extra! october 2014

16
$4.95 October 2014 Vol. 27, No. 9 GOP’s Latest Poverty Scam NYT Fails T orture T est Targeting James Risen Spotlight on Racism in Ferguson Josmar Trujillo • Janine Jackson • Malkia yril Extra! The Magazine of FAIR—The Media Watch Group Public TV’s 1 Percent Rulers: A FAIR Study

Upload: fair124

Post on 02-Jun-2018

220 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 116

$495 October 2014 Vol 2

GOPrsquos Latest Poverty Sc

NYT Fails Torture T

Targeting James Ris

Spotlight on Racismin Ferguson

Josmar Trujillo bull Janine Jackson bull Malkia yril

Extrahe Magazine of FAIRmdashThe Media Watch Group

Public TVrsquos 1 Percent Rulers A FAIR Study

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 216

2 983157 October 2014 Extra

EDITOR Jim Naureckas

PUBLISHER Deborah Thomas

PROGRAM DIRECTOR Janine Jackson

SENIOR ANALYST Steve Rendall

ACTIVISM DIRECTOR Peter Hart

Columnists

Rania Khalek Josmar Trujillo

Contributing Writer

Neil deMause

InternsVolunteers

Aldo Guerrero

Associates

Hollie Ainbinder Robin Andersen Kim Deterline

Laura Flanders Carolyn Francis Karl Grossman

Edward Herman Jim Horwitz William Hoynes

Sam Husseini Norman Solomon

Advisory BoardJames Abourezk Edward Asner Ben Bagdikian

Jackson Browne Helen Caldicott Noam Chomsky

Mark Dowie Barbara Ehrenreich Susan Faludi

Phillip Frazer Herbert Chao Gunther Doug Henwood

Dolores Huerta Nicholas Johnson Paula Kamen

Frances Moore Lappeacute Katha Pollitt Tim Robbins

Susan Sarandon Stacey Sher Bob Siegel Eleanor Smeal

Steven Van Zandt Helen Zia

FAIR FOUNDER

Jeff Cohen

COUNTERSPIN ENGINEERS

Alex Noyes Kelly Spivey

LEGAL COUNSEL

William Schaap Joel Kupferman

FAIRExtra Editorial Office

124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

Tel 212-633-6700

fairfairorg

httpwwwfairorg

Subscription Inquiries

fairfairorg

Extra (ISSN 0895-2310) is published 10 times a year

monthly except for JulyAugust and JanuaryFebruary byFAIR (Fairness amp Accuracy In Reporting Inc) US amp

Canadian subscriptions are $25 per year (foreign $48) write

to Extra Subscription Service PO Box 170 Congers NY

10920-9930 call 800-847-3993 or email extracambey-

westcom Periodicals postage paid at NY NY 10001 and

additional mailing offices POSTMASTER Send address

changes to Extra Subscription Service PO Box 170

Congers NY 10920-9930 copy FAIR 2014 All rights reserved

PRINTED IN THE USA

ExtraThe Magazine of FAIRmdashThe Media Watch Group

3 SoundBites

RACE LENS

4 FTP Film Tha Police

Communities of color use media to protect themselves

by Josmar Trujillo

5 Michael Brown Had a Father

But will Ferguson shift media ideas on lsquofixingrsquo black men

by Janine Jackson

COUNTERSPIN INTERVIEW

7 lsquoThe Black Voice Is in Jeopardyrsquo

Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

9 Both Sides Now

Plans to ease poverty donrsquot have to workmdashso long as theyrsquore bipartisan

by Neil deMause

10 NYT Fails First Test of New Torture Policy

Paper says it will call it what it ismdashwhen it reports on it at all

by Peter Hart

12 Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

Risen case tests reportersrsquo power to reveal government wrongdoing

by Lauren McCauley

FAIR STUDY

14 Who Rules Public TV

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

by Aldo Guerrero

Volume 27 Number 9 October 201

Contents

FAIR the national media watch group has been offering well-documented criticism

of media bias and censorship since 1986 We work to invigorate the First Amendmen

by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices

that marginalize public interest minority and dissenting viewpoints As an anti-cen

