we've seen in the last couple weeks, there's been an uptick in violence by the Nigerian military against oil producing communities. Obviously for organizing purposes, we think it's critical to just try to keep a spotlight on the issues at hand and try to tell the story of what happened and make sure that people do understand what is the true price of oil—something that my colleague Steve Kretzmann at Oil Change likes to talk about. CS: Well, and of course there's a concern from a publicity standpoint that if there is no trial, from some journalists' perspective, that may mean there's no story. I want to bring you up to the present-day concerns because the Shell trial is very much about justice for the killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa and others, but the activism around it is also about not just what happened 15 years ago, as you've just suggested, but what's happening today in Nigeria and elsewhere—and I'd like to just give you a chance: What are the major issues of concern that people shoud know about, specifically still going on in Nigeria with Shell? HS: Well, specifically, and Shell is still the major operator in Nigeria but Chevron is a huge operator there, Total, Agip, other companies—and in the Niger Delta particularly but across Nigeria communities continue to face human rights abuses, horrific degradation of their land, unremediated oil spills that have been there for decades that are threatening their very lives, certainly their livelihoods. One of the key issues for the ShellGuilty coalition is gas flaring: burning off the associated gas that's released through oil extraction activities in massive fires that send toxins into the air and also emit massive amounts of greenhouse gases, which are fueling our climate crisis. We're talking about 24/7 giant fires that are done basically because it's cost efficient. Capturing that gas and using it provide power for these oil producing communities that have given so much oil wealth to both the Nigerian federal government and of course to Shell, which made 30 billion dollars last year—it would be a little bit more expensive to pump that back into the ground or to capture it for power, so instead they just burn it off in these toxic fires that make night into day for some villagers unlucky enough to live next to one of these operations. CS: It's hard to fathom. Well finally, Oil Change International president Steve Kretzmann said recently that Shell's strategy for decades has been to "starve this issue of oxygen"—that phrase actually comes from company documents. I take it the strategy of the ShellGuilty campaign is to do just the opposite of that. Just let us know what you're doing going forward to keep the spotlight on this? HS: Well, exactly, we're trying to—in our very name, you can obviously imagine that we're partisan on a certain level. We know that Shell is guilty of human rights abuses or environmental degradation, of putting profits before people and the planet. And whether they're held liable in the courts for what they did in Nigeria, what they did to Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues, we'll have to wait and see how the jury sorts that out. But we also believe that it's critical at this moment to turn up the heat on Shell, demand an end to gas flaring and demand an end to the kinds of human right abuses and environmental degradation that it considers a part of its standard operating procedure, business as usual. So you know, I think one of the key things is just keeping an eye on this trial and raising awareness about the fact that this is finally happening, 14 years after the abuses took place, a truly historic event possibly, for corporate accountability and something that could send shockwaves of the very best kind through corporate boardrooms around the world. CS: We've been speaking with Han Shan, coordinator of the ShellGuilty campaign; they're on the web at ShellGuilty.com. Thank you very much for joining us today on CounterSpin. HS: Thanks so much for having us. This week on CounterSpin: When the media talks foreign affairs, there's generally an assumption that countries have identifiable interests and rationally pursue them as best they can. All that's thrown out the window when it comes to North Korea. That country's apparent decision to conduct an underground nuclear test and test-fire several missiles has re-engaged the media discussion about the nuclear-armed dictatorship. But what do we still not understand about that country's behavior? And is all of this really a "test" for Barack Obama? John Feffer of the Institute for Policy Studies will join us to discuss that. Also on CounterSpin today: Fourteen years ago Nigeria executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other activists who were organizing nonviolent protests against the military government and Shell oil's exploitation of the Ogoni people and their environment. Shell is long believed to have been complicit in those and other violations and now a lawsuit making that case may soon have its day in court. We'll hear from Han Shan of the ShellGuilty campaign on this historic and still unfolding story. Links: — Strategic Dialogue on North Korea, by Brent Choi, Joowoon Jung & John Feffer (Foreign Policy In Focus, 5/22/09) — ShellGuilty.com FULL TRANSCRIPT: All that's coming up, but first we'll take a look back at the week's press. —The confirmation battle over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor could very well hinge on whether the media want to fact-check her critics. And in one early case, the press is largely failing. Right-wing pundits and politicians have pounced on comments Sotomayor made in 2001 at UC Berkeley. The quote, taken out of context, has been replayed endlessly: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Well that sure sounds like she believes that Latina judges are smarter than white judges. That message has been carried uncritically in the media. In the May 27 Washington Post, Howard Kurtz relayed the sentence and a Fox News host called Sotomayor a reverse racist. On May 28, the New York Times ran that quote, followed by a reaction from Newt Gingrich— he thinks she's a racist who should withdraw her name—and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. That leaves the misinterpretation of this quote intact. But if you actually read her speech, you see that this is totally misleading. Sotomayor was speaking about race and sex discrimination cases, and was wrestling with the argument that wise judges always reach wise conclusions. Her point was that this isn't always the case; wise white judges have rendered progressive decisions in some cases, and at other times have not. The point was that a person's background affects how they see the world—a fact that other justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have acknowledged, without similar controversy. She stressed that this fact should not determine how a actually judge rules—which is why she also spoke of "complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives" and her desire "to be greater than the sum total of my experiences." If reporters can't be bothered to read her speech, then right-wingers will be free to misrepresent it. —If you've got a TV, you've probably been seeing a lot of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who is on a campaign to push the message that Barack Obama has made the country more dangerous by dropping such Bush era policies as torture. By giving Cheney such prominent airtime, the media have allowed him to shift the torture debate away from the legal and moral angles, to the more self-serving argument that torture works. Cheney claims that secret intelligence proves that many attacks on the U.S. were averted because of information gleaned through abusive interrogations. These claims go largely unchallenged, even though there's plenty of evidence that undercuts Cheney. Vanity Fair reported last December that FBI director Robert Mueller says he knows of no such averted attacks. In 2004 the CIA's inspector general similarly concluded that torture had not been useful. And many experts and historians on the subject torture say that non-coercive techniques are far better at obtaining accurate information than abusive ones. There is also, of course, the fact that Cheney has a history of telling falsehoods based on alleged secret intelligence—remember Iraq’s nuclear program, WMDs and links with al-Qaeda? But instead of being confronted, the former veep gets a pass. The dean of Washington journalists, David Broder, was respectful of Cheney's argument, describing him in the May 24 Washington Post as "scornful of the simplistic formulas that politicians tend to favor." Yes, that’s right, Dick Cheney is averse to simplistic formulas; the one who's saying that those who don't follow his discredited policies are endangering the country. —Well, it wasn't just Dick Cheney. The New York Times published a front-page article May 21st that bolstered the notion that former Guantánamo prisoners "return" to terrorist activity—fueling the argument of those who oppose plans to close the prison. Elisabeth Bumiller's piece, based on a leaked Pentagon report, emphasized the idea that former prisoners "returned to terrorism or militant activity"—without adequately defining either term, or examining whether the detainees were ever "terrorists" in the first place. Even the headline "1 in 7 Freed Detainees Rejoins Fight, Report Finds," glossed over the Defense Department's own distinction between "confirmed" and "suspected" cases. Also missing: a full explanation of the Pentagon's history of releasing such studies, which have been widely challenged. As Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall has explained, the Pentagon has been forced to correct numerous errors in these studies—including naming people who were never in Guantánamo, or counting people as "returning to the fight" for writing a New York Times op-ed or appearing in a documentary. His examination of the Pentagon's own tribunal records also found that only 4 percent of the summaries even alleged that the detainee "had ever been on any battlefield" in the first place. Bumiller went on MSNBC and seemed to walk the story back, acknowledging that "there is some debate about whether you should say 'returned' because some of them were perhaps not engaged in terrorism, as we know—some of them are being held there on vague charges." Too bad about that front page article then, I guess. The Times itself tried to close the barn door by changing the story for the website, to say that former detainees "are engaged in terrorism or militant activity" rather than having "returned" to it. But Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet told Politico that those changes weren't significant. So... your front-page story about people "returning" to the "fight" was wrong on the "return"-ing part and on the "fight" part, and based on a leak from an agency with a history of lying on this issue... but everything's fine. —Well, it's good when newspapers do correct their mistakes, but sometimes you'd like a bit more in the way of explanation. On May 21, the New York Times notified readers that in their first reports about the so-called Newburgh terrorist plot—four guys in New York who were seemingly egged on by an FBI informant to hatch a plan to bomb synagogues—they identified the suspects as Arabs. Turns out that exactly none of them are, though. That's a mistake, to be sure. I wonder how that happened? But a bigger error was in the Washington Post; on the same day the paper corrected its report on a speech by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The paper had claimed that he had "linked his country's test-firing of a medium-range missile to its nuclear program. Ahmadinejad made no such link and maintains that the nuclear program is for strictly civilian purposes." Well, it's troubling that the Times would make their error; the Post's mistake, though, is hard to fathom, since Iran has always maintained that they have no nuclear weapons program. If their president had admitted they did, that would be rather big news. —And finally—Time magazine's "10 Questions" feature spotlights Larry King in the June 1 issue. King has a new autobiography out—though it might be somewhat fictional. The New York Times has already taken apart one of his anecdotes: A filly he says he won a trifecta on at the track wasn't born the year he says it happened... But never mind, King's in the spotlight and reminding us of his strange definition of the work he does. Asked in Time about the heat he gets for using his show to feature "'tabloid guests," King answers, "I don't know that I deserve the heat, because I don't pick the guests. Never pick the guests. And a lot of times, I don't like it either. However, when the light goes on, I've got a job to do. So if we have to discuss the missing child or the beauty star who's divorcing her husband, it's the nature of the beast. You have to do it." If here he makes his job sound like some sort of work release program, King has made clear that he tries to make it as easy as possible. He famously told the Washington Post in 1996 that he doesn't trouble to read the books his guests come on to discuss; indeed, King says he "prepares as little as possible for each interview, and speaks proudly of the nights when he finds himself, as he drives into CNN's Washington studio, unable to remember who his guest will be." "If I know too much, I feel inhibited," he said. Presumably that's his concern for his viewers as well. JOHN FEFFER CounterSpin: When North Korea re-emerges on the media radar, it's usually because there is some sort of crisis. That's what has unfolded in the past week or so, as North Korea has apparently conducted an underground nuclear test of some sort, and test-fired several missiles. The story is often framed as a test of some sort for the Obama administration, with plenty of space given to those who argue that the lesson here is that the White House must pursue something other than diplomacy. Is ratcheting up the tension really a wise strategy right now? And how do media misread North Korea generally? Joining us now to talk about this is John Feffer, he's co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies and he's author of North Korea / South Korea: U.S. Policy at a Time of Crisis. Welcome back to CounterSpin, John Feffer. John Feffer:Thanks for having me on the show. CS: Now the coverage of North Korea seems to more or less start with the proposition that the country's actions are irrational. A New York Times editorial begins: "Erratic, frightening and hugely self-destructive. Those are the words we would use to describe North Korea's behavior." And that's in a piece that calls for more diplomacy. Is there a better way to interpret North Korea's actions—particularly some way the media here aren't interpreting them? JF:Well, North Korea's actions in many respects are entirely rational. North Korea's looked at the diplomatic record over the last 15 years, and it has seen that only when it has made a big fuss, only when it has acted as the West has decided is provocative, has it gotten any response, has it been able to get a seat at the table, has it gotten any kind of action on the agenda it wants to see pushed forward—which is naturally to get some kind of a deal with the United States, with South Korea, and with Japan. And in terms of being erratic, well, North Korea said that it was going to do this. It said it was going to launch a rocket; in April it said that a month before it did. So, it said it was going to conduct this nuclear test as soon as the U.N. issued a condemning statement. So it's not quite as erratic as the Western press would portray it. CS:Troubling, I guess, but maybe not erratic. I want to ask you about that diplomatic record. Also in the New York Times there was this story that conveyed the message from the White House, and the White House was saying that every policy option over the past 12 years has been "fruitless in stopping North Korea." There is this line of thinking in the Times and elsewhere that the Bush Administration really changed course in 2006, started pursuing diplomacy, and look, it hasn't gotten us anywhere. JF:Right, well, obviously it's not easy to work with North Korea and the reason why is because it is what we might call the tyranny of the weak. North Korea's actually quite a weak country and because it's in a weak position, it is prone to brinksmanship because it has no other levers at its disposal. However, I would say that a number of the techniques that we've followed in the past showed promise—if they didn't succeed entirely, the blame lies not simply on North Korea but with ourselves. For instance, the agreed framework: we were able to freeze North Korea's plutonium facilities and that freeze held for eight years. Unfortunately, the United States did not fulfill its side of the bargain entirely; in North Korea also there were some problems meeting its obligations. Also, in 2006 we saw some progress, we saw North Korea actually dismantle 70?80 percent of its nuclear program, its plutonium program, before we got into some disagreements over verification. Again, here too, you could say the United States did not entirely fulfill the obligations. We were supposed to provide an enormous amount of fuel oil. Well, we did, the United States did, but our allies, South Korea and Japan, did not actually fulfill our side of the bargain. North Korea also expected us to take them off a series of sanction lists, and we did remove them from one important sanction list—a terrorism-supporting nations sanctions list—but it didn't translate into what North Korea expected, which was a significant inflow of capital into the country. So basically North Korea didn't get what it wanted or it expected, and therefore felt it had to resort to other strategies. CS: There is one way the story seems to be framed as a test for this new White House. There's a headline in the Washington Post: "An Early Test for Obama's Engagement Policy"—the New York Times: "Tested Early by North Korea, Obama Has Few Options." There is this sense that the foreign policy establishment is kind of sending a message to the White House to say "You wanted to talk to the bad guys, well here's your chance." Is it really that dramatic right now? JF:Well, the Obama administration came into the White House really without any strategy on North Korea. The six party talks were basically stalled over this issue of verification and the assessment of North Korea's declarations of its nuclear program. The Obama administration came in and basically didn't know what to do. And had too much else to deal with—a huge foreign policy agenda that basically pushed North Korea down in the list of priorities. I think that the Obama administration was rather hoping that they could get to the North Korea issue eventually, and perhaps then the issue of talking with North Korea substantively would be addressed over the summer or in the fall, but North Korea was not interested in waiting. North Korea is in, we can talk about the internal situation there, but they're operating according to a different timeline, and I think this conflict between these two timelines has produced this rather unfortunate set of events over the last couple of months. CS:In talking about internal politics, it is one of the themes, and you do get the sense that reporting on North Korea has always been somewhat of a puzzle. It's so difficult to get access to the country, that explains some of it, but you do see these curious stories. The New York Times, for example, had one piece that was trying to explain the different interpretations of pictures of Kim Jong-Il—are the North Koreans trying to show that he looks sick but he's still in charge, or are they trying to say he's ill and he's trying to pass the baton to his son or son-in-law? We see this analysis that says this is really—both of these tests are really about internal politics, but we also see, "Oh, but also North Korea's trying to send a message to the rest of the world." What are we supposed to make of all this tea leaf reading? JF:Well, you're right. I mean, we don't have really much access in North Korea even compared to say the Soviet Union in the 1970s when also people would scrutinize photographs and positions of people in the Politburo lineup to figure out what the relationships were and who was in and who was out. We don't even really have the kind of access we had back then. It means we resort to rumors. We depend a great deal on hearsay. Looking at the situation internally in Pyongyang, we can safely say that, yes, Kim Jong-Il had some kind of a health problem, probably a stroke, back in the fall. He's clearly recovered to a certain degree, but it has accelerated the discussions of succession—who's going to come after Kim Jong-Il. I think also the fact that there's been a tremendous turn in politics in South Korea—a turn towards a conservative approach to North Korea, under new president Lee Myung-Bak—that that has also affected the discussion in Pyongyang. I think that anything that the leadership does right there is going to have an internal and an external message. The internal message is clearly going to be "Look we are still a strong country, regardless of what you might hear from the rumor mill within North Korea," and the message outside is very similar: "We are a strong country." You may compare our military spending, for instance. North Korea spends about a half a billion dollars a year on its military. South Korea alone spends 40 times that amount. So, you know, North Korea's in this position where it constantly has to prove that it is a powerful country. It's nuclear test in 2006 was generally assessed to be a dud. It's rocket launches have all been declared failures. In that environment, North Korea feels that it must somehow give the impression that it is a strong country or else it will be treated as a weak country and the consequences could be devastating. CS: We've been speaking with John Feffer, he's the co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. He's the author of numerous books, including North Korea / South Korea: U.S. Policy at a Time of Crisis. You can read his work at FPIF.org or JohnFeffer.com. Thanks for joining us this week John Feffer. JF:Thank you for having me on the show. HAN SHAN CounterSpin: Fourteen years ago CounterSpin reported on the story of Nigerian organizer Ken Saro-Wiwa, founder and leader of a group that used nonviolent activism to protest their exploitation and that of their land by the Nigerian government and by the oil industry giant Royal Dutch Shell. It was called MOSOP, the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People. Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists were hanged in 1995 and one year later a lawsuit was filed charging Shell with complicity in those executions and other acts of repression against the Ogoni. That trial was scheduled to begin May 26; it's been delayed, but that it has come this far is despite years of vigorous effort from the oil company, which is still the largest multinational operating in Nigeria and which is still charged with environmental and human rights violations. We're joined now by phone by Han Shan, coordinator of the ShellGuilty campaign, which is a coalition initiative of the groups Friends of the Earth, Oil Change International, and PLATFORM/Remember Saro-Wiwa. Welcome to CounterSpin, Han Shan! Han Shan: Thank you for having us. CS: Well, those with a cursory knowledge of Wiwa v. Shell may believe it to be a merely "symbolic" trial—to call Shell to public account for taking advantage of, or generally showing insufficient concern for, the Ogoni in Nigeria. I know some of the legal details are a little bit complicated, but give us a sense of what the actual charges are here? HS: There are a number of charges. They include crimes against humanity, summary executions, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, and the reason for these very serious sounding charges is because what Shell did is very serious. They actively colluded with the Nigerian miliary dictatorship to suppress MOSOP, to suppress this popular nonviolent movement for environmental justice and human rights, and they did it in a variety of ways. They literally armed, financed, requested soldiers to incidents of nonviolent protest at which soldiers shot people, and later praised them for their restraint—paid them. They also of course, in the most famous case, conspired with the military in the prosecution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues, leading of course to their execution. CS: And the charge there is they actually bribed people, right? HS: Well yeah, there are a couple of witnesses that spoke at the military tribunal that tried Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues, who signed affidavits saying that they were offered bribes with Shell lawyers present—bribes of money and job at Shell to testify against Saro-Wiwa. And of course ultimately they're found guilty and hanged—nine of them. CS: Well, now the trial Wiva vs. Shell has been delayed. What do you know or hear about that, and what does it mean for organizing? HS: Well, I think, you know, with such a landmark trial that has been on the way for 13 1/2 years, a lot of us are waiting with baited breath. It's really difficult to know, and it's impossible not to speculate because it is something that we're following so closely and so carefully, but the truth of the matter is we really have no idea. The plaintiffs' attorneys, the defense counsel, and the court are all being very, very tight lipped. Certainly rumors are swirling that there's an eleventh hour attempt by Shell to try to escape some of the negative publicity that's already begun as people reckon with what Shell did back in the '90s in Nigeria and of course what's still going on in the Niger Delta today. As we've seen in the last couple weeks, there's been an uptick in violence by the Nigerian military against oil producing communities. Obviously for organizing purposes, we think it's critical to just try to keep a spotlight on the issues at hand and try to tell the story of what happened and make sure that people do understand what is the true price of oil—something that my colleague Steve Kretzmann at Oil Change likes to talk about. CS: Well, and of course there's a concern from a publicity standpoint that if there is no trial, from some journalists' perspective, that may mean there's no story. I want to bring you up to the present-day concerns because the Shell trial is very much about justice for the killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa and others, but the activism around it is also about not just what happened 15 years ago, as you've just suggested, but what's happening today in Nigeria and elsewhere—and I'd like to just give you a chance: What are the major issues of concern that people shoud know about, specifically still going on in Nigeria with Shell? HS: Well, specifically, and Shell is still the major operator in Nigeria but Chevron is a huge operator there, Total, Agip, other companies—and in the Niger Delta particularly but across Nigeria communities continue to face human rights abuses, horrific degradation of their land, unremediated oil spills that have been there for decades that are threatening their very lives, certainly their livelihoods. One of the key issues for the ShellGuilty coalition is gas flaring: burning off the associated gas that's released through oil extraction activities in massive fires that send toxins into the air and also emit massive amounts of greenhouse gases, which are fueling our climate crisis. We're talking about 24/7 giant fires that are done basically because it's cost efficient. Capturing that gas and using it provide power for these oil producing communities that have given so much oil wealth to both the Nigerian federal government and of course to Shell, which made 30 billion dollars last year—it would be a little bit more expensive to pump that back into the ground or to capture it for power, so instead they just burn it off in these toxic fires that make night into day for some villagers unlucky enough to live next to one of these operations. CS: It's hard to fathom. Well finally, Oil Change International president Steve Kretzmann said recently that Shell's strategy for decades has been to "starve this issue of oxygen"—that phrase actually comes from company documents. I take it the strategy of the ShellGuilty campaign is to do just the opposite of that. Just let us know what you're doing going forward to keep the spotlight on this? HS: Well, exactly, we're trying to—in our very name, you can obviously imagine that we're partisan on a certain level. We know that Shell is guilty of human rights abuses or environmental degradation, of putting profits before people and the planet. And whether they're held liable in the courts for what they did in Nigeria, what they did to Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues, we'll have to wait and see how the jury sorts that out. But we also believe that it's critical at this moment to turn up the heat on Shell, demand an end to gas flaring and demand an end to the kinds of human right abuses and environmental degradation that it considers a part of its standard operating procedure, business as usual. So you know, I think one of the key things is just keeping an eye on this trial and raising awareness about the fact that this is finally happening, 14 years after the abuses took place, a truly historic event possibly, for corporate accountability and something that could send shockwaves of the very best kind through corporate boardrooms around the world. CS: We've been speaking with Han Shan, coordinator of the ShellGuilty campaign; they're on the web at ShellGuilty.com. Thank you very much for joining us today on CounterSpin. HS: Thanks so much for having us. tag:odeo.com,2009-05-28,24642366 Thu, 28 May 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24624790-John-Feffer-on-North-Korea-Han-Shan-on-Shell-amp-Ken-Siro-Wawa This week on CounterSpin: When the media talks foreign affairs, there's generally an assumption that countries have identifiable interests and rationally pursue them as best they can. All that's thrown out the window when it comes to North Korea. That country's apparent decision to conduct an underground nuclear test and test-fire several missiles has re-engaged the media discussion about the nuclear-armed dictatorship. But what do we still not understand about that country's behavior? And is all of this really a "test" for Barack Obama? John Feffer of the Institute for Policy Studies will join us to discuss that. Also on CounterSpin today: Fourteen years ago Nigeria executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other activists who were organizing nonviolent protests against the military government and Shell oil's exploitation of the Ogoni people and their environment. Shell is long believed to have been complicit in those and other violations and now a lawsuit making that case may soon have its... This week on CounterSpin: When the media talks foreign affairs, there's generally an assumption that countries have identifiable interests and rationally pursue them as best they can. All that's thrown out the window when it comes to North Korea. That country's apparent decision to conduct an underground nuclear test and test-fire several missiles has re-engaged the media discussion about the nuclear-armed dictatorship. But what do we still not understand about that country's behavior? And is all of this really a "test" for Barack Obama? John Feffer of the Institute for Policy Studies will join us to discuss that. Also on CounterSpin today: Fourteen years ago Nigeria executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other activists who were organizing nonviolent protests against the military government and Shell oil's exploitation of the Ogoni people and their environment. Shell is long believed to have been complicit in those and other violations and now a lawsuit making that case may soon have its day in court. We'll hear from Han Shan of the ShellGuilty campaign on this historic and still unfolding story. Links: — Strategic Dialogue on North Korea, by Brent Choi, Joowoon Jung & John Feffer (Foreign Policy In Focus, 5/22/09) — ShellGuilty.com This week on CounterSpin: When the media talks foreign affairs, there's generally an assumption that countries have identifiable interests and rationally pursue them as best they can. All that's thrown out the window when it comes to North Korea. That country's apparent decision to conduct an underground nuclear test and test-fire several missiles has re-engaged the media discussion about the nuclear-armed dictatorship. But what do we still not understand about that country's behavior? And is all of this really a "test" for Barack Obama? John Feffer of the Institute for Policy Studies will join us to discuss that. Also on CounterSpin today: Fourteen years ago Nigeria executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other activists who were organizing nonviolent protests against the military government and Shell oil's exploitation of the Ogoni people and their environment. Shell is long