sorship organization we expose neglected news stories and defend working journal

ists when they are muzzled As a progressive group we believe that structural reform

is needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates establish independent pub-

lic broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 316

Extra October 2014 983157

Labor Leaders Left Out

FAIR (Media Advisory 82814) looked

at how often labor leaders appeared

on the networksrsquo Sunday morning

chat showsmdashand couldnrsquot find a

single one from the beginning of

2014 through late August

Thatrsquos not to say that labor issueswerenrsquot discussedmdashwe found Repub-

lican lawmakers talking about the

need to send a message to teachers

unions for example But worker

representatives werenrsquot invited to

the conversation

Meanwhile CEOs made a dozen

appearances on the Sunday shows

including the current or former heads

of Apple AOL Starbucks and FedEx

Former Hewlett Packard CEO and

Republican candidate Carly Fiorina

alone appeared four times

It wasnrsquot a total shutout for labor

though An ABC quiz segment

(3214) asked which American presi-

dent was once head of a labor union

the answer was Ronald Reagan Yes

the only labor leader mentioned on a

Sunday chat show was the famously

anti-labor president

All in a Dayrsquos Work When journalists at SportsIllustrated

com part of the Time Inc magazine

group were facing layoffs manage-

ment ranked them on various quali-

ties on a scale from 2 to 10 Alongwith such journalistic criteria as

ldquoquality of writingrdquo and ldquoimpact of

storiesnewsworthinessrdquo the journal-

ists were judged on whether or not

he or she ldquoproduces content that is

beneficial to advertiser relationshiprdquo

(Gawker 81814) Apparently thatrsquos

seen as part of a reporterrsquos job at

magazines like Time Incrsquos where

editors are supervised by the busi-

ness staff (FAIR Blog 1214)

OrsquoReillyrsquosSelective StatisticsldquoOver the weekend the New York

Times called for the USA to legalize

marijuana all over the placerdquo Fox

Newsrsquo Bill OrsquoReilly (72814) fulmi-

nated ldquoNo surprise that paperrsquos far

left on its editorial page so its stanceis predictablerdquo (Legalizing marijuana

is a ldquofar-leftrdquo stance taken by a

majority of AmericansmdashGallup

102213)

OrsquoReilly disdainfully quoted a line

from the Times editorial (72714)mdash

ldquoThe result is racist falling dispropor-

tionately on young black men ruining

their lives and creating new genera-

tions of career criminalsrdquomdashand then

attempted to set the record straight

According to the US Sentencing

Commission about 5000 crimi-

nals were sentenced for marijua-

na offenses in 2013 at the federal

leveland here is the kicker 63

percent of those convicted on the

federal level were Hispanic Just

11 percent black

Typically OrsquoReillyrsquos statistics were

deceptive Just before that quoted

sentence the Times noted that

ldquothere were 658000 arrests for mari-

juana possession in 2012rdquomdashover-

whelmingly at the state and local

level And as the ACLU (613) pointed

out ldquoMarijuana use is roughly equalamong blacks and whites yet blacks

are 373 times as likely to be arrested

for marijuana possessionrdquo

ldquoItrsquos about race not drugsrdquo

said OrsquoReilly Thatrsquos the one part he

got right

Sourcersquos Secret CIA TiesldquoRevelations from former NSA con-

tract worker Edward Snowden

harmed national securityrdquo Thatrsquos the

claim an NPR report by Dina Temple-

Raston (Morning Edition 8114) put

forthmdashciting not just anonymous ldquoUS

government officialsrdquo but ldquoa new

reportby big data firm Recorded

Futurerdquo as well

The reportrsquos evidence is flimsymdash

basically itrsquos that militant groups

changed their software after

Snowdenrsquos revelations though the

reportrsquos own timeline shows these

changes started before Snowden

went public (FAIR Blog 81314)