believed to have been complicit in those and other violations and now a lawsuit making that case may soon have its day in court. We'll hear from Han Shan of the ShellGuilty campaign on this historic and still unfolding story. Links: — Strategic Dialogue on North Korea, by Brent Choi, Joowoon Jung & John Feffer (Foreign Policy In Focus, 5/22/09) — ShellGuilty.com tag:odeo.com,2009-05-28,24624790 Thu, 28 May 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24595143-Mike-Lillis-on-climate-bill-Joy-Ann-Reid-on-Cheney-amp-torture This week on CounterSpin: Climate change legislation is making its way through Congress, but weirdly, that might not be good news. Some environmentalists are saying that in this case, no law might be better than this bill--that started out as a call to reduce carbon emissions but seems to be turning into something else. We'll talk with Mike Lillis, who covers Congress for the Washington Independent. Also on the show: Did top Bush officials instruct interrogators to torture detainees, not for national security reasons, but to obtain statements to justify the Iraq War? The answer seems to be yes, according to emerging stories based on highly-placed, on-the-record sources. But good luck finding the story anywhere except on a few evening shows on MSNBC. We’ll talk to journalist Joy Ann Reid who has been covering the story, and its shunning by the press, on her website, ReidReport.com. Links: — Coal, Electric Industries Big Winners in Climate Bill Deal, by Mike Lillis (Washin... This week on CounterSpin: Climate change legislation is making its way through Congress, but weirdly, that might not be good news. Some environmentalists are saying that in this case, no law might be better than this bill--that started out as a call to reduce carbon emissions but seems to be turning into something else. We'll talk with Mike Lillis, who covers Congress for the Washington Independent. Also on the show: Did top Bush officials instruct interrogators to torture detainees, not for national security reasons, but to obtain statements to justify the Iraq War? The answer seems to be yes, according to emerging stories based on highly-placed, on-the-record sources. But good luck finding the story anywhere except on a few evening shows on MSNBC. We’ll talk to journalist Joy Ann Reid who has been covering the story, and its shunning by the press, on her website, ReidReport.com. Links: — Coal, Electric Industries Big Winners in Climate Bill Deal, by Mike Lillis (Washington Independent, 5/15/09) ? ReidReport.com This week on CounterSpin: Climate change legislation is making its way through Congress, but weirdly, that might not be good news. Some environmentalists are saying that in this case, no law might be better than this bill--that started out as a call to reduce carbon emissions but seems to be turning into something else. We'll talk with Mike Lillis, who covers Congress for the Washington Independent. Also on the show: Did top Bush officials instruct interrogators to torture detainees, not for national security reasons, but to obtain statements to justify the Iraq War? The answer seems to be yes, according to emerging stories based on highly-placed, on-the-record sources. But good luck finding the story anywhere except on a few evening shows on MSNBC. We’ll talk to journalist Joy Ann Reid who has been covering the story, and its shunning by the press, on her website, ReidReport.com. Links: — Coal, Electric Industries Big Winners in Climate Bill Deal, by Mike Lillis (Washington Independent, 5/15/09) ? ReidReport.com tag:odeo.com,2009-05-21,24595143 Thu, 21 May 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24547460-Manan-Ahmed-on-Pakistan-Dean-Starkman-on-Power-Problem This week on CounterSpin: There are many legitimate concerns about Pakistan, but our guest, University of Chicago historian Manan Ahmed, says the U.S. media discussion of recent developments there, portraying Pakistan as a country "on the brink," border on hysteria. We’ll talk to Manan Ahmed about the hype, and about what he thinks the media should be paying more attention to in Pakistan. Also on CounterSpin today: It certainly seems like the business press missed the big stories of the decade--namely the housing bubble and the meltdown in the mortgage business. Many business reporters, though, will tell you that they asked the right questions, wrote the right pieces, but readers just weren't paying attention. Dean Starkman of the Columbia Journalism Review decided to try and settle that argument. He'll join us to tell us what he found. Links: — Legends of the Fail, by Manan Ahmed (National, 5/7/09) — Power Problem, by Dean Starkman (Columbia Journalism Review, 5?6... This week on CounterSpin: There are many legitimate concerns about Pakistan, but our guest, University of Chicago historian Manan Ahmed, says the U.S. media discussion of recent developments there, portraying Pakistan as a country "on the brink," border on hysteria. We’ll talk to Manan Ahmed about the hype, and about what he thinks the media should be paying more attention to in Pakistan. Also on CounterSpin today: It certainly seems like the business press missed the big stories of the decade--namely the housing bubble and the meltdown in the mortgage business. Many business reporters, though, will tell you that they asked the right questions, wrote the right pieces, but readers just weren't paying attention. Dean Starkman of the Columbia Journalism Review decided to try and settle that argument. He'll join us to tell us what he found. Links: — Legends of the Fail, by Manan Ahmed (National, 5/7/09) — Power Problem, by Dean Starkman (Columbia Journalism Review, 5?6/09) This week on CounterSpin: There are many legitimate concerns about Pakistan, but our guest, University of Chicago historian Manan Ahmed, says the U.S. media discussion of recent developments there, portraying Pakistan as a country "on the brink," border on hysteria. We’ll talk to Manan Ahmed about the hype, and about what he thinks the media should be paying more attention to in Pakistan. Also on CounterSpin today: It certainly seems like the business press missed the big stories of the decade--namely the housing bubble and the meltdown in the mortgage business. Many business reporters, though, will tell you that they asked the right questions, wrote the right pieces, but readers just weren't paying attention. Dean Starkman of the Columbia Journalism Review decided to try and settle that argument. He'll join us to tell us what he found. Links: — Legends of the Fail, by Manan Ahmed (National, 5/7/09) — Power Problem, by Dean Starkman (Columbia Journalism Review, 5?6/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-05-14,24547460 Thu, 14 May 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24547461-Bart-Laws-on-swine-flu-Kristin-Thomson-on-radio-diversity-study This week on CounterSpin: If you didn't panic over the swine flu, then maybe you weren't watching much TV, where scary charts and maps documented the spread of a worldwide pandemic. At least that's what we were hearing last week. With the media hysteria subsiding, the question isn't so much did the press overreact, but how much. But how do we assess the role of public health officials, who perhaps by nature are supposed to worry about these kinds of things? And is there a different conversation about global public health that we should be having? We'll speak to Tufts University medical sociologist Bart Laws. Also on CounterSpin today: What are the odds of turning on the radio and hearing music from an independent artist? or a local artist? or one not signed to a label? Yeah, not so good. That was supposed to change at least a little two years ago when, in the wake of payola investigations, the FCC fined the country's 4 biggest radio stations and they agreed to work on improving the ... This week on CounterSpin: If you didn't panic over the swine flu, then maybe you weren't watching much TV, where scary charts and maps documented the spread of a worldwide pandemic. At least that's what we were hearing last week. With the media hysteria subsiding, the question isn't so much did the press overreact, but how much. But how do we assess the role of public health officials, who perhaps by nature are supposed to worry about these kinds of things? And is there a different conversation about global public health that we should be having? We'll speak to Tufts University medical sociologist Bart Laws. Also on CounterSpin today: What are the odds of turning on the radio and hearing music from an independent artist? or a local artist? or one not signed to a label? Yeah, not so good. That was supposed to change at least a little two years ago when, in the wake of payola investigations, the FCC fined the country's 4 biggest radio stations and they agreed to work on improving the diversity of artists on the air. How's that working out? We'll hear from Kristin Thomson from the Future of Music Coalition, who've just issued a progress report; here's a hint, though, the report's called "Same Old Song". Links: — Much Ado About the Flu: Is the Media Frenzy Justified?, by Bart Laws (AlterNet, 5/4/09) — Same Old Song, by Kristin Thomson (Future of Music Coalition, 4/29/09) FULL TRANSCRIPT: All that's coming up, but first we'll take a look back at the week's press: —Last April, the New York Times revealed that the Pentagon had been feeding talking points to at least 75 retired generals whose "expert analysis" the media eagerly swallowed, no questions asked. The Times later detailed the extensive—and extremely lucrative—deals one of the star pundits, General Barry McCaffrey, had with various military contractors. McCaffrey frequently spoke out in favor of programs and policies that would directly favor those contractors without any disclosure of his financial ties. The official Pentagon pundit program has been terminated, and after the Pentagon conducted a whitewash internal investigation that declared no evidence of wrongdoing, the Obama Defense Department on May 5 issued an unusual memorandum repudiating that report and removing it from its web site. But as the government seems to distance itself from military propaganda, corporate TV outlets—who were conspicuously silent about the Pentagon pundit story—have continued to embrace it without the slightest hint of compunction. During coverage of the Obama administration's 100-day mark, MSNBC turned to McCaffrey for expert advice about Afghanistan strategy, asking him about attempts to undermine the Taliban by destroying the opium crops that largely fund them. McCaffrey's response was emphatic: "I think we've got to take it on. But, you know, the lead agent can't be U.S. combat troops. It's got to be Afghans chopping down opium poppy." Well, as Columbia Journalism Review's Clint Hendler pointed out, training Afghans to eradicate poppies is exactly what military contractor DynCorp does—and Barry McCaffrey sits on the board of DynCorp. That, of course, went unmentioned on MSNBC, where, evidently, you can be sure to keep getting your regular dose of military propaganda, whether the Pentagon is producing it or not. —Washington Post columnist and torture supporter Richard Cohen used the Supreme Court case on Connecticut firefighter Frank Ricci to attack affirmative action. Cohen's May 5 column argued, "The justification for affirmative action gets weaker and weaker. Maybe once it was possible to argue that some innocent people had to suffer in the name of progress, but a glance at the White House strongly suggests that things have changed. For most Americans, race has become supremely irrelevant. Everyone knows this. Every poll shows this. Maybe the Supreme Court will recognize this." First of all, affirmative action was never solely about racism, though the corporate media have generally made race their sole consideration when they cover the issue. But as for Cohen's actual "point"—that race is irrelevant to most Americans and that every poll shows this—that's just fantasy. As a matter of fact, the Washington Post itself recently asked people in a poll: "How big a problem is racism in our society today? Is it a big problem, somewhat of a problem, a small problem or not a problem at all?" Fully 74 percent said it was either somewhat of a problem or a big problem. Only 4 percent answered that racism was "not a problem." Cohen's fantasy may be a nice one, but if he's using it to determine his views on policy in the real world, he needs to wake up. —Associated Press reporter Calvin Woodward generally writes a "fact checking" piece after major speeches by Barack Obama—and these pieces generally strain to catch Obama in factual errors. For example, in a February 24 piece, Woodward and co-writer Jim Kuhnhenn took issue with Obama's description of what his budget would achieve—because, they say, Obama didn't point out that his budget could be voted down and could theoretically achieve nothing. But Woodward broke new ground in absurdity with his April 30 piece "fact-checking" Obama's latest press conference. In the piece, headlined "Fact Check: Obama Disowns Deficit He Helped Shape," Woodward took issue with Obama's statement: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me." Woodward's criticism: "It actually was him—and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years—who shaped a budget so out of balance.... Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator." We're all for accountability, but wow. If an Illinois senator bears more responsibility for the federal budget than the president, than why is Woodward wasting his time covering what Obama has to say about the budget? Shouldn't he be interviewing Roland Burris? —Some listeners notified us about a curious headline they saw when logging on to their AOL accounts on April 30: "Big Tax Hikes Coming Soon - Middle Class Is About to Feel the Pain -Big Taxes Headed Your Way." Well, as the language on the first page of the feature told readers, "don't think for a minute that only the wealthy will feel the pain," what followed was a slide show courtesy of Kiplinger's magazine, remarkable for really only one thing—the fact that it documents no looming middle class tax hikes. The first page tells readers that the top marginal tax rate will go up. The next page speaks of higher rates for capital gains income, only for high earners. Then you find that estate tax rates might go up on amounts in the neighborhood of 3 to 5 million dollars. And then we learn that there are several business tax breaks that might disappear. So where exactly did the headline about middle class pain come from? It's a mystery. —And finally—whatever you might think of the job he's doing, it's hard to argue that Barack Obama isn't enjoying high approval ratings. Of course, there are those who will tell you different. Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly announced that, contrary to all other information, public opinion is actually evenly divided on Obama—34 to 32. As O'Reilly put it, Obama "may be a popular guy, but the country remains divided on the job deal." But it isn't just Fox. On the CNN media criticism show Reliable Sources, guest Amy Holmes told viewers that the right-wing Washington Times had just revealed that "Obama is the fourth least popular of the past five presidents. You wouldn't know that from the press coverage." Well no, you wouldn't. But in this case that's because it's not true. At the 100-day mark, Obama's Gallup job approval rating was 65 percent. Of the last 7 presidents, only Ronald Reagan scored higher at this point in his term. Yet program host Howard Kurtz seemed to go along with Holmes' pretty obviously implausible claim. For its part, the Washington Times has now corrected that editorial, noting that they were mixing up polls about different things—ratings on approval versus ratings of good or excellent. It's a troubling mistake—but at least the paper owned up to it. Let's hope CNN will do the same—especially on a program dedicated to criticizing the media. BART LAWS CounterSpin: Well, maybe you weren't actually supposed to panic about swine flu; but that was rather difficult if you owned a television set, where flu hysteria seemed to spread across the dial faster than the actual flu itself. Amidst all the frenzy there were occasional reminders not to panic, which were hard to reconcile with the announcement that there's a stage 4 worldwide pandemic at hand—whatever that means. But days after the breathless reporting and the b-roll footage of people wearing facemasks, swine flu certainly seems less threatening than we thought. On the one hand, this might make you feel like we were all taken for a ride, frightened by something that we shouldn't have been so scared about at all. But what else should we consider about the way the media handled swine flu? And do public health emergencies require a different or certain degree of panic? Joining us now to talk about all this is Bart Laws, he's a medical sociologist at the Tufts Medical Center in Boston. He wrote a piece for Alternet called "Much Ado About the Flu: Is the Media Frenzy Justified?" Welcome to CounterSpin, Bart Laws. Bart Laws: Hi, glad to be with you. CS: Well at this point, from what we seem to know about swine flu, if you ask "Did the media spread fear and panic?," the answer would seem to be yes. The way I read your piece, you seemed to make a distinction between the responsibilities of public health officials and the responsibilities of the media. How are they different, and how do you think they performed their different jobs? BL: Yes, well, they certainly are different. Public health officials have responsibility specifically to protect people against bad things that might happen and over the last few years a system of influenza surveillance and planning for possible infectious disease emergencies has grown up and strengthened in the United States and around the world—partly in resonse to concerns people had about the bird flu, the H5M1 bird flu you've probably heard so much about, partly because we can do it now. It's a lot easier and cheaper to sequence viral genomes so now we can keep track that, "Oh yes there's a new strain of flu or some other kind of virus" and do a better job of understanding how they move around and what they do and so on. So this apparatus was there, the people in Mexico discovered what seemed to them to be a problem and so the whole apparatus got activated and people kicked into action as they should. And certainly it would have been a very big mistake not to talk to the media, not to make some sort of public announcement about what was going on—people had seen all this unusual activity in Mexico and closing schools and businesses and then nobody's talking to us and telling us what's going on. That would've been really bad. But on the other hand, the situation was that there was concern that something bad might happen but nobody knew that. It was speculative. And in the situation of uncertainty, responsible officials have a difficult job and they have difficult choices to make and they did what they did and I'm not going to second guess them. But the way this comes across publicly, you know, is very different from the way it looks to somebody on the inside and doing this for a living. I think that there was first of all, too much attention paid—what happens is when something becomes news and there's kind of a feeding frenzy around it then they just have to talk about it a lot, even if there aren't any developments and there isn't really anything new to say. So day after day you have these big front-page headlines which would say something like you know, two or three new cases of the flu are confirmed here or there, and that makes it seem to people like something worse and worse is happening, whereas it really isn't. I mean, we knew that there would be more cases and in fact, it became clear to me at least, pretty early on, that it wasn't looking so bad after all. These cases turned out to be mild, people were having, at least outside of Mexico and the small number of cases, perfectly ordinary flu and people got better and you know, it's not news that there are three people in Maine who had the flu and they're getting better. And yet it was reported as news and as the top item on the nightly news, both local and national. CS: You pointed out that what knew about this strain of the flu, we wouldn't have known that it was necessarily more deadly than run-of-the-mill flu which kills, I think, 36,000 people a year in the United States, depending on how you figure those numbers. We weren't even sure that swine flu was all that more deadly than flu. BL: Absolutely, and in fact it appears now that it wasn't at all. One of the translation problems that happened here, I think, is virologists are trying to understand flu better so they have hypotheses that are really hypotheses. They think that a novel strain is likelly to be more dangerous because people don't have immunity to it, they haven't been exposed to something similar earlier in their life. So this appeared to be novel, it wasn't in the database, so they were concerned about that. But they didn't actually know what it is that makes a strain of flu particularly dangerous so that was speculative. And yet it was translated into a fact in the way it got reported. It's not an area of expertise for journalists who report on these matters. They don't have a good appreciation of the degree of uncertainly. I guess you can't necessarily blame people for that, but I would give credit for example to the NY Times for being more restrained, as is there style in the first place. But they also moved it to the inside pages sooner than others did. The basic things that people needed to know: wash your hands regularly, stay home if you're sick, sneeze into your sleeve—those are always true. They don't necessarily benefit from being placed into the context of death, doom, and danger, but they're just things you ought to do. And that's all that people needed to know. I would say as far as communicating about this with the media, there were a couple of mistakes that I think our government might have made. I don't think it was necessary to have a big press conference with Janet Napolitano. It was the wrong person to begin with, the Secretary of Homeland Security, that's a really strange message, and a lot of other high officials, to declare that she is proclaiming a public health emergency. All that means is procedures have been invoked so they can move supplies around to where they're needed, maybe take other actions if they're needed in the future. That's all it means. But that's going to read to people as "Oh my gosh, public health emergency declared by the Secretary of Homeland Security," you know, "terrible things are coming down the road." CS: I wanted to ask you really quickly because this is a point that you closed your piece on, that in the midst of all this—this is going to come and go—but there is this public health conversation that we could be having in the media or outside the media about much bigger issues. It goes without saying that people die from preventable diseases in much greater numbers that don't get any kind of media attention. Where would you point people if you wanted them to pay closer attention to those issues? BL: I think that the great story of injustice and inequity and the great civil rights story of our time is health equity. The immense disproportions that occur in lifespan and health and quality of life depending on people's social status, their education, their income, race and ethnicity. The life expectancy for black men versus white men at birth in the United States: A black male can expect to live a little more than 65 years in the United States and a white male more than 70 years, so six or seven years. That's a whole lot of people dying just because of discrimination, differential access to the basics of life. People are dying because of marketing of tobacco and calorie-dense, low-nutrition foods, where they live. Something like 100-150,000 Americans every year die prematurely because of breathing pollution from motor vehicle exhaust—living near the highway, which is where poor people are likely to live, is very harmful and we never talk about that. Where you live and where you stand in society determines a lot of how long you can expect to live and how well you can expect to live and how healthy you're going to be. And it's not news. I mean I guess news has to be new. So these are just facts that we live with all the time. You're much more likely to be killed by a lot of things that we could be fixing that aren't flu. And we don't talk about it enough; we don't do enough about it. So, I guess the distraction, the faulty perspective that this created you know, this is making people think that this is what I really have to worry about. This thing is going to come out of nowhere and strike me down and that's really terrifying, but you know there's stuff that is likely to strike you down that isn't coming out of nowhere, that's part of what we live with all the time. CS: We've been speaking with Bart Laws. He's a medical sociologist at Tufts Medical Center. You can go to Alternet to reach his piece "Much Ado About the Flu: Is the Media Frenzy Justified?" Thanks so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin. BL: Okay, thanks a lot. KRISTIN THOMSON CounterSpin: Listeners will likely remember something about the payola scandals of recent years. Turns out that some of the songs on radio station playlists weren't there because they were just so popular, but because of deals between radio station owners and major labels. Of course playing a song day and night gives it a better chance to become popular, paying back the label and seemingly justifying the station. Besides the unseemly influence-peddling, it's easy to see how such a scenario closes out the space for all of those artists who aren't being pushed, legally or illegally, by big corporations, making for a radio landscape that's much less rich and diverse and interesting than it could be. The FCC seemed to recognize this two years ago, when they issued what are called "consent decrees" against the four biggest radio station group owners in the country, in response to the payola investigations, fining them some $12.5 million. The station owners also agreed to work out rules by which they would increase the proportion of music by local and regional artists, artists on independent labels and even unsigned artists. Well, now it's two years later. Has anything changed? The Future of Music Coalition is an artist education, research and advocacy organization; they've just released a report examining the evidence on playlists since the '07 consent decrees. Joining us now by phone from Philadelphia is Kristin Thomson, she's the education director at the Future of Music Coalition. Welcome to CounterSpin! Kristin Thomson: Thank you for having me. CS: Well, let's look back at 1997 and those agreements that the station group owners signed. We're talking about Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Citadel and Entercom—what did those station owners agree to do differently? KT: The consent decrees mostly talked about better business practices. What some commissioners at the FCC wanted to do was actually have a formal investigation into the payola allegations, given all of evidence that Elliot Spitzer who was New York Attorney General at the time sent over to the FCC, so that they could continue the investigation. But there was disagreement among the commissioners about the tack to take and by 2007 they had moved away from a formal investigation towards these consent decrees. So what they do is try to set up business practices about sponsorship identification, which is the sort of formal term for payola in the legal parlance, and what they tried to do was set up and establish non-discriminatory procedures for music submissions. And they weren't allowed to barter or sell access to music programmers and all these things that are part of the FCC payola law right now but needed to be redefined in the 2007 consent decrees. CS: Or reinforced or underscored—"Please follow the law we've established." But then there was more. They were actually going to set aside space, right, specifically for independent music that we hadn't been hearing? KT: That's right. This is another agreement that was done on the side. So this took place between the American Association of Independent Music, which represents independent labels, and these four major radio group owners. And what this voluntary agreement, which is sort of called the Indie Set Aside, said things like we promise to set aside 4,200 hours of programming for local, independent, or unsigned artists. Although it was a good first step, there were some problems with the language, most specifically that the 4,200 hours didn't have a time frame on it, so we were't sure—did that mean a week, a year? There were a lot of questions about enforceability or even how to measure outcomes on the Indie Set Aside. CS: Well, it did express at least, or looked like some intention on the part of these station group owners, to mix up the playlists a little, to do things differently. So now two years on, Future of Music Coalition has looked at the playlists to see what's changed. So why don't you just let us know, what did you find in this new report? KT: We found after looking at playlists from 2005 to 2008, both at the national level, looking at playlists across the spectrum and also at playlists at seven different and specific formats—we found that playlist composition has remained remarkably consistent over the last four years despite these policy interventions. We found that neither national airplay nor the majority of format-specific playlists had much measureable change in the ratio of major label airplay share to non-major label, whether it be indie labels or even Disney or other forces in the music industry. That was one thing. As I was doing some of the analysis, I found myself coming across songs that were released in 2002, 1995, 1975 because the release date is on the playlist. So I just did an analysis that found that in almost every format measured, more than 50 percent of the spins in a given year were of songs that were more than five years old and sometimes they were more than 10 years old. What that tells us is that air play for new songs is somewhat constrained because they try and mix in the new things with the hits that everyone likes and listens to and keeps them listening to the radio station. CS: Well, if I'm a station owner I say, what's wrong with that, I'm serving my audience; there are popular songs from the '50s or '60s, what's the problem with that? KT: There's really no problem, and we really underscore in the study that we understand that this business decision really is probably in the radio stations' best interest in order to keep listeners from changing the channel when they hear too many things that are unfamiliar, but what it does mean in the practical sense for access is that the small sliver of time available for new releases is in some cases 12-15 percent of the total air play. It just means that there's a limited window of opportunity for new music to get on the air. Then we moved to the next stage of the analysis to say now who gets access in this small sliver of time? And we found that even with major lables and indie labels, having some access to having songs played, we found that major labels were much more successful at getting more spins of new songs. CS: And I want to underscore of course that you make the point in the report that big labels have this built-in advantage with or without payola. It doesn't have to be illegal. Well, you do make some policy recommendations in this report? What are you calling for? KT: We say first of all, that it would behoove the FCC to improve its data collections. We're not interested in content monitoring but I think the FCC should recognize that radio stations are very data rich. They could learn a lot about this field that they are charged with overseeing and regulating. The second one is that we think stations and the FCC need to refocus on localism. There's been a longstanding localism proceeding at the FCC that I think will be revisited soon and we think the radio industry, the commercial sector is clearly in crisis—and it seems like it's because stations have lost touch with their local markets and unfortunately the industry seems to have responded by pushing for greater consolidation and syndication. We think it might be helpful if the stations tried to embrace one of their best assets, which is their local-ness, to remain live and local. And the third thing was to expand the number of voices, that if we feel like these decisions about the relationships between stations and major labels makes it difficult for independent voices to get on the air, then why not allow more stations on the air? So this would be a call for more Low Power FM licensing, especially in more urban areas, and allowing more stations more voices on the air in that form as well. CS: We've been speaking with Kristin Thomson of the Future of Music Coalition. You can find their new report, "Same Old Song," on their website: FutureOfMusic.org. Thanks so much for joining us today on CounterSpin. KT: Thank you for having me. This week on CounterSpin: If you didn't panic over the swine flu, then maybe you weren't watching much TV, where scary charts and maps documented the spread of a worldwide pandemic. At least that's what we were hearing last week. With the media hysteria subsiding, the question isn't so much did the press overreact, but how much. But how do we assess the role of public health officials, who perhaps by nature are supposed to worry about these kinds of things? And is there a different conversation about global public health that we should be having? We'll speak to Tufts University medical sociologist Bart Laws. Also on CounterSpin today: What are the odds of turning on the radio and hearing music from an independent artist? or a local artist? or one not signed to a label? Yeah, not so good. That was supposed to change at least a little two years ago when, in the wake of payola investigations, the FCC fined the country's 4 biggest radio stations and they agreed to work on improving the diversity of artists on the air. How's that working out? We'll hear from Kristin Thomson from the Future of Music Coalition, who've just issued a progress report; here's a hint, though, the report's called "Same Old Song". Links: — Much Ado About the Flu: Is the Media Frenzy Justified?, by Bart Laws (AlterNet, 5/4/09) — Same Old Song, by Kristin Thomson (Future of Music Coalition, 4/29/09) FULL TRANSCRIPT: All that's coming up, but first we'll take a look back at the week's press: —Last April, the New York Times revealed that the Pentagon had been feeding talking points to at least 75 retired generals whose "expert analysis" the media eagerly swallowed, no questions asked. The Times later detailed the extensive—and extremely lucrative—deals one of the star pundits, General Barry McCaffrey, had with various military contractors. McCaffrey frequently spoke out in favor of programs and policies that would directly favor those contractors without any disclosure of his financial ties. The official Pentagon pundit program has been terminated, and after the Pentagon conducted a whitewash internal investigation that declared no evidence of wrongdoing, the Obama Defense Department on May 5 issued an unusual memorandum repudiating that report and removing it from its web site. But as the government seems to distance itself from military propaganda, corporate TV outlets—who were conspicuously silent about the Pentagon pundit story—have continued to embrace it without the slightest hint of compunction. During coverage of the Obama administration's 100-day mark, MSNBC turned to McCaffrey for expert advice about Afghanistan strategy, asking him about attempts to undermine the Taliban by destroying the opium crops that largely fund them. McCaffrey's response was emphatic: "I think we've got to take it on. But, you know, the lead agent can't be U.S. combat troops. It's got to be Afghans chopping down opium poppy." Well, as Columbia Journalism Review's Clint Hendler pointed out, training Afghans to eradicate poppies is exactly what military contractor DynCorp does—and Barry McCaffrey sits on the board of DynCorp. That, of course, went unmentioned on MSNBC, where, evidently, you can be sure to keep getting your regular dose of military propaganda, whether the Pentagon is producing it or not. —Washington Post columnist and torture supporter Richard Cohen used the Supreme Court case on Connecticut firefighter Frank Ricci to attack affirmative action. Cohen's May 5 column argued, "The justification for affirmative action gets weaker and weaker. Maybe once it was possible to argue that some innocent people had to suffer in the name of progress, but a glance at the White House strongly suggests that things have changed. For most Americans, race has become supremely irrelevant. Everyone knows this. Every poll shows this. Maybe the Supreme Court will recognize this." First of all, affirmative action was never solely about racism, though the corporate media have generally made race their sole consideration when they cover the issue. But as for Cohen's actual "point"—that race is irrelevant to most Americans and that every poll shows this—that's just fantasy. As a matter of fact, the Washington Post itself recently asked people in a poll: "How big a problem is racism in our society today? Is it a big problem, somewhat of a problem, a small problem or not a problem at all?" Fully 74 percent said it was either somewhat of a problem or a big problem. Only 4 percent answered that racism was "not a problem." Cohen's fantasy may be a nice one, but if he's using it to determine his views on policy in the real world, he needs to wake up. —Associated Press reporter Calvin Woodward generally writes a "fact checking" piece after major speeches by Barack Obama—and these pieces generally strain to catch Obama in factual errors. For example, in a February 24 piece, Woodward and co-writer Jim Kuhnhenn took issue with Obama's description of what his budget would achieve—because, they say, Obama didn't point out that his budget could be voted down and could theoretically achieve nothing. But Woodward broke new ground in absurdity with his April 30 piece "fact-checking" Obama's latest press conference. In the piece, headlined "Fact Check: Obama Disowns Deficit He Helped Shape," Woodward took issue with Obama's statement: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me." Woodward's criticism: "It actually was him—and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years—who shaped a budget so out of balance.... Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator." We're all for accountability, but wow. If an Illinois senator bears more responsibility for the federal budget than the president, than why is Woodward wasting his time covering what Obama has to say about the budget? Shouldn't he be interviewing Roland Burris? —Some listeners notified us about a curious headline they saw when logging on to their AOL accounts on April 30: "Big Tax Hikes Coming Soon - Middle Class Is About to Feel the Pain -Big Taxes Headed Your Way." Well, as the language on the first page of the feature told readers, "don't think for a minute that only the wealthy will feel the pain," what followed was a slide show courtesy of Kiplinger's magazine, remarkable for really only one thing—the fact that it documents no looming middle class tax hikes. The first page tells readers that the top marginal tax rate will go up. The next page speaks of higher rates for capital gains income, only for high earners. Then you find that estate tax rates might go up on amounts in the neighborhood of 3 to 5 million dollars. And then we learn that there are several business tax breaks that might disappear. So where exactly did the headline about middle class pain come from? It's a mystery. —And finally—whatever you might think of the job he's doing, it's hard to argue that Barack Obama isn't enjoying high approval ratings. Of course, there are those who will tell you different. Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly announced that, contrary to all other information, public opinion is actually evenly divided on Obama—34 to 32. As O'Reilly put it, Obama "may be a popular guy, but the country remains divided on the job deal." But it isn't just Fox. On the CNN media criticism show Reliable Sources, guest Amy Holmes told viewers that the right-wing Washington Times had just revealed that "Obama is the fourth least popular of the past five presidents. You wouldn't know that from the press coverage." Well no, you wouldn't. But in this case that's because it's not true. At the 100-day mark, Obama's Gallup job approval rating was 65 percent. Of the last 7 presidents, only Ronald Reagan scored higher at this point in his term. Yet program host Howard Kurtz seemed to go along with Holmes' pretty obviously implausible claim. For its part, the Washington Times has now corrected that editorial, noting that they were mixing up polls about different things—ratings on approval versus ratings of good or excellent. It's a troubling mistake—but at least the paper owned up to it. Let's hope CNN will do the same—especially on a program dedicated to criticizing the media. BART LAWS CounterSpin: Well, maybe you weren't actually supposed to panic about swine flu; but that was rather difficult if you owned a television set, where flu hysteria seemed to spread across the dial faster than the actual flu itself. Amidst all the frenzy there were occasional reminders not to panic, which were hard to reconcile with the announcement that there's a stage 4 worldwide pandemic at hand—whatever that means. But days after the breathless reporting and the b-roll footage of people wearing facemasks, swine flu certainly seems less threatening than we thought. On the one hand, this might make you feel like we were all taken for a ride, frightened by something that we shouldn't have been so scared about at all. But what else should we consider about the way the media handled swine flu? And do public health emergencies require a different or certain degree of panic? Joining us now to talk about all this is Bart Laws, he's a medical sociologist at the Tufts Medical Center in Boston. He wrote a piece for Alternet called "Much Ado About the Flu: Is the Media Frenzy Justified?" Welcome to CounterSpin, Bart Laws. Bart Laws: Hi, glad to be with you. CS: Well at this point, from what we seem to know about swine flu, if you ask "Did the media spread fear and panic?," the answer would seem to be yes. The way I read your piece, you seemed to make a distinction between the responsibilities of public health officials and the responsibilities of the media. How are they different, and how do you think they performed their different jobs? BL: Yes, well, they certainly are different. Public health officials have responsibility specifically to protect people against bad things that might happen and over the last few years a system of influenza surveillance and planning for possible infectious disease emergencies has grown up and strengthened in the United States and around the world—partly in resonse to concerns people had about the bird flu, the H5M1 bird flu you've probably heard so much about, partly because we can do it now. It's a lot easier and cheaper to sequence viral genomes so now we can keep track that, "Oh yes there's a new strain of flu or some other kind of virus" and do a better job of understanding how they move around and what they do and so on. So this apparatus was there, the people in Mexico discovered what seemed to them to be a problem and so the whole apparatus got activated and people kicked into action as they should. And certainly it would have been a very big mistake not to talk to the media, not to make some sort of public announcement about what was going on—people had seen all this unusual activity in Mexico and closing schools and businesses and then nobody's talking to us and telling us what's going on. That would've been really bad. But on the other hand, the situation was that there was concern that something bad might happen but nobody knew that. It was speculative. And in the situation of uncertainty, responsible officials have a difficult job and they have difficult choices to make and they did what they did and I'm not going to second guess them. But the way this comes across publicly, you know, is very different from the way it looks to somebody on the inside and doing this for a living. I think that there was first of all, too much attention paid—what happens is when something becomes news and there's kind of a feeding frenzy around it then they just have to talk about it a lot, even if there aren't any developments and there isn't really anything new to say. So day after day you have these big front-page headlines which would say something like you know, two or three new cases of the flu are confirmed here or there, and that makes it seem to people like something worse and worse is happening, whereas it really isn't. I mean, we knew that there would be more cases and in fact, it became clear to me at least, pretty early on, that it wasn't looking so bad after all. These cases turned out to be mild, people were having, at least outside of Mexico and the small number of cases, perfectly ordinary flu and people got better and you know, it's not news that there are three people in Maine who had the flu and they're getting better. And yet it was reported as news and as the top item on the nightly news, both local and national. CS: You pointed out that what knew about this strain of the flu, we wouldn't have known that it was necessarily more deadly than run-of-the-mill flu which kills, I think, 36,000 people a year in the United States, depending on how you figure those numbers. We weren't even sure that swine flu was all that more deadly than flu. BL: Absolutely, and in fact it appears now that it wasn't at all. One of the translation problems that happened here, I think, is virologists are trying to understand flu better so they have hypotheses that are really hypotheses. They think that a novel strain is likelly to be more dangerous because people don't have immunity to it, they haven't been exposed to something similar earlier in their life. So this appeared to be novel, it wasn't in the database, so they were concerned about that. But they didn't actually know what it is that makes a strain of flu particularly dangerous so that was speculative. And yet it was translated into a fact in the way it got reported. It's not an area of expertise for journalists who report on these matters. They don't have a good appreciation of the degree of uncertainly. I guess you can't necessarily blame people for that, but I would give credit for example to the NY Times for being more restrained, as is there style in the first place. But they also moved it to the inside pages sooner than others did. The basic things that people needed to know: wash your hands regularly, stay home if you're sick, sneeze into your sleeve—those are always true. They don't necessarily benefit from being placed into the context of death, doom, and danger, but they're just things you ought to do. And that's all that people needed to know. I would say as far as communicating about this with the media, there were a couple of mistakes that I think our government might have made. I don't think it was necessary to have a big press conference with Janet Napolitano. It was the wrong person to begin with, the Secretary of Homeland Security, that's a really strange message, and a lot of other high officials, to declare that she is proclaiming a public health emergency. All that means is procedures have been invoked so they can move supplies around to where they're needed, maybe take other actions if they're needed in the future. That's all it means. But that's going to read to people as "Oh my gosh, public health emergency declared by the Secretary of Homeland Security," you know, "terrible things are coming down the road." CS: I wanted to ask you really quickly because this is a point that you closed your piece on, that in the midst of all this—this is going to come and go—but there is this public health conversation that we could be having in the media or outside the media about much bigger issues. It goes without saying that people die from preventable diseases in much greater numbers that don't get any kind of media attention. Where would you point people if you wanted them to pay closer attention to those issues? BL: I think that the great story of injustice and inequity and the great civil rights story of our time is health equity. The immense disproportions that occur in lifespan and health and quality of life depending on people's social status, their education, their income, race and ethnicity. The life expectancy for black men versus white men at birth in the United States: A black male can expect to live a little more than 65 years in the United States and a white male more than 70 years, so six or seven years. That's a whole lot of people dying just because of discrimination, differential access to the basics of life. People are dying because of marketing of tobacco and calorie-dense, low-nutrition foods, where they live. Something like 100-150,000 Americans every year die prematurely because of breathing pollution from motor vehicle exhaust—living near the highway, which is where poor people are likely to live, is very harmful and we never talk about that. Where you live and where you stand in society determines a lot of how long you can expect to live and how well you can expect to live and how healthy you're going to be. And it's not news. I mean I guess news has to be new. So these are just facts that we live with all the time. You're much more likely to be killed by a lot of things that we could be fixing that aren't flu. And we don't talk about it enough; we don't do enough about it. So, I guess the distraction, the faulty perspective that this created you know, this is making people think that this is what I really have to worry about. This thing is going to come out of nowhere and strike me down and that's really terrifying, but you know there's stuff that is likely to strike you down that isn't coming out of nowhere, that's part of what we live with all the time. CS: We've been speaking with Bart Laws. He's a medical sociologist at Tufts Medical Center. You can go to Alternet to reach his piece "Much Ado About the Flu: Is the Media Frenzy Justified?" Thanks so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin. BL: Okay, thanks a lot. KRISTIN THOMSON CounterSpin: Listeners will likely remember something about the payola scandals of recent years. Turns out that some of the songs on radio station playlists weren't there because they were just so popular, but because of deals between radio station owners and major labels. Of course playing a song day and night gives it a better chance to become popular, paying back the label and seemingly justifying the station. Besides the unseemly influence-peddling, it's easy to see how such a scenario closes out the space for all of those artists who aren't being pushed, legally or illegally, by big corporations, making for a radio landscape that's much less rich and diverse and interesting than it could be. The FCC seemed to recognize this two years ago, when they issued what are called "consent decrees" against the four biggest radio station group owners in the country, in response to the payola investigations, fining them some $12.5 million. The station owners also agreed to work out rules by which they would increase the proportion of music by local and regional artists, artists on independent labels and even unsigned artists. Well, now it's two years later. Has anything changed? The Future of Music Coalition is an artist education, research and advocacy organization; they've just released a report examining the evidence on playlists since the '07 consent decrees. Joining us now by phone from Philadelphia is Kristin Thomson, she's the education director at the Future of Music Coalition. Welcome to CounterSpin! Kristin Thomson: Thank you for having me. CS: Well, let's look back at 1997 and those agreements that the station group owners signed. We're talking about Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Citadel and Entercom—what did those station owners agree to do differently? KT: The consent decrees mostly talked about better business practices. What some commissioners at the FCC wanted to do was actually have a formal investigation into the payola allegations, given all of evidence that Elliot Spitzer who was New York Attorney General at the time sent over to the FCC, so that they could continue the investigation. But there was disagreement among the commissioners about the tack to take and by 2007 they had moved away from a formal investigation towards these consent decrees. So what they do is try to set up business practices about sponsorship identification, which is the sort of formal term for payola in the legal parlance, and what they tried to do was set up and establish non-discriminatory procedures for music submissions. And they weren't allowed to barter or sell access to music programmers and all these things that are part of the FCC payola law right now but needed to be redefined in the 2007 consent decrees. CS: Or reinforced or underscored—"Please follow the law we've established." But then there was more. They were actually going to set aside space, right, specifically for independent music that we hadn't been hearing? KT: That's right. This is another agreement that was done on the side. So this took place between the American Association of Independent Music, which represents independent labels, and these four major radio group owners. And what this voluntary agreement, which is sort of called the Indie Set Aside, said things like we promise to set aside 4,200 hours of programming for local, independent, or unsigned artists. Although it was a good first step, there were some problems with the language, most specifically that the 4,200 hours didn't have a time frame on it, so we were't sure—did that mean a week, a year? There were a lot of questions about enforceability or even how to measure outcomes on the Indie Set Aside. CS: Well, it did express at least, or looked like some intention on the part of these station group owners, to mix up the playlists a little, to do things differently. So now two years on, Future of Music Coalition has looked at the playlists to see what's changed. So why don't you just let us know, what did you find in this new report? KT: We found after looking at playlists from 2005 to 2008, both at the national level, looking at playlists across the spectrum and also at playlists at seven different and specific formats—we found that playlist composition has remained remarkably consistent over the last four years despite these policy interventions. We found that neither national airplay nor the majority of format-specific playlists had much measureable change in the ratio of major label airplay share to non-major label, whether it be indie labels or even Disney or other forces in the music industry. That was one thing. As I was doing some of the analysis, I found myself coming across songs that were released in 2002, 1995, 1975 because the release date is on the playlist. So I just did an analysis that found that in almost every format measured, more than 50 percent of the spins in a given year were of songs that were more than five years old and sometimes they were more than 10 years old. What that tells us is that air play for new songs is somewhat constrained because they try and mix in the new things with the hits that everyone likes and listens to and keeps them listening to the radio station. CS: Well, if I'm a station owner I say, what's wrong with that, I'm serving my audience; there are popular songs from the '50s or '60s, what's the problem with that? KT: There's really no problem, and we really underscore in the study that we understand that this business decision really is probably in the radio stations' best interest in order to keep listeners from changing the channel when they hear too many things that are unfamiliar, but what it does mean in the practical sense for access is that the small sliver of time available for new releases is in some cases 12-15 percent of the total air play. It just means that there's a limited window of opportunity for new music to get on the air. Then we moved to the next stage of the analysis to say now who gets access in this small sliver of time? And we found that even with major lables and indie labels, having some access to having songs played, we found that major labels were much more successful at getting more spins of new songs. CS: And I want to underscore of course that you make the point in the report that big labels have this built-in advantage with or without payola. It doesn't have to be illegal. Well, you do make some policy recommendations in this report? What are you calling for? KT: We say first of all, that it would behoove the FCC to improve its data collections. We're not interested in content monitoring but I think the FCC should recognize that radio stations are very data rich. They could learn a lot about this field that they are charged with overseeing and regulating. The second one is that we think stations and the FCC need to refocus on localism. There's been a longstanding localism proceeding at the FCC that I think will be revisited soon and we think the radio industry, the commercial sector is clearly in crisis—and it seems like it's because stations have lost touch with their local markets and unfortunately the industry seems to have responded by pushing for greater consolidation and syndication. We think it might be helpful if the stations tried to embrace one of their best assets, which is their local-ness, to remain live and local. And the third thing was to expand the number of voices, that if we feel like these decisions about the relationships between stations and major labels makes it difficult for independent voices to get on the air, then why not allow more stations on the air? So this would be a call for more Low Power FM licensing, especially in more urban areas, and allowing more stations more voices on the air in that form as well. CS: We've been speaking with Kristin Thomson of the Future of Music Coalition. You can find their new report, "Same Old Song," on their website: FutureOfMusic.org. Thanks so much for joining us today on CounterSpin. KT: Thank you for having me. tag:odeo.com,2009-05-07,24547461 Thu, 07 May 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24521491-Stan-Karp-on-No-Child-Left-Behind-Robert-Greenwald-on-Rethink-Afghanistan This week on CounterSpin: No Child Left Behind may be up for reconsideration in Congress soon, but if current coverage of national math and reading scores is an indication, media coverage will need to get a lot deeper to be useful. We'll hear from Stan Karp of Rethinking Schools about what questions ought to be asked. Also on the show: With an online campaign, and the "real time" documentary, Rethink Afghanistan, Robert Greenwald and his colleagues at Brave New Films are trying to break through the media embargo that excludes true critics of the Afghanistan war from U.S. policy discussions. Greenwald, who recently returned from Afghanistan, will join us to talk about Rethinking Afghanistan. Links: — Rethinking Schools — Rethinking Afghanistan This week on CounterSpin: No Child Left Behind may be up for reconsideration in Congress soon, but if current coverage of national math and reading scores is an indication, media coverage will need to get a lot deeper to be useful. We'll hear from Stan Karp of Rethinking Schools about what questions ought to be asked. Also on the show: With an online campaign, and the "real time" documentary, Rethink Afghanistan, Robert Greenwald and his colleagues at Brave New Films are trying to break through the media embargo that excludes true critics of the Afghanistan war from U.S. policy discussions. Greenwald, who recently returned from Afghanistan, will join us to talk about Rethinking Afghanistan. Links: — Rethinking Schools — Rethinking Afghanistan This week on CounterSpin: No Child Left Behind may be up for reconsideration in Congress soon, but if current coverage of national math and reading scores is an indication, media coverage will need to get a lot deeper to be useful. We'll hear from Stan Karp of Rethinking Schools about what questions ought to be asked. Also on the show: With an online campaign, and the "real time" documentary, Rethink Afghanistan, Robert Greenwald and his colleagues at Brave New Films are trying to break through the media embargo that excludes true critics of the Afghanistan war from U.S. policy discussions. Greenwald, who recently returned from Afghanistan, will join us to talk about Rethinking Afghanistan. Links: — Rethinking Schools — Rethinking Afghanistan tag:odeo.com,2009-04-30,24521491 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24506016-Glenn-Greenwald-on-torture-Rose-Aguilar-on-tent-cities This week on CounterSpin: While it’s pretty clear that Bush-era torture occurred, and that U.S. and international treaties oblige the U.S. to investigate, the hot media discussion centers not on when investigations will begin, but on whether President Barack Obama—not the Justice Department—thinks they should go forward. We’ll talk to Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com about the torture story. Also on CounterSpin today: Media are flocking to so-called tent cities to try and put a human face on the recession and housing crisis. That sounds laudable, but are the media getting the story wrong? We'll talk to journalist Rose Aguilar about that. twice. Well, that produced a flurry of reporting and commentary, as pundits tried to determine whether Obama should have so much as looked in Chávez's direction, with others saying a handshake was fine, but the smile that accompanied the handshake was a no-no. ABC reporter Kate Snow referred to Chávez matter-of-factly as the "Ven... This week on CounterSpin: While it’s pretty clear that Bush-era torture occurred, and that U.S. and international treaties oblige the U.S. to investigate, the hot media discussion centers not on when investigations will begin, but on whether President Barack Obama—not the Justice Department—thinks they should go forward. We’ll talk to Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com about the torture story. Also on CounterSpin today: Media are flocking to so-called tent cities to try and put a human face on the recession and housing crisis. That sounds laudable, but are the media getting the story wrong? We'll talk to journalist Rose Aguilar about that. twice. Well, that produced a flurry of reporting and commentary, as pundits tried to determine whether Obama should have so much as looked in Chávez's direction, with others saying a handshake was fine, but the smile that accompanied the handshake was a no-no. ABC reporter Kate Snow referred to Chávez matter-of-factly as the "Venezuelan dictator." It'd be curious to find out what sort of policy exists for such designations. If a repeatedly re-elected leader like Chávez is a dictator to be shunned, how do media treat, say, King Abdullah of Jordan? He didn't get that job by winning any election, and Jordan is regularly criticized for human rights violations, including torture. King Abdullah was Obama's White House guest a few days after the Chávez meeting; one suspects they may have even shook hands. At least as shocking as Chávez's handshake was the book that he presented to Obama—Eduardo Galeano's The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. The book is considered a classic in left-wing intellectual circles, and is well-known across Latin America. But many of the reporters who talked about the book referred to it as "obscure." Galeano's work has been translated into a dozen languages, it remains in print to this day and was so popular—and threatening—at the time of its release that the author was forced into exile. It's not so much that the book is obscure, then; it's that its political message is one that U.S. elites try to avoid talking about. When Mark Shields and David Brooks took the night off from their regular left/right debate on the PBS NewsHour on April 18, their seats were filled by former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson and supposed liberal Ruth Marcus, the Washington Post columnist who is known for, among other things, urging an already center-leaning Barack Obama to move even further to the center. Marcus did not disappoint in her NewsHour appearance, showing (once again) how a good TV liberal is supposed to behave. When the NewsHour's Judy Woodruff asked her if she agreed with the Obama administration’s release of Bush-era "interrogation memos" and their reported "decision not to prosecute the CIA agents who carried them out," Marcus answered “Right move on both, and a very brave move on both.” Adding that the actions would prompt "criticism" of Obama from the right for making America weaker, and a "firestorm of criticism from the left" because the left is "latching onto this hope that maybe some of the higher-ups will be prosecuted.” Marcus said she understood the heat and told how after writing a column opposing prosecutions for torture, "I was called a torture-enabler. And I don't think of myself that way. close quote" Of course Marcus is free not to think of herself as a torture enabler, just the same way Bush administration officials in charge of “enhanced interrogation techniques” are free not to think of themselves as torturers. Meanwhile back on earth, most Americans would like to see torture allegations investigated, and their views go unvoiced on public television’s NewsHour debate of the issue. Well, more on torture, The New York Times on April 19 ran a story reporting that the U.S. government had used water torture far more often than had previously been told. One prisoner, Al-Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was waterboarded 183 times in one month; in a different month, the same torture was used on Abu Zubaydah, accused of being an Al-Qaeda operative, at least 83 times. The Times report contains a bit of implicit media criticism, when reporter Scott Shane noted that, "A former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, told