But even fishier is NPRrsquos lack of

disclosure Recorded Future as

listeners were not told is a project

launched with the financial backing of

the CIA and is a registered vendor for

the NSA itself (Intercept 81214)

Traditional Pot vs Social KettleldquoSocial Media Silences Debaterdquo

declared a New York Times headline

(82614) over a story reporting that

outlets like Facebook and Twitter

are ldquotamping down diversity of opin-

ion and stifling debate about public

affairsrdquo As opposed to the diverse

opinion and free-wheeling debate to

be had in asocial media like the

Times presumably

The counterintuitive claim that

social media repress discussion is

based on a study that looked at

whether people shared political view

with their family and friends using

just one topic as a case study NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden Ye

researchers found that people are

more reluctant to use the Internet to

discuss disturbing revelations about

government surveillancemdashand forthat the Times blames social media

not government surveillance 983150

S o u n d B i t e s

Bill OrsquoReilly

Carly Fiorina

Correction

The September 2014 issue of

Extra published the wrong

diagram to illustrate the Turing

test This is the correct diagram

ldquoTelling Blows Against Hamasrdquo How the New York Times (82214)

framed a photo from Gaza of ldquorelatives of three Palestinian children who

medics said were killed in an Israeli airstrikersquo

Get the latest blog posts

and Action Alerts

at fairorg

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 416

4 983157 October 2014 Extra

R A C E L E N S

Communities of color use media to protect themselves

FTP Film Tha Police

by Josmar Trujillo

The arrest of Ramsey Orta in August on

gun charges would have barely regis-

tered on the daily crime blotter in New

York City had he not been at the center

of the most controversial police-related

death in the cityrsquos recent memory

Police choking Eric Garner to death dur-

ing a routine arrest on Staten Island made

national news in July Orta a local resident

filmed the entire encounter and the video

became the rallying point for a renewed

push against police brutality

Shortly thereafter the police shooting

death of Michael Brown in FergusonMissouri brought mainstream media out by

the truckloads to cover the ensuing protests

mdashand the heavy-handed militarized police

response to that communityrsquos outrage

In the case of Orta who says he was set up

by police as retribution for the Garner video

(Daily News 8414) the decision to film the

encounter is representative of a growing trend

of copwatchingmdashwhich is exactly what it

sounds like filming cops Even as traditional

media cover the Ferguson police through

clouds of teargas communities of color are

learning to rely on themselves to report onwhat happens around them and to them

As Malkia Cyril pointed out recently on

CounterSpin (82214mdashsee page 7) the

ldquodecentralized nature of the Internetrdquo

allowed for ldquodemocratizedrdquo coverage of the

Ferguson protests In contrast to corporate

media bewildered when a Midwestern

police department resembled Egyptian

national policemdashldquoThis doesnrsquot make any

senserdquo CNNrsquos Jake Tapper declared (FAIR

Blog 81914)mdashstreet reporters recognize

police aggression as part of a pattern theyrsquove

had to confront in order to document

Citizen journalism is a potentially inspir-

ing development in bursting the corporate

media bubble overall but particularly for

cases of police brutality both at the individ-

ual (Brown) and community (protesters)

levels The Web plays a crucial role for mar-

ginalized communities black and Latino in

particular by disseminating incidents media

wonrsquot covermdashor wonrsquot stop spinning

Somewhere in America during the

time it takes to read this column therersquoll

likely be an incident of police harassment

of the black and brown Whether or not

the incident is a story media canrsquot ignore

(involving a fatal encounter say or a

public figure like Harvard professor Skip

Gates) these encounters are the context

that surrounds high-profile incidents like

the ones in Staten Island and Ferguson This

includes racial profiling mass incarceration

and the long history of systemic brutality

Copwatching videos disseminated initial-

ly through decentralized Internet media

like Black Twitter can bring those expe-

riences to the national dialogue And videos

that donrsquot make national news can still make

the rounds on the Internet via sites focused

on street culture like World Star Hip Hop

or dedicated to police videos like the Free

Thought Project or Photography Is Not aCrimemdashwhich are best described as inver-