ABC News and other news media organizations in 2007 that Abu Zubaydah had undergone waterboarding for only 35 seconds before agreeing to tell everything he knew." Well, that's rather a different picture. The revelation of the actual degree of Zubaydah's torture is a useful reminder that people who are willing to torture another human being are generally willing to lie about it as well. That's something that the Washington Post should have kept in mind when they published an op-ed on April 21 from former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen. His column cited CIA claims about foiling a supposed plot to blow up Library Tower in Los Angeles as proof that so called "enhanced interrogation" was worth it: "Without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York." One problem with this argument, somehow missed by the Washington Post's crack team of fact-checkers: The Library Building plot, such as it was, was discovered in 2002—and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was arrested by the United States in 2003. A New York Times piece on April 16 seemed to advance a curious argument—that a foreign government that complains about civilian deaths at the hand of the United States might not really mean it. The country was Pakistan, where missiles fired from U.S. drones have killed hundreds of civilians. Times reporter Jane Perlez first tells readers that Pakistani officials probably aren't entirely opposed to the strikes, whatever they might say in public, because they've asked for more control over the drone attacks. That logic isn't easy to follow. Then the Times says the attacks have been effective, but that there are lingering questions. The main questions the Times raises are about military strategy; the very last item on that list of concerns is this: quote "Then there is the matter of public perception, particularly over the civilian casualties caused by the drone strikes, which infuriate Pakistani politicians and the media." So civilian suffering is at the bottom of such a list, written off as a "matter of public perception." The Times goes on to tell us that 500 Pakistani civilians have been killed, but finds a former general to say that many of these dead were likely sheltering militants "and cannot be deemed entirely innocent." The Times piece closes with a long summary of an unscientific poll of Pakistanis, which found that many of them support these attacks. The survey in question has obvious flaws, as Perlez acknowledged; but it was clearly too important to the point she was trying to make to leave out. And finally, we've talked before about misleading media coverage of the Employee Free Choice Act. That bill would make it easier for workers to form unions by increasing penalties for employers who violate workers' right to organize, and by giving workers the right to form a union if a majority signs cards declaring they want one—the so-called "card check" provision. On April 15th, NBC's Today show host Matt Lauer offered a standard mischaracterization of the Act, with a twist. **CLIP** Walmart now faces a threat to its corporate model. There's proposed legislation on Capitol Hill that would make it easier for unions to organize employees, the Employee Free Choice Act. It would do away with secret ballots. And some people say, unions say it'll make it easier for American workers to earn a fair salary. Others, like the guy who runs Home Depot, the co-founder, Bernie Marcus, says it's going to cripple American business. What's the truth? First, when Lauer declares that EFCA "would do away with secret ballots," he's wrong. Workers could still use a secret ballot vote if they wanted to; right now employers are the ones who get to choose between card check and a vote. The kicker is who he's asking for "the truth" on Employee Free Choice. It's Mike Duke, the new CEO of Wal-Mart, the adamantly anti-labor corporation exposed last year for forcing workers to attend anti-EFCA meetings. IF NBC is going to discuss Employee Free Choice, shouldn't they have an actual debate on the matter with different points of view? Well, if you go to the Today show website to try to ask that question, about the first thing you see is a Wal-Mart ad. That's probably just a coincidence. You’re listening to CounterSpin, brought to you each week by the media watch group FAIR. FAIR also publishes a magazine called Extra! I'll be giving subscription information for Extra! later on in the show. CounterSpin: Since the release of Bush-era legal memos and Red Cross documents detailing the abusive actions those memos authorized, there can no longer be much doubt that U.S. officials justified, countenanced, and carried out torture and abusive treatment on detainees. Under the circumstances of reasonable justice, investigations would not be an issue of hot debate. And, in a reasonable media discussion, there would be strong voices demanding investigations, rather than a consensus explaining why they would be unwise. Instead, the hottest topics in media discussion of the torture story seem to be whether President Obama ought to have released the Bush legal memos, and whether his recent comments on the story might have left the door open to possible investigations. Joining us to talk about the torture story, is Glenn Greenwald who has been closely following it on his Unclaimed Territory blog at Salon.com. He is also the author, most recently, of Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics. Welcome back to CounterSpin Glenn Greenwald! Glenn Greenwald: Great to be back, thanks. CS: You are a writer, but you are also a constitutional attorney. A Times story today, that's April 23, suggests that the prosecution would be very complicated very hard to do. What do you say to that? GG: I don't think there's much question that there will be some obstacles to the attempt to prosecute various Bush officials. What they did was they purposely created a legal cover in the form of these OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos where they had lawyers who were obviously willing to sanction anything that policy makers wanted to do, write very elaborate legal justifications for what are plainly crimes. And there is a doctrine in law that says that if you take certain actions with a good faith belief that the actions are legal, and it turns out later that actually the actions violate the law, that you lack a necessary criminal intent that would be required in order to prosecute. So there's an argument to make that, for example, CIA officials who read these memoranda and are not lawyers and were told that these things were legal had a right at least under the law to rely on those in what they did. But there's also plenty of evidence that, for example, policy makers and justice department lawyers knew that what they were authorizing was in fact illegal and that they authorized it specifically in order to create a legal shield to criminal conduct, and if that's the case—and I think there's much evidence that there is—that's the sort of thing for which prosecutions are absolutely appropriate. CS: And it would be a little premature to prejudge prosecutions today, considering we haven't even had investigations. GG: Well I think it's an important point, which is that for people who are advocating investigations and prosecutions—and I include myself in that group—the argument is not that there ought to be indictments of every person who was in any way involved in the program no matter what the results of the investigation reveal. The problem is that there is an attempt on the part of the political class and the political leaders to proclaim in advance that there should be no prosecutions of any kind and even no investigations of any kind. And the way that typically Americans are treated when they are accused of breaking the law is the Justice Department conducts an investigation, uses all of its resources to assemble the facts and then makes a legal judgement—not a political judgement, but a legal judgement—about whether prosecutions are warranted. And those of us who are arguing for accountability here are simply arguing that the same standards to which ordinary Americans are subjected are the ones that ought to be applied when government leaders break the law; which is the Justice Department ought to investigate, determine how compelling the evidence is, what the legal defenses might be and then make a legal determination about whether or not prosecutions are warranted. CS: Some of the common media tropes about how investigations would be unwise are that they would be politically divisive—as some have said, a partisan witch hunt. We have also heard that people really don’t have any appetite for them. GG: This is the argument that had been made repeatedly over the past several decades to institute the overarching premise of our political class, which is that political leaders who break the law should not be subjected to consequences the way ordinary Americans are and that was the arguement that led to the pardon of Richard Nixon. It's what led to the pardons of the Iran-Contra criminals and it's now leading media elites almost unanimously to demand that goverment officials be protected. Which is, well, if we prosecute it will be politically divisive and you know there's the premise that has been at the center of the American government since it's founding, which is that we're a nation of laws and not men and any time political leaders break the law and prosecutions proceed it's always the case that it will be politically divisive. So if you adopt the view that political divisiveness is a reason not to prosecute, what you're essentially saying is that polical leaders are free to break the law and know that they will never be held accountable. And that is essentially the premise that we have adopted and that's why there's such widespread criminality in the political class: because they know that they can break the law with impunity. As far as political and public opininon is concerned, as is typically the case, one of the principle tactics that media figures use to distort our political debates they literally misrepresent and even lie about public opinion. And so what you'll hear constantly is that most Americans don't want investigations and they want the Congress to do the people's business and not look back and investigate and that the only people who are calling for investigations are the left or the hard left. And if you look at polls, actually what you will find is exactly the opposite. There's a USA Today poll from February that, as USA Today put it, found that overall a majority favor investigations. Gallup and the Washington Post have independently found the same thing. It's like 60?70 percent of Americans favor investigations and even with regard to criminal prosecutions, over 40 percent of Americans in the Gallup and the USA Today poll favor criminal prosecutions. That was before the OLC memos were released. and so there's clearly a substantial fraction of the population, probably majorities, who do not believe that political officials when they break the law should be exempt. There's a Beltway belief which they misleading attribute to Americans generally. CS: While we have seen endless media attempts to read the White House tea leaves on the question of whether we should look forward, or commence with investigations, the media has had little to say about whether it’s proper for the President to even be making decisions about investigations. GG: One of the basic principles of our system of government is that decisions about whether the Justice Department will prosecute people are for the Justice Department to make and not for political officials, including the president, to make. In fact, many scandals in our recent history have arisen out of a violation of the principle. I mean, you probably remember as part of the Watergate scandal, the Saturday night massacre where Richard Nixon ordered his Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox because Nixon perceived that Cox was being too aggressive in investigating these crimes and Richardson refused to and he said, "Absolutely not. I am not going to fire the special prosecutor. I'm not going to interfere that way in the justice system." And then Nixon demanded Elliot Richardson's resignation and fired the deputy attorney as well and finally found Robert Bork who was willing to carry out the president's wishes. And in fact, during the Bush administration, lots of scandals arising out of Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department where based on the claims that the White House and the Justice Department were coordinating and making decisions about prosecutions not based on legal considerations but based on political considerations. That's what it means to politicize the Justice Department, and so when you have Barack Obama and his top aides Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emmanuel running around decreeing that certain groups of people should not be prosecuted and will not be prosecuted, whether it be CIA officials or even in the case of Emmanuel and Gibbs who said that even the designers and architects of these torture policies won't be prosecuted, what you really start to have is some inappropriate interference on the part of the White House and questions that are appropriately made only by the Justice Department. And I think that what happened was that there were starting to be some serious backlash and resentment inside the Justice Department over the attempt by the White House to dictate these decisions to them. They're supposed to be independent. And it was for that reason that Obama on Tuesday finally said when asked, "Well actually the decision about whether to prosecute Bush officials and the authors of these memos is one for the attorney general to make and I, Barack Obama, don't want to prejudge that." But you're right, that had been basically excluded almost entirely from our media discussions. We looked to the president as though he's some sort of omnipotent figure and it's up to the the president to make all judgements and decisions about everything in our country, including whether or not to prosecute people, which is absolutely not a power that the president has. So I think because of the Justice Department backlash, the president finally was forced to say "This is a decision for the Attoney General, not for me to make." CS: We’ve been speaking with Glenn Greenwald. To read his regular commentary on coverage of the torture story, see his blog, Unclaimed Territory on Salon.com. Thanks again for joining us today on CounterSpin, Glenn Greenwald! GG: It was my pleasure. Thank you. CounterSpin: In the midst of a recession and a battered economy that shows little signs of improving, you're bound to see more coverage of poverty in the mainstream media. It'd be hard to see less, in fact; a FAIR study documented in 2007, that TV reporting about poor people is extremely rare. But the kind of coverage we're seeing now is another matter entirely. Serious airtime and ink has been devoted to what is being called a return of tent cities, reminiscent of the Hoovervilles of the Great Depression. Now, on the surface, reporting on homelessness serves a vital journalistic function by shining a light on a social problem that will likely have an impact on readers and viewers. But are the media getting this story right? We're joined now by Rose Aguilar, host of the radio program Your Call at San Francisco's KALW. She's the author of the book Red Highways: A Liberal's Journey into the Heartland. And she recently wrote a piece for Alternet, "'People Shouldn't Have to Live Like This': The Real Story Behind 'Tent City'—and How the Media Get It Wrong." She joins us now on the telephone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Rose Aguilar. Rose Aguilar: Hi, thanks for having me. CS: Well, your piece is mainly about the tent city in Sacramento, California. So let's get right to it; when you were there, what did you see the media just getting wrong? RA: Well, the first time I heard about Tent City was on the Oprah Winfrey show, and when she teased the piece I thought "Oh my gosh, Oprah is going to Sacramento to shine a light on Tent City this is great." And then I noticed that Lisa Ling, the reporter, sort of stood in the middle of these tents and, you know, put out her arms and sort of said "Can you believe this is happening in America?" But I noticed that she wasn't focusing on stories. She wasn't really talking to anyone at length, and then I saw that scene in the newspaper articles and the TV. The question was how could this be happening in America? But the reporters were not asking people how did they end up here, what is your story, what is it like here on a regular basis? I felt like there were so many questions that were not answered. So I decided to spend two days at Tent City for six to eight hours both days, and I just found a completely different story. By the time I got there, people were kind of sick of media. They said that cars were flying in and out. They said reporters were sticking their cameras in tents without asking. And people kind of felt like the media was kind of treating them like a pack of wolves. And I found people who did not just lose their housing. These are chronically homeless people. I met one guy who's lived in a tent for seven years and he said reporters are not asking us the right questions. They want to know who just lost their house and he said it's kind of hard to lose a house when you don't own one in the first place. CS: So the media seem to be after the story about the subprime mortgage that went bad and the job that was lost and suddenly someone who shouldn't be homeless is now homeless? RA: Exactly. While I was there over the course of eight hours I would see a number of teams just come and go. They came in for the soundbite and then they left. And a lot of the people that I met said, "You know, they are not asking us the right questions." One guy, John Crane [PH], who's been living in a tent for seven years—who was actually on the mayor's homeless task force—the guy is full of knowledge, he listens to public radio all day. He was talking to me about AIG. He said, "I hear reporters come in here and almost scream 'Who just lost their house?' and everybody is looking at them like, 'Are you kidding? We've been here for years.'" The system is just messed up. You know, John Crane said "Why aren't you asking us about the fact that there's no affordable housing, asking about the fact that there's not jobs?" A lot of the people that I met at Tent City are trying really hard to find jobs but some of them have criminal records or they can't find one. And also it's kind of hard to find a job when you don't have an address or a phone number. CS: We've talked for years on this show about the deserving poor and the undeserving poor, and how often media seem motivated to find those stories of folks who shouldn't be in poverty or shouldn't be homeless, and the sort of long-term homeless or long-term poor are relegated to the margins. Well, you talked a little bit in your piece about what the goals of the folks who live there are. Does the media attention help or hurt their long term plan to either find permanent housing or make these Tent Cities more viable? What dos the spotlight of the media do for them? RA: It's seems like it hurts their plans because I interviewed the Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson and at that time he said, "I'm actually open to talking to folks about setting up a permanent encampment." But when you shine a light on a place like Sacramento where you've got a governor who was a former movie star, the mayor is a former NBA basketball player, it just doesn't look good to having people living in tents. And Loaves and Fishes, which is the group in Sacramento which actually has been serving the homeless for 25 years, they say that a permanent encampment is a really good solution for people who don't want to live in shelters. Because when you live in a shelter, you have to be in by 8 o'clock at night, you cannot bring any of your belongings, usually it's male and female so couples have to split up and frankly, a lot of people don't want to live in four walls. And a lot of the people who I met said if they allowed us to live here and set it up kind of like a KOA [campground] with toilets because at this point there are not toilets, not running water. One company did donate a dumpster for trash but the basics aren't there. A lot of people said, I met one woman who's a veteran, she said, "When we are forced to move on a regular basis we lose our ID cards, we lose all of our stuff. You can't get a job. You cannot claim disability if you keep losing all your things." "So if they allowed us to stay here for six months even," she said, "I could probably find a job and get up on my feet." And I heard this over and over again. CS: It sounds like standing in the middle of that tent city and saying "Can you believe people live like this?" might be well intentioned but the wrong question to be asking. RA: The wrong question and also let's dig a little deeper because our soundbite will sort of say William just got out of jail, he's living in a tent but what about what's his background. What does he think about? Does he want to find a job? I mean, there's more to it than that. Do we really even know where people who just lost their homes live? I think that would be a really good story. Talk to people who's homes have been foreclosed. Based on what the Loaves and Fishes people that I met said, we're hearing from people who are going to food banks but they're finding that they're living with relatives or maybe they're staying in a hotel for a month to try to find cheaper housing. But that's a story that has not been told. CS: At the risk of tying this to closely, your recent book is called Red Highways: A Liberal's Journey into the Heartland. There does seem to be, or there could be, a connection. Do you think there's something that ties these two things together, something about the assumptions that everyone—reporters and non-reporters—might have about situations or people we're not all that intimately familiar with? RA: Oh definitely. The reason why I wrote the books is because I got so tired of listening to all the pundits on television talk about everything from torture to tax cuts to global warming and everything else you can imagine. And I just feel like a lot of the D.C., New York reporters are so disconnected from what real people think about. I mean, think about how rare it is to hear from an average person or even to hear from—you know, when we're talking about the torture memos now, MSNBC's done a pretty good job of talking to "experts," but what about people who've been to Guantánamo or reporters who've tried to get to Guantánamo who can't get there. We have them on our show on a regular basis. So I wanted to ask people why they vote the way they do, if they do vote, because 98 million people don't vote and then where there belief system comes from and just really try to get past the soundbites and try to get past the sort of divide—you know, the tea party people are over there and then you've got the people who are protesting in front of the banks over there and then there's a big divide. And so I just wanted to get past that. And that was the point of the road trip: to take off for 6 months and talk to real people, most of whom have never been interviewed before. CS: We’ve been speaking with Rose Aguilar. She's host of the radio program Your Call, heard everyday on KALW in San Francisco. Listen to the show at YourCallRadio.org. She's also the author of the book Red Highways: A Liberal's Journey into the Heartland. Rose Aguilar, thanks for joining us this week on CounterSpin. RA: Thanks so much. -- Links: — Three Key Rules of Media Behavior Shape Their Discussions of "the 'Torture' Debate", by Glenn Greenwald (Salon, 4/23/09, Ad-viewing required) — "People Shouldn't Have to Live Like This": The Real Story Behind "Tent City"—and How the Media Get It Wrong, by Rose Aguilar (AlterNet, 4/20/09) This week on CounterSpin: While it’s pretty clear that Bush-era torture occurred, and that U.S. and international treaties oblige the U.S. to investigate, the hot media discussion centers not on when investigations will begin, but on whether President Barack Obama—not the Justice Department—thinks they should go forward. We’ll talk to Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com about the torture story. Also on CounterSpin today: Media are flocking to so-called tent cities to try and put a human face on the recession and housing crisis. That sounds laudable, but are the media getting the story wrong? We'll talk to journalist Rose Aguilar about that. twice. Well, that produced a flurry of reporting and commentary, as pundits tried to determine whether Obama should have so much as looked in Chávez's direction, with others saying a handshake was fine, but the smile that accompanied the handshake was a no-no. ABC reporter Kate Snow referred to Chávez matter-of-factly as the "Venezuelan dictator." It'd be curious to find out what sort of policy exists for such designations. If a repeatedly re-elected leader like Chávez is a dictator to be shunned, how do media treat, say, King Abdullah of Jordan? He didn't get that job by winning any election, and Jordan is regularly criticized for human rights violations, including torture. King Abdullah was Obama's White House guest a few days after the Chávez meeting; one suspects they may have even shook hands. At least as shocking as Chávez's handshake was the book that he presented to Obama—Eduardo Galeano's The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. The book is considered a classic in left-wing intellectual circles, and is well-known across Latin America. But many of the reporters who talked about the book referred to it as "obscure." Galeano's work has been translated into a dozen languages, it remains in print to this day and was so popular—and threatening—at the time of its release that the author was forced into exile. It's not so much that the book is obscure, then; it's that its political message is one that U.S. elites try to avoid talking about. When Mark Shields and David Brooks took the night off from their regular left/right debate on the PBS NewsHour on April 18, their seats were filled by former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson and supposed liberal Ruth Marcus, the Washington Post columnist who is known for, among other things, urging an already center-leaning Barack Obama to move even further to the center. Marcus did not disappoint in her NewsHour appearance, showing (once again) how a good TV liberal is supposed to behave. When the NewsHour's Judy Woodruff asked her if she agreed with the Obama administration’s release of Bush-era "interrogation memos" and their reported "decision not to prosecute the CIA agents who carried them out," Marcus answered “Right move on both, and a very brave move on both.” Adding that the actions would prompt "criticism" of Obama from the right for making America weaker, and a "firestorm of criticism from the left" because the left is "latching onto this hope that maybe some of the higher-ups will be prosecuted.” Marcus said she understood the heat and told how after writing a column opposing prosecutions for torture, "I was called a torture-enabler. And I don't think of myself that way. close quote" Of course Marcus is free not to think of herself as a torture enabler, just the same way Bush administration officials in charge of “enhanced interrogation techniques” are free not to think of themselves as torturers. Meanwhile back on earth, most Americans would like to see torture allegations investigated, and their views go unvoiced on public television’s NewsHour debate of the issue. Well, more on torture, The New York Times on April 19 ran a story reporting that the U.S. government had used water torture far more often than had previously been told. One prisoner, Al-Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was waterboarded 183 times in one month; in a different month, the same torture was used on Abu Zubaydah, accused of being an Al-Qaeda operative, at least 83 times. The Times report contains a bit of implicit media criticism, when reporter Scott Shane noted that, "A former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, told ABC News and other news media organizations in 2007 that Abu Zubaydah had undergone waterboarding for only 35 seconds before agreeing to tell everything he knew." Well, that's rather a different picture. The revelation of the actual degree of Zubaydah's torture is a useful reminder that people who are willing to torture another human being are generally willing to lie about it as well. That's something that the Washington Post should have kept in mind when they published an op-ed on April 21 from former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen. His column cited CIA claims about foiling a supposed plot to blow up Library Tower in Los Angeles as proof that so called "enhanced interrogation" was worth it: "Without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York." One problem with this argument, somehow missed by the Washington Post's crack team of fact-checkers: The Library Building plot, such as it was, was discovered in 2002—and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was arrested by the United States in 2003. A New York Times piece on April 16 seemed to advance a curious argument—that a foreign government that complains about civilian deaths at the hand of the United States might not really mean it. The country was Pakistan, where missiles fired from U.S. drones have killed hundreds of civilians. Times reporter Jane Perlez first tells readers that Pakistani officials probably aren't entirely opposed to the strikes, whatever they might say in public, because they've asked for more control over the drone attacks. That logic isn't easy to follow. Then the Times says the attacks have been effective, but that there are lingering questions. The main questions the Times raises are about military strategy; the very last item on that list of concerns is this: quote "Then there is the matter of public perception, particularly over the civilian casualties caused by the drone strikes, which infuriate Pakistani politicians and the media." So civilian suffering is at the bottom of such a list, written off as a "matter of public perception." The Times goes on to tell us that 500 Pakistani civilians have been killed, but finds a former general to say that many of these dead were likely sheltering militants "and cannot be deemed entirely innocent." The Times piece closes with a long summary of an unscientific poll of Pakistanis, which found that many of them support these attacks. The survey in question has obvious flaws, as Perlez acknowledged; but it was clearly too important to the point she was trying to make to leave out. And finally, we've talked before about misleading media coverage of the Employee Free Choice Act. That bill would make it easier for workers to form unions by increasing penalties for employers who violate workers' right to organize, and by giving workers the right to form a union if a majority signs cards declaring they want one—the so-called "card check" provision. On April 15th, NBC's Today show host Matt Lauer offered a standard mischaracterization of the Act, with a twist. **CLIP** Walmart now faces a threat to its corporate model. There's proposed legislation on Capitol Hill that would make it easier for unions to organize employees, the Employee Free Choice Act. It would do away with secret ballots. And some people say, unions say it'll make it easier for American workers to earn a fair salary. Others, like the guy who runs Home Depot, the co-founder, Bernie Marcus, says it's going to cripple American business. What's the truth? First, when Lauer declares that EFCA "would do away with secret ballots," he's wrong. Workers could still use a secret ballot vote if they wanted to; right now employers are the ones who get to choose between card check and a vote. The kicker is who he's asking for "the truth" on Employee Free Choice. It's Mike Duke, the new CEO of Wal-Mart, the adamantly anti-labor corporation exposed last year for forcing workers to attend anti-EFCA meetings. IF NBC is going to discuss Employee Free Choice, shouldn't they have an actual debate on the matter with different points of view? Well, if you go to the Today show website to try to ask that question, about the first thing you see is a Wal-Mart ad. That's probably just a coincidence. You’re listening to CounterSpin, brought to you each week by the media watch group FAIR. FAIR also publishes a magazine called Extra! I'll be giving subscription information for Extra! later on in the show. CounterSpin: Since the release of Bush-era legal memos and Red Cross documents detailing the abusive actions those memos authorized, there can no longer be much doubt that U.S. officials justified, countenanced, and carried out torture and abusive treatment on detainees. Under the circumstances of reasonable justice, investigations would not be an issue of hot debate. And, in a reasonable media discussion, there would be strong voices demanding investigations, rather