sions of the long-running show Cops show-

casing police encounters through the eyes of

the publicThe idea is that everyday people with

camera phones and access to the Internet

can put police aggression and misconduct

on blastmdashwith the hope of influencing opin-

ion and politics But there are at least two

factors in traditional media coverage that

make public perceptions of police difficult

to move even amid an avalanche of disturb-

ing amateur police videos

One is the traditional role of not just

media in general but criminal justice media

(reporters and outlets that focus on poli

and crime) specifically When hip-hop a

Talib Kweli criticized CNNrsquos Don Le

(Politico 82114) for failing to repre

his and other protestersrsquo experiences

couldrsquove added the critique emanating f

social media that traditional media w

adding to the criminalization of black

by their choice of pictures used on air

Jazeera America 81414)

These distortions happen often at

local level as well culminating in m

coverage that favors official narratives

community input (FAIR Blog 619

Likely a result of the well-known tend

to favor power-holders in order to pres

access bias in criminal justice media

deeply prejudice public opinion

The other factor affects media

whole the issue of diversity W

reporters covering a police scan

especially one in which race is key are

ly less equipped by experience to un

stand the situation We use all sortexperts in other fields to add depth into

ries they may have insight into So wh

we send white reporters into communitie

color to cover police brutality

Polls find whites have a generally fa

able perception of police (Pew 825

Huffington Post 82114)mdashand rarely

in overpoliced communities The urge

and proximity to the issue of police bru

ty is one that residents of communitie

color are best suited to document Whic

why copwatching as an invaluable m

tool at their disposal is here to stay 983150

Ramsey Orta (left) who recorded the NYPD choking Eric

Garner to death

DC police officer preventing a citizen from using the

Amendment (Photography Is Not a Crime 9714)

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 516

Any effort to improve the lives of black

men that meets with the hearty

approval of Bill OrsquoReilly ought to set

off a few alarm bells But My Brotherrsquos

Keeper an initiative announced by Barack

Obama in February was received benignly

by the corporate press with the closest thing

to criticism being ldquoShould he have acted

earlierrdquo (ABC This Week 3214)

Reports displayed a telling vagueness

MBK was described as ldquoa program aimed at

giving young men of color a shot at successrdquo

(NBC Nightly News 22714) an effort ldquoto

reverse underachievement among young

black and Hispanic malesrdquo (AP 22714)

and as ldquocommitments from foundations and

businesses to help keep young minority men

in the classroom and out of prisonrdquo

(Washington Post 22814) ABCrsquos Diane

Sawyer (22714) called it ldquoa plan to help

kids succeed even when theyrsquore angry and

have made mistakesrdquo

Serious sounds were made about the

problem George Stephanopoulos (This

Week 3214) presented as ldquothe fact thatyoung black men are more likely than other

Americans to drop out of school be sent to

prison or end up murderedrdquo but with little

interest in ascertaining just how MBK with

its focus on mentoring or ldquohigh standards

and up-close motivationrdquo (CBS EveningNews 22714) would address it

Myriad deeper questions were left to big

mediarsquos margins USA Today (3314)

ran Tavis Smileyrsquos critique that ldquowhat

these young brothers really need is not so

much to be lsquokeptrsquo but to have their human-ity and dignity respectedrdquo A Chicago Tri-

bune source (22814) likened the plan to ldquoa

band-aid on a gunshot woundrdquo

The New York Times (31214) noted

such core concerns as MBKrsquos exclusion of

women and girls its reinforcement of patri-

archal norms and its reliance on philan-

thropic noblesse oblige over government

action but consigned them to its ldquoRoom for

Debaterdquo feature

Independent media gave critics more

space The Nationrsquos Mychal Denzel

Smith (22814) for example sug-

gested that despite some admirable

aspects MBK

ignores the root problem We can

turn every black and brown boy

into a ldquorespectablerdquo citizen But

the moment we do the rules for

what constitutes ldquorespectablerdquo

will change Thatrsquos how racism

works

At Salon (3614) Brittney

Cooper called out the proposalrsquos

male-only focus given that black

women and girls fare as poorly and

even worse in some ways includ-

ing the fact that ldquosingle black women have

the lowest net wealth of any group with

research showing a median wealth of $100rdquo

B

ut itrsquos not surprising that corporate

reporters in the main saw little to ques-

tion in the idea that entrenched socio-economic disparities could be meaningfully