than a consensus explaining why they would be unwise. Instead, the hottest topics in media discussion of the torture story seem to be whether President Obama ought to have released the Bush legal memos, and whether his recent comments on the story might have left the door open to possible investigations. Joining us to talk about the torture story, is Glenn Greenwald who has been closely following it on his Unclaimed Territory blog at Salon.com. He is also the author, most recently, of Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics. Welcome back to CounterSpin Glenn Greenwald! Glenn Greenwald: Great to be back, thanks. CS: You are a writer, but you are also a constitutional attorney. A Times story today, that's April 23, suggests that the prosecution would be very complicated very hard to do. What do you say to that? GG: I don't think there's much question that there will be some obstacles to the attempt to prosecute various Bush officials. What they did was they purposely created a legal cover in the form of these OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos where they had lawyers who were obviously willing to sanction anything that policy makers wanted to do, write very elaborate legal justifications for what are plainly crimes. And there is a doctrine in law that says that if you take certain actions with a good faith belief that the actions are legal, and it turns out later that actually the actions violate the law, that you lack a necessary criminal intent that would be required in order to prosecute. So there's an argument to make that, for example, CIA officials who read these memoranda and are not lawyers and were told that these things were legal had a right at least under the law to rely on those in what they did. But there's also plenty of evidence that, for example, policy makers and justice department lawyers knew that what they were authorizing was in fact illegal and that they authorized it specifically in order to create a legal shield to criminal conduct, and if that's the case—and I think there's much evidence that there is—that's the sort of thing for which prosecutions are absolutely appropriate. CS: And it would be a little premature to prejudge prosecutions today, considering we haven't even had investigations. GG: Well I think it's an important point, which is that for people who are advocating investigations and prosecutions—and I include myself in that group—the argument is not that there ought to be indictments of every person who was in any way involved in the program no matter what the results of the investigation reveal. The problem is that there is an attempt on the part of the political class and the political leaders to proclaim in advance that there should be no prosecutions of any kind and even no investigations of any kind. And the way that typically Americans are treated when they are accused of breaking the law is the Justice Department conducts an investigation, uses all of its resources to assemble the facts and then makes a legal judgement—not a political judgement, but a legal judgement—about whether prosecutions are warranted. And those of us who are arguing for accountability here are simply arguing that the same standards to which ordinary Americans are subjected are the ones that ought to be applied when government leaders break the law; which is the Justice Department ought to investigate, determine how compelling the evidence is, what the legal defenses might be and then make a legal determination about whether or not prosecutions are warranted. CS: Some of the common media tropes about how investigations would be unwise are that they would be politically divisive—as some have said, a partisan witch hunt. We have also heard that people really don’t have any appetite for them. GG: This is the argument that had been made repeatedly over the past several decades to institute the overarching premise of our political class, which is that political leaders who break the law should not be subjected to consequences the way ordinary Americans are and that was the arguement that led to the pardon of Richard Nixon. It's what led to the pardons of the Iran-Contra criminals and it's now leading media elites almost unanimously to demand that goverment officials be protected. Which is, well, if we prosecute it will be politically divisive and you know there's the premise that has been at the center of the American government since it's founding, which is that we're a nation of laws and not men and any time political leaders break the law and prosecutions proceed it's always the case that it will be politically divisive. So if you adopt the view that political divisiveness is a reason not to prosecute, what you're essentially saying is that polical leaders are free to break the law and know that they will never be held accountable. And that is essentially the premise that we have adopted and that's why there's such widespread criminality in the political class: because they know that they can break the law with impunity. As far as political and public opininon is concerned, as is typically the case, one of the principle tactics that media figures use to distort our political debates they literally misrepresent and even lie about public opinion. And so what you'll hear constantly is that most Americans don't want investigations and they want the Congress to do the people's business and not look back and investigate and that the only people who are calling for investigations are the left or the hard left. And if you look at polls, actually what you will find is exactly the opposite. There's a USA Today poll from February that, as USA Today put it, found that overall a majority favor investigations. Gallup and the Washington Post have independently found the same thing. It's like 60?70 percent of Americans favor investigations and even with regard to criminal prosecutions, over 40 percent of Americans in the Gallup and the USA Today poll favor criminal prosecutions. That was before the OLC memos were released. and so there's clearly a substantial fraction of the population, probably majorities, who do not believe that political officials when they break the law should be exempt. There's a Beltway belief which they misleading attribute to Americans generally. CS: While we have seen endless media attempts to read the White House tea leaves on the question of whether we should look forward, or commence with investigations, the media has had little to say about whether it’s proper for the President to even be making decisions about investigations. GG: One of the basic principles of our system of government is that decisions about whether the Justice Department will prosecute people are for the Justice Department to make and not for political officials, including the president, to make. In fact, many scandals in our recent history have arisen out of a violation of the principle. I mean, you probably remember as part of the Watergate scandal, the Saturday night massacre where Richard Nixon ordered his Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox because Nixon perceived that Cox was being too aggressive in investigating these crimes and Richardson refused to and he said, "Absolutely not. I am not going to fire the special prosecutor. I'm not going to interfere that way in the justice system." And then Nixon demanded Elliot Richardson's resignation and fired the deputy attorney as well and finally found Robert Bork who was willing to carry out the president's wishes. And in fact, during the Bush administration, lots of scandals arising out of Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department where based on the claims that the White House and the Justice Department were coordinating and making decisions about prosecutions not based on legal considerations but based on political considerations. That's what it means to politicize the Justice Department, and so when you have Barack Obama and his top aides Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emmanuel running around decreeing that certain groups of people should not be prosecuted and will not be prosecuted, whether it be CIA officials or even in the case of Emmanuel and Gibbs who said that even the designers and architects of these torture policies won't be prosecuted, what you really start to have is some inappropriate interference on the part of the White House and questions that are appropriately made only by the Justice Department. And I think that what happened was that there were starting to be some serious backlash and resentment inside the Justice Department over the attempt by the White House to dictate these decisions to them. They're supposed to be independent. And it was for that reason that Obama on Tuesday finally said when asked, "Well actually the decision about whether to prosecute Bush officials and the authors of these memos is one for the attorney general to make and I, Barack Obama, don't want to prejudge that." But you're right, that had been basically excluded almost entirely from our media discussions. We looked to the president as though he's some sort of omnipotent figure and it's up to the the president to make all judgements and decisions about everything in our country, including whether or not to prosecute people, which is absolutely not a power that the president has. So I think because of the Justice Department backlash, the president finally was forced to say "This is a decision for the Attoney General, not for me to make." CS: We’ve been speaking with Glenn Greenwald. To read his regular commentary on coverage of the torture story, see his blog, Unclaimed Territory on Salon.com. Thanks again for joining us today on CounterSpin, Glenn Greenwald! GG: It was my pleasure. Thank you. CounterSpin: In the midst of a recession and a battered economy that shows little signs of improving, you're bound to see more coverage of poverty in the mainstream media. It'd be hard to see less, in fact; a FAIR study documented in 2007, that TV reporting about poor people is extremely rare. But the kind of coverage we're seeing now is another matter entirely. Serious airtime and ink has been devoted to what is being called a return of tent cities, reminiscent of the Hoovervilles of the Great Depression. Now, on the surface, reporting on homelessness serves a vital journalistic function by shining a light on a social problem that will likely have an impact on readers and viewers. But are the media getting this story right? We're joined now by Rose Aguilar, host of the radio program Your Call at San Francisco's KALW. She's the author of the book Red Highways: A Liberal's Journey into the Heartland. And she recently wrote a piece for Alternet, "'People Shouldn't Have to Live Like This': The Real Story Behind 'Tent City'—and How the Media Get It Wrong." She joins us now on the telephone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Rose Aguilar. Rose Aguilar: Hi, thanks for having me. CS: Well, your piece is mainly about the tent city in Sacramento, California. So let's get right to it; when you were there, what did you see the media just getting wrong? RA: Well, the first time I heard about Tent City was on the Oprah Winfrey show, and when she teased the piece I thought "Oh my gosh, Oprah is going to Sacramento to shine a light on Tent City this is great." And then I noticed that Lisa Ling, the reporter, sort of stood in the middle of these tents and, you know, put out her arms and sort of said "Can you believe this is happening in America?" But I noticed that she wasn't focusing on stories. She wasn't really talking to anyone at length, and then I saw that scene in the newspaper articles and the TV. The question was how could this be happening in America? But the reporters were not asking people how did they end up here, what is your story, what is it like here on a regular basis? I felt like there were so many questions that were not answered. So I decided to spend two days at Tent City for six to eight hours both days, and I just found a completely different story. By the time I got there, people were kind of sick of media. They said that cars were flying in and out. They said reporters were sticking their cameras in tents without asking. And people kind of felt like the media was kind of treating them like a pack of wolves. And I found people who did not just lose their housing. These are chronically homeless people. I met one guy who's lived in a tent for seven years and he said reporters are not asking us the right questions. They want to know who just lost their house and he said it's kind of hard to lose a house when you don't own one in the first place. CS: So the media seem to be after the story about the subprime mortgage that went bad and the job that was lost and suddenly someone who shouldn't be homeless is now homeless? RA: Exactly. While I was there over the course of eight hours I would see a number of teams just come and go. They came in for the soundbite and then they left. And a lot of the people that I met said, "You know, they are not asking us the right questions." One guy, John Crane [PH], who's been living in a tent for seven years—who was actually on the mayor's homeless task force—the guy is full of knowledge, he listens to public radio all day. He was talking to me about AIG. He said, "I hear reporters come in here and almost scream 'Who just lost their house?' and everybody is looking at them like, 'Are you kidding? We've been here for years.'" The system is just messed up. You know, John Crane said "Why aren't you asking us about the fact that there's no affordable housing, asking about the fact that there's not jobs?" A lot of the people that I met at Tent City are trying really hard to find jobs but some of them have criminal records or they can't find one. And also it's kind of hard to find a job when you don't have an address or a phone number. CS: We've talked for years on this show about the deserving poor and the undeserving poor, and how often media seem motivated to find those stories of folks who shouldn't be in poverty or shouldn't be homeless, and the sort of long-term homeless or long-term poor are relegated to the margins. Well, you talked a little bit in your piece about what the goals of the folks who live there are. Does the media attention help or hurt their long term plan to either find permanent housing or make these Tent Cities more viable? What dos the spotlight of the media do for them? RA: It's seems like it hurts their plans because I interviewed the Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson and at that time he said, "I'm actually open to talking to folks about setting up a permanent encampment." But when you shine a light on a place like Sacramento where you've got a governor who was a former movie star, the mayor is a former NBA basketball player, it just doesn't look good to having people living in tents. And Loaves and Fishes, which is the group in Sacramento which actually has been serving the homeless for 25 years, they say that a permanent encampment is a really good solution for people who don't want to live in shelters. Because when you live in a shelter, you have to be in by 8 o'clock at night, you cannot bring any of your belongings, usually it's male and female so couples have to split up and frankly, a lot of people don't want to live in four walls. And a lot of the people who I met said if they allowed us to live here and set it up kind of like a KOA [campground] with toilets because at this point there are not toilets, not running water. One company did donate a dumpster for trash but the basics aren't there. A lot of people said, I met one woman who's a veteran, she said, "When we are forced to move on a regular basis we lose our ID cards, we lose all of our stuff. You can't get a job. You cannot claim disability if you keep losing all your things." "So if they allowed us to stay here for six months even," she said, "I could probably find a job and get up on my feet." And I heard this over and over again. CS: It sounds like standing in the middle of that tent city and saying "Can you believe people live like this?" might be well intentioned but the wrong question to be asking. RA: The wrong question and also let's dig a little deeper because our soundbite will sort of say William just got out of jail, he's living in a tent but what about what's his background. What does he think about? Does he want to find a job? I mean, there's more to it than that. Do we really even know where people who just lost their homes live? I think that would be a really good story. Talk to people who's homes have been foreclosed. Based on what the Loaves and Fishes people that I met said, we're hearing from people who are going to food banks but they're finding that they're living with relatives or maybe they're staying in a hotel for a month to try to find cheaper housing. But that's a story that has not been told. CS: At the risk of tying this to closely, your recent book is called Red Highways: A Liberal's Journey into the Heartland. There does seem to be, or there could be, a connection. Do you think there's something that ties these two things together, something about the assumptions that everyone—reporters and non-reporters—might have about situations or people we're not all that intimately familiar with? RA: Oh definitely. The reason why I wrote the books is because I got so tired of listening to all the pundits on television talk about everything from torture to tax cuts to global warming and everything else you can imagine. And I just feel like a lot of the D.C., New York reporters are so disconnected from what real people think about. I mean, think about how rare it is to hear from an average person or even to hear from—you know, when we're talking about the torture memos now, MSNBC's done a pretty good job of talking to "experts," but what about people who've been to Guantánamo or reporters who've tried to get to Guantánamo who can't get there. We have them on our show on a regular basis. So I wanted to ask people why they vote the way they do, if they do vote, because 98 million people don't vote and then where there belief system comes from and just really try to get past the soundbites and try to get past the sort of divide—you know, the tea party people are over there and then you've got the people who are protesting in front of the banks over there and then there's a big divide. And so I just wanted to get past that. And that was the point of the road trip: to take off for 6 months and talk to real people, most of whom have never been interviewed before. CS: We’ve been speaking with Rose Aguilar. She's host of the radio program Your Call, heard everyday on KALW in San Francisco. Listen to the show at YourCallRadio.org. She's also the author of the book Red Highways: A Liberal's Journey into the Heartland. Rose Aguilar, thanks for joining us this week on CounterSpin. RA: Thanks so much. -- Links: — Three Key Rules of Media Behavior Shape Their Discussions of "the 'Torture' Debate", by Glenn Greenwald (Salon, 4/23/09, Ad-viewing required) — "People Shouldn't Have to Live Like This": The Real Story Behind "Tent City"—and How the Media Get It Wrong, by Rose Aguilar (AlterNet, 4/20/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-04-23,24506016 Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24495841-Glenn-Greenwald-on-Torture-Rose-Aguilar-on-tent-cities Welcome to CounterSpin, your weekly look behind the headlines of the mainstream news. I'm Steve Rendall, here with Peter Hart. This week on CounterSpin: While it’s pretty clear that Bush-era torture occurred, and that U.S. and international treaties oblige the U.S. to investigate, the hot media discussion centers not on when investigations will begin, but on whether President Barack Obama—not the Justice Department—thinks they should go forward. We’ll talk to Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com about the torture story. Also on CounterSpin today: Media are flocking to so-called tent cities to try and put a human face on the recession and housing crisis. That sounds laudable, but are the media getting the story wrong? We'll talk to journalist Rose Aguilar about that. All that's coming up, but first we'll take a look back at the week's press: There may have been any number of important things up for discussion at the recent Summit of the Americas, but if you watched U.... Welcome to CounterSpin, your weekly look behind the headlines of the mainstream news. I'm Steve Rendall, here with Peter Hart. This week on CounterSpin: While it’s pretty clear that Bush-era torture occurred, and that U.S. and international treaties oblige the U.S. to investigate, the hot media discussion centers not on when investigations will begin, but on whether President Barack Obama—not the Justice Department—thinks they should go forward. We’ll talk to Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com about the torture story. Also on CounterSpin today: Media are flocking to so-called tent cities to try and put a human face on the recession and housing crisis. That sounds laudable, but are the media getting the story wrong? We'll talk to journalist Rose Aguilar about that. All that's coming up, but first we'll take a look back at the week's press: There may have been any number of important things up for discussion at the recent Summit of the Americas, but if you watched U.S. media about all you can say you really know is that Barack Obama shook hands with left-wing Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. Maybe even twice. Well, that produced a flurry of reporting and commentary, as pundits tried to determine whether Obama should have so much as looked in Chávez's direction, with others saying a handshake was fine, but the smile that accompanied the handshake was a no-no. ABC reporter Kate Snow referred to Chávez matter-of-factly as the "Venezuelan dictator." It'd be curious to find out what sort of policy exists for such designations. If a repeatedly re-elected leader like Chávez is a dictator to be shunned, how do media treat, say, King Abdullah of Jordan? He didn't get that job by winning any election, and Jordan is regularly criticized for human rights violations, including torture. King Abdullah was Obama's White House guest a few days after the Chávez meeting; one suspects they may have even shook hands. At least as shocking as Chávez's handshake was the book that he presented to Obama—Eduardo Galeano's The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. The book is considered a classic in left-wing intellectual circles, and is well-known across Latin America. But many of the reporters who talked about the book referred to it as "obscure." Galeano's work has been translated into a dozen languages, it remains in print to this day and was so popular—and threatening—at the time of its release that the author was forced into exile. It's not so much that the book is obscure, then; it's that its political message is one that U.S. elites try to avoid talking about. When Mark Shields and David Brooks took the night off from their regular left/right debate on the PBS NewsHour on April 18, their seats were filled by former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson and supposed liberal Ruth Marcus, the Washington Post columnist who is known for, among other things, urging an already center-leaning Barack Obama to move even further to the center. Marcus did not disappoint in her NewsHour appearance, showing (once again) how a good TV liberal is supposed to behave. When the NewsHour's Judy Woodruff asked her if she agreed with the Obama administration’s release of Bush-era "interrogation memos" and their reported "decision not to prosecute the CIA agents who carried them out," Marcus answered “Right move on both, and a very brave move on both.” Adding that the actions would prompt "criticism" of Obama from the right for making America weaker, and a "firestorm of criticism from the left" because the left is "latching onto this hope that maybe some of the higher-ups will be prosecuted.” Marcus said she understood the heat and told how after writing a column opposing prosecutions for torture, "I was called a torture-enabler. And I don't think of myself that way. close quote" Of course Marcus is free not to think of herself as a torture enabler, just the same way Bush administration officials in charge of “enhanced interrogation techniques” are free not to think of themselves as torturers. Meanwhile back on earth, most Americans would like to see torture allegations investigated, and their views go unvoiced on public television’s NewsHour debate of the issue. Well, more on torture, The New York Times on April 19 ran a story reporting that the U.S. government had used water torture far more often than had previously been told. One prisoner, Al-Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was waterboarded 183 times in one month; in a different month, the same torture was used on Abu Zubaydah, accused of being an Al-Qaeda operative, at least 83 times. The Times report contains a bit of implicit media criticism, when reporter Scott Shane noted that, "A former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, told ABC News and other news media organizations in 2007 that Abu Zubaydah had undergone waterboarding for only 35 seconds before agreeing to tell everything he knew." Well, that's rather a different picture. The revelation of the actual degree of Zubaydah's torture is a useful reminder that people who are willing to torture another human being are generally willing to lie about it as well. That's something that the Washington Post should have kept in mind when they published an op-ed on April 21 from former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen. His column cited CIA claims about foiling a supposed plot to blow up Library Tower in Los Angeles as proof that so called "enhanced interrogation" was worth it: "Without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York." One problem with this argument, somehow missed by the Washington Post's crack team of fact-checkers: The Library Building plot, such as it was, was discovered in 2002—and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was arrested by the United States in 2003. A New York Times piece on April 16 seemed to advance a curious argument—that a foreign government that complains about civilian deaths at the hand of the United States might not really mean it. The country was Pakistan, where missiles fired from U.S. drones have killed hundreds of civilians. Times reporter Jane Perlez first tells readers that Pakistani officials probably aren't entirely opposed to the strikes, whatever they might say in public, because they've asked for more control over the drone attacks. That logic isn't easy to follow. Then the Times says the attacks have been effective, but that there are lingering questions. The main questions the Times raises are about military strategy; the very last item on that list of concerns is this: quote "Then there is the matter of public perception, particularly over the civilian casualties caused by the drone strikes, which infuriate Pakistani politicians and the media." So civilian suffering is at the bottom of such a list, written off as a "matter of public perception." The Times goes on to tell us that 500 Pakistani civilians have been killed, but finds a former general to say that many of these dead were likely sheltering militants "and cannot be deemed entirely innocent." The Times piece closes with a long summary of an unscientific poll of Pakistanis, which found that many of them support these attacks. The survey in question has obvious flaws, as Perlez acknowledged; but it was clearly too important to the point she was trying to make to leave out. And finally, we've talked before about misleading media coverage of the Employee Free Choice Act. That bill would make it easier for workers to form unions by increasing penalties for employers who violate workers' right to organize, and by giving workers the right to form a union if a majority signs cards declaring they want one—the so-called "card check" provision. On April 15th, NBC's Today show host Matt Lauer offered a standard mischaracterization of the Act, with a twist. **CLIP** Walmart now faces a threat to its corporate model. There's proposed legislation on Capitol Hill that would make it easier for unions to organize employees, the Employee Free Choice Act. It would do away with secret ballots. And some people say, unions say it'll make it easier for American workers to earn a fair salary. Others, like the guy who runs Home Depot, the co-founder, Bernie Marcus, says it's going to cripple American business. What's the truth? First, when Lauer declares that EFCA "would do away with secret ballots," he's wrong. Workers could still use a secret ballot vote if they wanted to; right now employers are the ones who get to choose between card check and a vote. The kicker is who he's asking for "the truth" on Employee Free Choice. It's Mike Duke, the new CEO of Wal-Mart, the adamantly anti-labor corporation exposed last year for forcing workers to attend anti-EFCA meetings. IF NBC is going to discuss Employee Free Choice, shouldn't they have an actual debate on the matter with different points of view? Well, if you go to the Today show website to try to ask that question, about the first thing you see is a Wal-Mart ad. That's probably just a coincidence. You’re listening to CounterSpin, brought to you each week by the media watch group FAIR. FAIR also publishes a magazine called Extra! I'll be giving subscription information for Extra! later on in the show. CounterSpin: Since the release of Bush-era legal memos and Red Cross documents detailing the abusive actions those memos authorized, there can no longer be much doubt that U.S. officials justified, countenanced, and carried out torture and abusive treatment on detainees. Under the circumstances of reasonable justice, investigations would not be an issue of hot debate. And, in a reasonable media discussion, there would be strong voices demanding investigations, rather than a consensus explaining why they would be unwise. Instead, the hottest topics in media discussion of the torture story seem to be whether President Obama ought to have released the Bush legal memos, and whether his recent comments on the story might have left the door open to possible investigations. Joining us to talk about the torture story, is Glenn Greenwald who has been closely following it on his Unclaimed Territory blog at Salon.com. He is also the author, most recently, of Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics. Welcome back to CounterSpin Glenn Greenwald! Glenn Greenwald: Great to be back, thanks. CS: You are a writer, but you are also a constitutional attorney. A Times story today, that's April 23, suggests that the prosecution would be very complicated very hard to do. What do you say to that? GG: I don't think there's much question that there will be some obstacles to the attempt to prosecute various Bush officials. What they did was they purposely created a legal cover in the form of these OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos where they had lawyers who were obviously willing to sanction anything that policy makers wanted to do, write very elaborate legal justifications for what are plainly crimes. And there is a doctrine in law that says that if you take certain actions with a good faith belief that the actions are legal, and it turns out later that actually the actions violate the law, that you lack a necessary criminal intent that would be required in order to prosecute. So there's an argument to make that, for example, CIA officials who read these memoranda and are not lawyers and were told that these things were legal had a right at least under the law to rely on those in what they did. But there's also plenty of evidence that, for example, policy makers and justice department lawyers knew that what they were authorizing was in fact illegal and that they authorized it specifically in order to create a legal shield to criminal conduct, and if that's the case—and I think there's much evidence that there is—that's the sort of thing for which prosecutions are absolutely appropriate. CS: And it would be a little premature to prejudge prosecutions today, considering we haven't even had investigations. GG: Well I think it's an important point, which is that for people who are advocating investigations and prosecutions—and I include myself in that group—the argument is not that there ought to be indictments of every person who was in any way involved in the program no matter what the results of the investigation reveal. The problem is that there is an attempt on the part of the political class and the political leaders to proclaim in advance that there should be no prosecutions of any kind and even no investigations of any kind. And the way that typically Americans are treated when they are accused of breaking the law is the Justice Department conducts an investigation, uses all of its resources to assemble the facts and then makes a legal judgement—not a political judgement, but a legal judgement—about whether prosecutions are warranted. And those of us who are arguing for accountability here are simply arguing that the same standards to which ordinary Americans are subjected are the ones that ought to be applied when government leaders break the law; which is the Justice Department ought to investigate, determine how compelling the evidence is, what the legal defenses might be and then make a legal determination about whether or not prosecutions are warranted. CS: Some of the common media tropes about how investigations would be unwise are that they would be politically divisive—as some have said, a partisan witch hunt. We have also heard that people really don’t have any appetite for them. GG: This is the argument that had been made repeatedly over the past several decades to institute the overarching premise of our political class, which is that political leaders who break the law should not be subjected to consequences the way ordinary Americans are and that was the arguement that led to the pardon of Richard Nixon. It's what led to the pardons of the Iran-Contra criminals and it's now leading media elites almost unanimously to demand that goverment officials be protected. Which is, well, if we prosecute it will be politically divisive and you know there's the premise that has been at the center of the American government since it's founding, which is that we're a nation of laws and not men and any time political leaders break the law and prosecutions proceed it's always the case that it will be politically divisive. So if you adopt the view that political divisiveness is a reason not to prosecute, what you're essentially saying is that polical leaders are free to break the law and know that they will never be held accountable. And that is essentially the premise that we have adopted and that's why there's such widespread criminality in the political class: because they know that they can break the law with impunity. As far as political and public opininon is concerned, as is typically the case, one of the principle tactics that media figures use to distort our political debates they literally misrepresent and even lie about public opinion. And so what you'll hear constantly is that most Americans don't want investigations and they want the Congress to do the people's business and not look back and investigate and that the only people who are calling for investigations are the left or the hard left. And if you look at polls, actually what you will find is exactly the opposite. There's a USA Today poll from February that, as USA Today put it, found that overall a majority favor investigations. Gallup and the Washington Post have independently found the same thing. It's like 60?70 percent of Americans favor investigations and even with regard to criminal prosecutions, over 40 percent of Americans in the Gallup and the USA Today poll favor criminal prosecutions. That was before the OLC memos were released. and so there's clearly a substantial fraction of the population, probably majorities, who do not believe that political officials when they break the law should be exempt. There's a Beltway belief which they misleading attribute to Americans generally. CS: While we have seen endless media attempts to read the White House tea leaves on the question of whether we should look forward, or commence with investigations, the media has had little to say about whether it’s proper for the President to even be making decisions about investigations. GG: One of the basic principles of our system of government is that decisions about whether the Justice Department will prosecute people are for the Justice Department to make and not for political officials, including the president, to make. In fact, many scandals in our recent history have arisen out of a violation of the principle. I mean, you probably remember as part of the Watergate scandal, the Saturday night massacre where Richard Nixon ordered his Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox because Nixon perceived that Cox was being too aggressive in investigating these crimes and Richardson refused to and he said, "Absolutely not. I am not going to fire the special prosecutor. I'm not going to interfere that way in the justice system." And then Nixon demanded Elliot Richardson's resignation and fired the deputy attorney as well and finally found Robert Bork who was willing to carry out the president's wishes. And in fact, during the Bush administration, lots of scandals arising out of Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department where based on the claims that the White House and the Justice Department were coordinating and making decisions about prosecutions not based on legal considerations but based on political considerations. That's what it means to politicize the Justice Department, and so when you have Barack Obama and his top aides Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emmanuel running around decreeing that certain groups of people should not be prosecuted and will not be prosecuted, whether it be CIA officials or even in the case of Emmanuel and Gibbs who said that even the designers and architects of these torture policies won't be prosecuted, what you really start to have is some inappropriate interference on the part of the White House and questions that are appropriately made only by the Justice Department. And I think that what happened was that there were starting to be some serious backlash and resentment inside the Justice Department over the attempt by the White House to dictate these decisions to them. They're supposed to be independent. And it was for that reason that Obama on Tuesday finally said when asked, "Well actually the decision about whether to prosecute Bush officials and the authors of these memos is one for the attorney general to make and I, Barack Obama, don't want to prejudge that." But you're right, that had been basically excluded almost entirely from our media discussions. We looked to the president as though he's some sort of omnipotent figure and it's up to the the president to make all judgements and decisions about everything in our country, including whether or not to prosecute people, which is absolutely not a power that the president has. So I think because of the Justice Department backlash, the president finally was forced to say "This is a decision for the Attoney General, not for me to make." CS: We’ve been speaking with Glenn Greenwald. To read his regular commentary on coverage of the torture story, see his blog, Unclaimed Territory on Salon.com. Thanks again for joining us today on CounterSpin, Glenn Greenwald! GG: It was my pleasure. Thank you. CounterSpin: In the midst of a recession and a battered economy that shows little signs of improving, you're bound to see more coverage of poverty in the mainstream media. It'd be hard to see less, in fact; a FAIR study documented in 2007, that TV reporting about poor people is extremely rare. But the kind of coverage we're seeing now is another matter entirely. Serious airtime and ink has been devoted to what is being called a return of tent cities, reminiscent of the Hoovervilles of the Great Depression. Now, on the surface, reporting on homelessness serves a vital journalistic function by shining a light on a social problem that will likely have an impact on readers and viewers. But are the media getting this story right? We're joined now by Rose Aguilar, host of the radio program Your Call at San Francisco's KALW. She's the author of the book Red Highways: A Liberal's Journey into the Heartland. And she recently wrote a piece for Alternet, "'People Shouldn't Have to Live Like This': The Real Story Behind 'Tent City'—and How the Media Get It Wrong." She joins us now on the telephone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Rose Aguilar. Rose Aguilar: Hi, thanks for having me. CS: Well, your piece is mainly about the tent city in Sacramento, California. So let's get right to it; when you were there, what did you see the media just getting wrong? RA: Well, the first time I heard about Tent City was on the Oprah Winfrey show, and when she teased the piece I thought "Oh my gosh, Oprah is going to Sacramento to shine a light on Tent City this is great." And then I noticed that Lisa Ling, the reporter, sort of stood in the middle of these tents and, you know, put out her arms and sort of said "Can you believe this is happening in America?" But I noticed that she wasn't focusing on stories. She wasn't really talking to anyone at length, and then I saw that scene in the newspaper articles and the TV. The question was how could this be happening in America? But the reporters were not asking people how did they end up here, what is your story, what is it like here on a regular basis? I felt like there were so many questions that were not answered. So I decided to spend two days at Tent City for six to eight hours both days, and I just found a completely different story. By the time I got there, people were kind of sick of media. They said that cars were flying in and out. They said reporters were sticking their cameras in tents without asking. And people kind of felt like the media was kind of treating them like a pack of wolves. And I found people who did not just lose their housing. These are chronically homeless people. I met one guy who's lived in a tent for seven years and he said reporters are not asking us the right questions. They want to know who just lost their house and he said it's kind of hard to lose a house when you don't own one in the first place. CS: So the media seem to be after the story about the subprime mortgage that went bad and the job that was lost and suddenly someone who shouldn't be homeless is now homeless? RA: Exactly. While I was there over the course of eight hours I would see a number of teams just come and go. They came in for the soundbite and then they left. And a lot of the people that I met said, "You know, they are not asking us the right questions." One guy, John Crane [PH], who's been living in a tent for seven years—who was actually on the mayor's homeless task force—the guy is full of knowledge, he listens to public radio all day. He was talking to me about AIG. He said, "I hear reporters come in here and almost scream 'Who just lost their house?' and everybody is looking at them like, 'Are you kidding? We've been here for years.'" The system is just messed up. You know, John Crane said "Why aren't you asking us about the fact that there's no affordable housing, asking about the fact that there's not jobs?" A lot of the people that I met at Tent City are trying really hard to find jobs but some of them have criminal records or they can't find one. And also it's kind of hard to find a job when you don't have an address or a phone number. CS: We've talked for years on this show about the deserving poor and the undeserving poor, and how often media seem motivated to find those stories of folks who shouldn't be in poverty or shouldn't be homeless, and the sort of long-term homeless or long-term poor are relegated to the margins. Well, you talked a little bit in your piece about what the goals of the folks who live there are. Does the media attention help or hurt their long term plan to either find permanent housing or make these Tent Cities more viable? What dos the spotlight of the media do for them? RA: It's seems like it hurts their plans because I interviewed the Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson and at that time he said, "I'm actually open to talking to folks about setting up a permanent encampment." But when you shine a light on a place like Sacramento where you've got a governor who was a former movie star, the mayor is a former NBA basketball player, it just doesn't look good to having people living in tents. And Loaves and Fishes, which is the group in Sacramento which actually has been serving the homeless for 25 years, they say that a permanent encampment is a really good solution for people who don't want to live in shelters. Because when you live in a shelter, you have to be in by 8 o'clock at night, you cannot bring any of your belongings, usually it's male and female so couples have to split up and frankly, a lot of people don't want to live in four walls. And a lot of the people who I met said if they allowed us to live here and set it up kind of like a KOA [campground] with toilets because at this point there are not toilets, not running water. One company did donate a dumpster for trash but the basics aren't there. A lot of people said, I met one woman who's a veteran, she said, "When we are forced to move on a regular basis we lose our ID cards, we lose all of our stuff. You can't get a job. You cannot claim disability if you keep losing all your things." "So if they allowed us to stay here for six months even," she said, "I could probably find a job and get up on my feet." And I heard this over and over again. CS: It sounds like standing in the middle of that tent city and saying "Can you believe people live like this?" might be well intentioned but the wrong question to be asking. RA: The wrong question and also let's dig a little deeper because our soundbite will sort of say William just got out of jail, he's living in a tent but what about what's his background. What does he think about? Does he want to find a job? I mean, there's more to it than that. Do we really even know where people who just lost their homes live? I think that would be a really good story. Talk to people who's homes have been foreclosed. Based on what the Loaves and Fishes people that I met said, we're hearing from people who are going to food banks but they're finding that they're living with relatives or maybe they're staying in a hotel for a month to try to find cheaper housing. But that's a story that has not been told. CS: At the risk of tying this to closely, your recent book is called Red Highways: A Liberal's Journey into the Heartland. There does seem to be, or there could be, a connection. Do you think there's something that ties these two things together, something about the assumptions that everyone—reporters and non-reporters—might have about situations or people we're not all that intimately familiar with? RA: Oh definitely. The reason why I wrote the books is because I got so tired of listening to all the pundits on television talk about everything from torture to tax cuts to global warming and everything else you can imagine. And I just feel like a lot of the D.C., New York reporters are so disconnected from what real people think about. I mean, think about how rare it is to hear from an average person or even to hear from—you know, when we're talking about the torture memos now, MSNBC's done a pretty good job of talking to "experts," but what about people who've been to Guantánamo or reporters who've tried to get to Guantánamo who can't get there. We have them on our show on a regular basis. So I wanted to ask people why they vote the way they do, if they do vote, because 98 million people don't vote and then where there belief system comes from and just really try to get past the soundbites and try to get past the sort of divide—you know, the tea party people are over there and then you've got the people who are protesting in front of the banks over there and then there's a big divide. And so I just wanted to get past that. And that was the point of the road trip: to take off for 6 months and talk to real people, most of whom have never been interviewed before. CS: We’ve been speaking with Rose Aguilar. She's host of the radio program Your Call, heard everyday on KALW in San Francisco. Listen to the show at YourCallRadio.org. She's also the author of the book Red Highways: A Liberal's Journey into the Heartland. Rose Aguilar, thanks for joining us this week on CounterSpin. RA: Thanks so much. Links: — Three Key Rules of Media Behavior Shape Their Discussions of "the 'Torture' Debate", by Glenn Greenwald (Salon, 4/23/09, Ad-viewing required) — "People Shouldn't Have to Live Like This": The Real Story Behind "Tent City"—and How the Media Get It Wrong, by Rose Aguilar (AlterNet, 4/20/09) Welcome to CounterSpin, your weekly look behind the headlines of the mainstream news. I'm Steve Rendall, here with Peter Hart. This week on CounterSpin: While it’s pretty clear that Bush-era torture occurred, and that U.S. and international treaties oblige the U.S. to investigate, the hot media discussion centers not on when investigations will begin, but on whether President Barack Obama—not the Justice Department—thinks they should go forward. We’ll talk to Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com about the torture story. Also on CounterSpin today: Media are flocking to so-called tent cities to try and put a human face on the recession and housing crisis. That sounds laudable, but are the media getting the story wrong? We'll talk to journalist Rose Aguilar about that. All that's coming up, but first we'll take a look back at the week's press: There may have been any number of important things up for discussion at the recent Summit of the Americas, but if you watched U.S. media about all you can say you really know is that Barack Obama shook hands with left-wing Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. Maybe even twice. Well, that produced a flurry of reporting and commentary, as pundits tried to determine whether Obama should have so much as looked in Chávez's direction, with others saying a handshake was fine, but the smile that accompanied the handshake was a no-no. ABC reporter Kate Snow referred to Chávez matter-of-factly as the "Venezuelan dictator." It'd be curious to find out what sort of policy exists for such designations. If a repeatedly re-elected leader like Chávez is a dictator to be shunned, how do media treat, say, King Abdullah of Jordan? He didn't get that job by winning any election, and Jordan is regularly criticized for human rights violations, including torture. King Abdullah was Obama's White House guest a few days after the Chávez meeting; one suspects they may have even shook hands. At least as shocking as Chávez's handshake was the book that he presented to Obama—Eduardo Galeano's The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. The book is considered a classic in left-wing intellectual circles, and is well-known across Latin America. But many of the reporters who talked about the book referred to it as "obscure." Galeano's work has been translated into a dozen languages, it remains in print to this day and was so popular—and threatening—at the time of its release that the author was forced into exile. It's not so much that the book is obscure, then; it's that its political message is one that U.S. elites try to avoid talking about. When Mark Shields and David Brooks took the night off from their regular left/right debate on the PBS NewsHour on April 18, their seats were filled by former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson and supposed liberal Ruth Marcus, the Washington Post columnist who is known for, among other things, urging an already center-leaning Barack Obama to move even further to the center. Marcus did not disappoint in her NewsHour appearance, showing (once again) how a good TV liberal is supposed to behave. When the NewsHour's Judy Woodruff asked her if she agreed with the Obama administration’s release of Bush-era "interrogation memos" and their reported "decision not to prosecute the CIA agents who carried them out," Marcus answered “Right move on both, and a very brave move on both.” Adding that the actions would prompt "criticism" of Obama from the right for making America weaker, and a "firestorm of criticism from the left" because the left is "latching onto this hope that maybe some of the higher-ups will be prosecuted.” Marcus said she understood the heat and told how after writing a column opposing prosecutions for torture, "I was called a torture-enabler. And I don't think of myself that way. close quote" Of course Marcus is free not to think of herself as a torture enabler, just the same way Bush administration officials in charge of “enhanced interrogation techniques” are free not to think of themselves as torturers. Meanwhile back on earth, most Americans would like to see torture allegations investigated, and their views go unvoiced on public television’s NewsHour debate of the issue. Well, more on torture, The New York Times on April 19 ran a story reporting that the U.S. government had used water torture far more often than had previously been told. One prisoner, Al-Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was waterboarded 183 times in one month; in a different month, the same torture was used on Abu Zubaydah, accused of being an Al-Qaeda operative, at least 83 times. The Times report contains a bit of implicit media criticism, when reporter Scott Shane noted that, "A former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, told ABC News and other news media organizations in 2007 that Abu Zubaydah had undergone waterboarding for only 35 seconds before agreeing to tell everything he knew." Well, that's rather a different picture. The revelation of the actual degree of Zubaydah's torture is a useful reminder that people who are willing to torture another human being are generally willing to lie about it as well. That's something that the Washington Post should have kept in mind when they published an op-ed on April 21 from former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen. His column cited CIA claims about foiling a supposed plot to blow up Library Tower in Los Angeles as proof that so called "enhanced interrogation" was worth it: "Without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York." One problem with this argument, somehow missed by the Washington Post's crack team of fact-checkers: The Library Building plot, such as it was, was discovered in 2002—and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was arrested by the United States in 2003. A New York Times piece on April 16 seemed to advance a curious argument—that a foreign government that complains about civilian deaths at the hand of the United States might not really mean it. The country was Pakistan, where missiles fired from U.S. drones have killed hundreds of civilians. Times reporter Jane Perlez first tells readers that Pakistani officials probably aren't entirely opposed to the strikes, whatever they might say in public, because they've asked for more control over the drone attacks. That logic isn't easy to follow. Then the Times says the attacks have been effective, but that there are lingering questions. The main questions the Times raises are about military strategy; the very last item on that list of concerns is this: quote "Then there is the matter of public perception, particularly over the civilian casualties caused by the drone strikes, which infuriate Pakistani politicians and the media." So civilian suffering is at the bottom of such a list, written off as a "matter of public perception." The Times goes on to tell us that 500 Pakistani civilians have been killed, but finds a former general to say that many of these dead were likely sheltering militants "and cannot be deemed entirely innocent." The Times piece closes with a long summary of an unscientific poll of Pakistanis, which found that many of them support these attacks. The survey in question has obvious flaws, as Perlez acknowledged; but it was clearly too important to the point she was trying to make to leave out. And finally, we've talked before about misleading media coverage of the Employee Free Choice Act. That bill would make it easier for workers to form unions by increasing penalties for employers who violate workers' right to organize, and by giving workers the right to form a union if a majority signs cards declaring they want one—the so-called "card check" provision. On April 15th, NBC's Today show host Matt Lauer offered a standard mischaracterization of the Act, with a twist. **CLIP** Walmart now faces a threat to its corporate model. There's proposed legislation on Capitol Hill that would make it easier for unions to organize employees, the Employee Free Choice Act. It would do away with secret ballots. And some people say, unions say it'll make it easier for American workers to earn a fair salary. Others, like the guy who runs Home Depot, the co-founder, Bernie Marcus, says it's going to cripple American business. What's the truth? First, when Lauer declares that EFCA "would do away with secret ballots," he's wrong. Workers could still use a secret ballot vote if they wanted to; right now employers are the ones who get to choose between card check and a vote. The kicker is who he's asking for "the truth" on Employee Free Choice. It's Mike Duke, the new CEO of Wal-Mart, the adamantly anti-labor corporation exposed last year for forcing workers to attend anti-EFCA meetings. IF NBC is going to discuss Employee Free Choice, shouldn't they have an actual debate on the matter with different points of view? Well, if you go to the Today show website to try to ask that question, about the first thing you see is a Wal-Mart ad. That's probably just a coincidence. You’re listening to CounterSpin, brought to you each week by the media watch group FAIR. FAIR also publishes a magazine called Extra! I'll be giving subscription information for Extra! later on in the show. CounterSpin: Since the release of Bush-era legal memos and Red Cross documents detailing the abusive actions those memos authorized, there can no longer be much doubt that U.S. officials justified, countenanced, and carried out torture and abusive treatment on detainees. Under the circumstances of reasonable justice, investigations would not be an issue of hot debate. And, in a reasonable media discussion, there would be strong voices demanding investigations, rather than a consensus explaining why they would be unwise. Instead, the hottest topics in media discussion of the torture story seem to be whether President Obama ought to have released the Bush legal memos, and whether his recent comments on the story might have left the door open to possible investigations. Joining us to talk about the torture story, is Glenn Greenwald who has been closely following it on his Unclaimed Territory blog at Salon.com. He is also the author, most recently, of Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics. Welcome back to CounterSpin Glenn Greenwald! Glenn Greenwald: Great to be back, thanks. CS: You are a writer, but you are also a constitutional attorney. A Times story today, that's April 23, suggests that the prosecution would be very complicated very hard to do. What do you say to that? GG: I don't think there's much question that there will be some obstacles to the attempt to prosecute various Bush officials. What they did was they purposely created a legal cover in the form of these OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos where they had lawyers who were obviously willing to sanction anything that policy makers wanted to do, write very elaborate legal justifications for what are plainly crimes. And there is a doctrine in law that says that if you take certain actions with a good faith belief that the actions are legal, and it turns out later that actually the actions violate the law, that you lack a necessary criminal intent that would be required in order to prosecute. So there's an argument to make that, for example, CIA officials who read these memoranda and are not lawyers and were told that these things were legal had a right at least under the law to rely on those in what they did. But there's also plenty of evidence that, for example, policy makers and justice department lawyers knew that what they were authorizing was in fact illegal and that they authorized it specifically in order to create a legal shield to criminal conduct, and if that's the case—and I think there's much evidence that there is—that's the sort of thing for which prosecutions are absolutely appropriate. CS: And it would be a little premature to prejudge prosecutions today, considering we haven't even had investigations. GG: Well I think it's an important point, which is that for people who are advocating investigations and prosecutions—and I include myself in that group—the argument is not that there ought to be indictments of every person who was in any way involved in the program no matter what the results of the investigation reveal. The problem is that there is an attempt on the part of the political class and the political leaders to proclaim in advance that there should be no prosecutions of any kind and even no investigations of any kind. And the way that typically Americans are treated when they are accused of breaking the law is the Justice Department conducts an investigation, uses all of its resources to assemble the facts and then makes a legal judgement—not a political judgement, but a legal judgement—about whether prosecutions are warranted. And those of us who are arguing for accountability here are simply arguing that the same standards to which ordinary Americans are subjected are the ones that ought to be applied when government leaders break the law; which is the Justice Department ought to investigate, determine how compelling the evidence is, what the legal defenses might be and then make a legal determination about whether or not prosecutions are warranted. CS: Some of the common media tropes about how investigations would be unwise are that they would be politically divisive—as some have said, a partisan witch hunt. We have also heard that people really don’t have any appetite for them. GG: This is the argument that had been made repeatedly over the past several decades to institute the overarching premise of our political class, which is that political leaders who break the law should not be subjected to consequences the way ordinary Americans are and that was the arguement that led to the pardon of Richard Nixon. It's what led to the pardons of the Iran-Contra criminals and it's now leading media elites almost unanimously to demand that goverment officials be protected. Which is, well, if we prosecute it will be politically divisive and you know there's the premise that has been at the center of the American government since it's founding, which is that we're a nation of laws and not men and any time political leaders break the law and prosecutions proceed it's always the case that it will be politically divisive. So if you adopt the view that political divisiveness is a reason not to prosecute, what you're essentially saying is that polical leaders are free to break the law and know that they will never be held accountable. And that is essentially the premise that we have adopted and that's why there's such widespread criminality in the political class: because they know that they can break the law with impunity. As far as political and public opininon is concerned, as is typically the case, one of the principle tactics that media figures use to distort our political debates they literally misrepresent and even lie about public opinion. And so what you'll hear constantly is that most Americans don't want investigations and they want the Congress to do the people's business and not look back and investigate and that the only people who are calling for investigations are the left or the hard left. And if you look at polls, actually what you will find is exactly the opposite. There's a USA Today poll from February that, as USA Today put it, found that overall a majority favor investigations. Gallup and the Washington Post have independently found the same thing. It's like 60?70 percent of Americans favor investigations and even with regard to criminal prosecutions, over 40 percent of Americans in the Gallup and the USA Today poll favor criminal prosecutions. That was before the OLC memos were released. and so there's clearly a substantial fraction of the population, probably majorities, who do not believe that political officials when they break the law should be exempt. There's a Beltway belief which they misleading attribute to Americans generally. CS: While we have seen endless media attempts to read the White House tea leaves on the question of whether we should look forward, or commence with investigations, the media has had little to say about whether it’s proper for the President to even be making decisions about investigations. GG: One of the basic principles of our system of government is that decisions about whether the Justice Department will prosecute people are for the Justice Department to make and not for political officials, including the president, to make. In fact, many scandals in our recent history have arisen out of a violation of the principle. I mean, you probably remember as part of the Watergate scandal, the Saturday night massacre where Richard Nixon ordered his Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox because Nixon perceived that Cox was being too aggressive in investigating these crimes and Richardson refused to and he said, "Absolutely not. I am not going to fire the special prosecutor. I'm not going to interfere that way in the justice system." And then Nixon demanded Elliot Richardson's resignation and fired the deputy attorney as well and finally found Robert Bork who was willing to carry out the president's wishes. And in fact, during the Bush administration, lots of scandals arising out of Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department where based on the claims that the White House and the