addressed without systemic change or even

new resources that the fundamental prob-

lem facing men of color is ldquobrokenrdquo fami-

lies in need of a dominant male and that a

proper point of emphasis is that as Brian

Williams (NBC Nightly News 22714)

explained ldquothey cannot blame the circum-

stances of their birthrdquo

These media have a long inglorious his-

tory of singling out black males as ldquosuper-

predatorsrdquo (Extra 198) and shiftless grifters

and in some ways the ldquouniquely endan-geredrdquo black male is a variant rather than an

antidote to that pathological depiction The

narrative may start by talking about ldquohur-

dlesrdquo black men face but on examination it

generally locates those obstacles within

black men themselves including those who

as Stephanopoulos put it ldquoend up murderedrdquo

When Michael Brownmdashwith a father in

his life and accepted to collegemdashwas

shot dead in the street in Ferguson

Missouri by a white police officer corpora

media had a chance to revisit the assumptio

that what black men need most is a mento

But rather than question the analysis they

embraced media instead found everythin

ldquonewrdquo Suddenly we learned that US poli

forces are militarized Some police disr

spect black people Different communitihave different experiences

Thatrsquos not to belittle media coverag

which was better than it might have bee

There was the predictable culture-blamin

from the predictable quarters (See MB

booster Bill OrsquoReillymdash82614mdashwho di

missed protestersrsquo concerns because the id

of white privilege is a ldquobig lierdquo expound

by ldquorace hustlersrdquo) But when you can fin

a column headlined ldquoIn Defense of Lootin

in the Daily Mississippian (82614) y

know itrsquos not quite business as usual

USA Today (81514) reported on tincidence of killings by police (at least 40

a year) and decried the lack of reliable dat

The Christian Science Monitor (8211

explored the damage inflicted by St Lou

segregation and white flight The NeRepublic (82014) explained the partic

lars of ldquoself defenserdquo laws in Missouri an

elsewhere that combined with ldquoentrench

racial and occupational biasesrdquo make hom

cide convictions of police officers li

Fergusonrsquos Darren Wilson ldquobasical

Extra October 2014 983157

C O V E R S T O R Y

But will Ferguson shift media ideas on lsquofixingrsquo black men

Michael Brown Had a Father

by Janine Jackson

The presence of two parents in Michael Brownrsquos life (Michael Brown S

left and Lesley McSpadden) did not shake the prevailing media assum

tion that what young black men need is a man in their lives

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 616

6 983157 October 2014 Extra

impossiblerdquo All of this helpfully moves the

conversation from black peoplersquos ldquofeelingsrdquo

to demonstrable facts

But big media donrsquot really have them-

selves to credit for the elevation of

Brownrsquos murder beyond lamentable anec-

dote They were largely reacting to the vig-

orous public outcry and to the Ferguson

Police Departmentrsquos especially heavy-hand-

ed response including assaults on reportersthemselves And they were struggling to keep

up as those following the story turned

instead to Black Twitter and other online

sources for news and perspective (See next

page)

Now mainstream media are asking

whether Ferguson will be a ldquomomentrdquo or a

ldquomovementrdquo for black activists but they

might more appropriately ask the same of their

own engagement with the issues Ferguson

puts on the table As Salonrsquos Cooper

(82614) put it real progress would entail

a real commitment to due process pro-

tection of voting rights a livable wage

the dissolution of the prisonindustrial

complex funding of good public edu-

cation at both K-12 and college levels

a serious commitment to affirmative

action food security and full reproduc-

tive justice for all women Those are

the kinds of conditions under which

black communities and all communi-

ties could thrive

A failure to see things on that scale to

treat what wersquore now calling ldquoFergusonrdquo not

as aberrant but as reflective of US social

systems and institutions risks setting us

back to appeals to individual betterment the

ldquopull up your pantsrdquo logic critics see in

MBK

And not insignificantly a focus on the

individual over the structural tells white

people that racism is a personal thing

they ldquojust donrsquot understandrdquo and therefore

canrsquot fight that progress is a zero-sum gamein which therersquos nothing people of con-

science can do together Recognition of the

irreducibility (beyond class culture cloth-

ing or family structure) of anti-black racism

is laudable and overdue But it need not

erase the non-black anti-racists who could

be engaged in resisting policies and prac-

tices that overwhelmingly hurt people of

color like for just one example the practice

of funding police departments with low-

level warrants that target the poormdashas spot-

lighted by the Daily Beastrsquos Michael Daly

(82214) who is white

Ferguson could be a turning point for

media coverage of racism But should cor-

porate media ldquoforgetrdquo what they now sug-

gest they are learningmdashas they have

previous ldquomomentsrdquo (Extra 792 8

the good news is that every day more

ple are talking around them and mo

forward without them 983150

Extra receives no money from advertisers

or corporate underwriters and depends on

subscribers for its existence Please consider

subscribing or spread the word by giving a

gift subscription to Extra Choose a

traditional print subscription a digital PDF

edition or both together

I want to subscribe to the printedition of Extra983151 Yes Send me a two-year subscription

(20 issues) to Extra for $45

983151 I want a one-year subscription (10 issues)

to Extra for $25

983151 Irsquom a subscriber please renew me early

(Your expiration date is on your mailing

label above your name)

983151 One year (10 issues) for $25

983151 Two years (20 issues) for $45

Irsquod like to have the digital edition983151 Irsquod like a two-year digital subscription to

Extra for $27

983151 I want a one-year digital subscription toExtra for $15

Want both Get print + digital983151 One-year print + digital (pdf) subscription

only $35

983151 Two-year print + digital (pdf) subscription

only $65

Name______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City _______________________________________________

StateZip ___________________________________________

Email Address_______________________________________

983151 MasterCard 983151 VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No________________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature___________________________________________

Journalism in the Public Interest

To order

fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorg

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

fairor

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 716

Extra October 2014 983157

marginalized in mainstream media The

numbers of black journalists able to work inmainstream media has decreased over the

last 10 years significantly

And what we find is that both these jour-

nalists and the community journalists that

wersquore talking about on Twitter have found

social media to be an outlet to be a way to

share their work in a way that wasnrsquot able to

happen on CNN MSNBC or any of the

other cable news outlets Because cable is

owned by mega-corporations and doesnrsquot

allow for the kind of independent voice that

a more social platform on the Internet

allows forSo Black Twittermdashreminiscent of and

reflecting the black blog an independent

black voicemdashthatrsquos what really brought the

story of Ferguson to the majority of black

audiences

CS On the one hand you want to say that

itrsquos not the technology thatrsquos key I mean

media and other powers could have tried to

listen to black people if they were writing

on parchment you know But at the same

time the technology and the kind of com-

munication that it makes possible is some-

thing different isnrsquot it

MC Absolutely The decentralized nature

of the Internet allows for a level of democ-

ratized voice that wersquove never seen I mea

the Internetmdashas a platform as a vehicle fvoice in black communitiesmdashhas becom

one of the most powerful ways to bypass th

exclusionary and discriminatory mai

stream media And because of that becau

of its decentralized and democratiz

nature black people are very conscious

the need to fight to maintain their online an

digital voice

CS Letrsquos talk about that fight We know th

for corporate media this story is going to g

away Every racist act in corporate media

an anecdote Wersquore told that things ldquoraiquestionsrdquo when they might more approp