Justice Department were coordinating and making decisions about prosecutions not based on legal considerations but based on political considerations. That's what it means to politicize the Justice Department, and so when you have Barack Obama and his top aides Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emmanuel running around decreeing that certain groups of people should not be prosecuted and will not be prosecuted, whether it be CIA officials or even in the case of Emmanuel and Gibbs who said that even the designers and architects of these torture policies won't be prosecuted, what you really start to have is some inappropriate interference on the part of the White House and questions that are appropriately made only by the Justice Department. And I think that what happened was that there were starting to be some serious backlash and resentment inside the Justice Department over the attempt by the White House to dictate these decisions to them. They're supposed to be independent. And it was for that reason that Obama on Tuesday finally said when asked, "Well actually the decision about whether to prosecute Bush officials and the authors of these memos is one for the attorney general to make and I, Barack Obama, don't want to prejudge that." But you're right, that had been basically excluded almost entirely from our media discussions. We looked to the president as though he's some sort of omnipotent figure and it's up to the the president to make all judgements and decisions about everything in our country, including whether or not to prosecute people, which is absolutely not a power that the president has. So I think because of the Justice Department backlash, the president finally was forced to say "This is a decision for the Attoney General, not for me to make." CS: We’ve been speaking with Glenn Greenwald. To read his regular commentary on coverage of the torture story, see his blog, Unclaimed Territory on Salon.com. Thanks again for joining us today on CounterSpin, Glenn Greenwald! GG: It was my pleasure. Thank you. CounterSpin: In the midst of a recession and a battered economy that shows little signs of improving, you're bound to see more coverage of poverty in the mainstream media. It'd be hard to see less, in fact; a FAIR study documented in 2007, that TV reporting about poor people is extremely rare. But the kind of coverage we're seeing now is another matter entirely. Serious airtime and ink has been devoted to what is being called a return of tent cities, reminiscent of the Hoovervilles of the Great Depression. Now, on the surface, reporting on homelessness serves a vital journalistic function by shining a light on a social problem that will likely have an impact on readers and viewers. But are the media getting this story right? We're joined now by Rose Aguilar, host of the radio program Your Call at San Francisco's KALW. She's the author of the book Red Highways: A Liberal's Journey into the Heartland. And she recently wrote a piece for Alternet, "'People Shouldn't Have to Live Like This': The Real Story Behind 'Tent City'—and How the Media Get It Wrong." She joins us now on the telephone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Rose Aguilar. Rose Aguilar: Hi, thanks for having me. CS: Well, your piece is mainly about the tent city in Sacramento, California. So let's get right to it; when you were there, what did you see the media just getting wrong? RA: Well, the first time I heard about Tent City was on the Oprah Winfrey show, and when she teased the piece I thought "Oh my gosh, Oprah is going to Sacramento to shine a light on Tent City this is great." And then I noticed that Lisa Ling, the reporter, sort of stood in the middle of these tents and, you know, put out her arms and sort of said "Can you believe this is happening in America?" But I noticed that she wasn't focusing on stories. She wasn't really talking to anyone at length, and then I saw that scene in the newspaper articles and the TV. The question was how could this be happening in America? But the reporters were not asking people how did they end up here, what is your story, what is it like here on a regular basis? I felt like there were so many questions that were not answered. So I decided to spend two days at Tent City for six to eight hours both days, and I just found a completely different story. By the time I got there, people were kind of sick of media. They said that cars were flying in and out. They said reporters were sticking their cameras in tents without asking. And people kind of felt like the media was kind of treating them like a pack of wolves. And I found people who did not just lose their housing. These are chronically homeless people. I met one guy who's lived in a tent for seven years and he said reporters are not asking us the right questions. They want to know who just lost their house and he said it's kind of hard to lose a house when you don't own one in the first place. CS: So the media seem to be after the story about the subprime mortgage that went bad and the job that was lost and suddenly someone who shouldn't be homeless is now homeless? RA: Exactly. While I was there over the course of eight hours I would see a number of teams just come and go. They came in for the soundbite and then they left. And a lot of the people that I met said, "You know, they are not asking us the right questions." One guy, John Crane [PH], who's been living in a tent for seven years—who was actually on the mayor's homeless task force—the guy is full of knowledge, he listens to public radio all day. He was talking to me about AIG. He said, "I hear reporters come in here and almost scream 'Who just lost their house?' and everybody is looking at them like, 'Are you kidding? We've been here for years.'" The system is just messed up. You know, John Crane said "Why aren't you asking us about the fact that there's no affordable housing, asking about the fact that there's not jobs?" A lot of the people that I met at Tent City are trying really hard to find jobs but some of them have criminal records or they can't find one. And also it's kind of hard to find a job when you don't have an address or a phone number. CS: We've talked for years on this show about the deserving poor and the undeserving poor, and how often media seem motivated to find those stories of folks who shouldn't be in poverty or shouldn't be homeless, and the sort of long-term homeless or long-term poor are relegated to the margins. Well, you talked a little bit in your piece about what the goals of the folks who live there are. Does the media attention help or hurt their long term plan to either find permanent housing or make these Tent Cities more viable? What dos the spotlight of the media do for them? RA: It's seems like it hurts their plans because I interviewed the Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson and at that time he said, "I'm actually open to talking to folks about setting up a permanent encampment." But when you shine a light on a place like Sacramento where you've got a governor who was a former movie star, the mayor is a former NBA basketball player, it just doesn't look good to having people living in tents. And Loaves and Fishes, which is the group in Sacramento which actually has been serving the homeless for 25 years, they say that a permanent encampment is a really good solution for people who don't want to live in shelters. Because when you live in a shelter, you have to be in by 8 o'clock at night, you cannot bring any of your belongings, usually it's male and female so couples have to split up and frankly, a lot of people don't want to live in four walls. And a lot of the people who I met said if they allowed us to live here and set it up kind of like a KOA [campground] with toilets because at this point there are not toilets, not running water. One company did donate a dumpster for trash but the basics aren't there. A lot of people said, I met one woman who's a veteran, she said, "When we are forced to move on a regular basis we lose our ID cards, we lose all of our stuff. You can't get a job. You cannot claim disability if you keep losing all your things." "So if they allowed us to stay here for six months even," she said, "I could probably find a job and get up on my feet." And I heard this over and over again. CS: It sounds like standing in the middle of that tent city and saying "Can you believe people live like this?" might be well intentioned but the wrong question to be asking. RA: The wrong question and also let's dig a little deeper because our soundbite will sort of say William just got out of jail, he's living in a tent but what about what's his background. What does he think about? Does he want to find a job? I mean, there's more to it than that. Do we really even know where people who just lost their homes live? I think that would be a really good story. Talk to people who's homes have been foreclosed. Based on what the Loaves and Fishes people that I met said, we're hearing from people who are going to food banks but they're finding that they're living with relatives or maybe they're staying in a hotel for a month to try to find cheaper housing. But that's a story that has not been told. CS: At the risk of tying this to closely, your recent book is called Red Highways: A Liberal's Journey into the Heartland. There does seem to be, or there could be, a connection. Do you think there's something that ties these two things together, something about the assumptions that everyone—reporters and non-reporters—might have about situations or people we're not all that intimately familiar with? RA: Oh definitely. The reason why I wrote the books is because I got so tired of listening to all the pundits on television talk about everything from torture to tax cuts to global warming and everything else you can imagine. And I just feel like a lot of the D.C., New York reporters are so disconnected from what real people think about. I mean, think about how rare it is to hear from an average person or even to hear from—you know, when we're talking about the torture memos now, MSNBC's done a pretty good job of talking to "experts," but what about people who've been to Guantánamo or reporters who've tried to get to Guantánamo who can't get there. We have them on our show on a regular basis. So I wanted to ask people why they vote the way they do, if they do vote, because 98 million people don't vote and then where there belief system comes from and just really try to get past the soundbites and try to get past the sort of divide—you know, the tea party people are over there and then you've got the people who are protesting in front of the banks over there and then there's a big divide. And so I just wanted to get past that. And that was the point of the road trip: to take off for 6 months and talk to real people, most of whom have never been interviewed before. CS: We’ve been speaking with Rose Aguilar. She's host of the radio program Your Call, heard everyday on KALW in San Francisco. Listen to the show at YourCallRadio.org. She's also the author of the book Red Highways: A Liberal's Journey into the Heartland. Rose Aguilar, thanks for joining us this week on CounterSpin. RA: Thanks so much. Links: — Three Key Rules of Media Behavior Shape Their Discussions of "the 'Torture' Debate", by Glenn Greenwald (Salon, 4/23/09, Ad-viewing required) — "People Shouldn't Have to Live Like This": The Real Story Behind "Tent City"—and How the Media Get It Wrong, by Rose Aguilar (AlterNet, 4/20/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-04-23,24495841 Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24461427-Miriam-Pemberton-on-military-budget-Terence-Samuel-on-Obama-amp-polarization This week on CounterSpin: The White House's proposed military budget comes to some $534 billion dollars, and that's without including the costs of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So why on earth are some saying Obama is "disarming America". We'll hear what this budget does and doesn't do from Miriam Pemberton, research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Also on Counterspin today, the polarization of America. If you watch Fox News or listen to talk radio, America has adopted socialism and the Department of Homeland Security is planning to crack down on conservative activism. But even in the so-called 'mainstream' corporate media there's talk of a dangerously polarized electorate, a far cry from the centrism the elite press corps prefers. Where are they getting this idea? Are media misreading the national mood? We'll talk about that with Terence Samuel, deputy editor of the online magazine The Root. LINKS: --Institute for Policy Studies --"Polarization We Can Believe In," by Ter... This week on CounterSpin: The White House's proposed military budget comes to some $534 billion dollars, and that's without including the costs of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So why on earth are some saying Obama is "disarming America". We'll hear what this budget does and doesn't do from Miriam Pemberton, research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Also on Counterspin today, the polarization of America. If you watch Fox News or listen to talk radio, America has adopted socialism and the Department of Homeland Security is planning to crack down on conservative activism. But even in the so-called 'mainstream' corporate media there's talk of a dangerously polarized electorate, a far cry from the centrism the elite press corps prefers. Where are they getting this idea? Are media misreading the national mood? We'll talk about that with Terence Samuel, deputy editor of the online magazine The Root. LINKS: --Institute for Policy Studies --"Polarization We Can Believe In," by Terence Samuel (theroot.com, 4/13/09) This week on CounterSpin: The White House's proposed military budget comes to some $534 billion dollars, and that's without including the costs of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So why on earth are some saying Obama is "disarming America". We'll hear what this budget does and doesn't do from Miriam Pemberton, research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Also on Counterspin today, the polarization of America. If you watch Fox News or listen to talk radio, America has adopted socialism and the Department of Homeland Security is planning to crack down on conservative activism. But even in the so-called 'mainstream' corporate media there's talk of a dangerously polarized electorate, a far cry from the centrism the elite press corps prefers. Where are they getting this idea? Are media misreading the national mood? We'll talk about that with Terence Samuel, deputy editor of the online magazine The Root. LINKS: --Institute for Policy Studies --"Polarization We Can Believe In," by Terence Samuel (theroot.com, 4/13/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-04-16,24461427 Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24433348-T-R-Reid-on-Sick-Around-America-Mark-Danner-on-torture This week on CounterSpin: Sick Around America, the recently aired documentary on PBS's Frontline purported to ask why the US can't finance universal health care the way other developed countries do. But the picture was at best incomplete, since it seems some options were considered off the table. We'll hear from reporter and author T.R. Reid, who worked on Sick Around America as a follow up to his Sick Around the World from last year, but who disassociated himself from the domestic version when he saw what producers had done with it. What was wrong? We'll find out. Also on the show: A landmark essay in the New York Review of Books details U.S. torture of detainees through Red Cross interviews with the detainees themselves. Mark Danner's powerful piece raises questions about how a society that claims to seek justice, can look the other way when faced with evidence that high officials have ordered heinous crimes? We'll talk to Danner about the Red Cross Report and what it means. This week on CounterSpin: Sick Around America, the recently aired documentary on PBS's Frontline purported to ask why the US can't finance universal health care the way other developed countries do. But the picture was at best incomplete, since it seems some options were considered off the table. We'll hear from reporter and author T.R. Reid, who worked on Sick Around America as a follow up to his Sick Around the World from last year, but who disassociated himself from the domestic version when he saw what producers had done with it. What was wrong? We'll find out. Also on the show: A landmark essay in the New York Review of Books details U.S. torture of detainees through Red Cross interviews with the detainees themselves. Mark Danner's powerful piece raises questions about how a society that claims to seek justice, can look the other way when faced with evidence that high officials have ordered heinous crimes? We'll talk to Danner about the Red Cross Report and what it means. This week on CounterSpin: Sick Around America, the recently aired documentary on PBS's Frontline purported to ask why the US can't finance universal health care the way other developed countries do. But the picture was at best incomplete, since it seems some options were considered off the table. We'll hear from reporter and author T.R. Reid, who worked on Sick Around America as a follow up to his Sick Around the World from last year, but who disassociated himself from the domestic version when he saw what producers had done with it. What was wrong? We'll find out. Also on the show: A landmark essay in the New York Review of Books details U.S. torture of detainees through Red Cross interviews with the detainees themselves. Mark Danner's powerful piece raises questions about how a society that claims to seek justice, can look the other way when faced with evidence that high officials have ordered heinous crimes? We'll talk to Danner about the Red Cross Report and what it means. tag:odeo.com,2009-04-09,24433348 Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24402133-Mark-Weisbrot-on-the-G20-Gareth-Porter-on-the-Afghanistan-surge This week on CounterSpin: Barack Obama’s military surge in Afghanistan has caught very little flack in the media, even though experts on the region say it doesn’t make sense and distorts realities on the ground in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. We'll talk to journalist Gareth Porter about coverage of the Afghanistan surge, an Obama policy he calls "a stunningly irrational blunder.” Also on CounterSpin today, the G-20 summit in London has attracted a lot of media attention; that this is Barack Obama's first major sit-down with other world leaders is probably one factor. But looming over the event is of course the global economic downturn. Has the media conversation about global capitalism changed much? We'll speak with Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic & Policy Research LINKS: --CEPR (Center for Economic & Policy Research) --"Debunking the Rationale for War in Afghanistan," by Gareth Porter This week on CounterSpin: Barack Obama’s military surge in Afghanistan has caught very little flack in the media, even though experts on the region say it doesn’t make sense and distorts realities on the ground in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. We'll talk to journalist Gareth Porter about coverage of the Afghanistan surge, an Obama policy he calls "a stunningly irrational blunder.” Also on CounterSpin today, the G-20 summit in London has attracted a lot of media attention; that this is Barack Obama's first major sit-down with other world leaders is probably one factor. But looming over the event is of course the global economic downturn. Has the media conversation about global capitalism changed much? We'll speak with Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic & Policy Research LINKS: --CEPR (Center for Economic & Policy Research) --"Debunking the Rationale for War in Afghanistan," by Gareth Porter This week on CounterSpin: Barack Obama’s military surge in Afghanistan has caught very little flack in the media, even though experts on the region say it doesn’t make sense and distorts realities on the ground in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. We'll talk to journalist Gareth Porter about coverage of the Afghanistan surge, an Obama policy he calls "a stunningly irrational blunder.” Also on CounterSpin today, the G-20 summit in London has attracted a lot of media attention; that this is Barack Obama's first major sit-down with other world leaders is probably one factor. But looming over the event is of course the global economic downturn. Has the media conversation about global capitalism changed much? We'll speak with Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic & Policy Research LINKS: --CEPR (Center for Economic & Policy Research) --"Debunking the Rationale for War in Afghanistan," by Gareth Porter tag:odeo.com,2009-04-02,24402133 Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24370566-Riki-Ott-on-Exxon-Valdez-Harvey-Wasserman-on-Three-Mile-Island This week on CounterSpin: Disaster anniversaries are readymade news hooks for media always in search of one. March sees 20 years since the Exxon Valdez spilled at least 11 million gallons (and likely much more) of oil in Prince William Sound, Alaska. It's also been 30 years this month since this country's worst nuclear accident, the partial core meltdown at Pennsylvania nuclear plant Three Mile Island. Both incidents were seen as watershed revelations of institutional failures and engendered activism and calls for reform. But corporate media's "looks back" and "lessons learned" don't always identify the right lessons--and rarely engage, meaningfully, the role of media in explaining what went wrong or how to keep it from going wrong again. We'll hear from activist and marine biologist Riki Ott, author of Not One Drop: Betrayal and Courage in the Wake of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on that story. And from Harvey Wasserman, longtime nuclear activist and co-author of the book Killing Our... This week on CounterSpin: Disaster anniversaries are readymade news hooks for media always in search of one. March sees 20 years since the Exxon Valdez spilled at least 11 million gallons (and likely much more) of oil in Prince William Sound, Alaska. It's also been 30 years this month since this country's worst nuclear accident, the partial core meltdown at Pennsylvania nuclear plant Three Mile Island. Both incidents were seen as watershed revelations of institutional failures and engendered activism and calls for reform. But corporate media's "looks back" and "lessons learned" don't always identify the right lessons--and rarely engage, meaningfully, the role of media in explaining what went wrong or how to keep it from going wrong again. We'll hear from activist and marine biologist Riki Ott, author of Not One Drop: Betrayal and Courage in the Wake of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on that story. And from Harvey Wasserman, longtime nuclear activist and co-author of the book Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation. Links: NukeFree.org RikiOtt.com This week on CounterSpin: Disaster anniversaries are readymade news hooks for media always in search of one. March sees 20 years since the Exxon Valdez spilled at least 11 million gallons (and likely much more) of oil in Prince William Sound, Alaska. It's also been 30 years this month since this country's worst nuclear accident, the partial core meltdown at Pennsylvania nuclear plant Three Mile Island. Both incidents were seen as watershed revelations of institutional failures and engendered activism and calls for reform. But corporate media's "looks back" and "lessons learned" don't always identify the right lessons--and rarely engage, meaningfully, the role of media in explaining what went wrong or how to keep it from going wrong again. We'll hear from activist and marine biologist Riki Ott, author of Not One Drop: Betrayal and Courage in the Wake of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on that story. And from Harvey Wasserman, longtime nuclear activist and co-author of the book Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation. Links: NukeFree.org RikiOtt.com tag:odeo.com,2009-03-26,24370566 Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24333553-Robert-Johnson-on-AIG-bonuses-Laura-Carlsen-on-Mexican-drug-wars This week on CounterSpin: The AIG executive bonuses account for less than one percent of the money taxpayers are turning over to the insurance giant in the largest of the corporate bailouts. But it's the bonus story that has riveted the public attention and outrage. We'll talk to Robert Johnson, formerly the managing director at Soros Funds Management and chief economist of the Senate Banking Committee, about AIG and the power of the bonuses story. Also on the show: CNN has been telling viewers that "regardless of where you are in the country," that's this country, the war among Mexican drug cartels is a threat to you. How real is the recent round of scare stories about Mexico and the drug war, and what interests are served by it? We'll hear from Laura Carlsen of the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy. Links: — Drug War Doublespeak, by Laura Carlsen (Center for International Policy, 3/9/09) This week on CounterSpin: The AIG executive bonuses account for less than one percent of the money taxpayers are turning over to the insurance giant in the largest of the corporate bailouts. But it's the bonus story that has riveted the public attention and outrage. We'll talk to Robert Johnson, formerly the managing director at Soros Funds Management and chief economist of the Senate Banking Committee, about AIG and the power of the bonuses story. Also on the show: CNN has been telling viewers that "regardless of where you are in the country," that's this country, the war among Mexican drug cartels is a threat to you. How real is the recent round of scare stories about Mexico and the drug war, and what interests are served by it? We'll hear from Laura Carlsen of the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy. Links: — Drug War Doublespeak, by Laura Carlsen (Center for International Policy, 3/9/09) This week on CounterSpin: The AIG executive bonuses account for less than one percent of the money taxpayers are turning over to the insurance giant in the largest of the corporate bailouts. But it's the bonus story that has riveted the public attention and outrage. We'll talk to Robert Johnson, formerly the managing director at Soros Funds Management and chief economist of the Senate Banking Committee, about AIG and the power of the bonuses story. Also on the show: CNN has been telling viewers that "regardless of where you are in the country," that's this country, the war among Mexican drug cartels is a threat to you. How real is the recent round of scare stories about Mexico and the drug war, and what interests are served by it? We'll hear from Laura Carlsen of the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy. Links: — Drug War Doublespeak, by Laura Carlsen (Center for International Policy, 3/9/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-03-19,24333553 Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24299147-Melissa-Harris-Lacewell-on-earmarks-Alex-de-Waal-on-Bashir-indictment This week on CounterSpin: The evils of earmarks. Barack Obama signed a spending bill "stuffed with earmarks," the media tell us--despite the fact that he campaigned pledging to reform that practice. The assumption is that Congressional earmarks are bad; but are they? We'll ask Melissa Harris-Lacewell, associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University. Also this week: The International Criminal Court's indictment on March 4th of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir was cheered by the media and by some progressive Darfur groups. But not everyone thought the indictment was wise or well-timed. We'll talk to Harvard scholar and former advisor to the African Union's mediation team on Darfur, Alex de Waal about the indictment and what it might mean for the fragile peace in the region. Links: — In Defense of Earmarks, by Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Kitchen Table, 3/9/09) — Uncharted Waters , by Alex de Waal (Making Sense of Darfur, 3/5/09) This week on CounterSpin: The evils of earmarks. Barack Obama signed a spending bill "stuffed with earmarks," the media tell us--despite the fact that he campaigned pledging to reform that practice. The assumption is that Congressional earmarks are bad; but are they? We'll ask Melissa Harris-Lacewell, associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University. Also this week: The International Criminal Court's indictment on March 4th of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir was cheered by the media and by some progressive Darfur groups. But not everyone thought the indictment was wise or well-timed. We'll talk to Harvard scholar and former advisor to the African Union's mediation team on Darfur, Alex de Waal about the indictment and what it might mean for the fragile peace in the region. Links: — In Defense of Earmarks, by Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Kitchen Table, 3/9/09) — Uncharted Waters , by Alex de Waal (Making Sense of Darfur, 3/5/09) This week on CounterSpin: The evils of earmarks. Barack Obama signed a spending bill "stuffed with earmarks," the media tell us--despite the fact that he campaigned pledging to reform that practice. The assumption is that Congressional earmarks are bad; but are they? We'll ask Melissa Harris-Lacewell, associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University. Also this week: The International Criminal Court's indictment on March 4th of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir was cheered by the media and by some progressive Darfur groups. But not everyone thought the indictment was wise or well-timed. We'll talk to Harvard scholar and former advisor to the African Union's mediation team on Darfur, Alex de Waal about the indictment and what it might mean for the fragile peace in the region. Links: — In Defense of Earmarks, by Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Kitchen Table, 3/9/09) — Uncharted Waters , by Alex de Waal (Making Sense of Darfur, 3/5/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-03-12,24299147 Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:00:00 -0700 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24262408-Ellen-Shaffer-on-health-care-Kristen-Lombardi-on-coal-ash This week on CounterSpin:. Obama's health care reform plans are being called 'backdoor socialism' by some, while others say it looks like too much of the same. But how good a job are the press doing in parsing those competing definitions and explaining what's on the table? We'll hear from health policy expert Ellen Shaffer of the Center for Policy Analysis. Also on CounterSpin today, when a billion gallons of something called coal ash spilled into a town in Eastern Tennessee, the story made national news. But like we see with many other environmental catastrophes, the media spotlight shifted quickly. The dangers of coal ash, though, did not. The Center for Public Integrity recently released a report "Coal Ash: The Hidden Story." We'll speak with reporter Kristen Lombardi about what she uncovered before and after the Tennessee disaster. LINKS: --Ellen Shaffer --Coal Ash: The Hidden Story, by Kristen Lombardi (Center for Public Integrity, 2/19/09) This week on CounterSpin:. Obama's health care reform plans are being called 'backdoor socialism' by some, while others say it looks like too much of the same. But how good a job are the press doing in parsing those competing definitions and explaining what's on the table? We'll hear from health policy expert Ellen Shaffer of the Center for Policy Analysis. Also on CounterSpin today, when a billion gallons of something called coal ash spilled into a town in Eastern Tennessee, the story made national news. But like we see with many other environmental catastrophes, the media spotlight shifted quickly. The dangers of coal ash, though, did not. The Center for Public Integrity recently released a report "Coal Ash: The Hidden Story." We'll speak with reporter Kristen Lombardi about what she uncovered before and after the Tennessee disaster. LINKS: --Ellen Shaffer --Coal Ash: The Hidden Story, by Kristen Lombardi (Center for Public Integrity, 2/19/09) This week on CounterSpin:. Obama's health care reform plans are being called 'backdoor socialism' by some, while others say it looks like too much of the same. But how good a job are the press doing in parsing those competing definitions and explaining what's on the table? We'll hear from health policy expert Ellen Shaffer of the Center for Policy Analysis. Also on CounterSpin today, when a billion gallons of something called coal ash spilled into a town in Eastern Tennessee, the story made national news. But like we see with many other environmental catastrophes, the media spotlight shifted quickly. The dangers of coal ash, though, did not. The Center for Public Integrity recently released a report "Coal Ash: The Hidden Story." We'll speak with reporter Kristen Lombardi about what she