ately be said to answer them We hea

ldquoGosh this doesnrsquot look like America

when it looks exactly like America

And Ta-Nehisi Coates [Atlantic 8151

wrote recently about the ldquopolitics of chan

ing the subjectrdquo You know Letrsquos talk abo

black folks killing each other

All of this is why even when dece

coverage happens it feels like reinventin

the wheel and it points up the need for

sustained space to have a conversation th

doesnrsquot just serve as corrective of that dom

inant narrative and stop there but mov

forward So what is the state of play on t

fight to have the Internet be that sort

space

MC Right now as the people of Ferguso

are on the front lines demanding justice f

yet another murder of a young black man

unarmedmdashblack people are also on the fro

lines to maintain the right to speak onli

about the rampant police brutality in o

communitiesAnd one of the front lines that black pe

ple are fighting on is the fight for the ope

Internet Black communities across th

country are saying loud and clear that th

want to keep the Internet open We unde

stand that the only way that the court

Verizon v FCC said very clearly that t

only way the Federal Communicatio

Commission can enforce non-discrimin

tion rules online is to reclassify broadban

as a Title II common carrier service

There likely would have been media cover-

age of the Ferguson Missouri police killingof Michael Brown and the public protests

that followed But itrsquos hard to imagine that

the tone of that coverage would be the same

mdashwith stories validating black peoplersquos

anger questioning the militarization of

police and challenging mediarsquos criminaliza-

tion of people of colormdashwere it not for the

forceful intervention of black social media

where so-called ldquomainstreamrdquo perspectives

werenrsquot just called out but circumvented

Many people will tell you they didnrsquot

learn what was happening in Fergusonmdash

much less why it matteredmdashfrom the paperor the TV at all The implications of that fact

inform the work of Malkia Cyril executive

director of the Center for Media Justice

which is also home to the Media Action

Grassroots Network (MAG-Net) Counter-

Spinrsquos Janine Jackson talked to her by

phone from the Bay Area

CounterSpin Whatrsquos happening in Ferguson

isnrsquot a story about the Internet of course

but it has put in high relief the need for

black people to tell our own stories in our

own voices and not to wait until somebody

else decides the storyrsquos important Before

we talk about the threats to that space whose

power wersquore just discovering letrsquos talk for a

minute about that power I was sort of tick-

led to see David Carr at the New YorkTimes [81814] credit Twitter per se for

showing that something significant was

underway in Ferguson Letrsquos put a finer

point on it It was particular folks using

Twitter and other tools to tell this story

wasnrsquot it

Malkia Cyril Yes I mean the lingo ldquoBlack

Twitterrdquo isnrsquot about the company at all Itrsquos

about the hundreds of black blogs inde-

pendent black blogs and black bloggers

websites individual pundits that used the

social media platform to microblog and talk

about what they see as the primary issues

affecting black communities

And one of the reasons that is so impor-

tant is because these journalistsmdashblack

journalistsmdashhave been slowly excluded and

Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

lsquoThe Black Voice Is in Jeopardyrsquo

C O U N T E R S P I N I N T E R V I E W

Malkia Cyril ldquoThe Internetmdashas a platform as a vehicle for

voice in black communitiesmdashhas become one of the most

powerful ways to bypass the exclusionary and discriminato-

ry mainstream mediardquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 816

8 983157 October 2014 Extra

MC It was never a meaningful separation

and civil rights activists in the 1960s knew

that very well when they took television

news station WLBT to task for their failure

to cover segregation in the South And in

fact that casemdashthe case of WLBTmdash

became the defining case that allowed for

public comment in media policy processes

So civil rights organizations have long been

an advocate for media as a civil rights issue

Itrsquos only as media and telecommunica-tions have become so lucrative itrsquos only as