uncovered before and after the Tennessee disaster. LINKS: --Ellen Shaffer --Coal Ash: The Hidden Story, by Kristen Lombardi (Center for Public Integrity, 2/19/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-03-05,24262408 Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:00:00 -0800 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24222093-Ryan-Chittum-on-Santelli-s-rant-Maria-Elizabeth-Grabe-on-network-news-bias This week on CounterSpin: The on-air rant by CNBC reporter Rick Santelli is making the media rounds, promoted by the network itself in good part. But did Santelli's outburst, about the Obama White House bailing out "losers" with its mortgage proposal make sense? We'll hear from Ryan Chittum, from Columbia Journalism Review's the Audit. Also on the show this week: Despite mounting evidence against it, the myth of the liberal media just won't die. But scholars haven't stopped trying. A new study of nightly news coverage of U.S. elections by Indiana University scholars takes another whack at the myth using a novel approach. We'll speak with Maria Elizabeth Grabe, associate professor at Indiana University about Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections—published in book form by Oxford University Press. Links: — CNBC Editor: The People Are Revolting!, by Ryan Chittum (CJR.org, 2/19/09) — Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections ,... This week on CounterSpin: The on-air rant by CNBC reporter Rick Santelli is making the media rounds, promoted by the network itself in good part. But did Santelli's outburst, about the Obama White House bailing out "losers" with its mortgage proposal make sense? We'll hear from Ryan Chittum, from Columbia Journalism Review's the Audit. Also on the show this week: Despite mounting evidence against it, the myth of the liberal media just won't die. But scholars haven't stopped trying. A new study of nightly news coverage of U.S. elections by Indiana University scholars takes another whack at the myth using a novel approach. We'll speak with Maria Elizabeth Grabe, associate professor at Indiana University about Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections—published in book form by Oxford University Press. Links: — CNBC Editor: The People Are Revolting!, by Ryan Chittum (CJR.org, 2/19/09) — Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections , by Maria Elizabeth Grabe & Erik Page Bucy This week on CounterSpin: The on-air rant by CNBC reporter Rick Santelli is making the media rounds, promoted by the network itself in good part. But did Santelli's outburst, about the Obama White House bailing out "losers" with its mortgage proposal make sense? We'll hear from Ryan Chittum, from Columbia Journalism Review's the Audit. Also on the show this week: Despite mounting evidence against it, the myth of the liberal media just won't die. But scholars haven't stopped trying. A new study of nightly news coverage of U.S. elections by Indiana University scholars takes another whack at the myth using a novel approach. We'll speak with Maria Elizabeth Grabe, associate professor at Indiana University about Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections—published in book form by Oxford University Press. Links: — CNBC Editor: The People Are Revolting!, by Ryan Chittum (CJR.org, 2/19/09) — Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections , by Maria Elizabeth Grabe & Erik Page Bucy tag:odeo.com,2009-02-26,24222093 Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:00:00 -0800 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24143000-Robert-Parry-on-conservative-bias-Brandon-Lacy-Campos-on-digital-TV-conversion This week on CounterSpin: A new study from Think Progress shows that cable news stories about the stimulus debate were dominated by Republicans, with GOP guests outnumbering Democrats by 2 to 1. This isn’t an aberration says our guest, but a return to the status quo after a brief decrease in conservative media bias caused by Bush era failures. Robert Parry, the publisher of ConsortiumNews.com, and the veteran journalist who broke many Iran-Contra stories, will join us to talk about current political coverage. Also on CounterSpin today: Congress decided to delay the mandatory switch to digital TV signals originally scheduled for this month, but stations across the country did so anyway, shutting off their analog signals this past week. The digital TV story would seem to be a classic media policy story—policy made for the benefit of big media companies, with the impact falling mainly upon poor, rural and minority communities. We'll talk Brandon Lacy Campos from the Center ... This week on CounterSpin: A new study from Think Progress shows that cable news stories about the stimulus debate were dominated by Republicans, with GOP guests outnumbering Democrats by 2 to 1. This isn’t an aberration says our guest, but a return to the status quo after a brief decrease in conservative media bias caused by Bush era failures. Robert Parry, the publisher of ConsortiumNews.com, and the veteran journalist who broke many Iran-Contra stories, will join us to talk about current political coverage. Also on CounterSpin today: Congress decided to delay the mandatory switch to digital TV signals originally scheduled for this month, but stations across the country did so anyway, shutting off their analog signals this past week. The digital TV story would seem to be a classic media policy story—policy made for the benefit of big media companies, with the impact falling mainly upon poor, rural and minority communities. We'll talk Brandon Lacy Campos from the Center for Media Justice about what folks are doing about it. Links: — ConsortiumNews.com — Center for Media Justice This week on CounterSpin: A new study from Think Progress shows that cable news stories about the stimulus debate were dominated by Republicans, with GOP guests outnumbering Democrats by 2 to 1. This isn’t an aberration says our guest, but a return to the status quo after a brief decrease in conservative media bias caused by Bush era failures. Robert Parry, the publisher of ConsortiumNews.com, and the veteran journalist who broke many Iran-Contra stories, will join us to talk about current political coverage. Also on CounterSpin today: Congress decided to delay the mandatory switch to digital TV signals originally scheduled for this month, but stations across the country did so anyway, shutting off their analog signals this past week. The digital TV story would seem to be a classic media policy story—policy made for the benefit of big media companies, with the impact falling mainly upon poor, rural and minority communities. We'll talk Brandon Lacy Campos from the Center for Media Justice about what folks are doing about it. Links: — ConsortiumNews.com — Center for Media Justice tag:odeo.com,2009-02-19,24143000 Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:00:00 -0800 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24083587-Lori-Wallach-on-Buy-America-brouhaha-Dan-Beeton-on-Venezuela This week on CounterSpin: The debate over the White House-backed economic stimulus package has featured all kinds of media misdeeds—an overreliance on Republican rejectionists and an absence of actual economists talking about the plan, just for starters. Pundits and editorial writers have warned us about another problem: the prospect of a global trade war, thanks to the Democrats' protectionism. Is all the media anger totally misplaced? We'll talk to Lori Wallach of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division. Also on the show: Venezuelans have a referendum this weekend but the U.S. corporate press corps voted long ago: Chávez we hear routinely is not just a bad person but a bad leader who is trashing the country's economy. Such arguments are generally pretty low on actual data; we'll get a less hysterical assessment from Dan Beeton of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which has just published a new report on 10 Years of the Chávez administration. Links: — Bu... This week on CounterSpin: The debate over the White House-backed economic stimulus package has featured all kinds of media misdeeds—an overreliance on Republican rejectionists and an absence of actual economists talking about the plan, just for starters. Pundits and editorial writers have warned us about another problem: the prospect of a global trade war, thanks to the Democrats' protectionism. Is all the media anger totally misplaced? We'll talk to Lori Wallach of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division. Also on the show: Venezuelans have a referendum this weekend but the U.S. corporate press corps voted long ago: Chávez we hear routinely is not just a bad person but a bad leader who is trashing the country's economy. Such arguments are generally pretty low on actual data; we'll get a less hysterical assessment from Dan Beeton of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which has just published a new report on 10 Years of the Chávez administration. Links: — Buy America Brouhaha: What Are the EU and Canada Hollering About? (Global Trade Watch, 2/5/09) — The Chávez Administration at 10 Years: The Economy and Social Indicators, by Mark Weisbrot, Rebecca Ray & Luis Sandoval (Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2/09) This week on CounterSpin: The debate over the White House-backed economic stimulus package has featured all kinds of media misdeeds—an overreliance on Republican rejectionists and an absence of actual economists talking about the plan, just for starters. Pundits and editorial writers have warned us about another problem: the prospect of a global trade war, thanks to the Democrats' protectionism. Is all the media anger totally misplaced? We'll talk to Lori Wallach of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division. Also on the show: Venezuelans have a referendum this weekend but the U.S. corporate press corps voted long ago: Chávez we hear routinely is not just a bad person but a bad leader who is trashing the country's economy. Such arguments are generally pretty low on actual data; we'll get a less hysterical assessment from Dan Beeton of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which has just published a new report on 10 Years of the Chávez administration. Links: — Buy America Brouhaha: What Are the EU and Canada Hollering About? (Global Trade Watch, 2/5/09) — The Chávez Administration at 10 Years: The Economy and Social Indicators, by Mark Weisbrot, Rebecca Ray & Luis Sandoval (Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-02-12,24083587 Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:00:00 -0800 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/24054142-Ken-Silverstein-on-Daschle-Miranda-Spencer-on-breast-cancer This week on CounterSpin: "If it weren't for those darn tax problems, Tom Daschle was the perfect choice as Obama's Secretary of Health & Human Services," seems to be the establishment refrain over the rise and fall of the Daschle nomination. "No one knows the healthcare issues, or could do a better job pushing through the promised Obama healthcare plan than the former senator," say many pundits. Ken Silverstein begs to differ. The Washington editor of Harpers and the magazine's Washington Babylon blogger will join us to talk about that. Also on the show: Breast cancer affects huge numbers of women in this country and is the subject of a fair amount of media attention, but beyond the pink ribbons and the walkathons, how seriously do reporters follow developments in breast cancer research, and particularly that research that points outside the usual suspects of genetics and age as causes? We'll hear from journalist Miranda Spencer about coverage of environmental factors in breast... This week on CounterSpin: "If it weren't for those darn tax problems, Tom Daschle was the perfect choice as Obama's Secretary of Health & Human Services," seems to be the establishment refrain over the rise and fall of the Daschle nomination. "No one knows the healthcare issues, or could do a better job pushing through the promised Obama healthcare plan than the former senator," say many pundits. Ken Silverstein begs to differ. The Washington editor of Harpers and the magazine's Washington Babylon blogger will join us to talk about that. Also on the show: Breast cancer affects huge numbers of women in this country and is the subject of a fair amount of media attention, but beyond the pink ribbons and the walkathons, how seriously do reporters follow developments in breast cancer research, and particularly that research that points outside the usual suspects of genetics and age as causes? We'll hear from journalist Miranda Spencer about coverage of environmental factors in breast cancer. Links: — The Daschle Affair and the Washington Bubble, by Ken Silverstein (Washington Babylon, 2/4/09) — Miranda Spencer on FAIR.org This week on CounterSpin: "If it weren't for those darn tax problems, Tom Daschle was the perfect choice as Obama's Secretary of Health & Human Services," seems to be the establishment refrain over the rise and fall of the Daschle nomination. "No one knows the healthcare issues, or could do a better job pushing through the promised Obama healthcare plan than the former senator," say many pundits. Ken Silverstein begs to differ. The Washington editor of Harpers and the magazine's Washington Babylon blogger will join us to talk about that. Also on the show: Breast cancer affects huge numbers of women in this country and is the subject of a fair amount of media attention, but beyond the pink ribbons and the walkathons, how seriously do reporters follow developments in breast cancer research, and particularly that research that points outside the usual suspects of genetics and age as causes? We'll hear from journalist Miranda Spencer about coverage of environmental factors in breast cancer. Links: — The Daschle Affair and the Washington Bubble, by Ken Silverstein (Washington Babylon, 2/4/09) — Miranda Spencer on FAIR.org tag:odeo.com,2009-02-05,24054142 Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:00:00 -0800 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/23988952-Dean-Baker-on-stimulus-package-Michael-Ratner-on-torture-loopholes This week on CounterSpin: After several weeks of media debate, the House passed a nearly 900 billion dollar economic stimulus package. White House efforts to reach out to Republicans resulted in exactly zero GOP voters, leaving some in the media to wonder if Obama was failing to deliver on his promises of bipartisanship. But what about the stimulus debate was entirely off-the-mark? We'll talk to economist Dean Baker. Also on CounterSpin today: President Obama's executive order said to ban torture, hasn't settled the issue for many commentators. Some on the right and in the corporate media seem to be happy to see what they suggest are loopholes in the presidential order that would allow some harsh treatment to continue. There are also those on the left who suggest there may be loopholes, but are less happy about it. We'll be joined by Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights to talk about the language, and the media's seeming relief at what they see as the possibility t... This week on CounterSpin: After several weeks of media debate, the House passed a nearly 900 billion dollar economic stimulus package. White House efforts to reach out to Republicans resulted in exactly zero GOP voters, leaving some in the media to wonder if Obama was failing to deliver on his promises of bipartisanship. But what about the stimulus debate was entirely off-the-mark? We'll talk to economist Dean Baker. Also on CounterSpin today: President Obama's executive order said to ban torture, hasn't settled the issue for many commentators. Some on the right and in the corporate media seem to be happy to see what they suggest are loopholes in the presidential order that would allow some harsh treatment to continue. There are also those on the left who suggest there may be loopholes, but are less happy about it. We'll be joined by Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights to talk about the language, and the media's seeming relief at what they see as the possibility that torture may continue in some form. Links: — Dean Baker's Center for Economic and Policy Research — Michael Ratner's Center for Constitutional Rights This week on CounterSpin: After several weeks of media debate, the House passed a nearly 900 billion dollar economic stimulus package. White House efforts to reach out to Republicans resulted in exactly zero GOP voters, leaving some in the media to wonder if Obama was failing to deliver on his promises of bipartisanship. But what about the stimulus debate was entirely off-the-mark? We'll talk to economist Dean Baker. Also on CounterSpin today: President Obama's executive order said to ban torture, hasn't settled the issue for many commentators. Some on the right and in the corporate media seem to be happy to see what they suggest are loopholes in the presidential order that would allow some harsh treatment to continue. There are also those on the left who suggest there may be loopholes, but are less happy about it. We'll be joined by Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights to talk about the language, and the media's seeming relief at what they see as the possibility that torture may continue in some form. Links: — Dean Baker's Center for Economic and Policy Research — Michael Ratner's Center for Constitutional Rights tag:odeo.com,2009-01-29,23988952 Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:00:00 -0800 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/23925557-Norman-Solomon-on-Obama-s-inauguration-Ann-Jones-on-Afghanistan This week on CounterSpin: The inauguration of President Barack Obama was undoubtedly historic, and was covered as such by the corporate media. But what are we to make of the idea that the media have gone gaga for Obama? And what are the pundits and editorial writers pushing for from Obama in the first place? Author and columnist Norman Solomon will join us to talk it over. Also on CounterSpin today: "Major Push is Needed to Save Afghanistan, General Says" was the headline on a recent major daily story. Our guest says reporters need to be asking questions about the U.S. military campaign that go beyond how many more troops and when to send them. Ann Jones has worked in Afghanistan and is author of the book Kabul in Winter: Life Without Peace in Afghanistan. We'll hear from her on what's missing from the media debate. This week on CounterSpin: The inauguration of President Barack Obama was undoubtedly historic, and was covered as such by the corporate media. But what are we to make of the idea that the media have gone gaga for Obama? And what are the pundits and editorial writers pushing for from Obama in the first place? Author and columnist Norman Solomon will join us to talk it over. Also on CounterSpin today: "Major Push is Needed to Save Afghanistan, General Says" was the headline on a recent major daily story. Our guest says reporters need to be asking questions about the U.S. military campaign that go beyond how many more troops and when to send them. Ann Jones has worked in Afghanistan and is author of the book Kabul in Winter: Life Without Peace in Afghanistan. We'll hear from her on what's missing from the media debate. This week on CounterSpin: The inauguration of President Barack Obama was undoubtedly historic, and was covered as such by the corporate media. But what are we to make of the idea that the media have gone gaga for Obama? And what are the pundits and editorial writers pushing for from Obama in the first place? Author and columnist Norman Solomon will join us to talk it over. Also on CounterSpin today: "Major Push is Needed to Save Afghanistan, General Says" was the headline on a recent major daily story. Our guest says reporters need to be asking questions about the U.S. military campaign that go beyond how many more troops and when to send them. Ann Jones has worked in Afghanistan and is author of the book Kabul in Winter: Life Without Peace in Afghanistan. We'll hear from her on what's missing from the media debate. tag:odeo.com,2009-01-22,23925557 Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:00:00 -0800 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/23886318-Phyllis-Bennis-on-Gaza-amp-the-law-Charles-Kaiser-on-Bush-era-torture This week on CounterSpin: Listeners have likely seen some horrific and affecting images from Gaza, where the death toll has exceeded an estimated 1,000 overwhelmingly Palestinian people as, as the New York Times had it, "the Israeli military operation continued apace." We'll hear from author and journalist Phyllis Bennis about part of the story that should be central but in the U.S. press is often ignored or gotten wrong, namely international law. Also on the show: Should we be taking a hard look at Bush era crimes like torture? No, say many journalists. Look forward, not back. Indeed a January 19th Newsweek cover story--"What Would Dick Do?"--actually suggests that President Obama should look to Dick Cheney’s vision of power as a positive example. We’ll be speaking with journalist Charles Kaiser, who has been closely watching coverage of the torture issue on his blog on the Columbia Journalism Review website. Links: — Gaza Crisis: Israeli Violations & U.S. Com... This week on CounterSpin: Listeners have likely seen some horrific and affecting images from Gaza, where the death toll has exceeded an estimated 1,000 overwhelmingly Palestinian people as, as the New York Times had it, "the Israeli military operation continued apace." We'll hear from author and journalist Phyllis Bennis about part of the story that should be central but in the U.S. press is often ignored or gotten wrong, namely international law. Also on the show: Should we be taking a hard look at Bush era crimes like torture? No, say many journalists. Look forward, not back. Indeed a January 19th Newsweek cover story--"What Would Dick Do?"--actually suggests that President Obama should look to Dick Cheney’s vision of power as a positive example. We’ll be speaking with journalist Charles Kaiser, who has been closely watching coverage of the torture issue on his blog on the Columbia Journalism Review website. Links: — Gaza Crisis: Israeli Violations & U.S. Complicity, by Phyllis Bennis (Institute for Policy Studies, 12/28/08) — Above the Fold: What Would Dick Do?, by Charles Kaiser (CJR.org, 1/12/09) This week on CounterSpin: Listeners have likely seen some horrific and affecting images from Gaza, where the death toll has exceeded an estimated 1,000 overwhelmingly Palestinian people as, as the New York Times had it, "the Israeli military operation continued apace." We'll hear from author and journalist Phyllis Bennis about part of the story that should be central but in the U.S. press is often ignored or gotten wrong, namely international law. Also on the show: Should we be taking a hard look at Bush era crimes like torture? No, say many journalists. Look forward, not back. Indeed a January 19th Newsweek cover story--"What Would Dick Do?"--actually suggests that President Obama should look to Dick Cheney’s vision of power as a positive example. We’ll be speaking with journalist Charles Kaiser, who has been closely watching coverage of the torture issue on his blog on the Columbia Journalism Review website. Links: — Gaza Crisis: Israeli Violations & U.S. Complicity, by Phyllis Bennis (Institute for Policy Studies, 12/28/08) — Above the Fold: What Would Dick Do?, by Charles Kaiser (CJR.org, 1/12/09) tag:odeo.com,2009-01-15,23886318 Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:00:00 -0800 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/23850202-Ali-Abunimah-on-Gaza-A-C-Thompson-on-Katrina-s-Hidden-Race-War This week on CounterSpin: The carnage in Gaza has provoked international outrage among many journalists outside the U.S., but journalists in the U.S. are largely holding on to a storyline that says that Israel is merely defending itself after Hamas broke a ceasefire. We'll talk to Ali Abunimah of ElectronicIntifada.net, for another view of the story. Also on CounterSpin today, a remarkable investigation into post-Katrina racist violence in New Orleans didn't get the mainstream media attention it deserved, but it's made its way around the web—and has forced local authorities to react. Pro Publica reporter A.C. Thompson will join us to talk about his Nation magazine report, "Katrina's Hidden Race War," and what he makes of the media's track record on this issue. Links: — Electronic Intifada's Role of the Media webpage — Katrina's Hidden Race War, by A.C. Thompson (Nation, 12/17/08) This week on CounterSpin: The carnage in Gaza has provoked international outrage among many journalists outside the U.S., but journalists in the U.S. are largely holding on to a storyline that says that Israel is merely defending itself after Hamas broke a ceasefire. We'll talk to Ali Abunimah of ElectronicIntifada.net, for another view of the story. Also on CounterSpin today, a remarkable investigation into post-Katrina racist violence in New Orleans didn't get the mainstream media attention it deserved, but it's made its way around the web—and has forced local authorities to react. Pro Publica reporter A.C. Thompson will join us to talk about his Nation magazine report, "Katrina's Hidden Race War," and what he makes of the media's track record on this issue. Links: — Electronic Intifada's Role of the Media webpage — Katrina's Hidden Race War, by A.C. Thompson (Nation, 12/17/08) This week on CounterSpin: The carnage in Gaza has provoked international outrage among many journalists outside the U.S., but journalists in the U.S. are largely holding on to a storyline that says that Israel is merely defending itself after Hamas broke a ceasefire. We'll talk to Ali Abunimah of ElectronicIntifada.net, for another view of the story. Also on CounterSpin today, a remarkable investigation into post-Katrina racist violence in New Orleans didn't get the mainstream media attention it deserved, but it's made its way around the web—and has forced local authorities to react. Pro Publica reporter A.C. Thompson will join us to talk about his Nation magazine report, "Katrina's Hidden Race War," and what he makes of the media's track record on this issue. Links: — Electronic Intifada's Role of the Media webpage — Katrina's Hidden Race War, by A.C. Thompson (Nation, 12/17/08) tag:odeo.com,2009-01-08,23850202 Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:00:00 -0800 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/23819803-Best-of-CounterSpin-2008 With a longer-than-usual election season and a meltdown in the financial markets, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was certainly no shortage of news to explain and media messages to unspin. We can't cover it all in one half-hour program, of course, but we can bring together some of the notable critics, activists and journalists that joined CounterSpin in 2008 to talk about the way the corporate media covered—or in some cases ignored—the big stories of the year. With a longer-than-usual election season and a meltdown in the financial markets, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was certainly no shortage of news to explain and media messages to unspin. We can't cover it all in one half-hour program, of course, but we can bring together some of the notable critics, activists and journalists that joined CounterSpin in 2008 to talk about the way the corporate media covered—or in some cases ignored—the big stories of the year. With a longer-than-usual election season and a meltdown in the financial markets, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was certainly no shortage of news to explain and media messages to unspin. We can't cover it all in one half-hour program, of course, but we can bring together some of the notable critics, activists and journalists that joined CounterSpin in 2008 to talk about the way the corporate media covered—or in some cases ignored—the big stories of the year. tag:odeo.com,2009-01-01,23819803 Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:00:00 -0800 no CounterSpin http://odeo.com/episodes/23813192-Kali-Akuno-Andy-Worthington-and-Francesca-Grifo-on-Bush-legacy This week on CounterSpin: December 2008 marks not just the conclusion of another calendar year, but the end of eight years of the George W. Bush administration—an era notable for, among other things, particular predations on civil liberties, the free flow of information and the public's right to know. Other administrations have been wary of the press corps, to be sure. But it was the Bush White House whose first attorney general instructed federal agencies to drag their feet on FOIA requests; whose Defense Department orchestrated the pulling down of a statue of Saddam Hussein—supposedly by joyous Iraqis—as part of a disinformation campaign on the war. Who pressured EPA officials to "clean up" public statements on air quality at Ground Zero after September 11, 2001. Whatever one thinks of the incoming administration, it's fair to say the departing one has left a very high hole to dig out of a number of fronts. On this special edition of CounterSpin, we're going to l... This week on CounterSpin: December 2008 marks not just the conclusion of another calendar year, but the end of eight years of the George W. Bush administration—an era notable for, among other things, particular predations on civil liberties, the free flow of information and the public's right to know. Other administrations have been wary of the press corps, to be sure. But it was the Bush White House whose first attorney general instructed federal agencies to drag their feet on FOIA requests; whose Defense Department orchestrated the pulling down of a statue of Saddam Hussein—supposedly by joyous Iraqis—as part of a disinformation campaign on the war. Who pressured EPA officials to "clean up" public statements on air quality at Ground Zero after September 11, 2001. Whatever one thinks of the incoming administration, it's fair to say the departing one has left a very high hole to dig out of a number of fronts. On this special edition of CounterSpin, we're going to look back at just a very few of the stories that defined the Bush era, and that posed particular challenges for journalists. The ongoing disaster of Hurricane Katrina—a story the press had at one time pledged to get to the bottom of, confronting powers that be and asking hard questions about structural inequalities. Guantánamo Bay, where the Bush administration has created a kind of "non-place" beyond the reach of international law and serious press scrutiny. And finally the field of science, where some fear this White House's hostility and agenda-driven policy may have set research back decades. We'll hear again from CounterSpin guests working on these stories that, though they may be largely products of the last eight years, will need to be addressed for years to come. Call them the lingering legacies of the Bush era. Links: — Kali Akuno's U.S. Human Rights Network — The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison , by Andy Worthington — Francesca Grifo at the Union of Concerned Scientists This week on CounterSpin: December 2008 marks not just the conclusion of another calendar year, but the end of eight years of the George W. Bush administration—an era notable for, among other things, particular predations on civil liberties, the free flow of information and the public's right to know. Other administrations have been wary of the press corps, to be sure. But it was the Bush White House whose first attorney general instructed federal agencies to drag their feet on FOIA requests; whose Defense Department orchestrated the pulling down of a statue of Saddam Hussein—supposedly by joyous Iraqis—as part of a disinformation campaign on the war. Who pressured EPA officials to "clean up" public statements on air quality at Ground Zero after September 11, 2001. Whatever one thinks of the incoming administration, it's fair to say the departing one has left a very high hole to dig out of a number of fronts. On this special edition of CounterSpin, we're going to look back at just a very few of the stories that defined the Bush era, and that posed particular challenges for journalists. The ongoing disaster of Hurricane Katrina—a story the press had at one time pledged to get to the bottom of, confronting powers that be and asking hard questions about structural inequalities. Guantánamo Bay, where the Bush administration has created a kind of "non-place" beyond the reach of international law and serious press scrutiny. And finally the field of science, where some fear this White House's hostility and agenda-driven policy may have set research back decades. We'll hear again from CounterSpin guests working on these stories that, though they may be largely products of the last eight years, will need to be addressed for years to come. Call them the lingering legacies of the Bush era. Links: — Kali Akuno's U.S. Human Rights Network — The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison , by Andy Worthington — Francesca Grifo at the Union of Concerned Scientists tag:odeo.com,2008-12-25,23813192 Thu, 25 Dec 2008 21:00:00 -0800 no CounterSpin