telecommunications companies have used

the buyouts of our communities as a public

relations strategy that these issues have

become technocratic wonky and separate

from the core issues of social justice

What we know what Ferguson shows

us what it shows me is that in fact there is

no path to victory to change without the

visibility and representation that media pro-

vides And that as long as that media is

Now let me explain that for a minute

because people say ldquoWell what is Title IIrdquo

Title II simply means that the Internet

should be treated as a public utility it

should be regulated like a public utility

Some organizations are concerned that if we

regulate the Internet as a public utility itrsquoll

kill innovation But what black communi-

ties know very well is two things One

public utilitiesmdashwhen they are truly pub-

licmdashare secure and reliable So thatrsquos num-ber one We want a reliable platform for

independent voices and treating it like a

utility regulating it as such makes it a civil

right that we can access publicly So thatrsquos

number one

Number two some organizations and

individuals have been concerned that if we

treat the Internet like a public utility that a

future FCC that a future Congress will

come along and take that away And to that

I think black communities are very clear

When we fought against segregation in

education we did not accept anything lessthan the ruling in Brown v Board of

Education There were rulings prior to that

There were court cases for more than a

decade prior to that victory We didnrsquot

accept any piecemeal half-baked legisla-

tion We only took what was morally right

and just And that was an end to segregation

in education And thatrsquos what wersquore talking

about right now

Ultimately reclassifying broadband

would ensure no segregation online that all

voices would be able to join the public con-

versation and that black voices in particular

would be able to be raised around issues

like police brutality like the incident in

Ferguson And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

for

CS Used to be when you told someone that

you were working with media policy they

would come back with ldquoOh well I do real

activism Irsquom in the streetrdquo and media is

somehow an ancillary issue That dayrsquos over

isnrsquot it I mean not everyone can work on

every issue but the separation of media pol-icy issues from other issues that we care

about is not a meaningful separation

owned operated and controlled by

largest Internet service providers the lar

cable companies the largest private f

lies the black voice is in jeopardy An

the black voice is in jeopardy black

dom is in jeopardy

And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

Wersquore not fighting for some back-end t

nical technocratic issue Wersquore fighting

the cause of black freedom Wersquore figh

for the same cause that all the black newpers right after slavery were fighting

Wersquore fighting for an end to any kind of

tem that violates or limits our voice

that is what wersquore talking about here to

Itrsquos not about media policy Itrsquos about

justice983150

Malkia Cyrilrsquos recent article ldquoThank

Black Internet for Bringing Ferguso

Merdquo appeared on the Huffington

(81514) among other outlets

Wear FAIR Everywhere You Go

If yoursquore like us you donrsquot trust the corporate

media to tell it straightmdashor report the stories that

matter

So why not spread the word

Send a bold message--and support FAIR--with our

Donrsquot Trust Corporate Media shirt

The shirts are 100 cotton and union-mademdash

just check the labelmdashand are available in Small

Medium Large and XLarge

Limited quantities available so order yours todaymdashthese wonrsquot last long

T-shirtmdash$20

983151 Sm 983151 Med 983151 Large 983151 XLarge

Includes shipping no international orders please

Name________________________________________________

Address ______________________________________________

City _________________________________________________

StateZip _____________________________________________

983151 MasterCard 983151 VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No__________________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature_____________________________________________

To order

fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

fairo

Join the Conversation

If yoursquore on Twitter connect with FAIR friendsand staff about the issues that matter to you themost Be a part of the discussion while stayingup-to-date on the latest news and information

Follow us FAIRmediawatch

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 916

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1016

10 983157 October 2014 Extra

pushing them as a way to tackle poverty

This in the eyes of many news outlets was a

welcome shift toward ldquobipartisanshiprdquo

ldquoRyanrsquos poverty plan mixes partiesrsquo

ideasrdquo trumpeted the Milwaukee Journal-

Sentinel (72414) saying its combination

of EITC hikes with block grants ldquoaspires to

find some common ground between right

and leftrdquo ldquoCreative ideas are rare in Wash-

ingtonrdquo asserted a Boston Herald editorial

(72814) adding that ldquoRyanrsquos approachdestroys the Democratic narrative that

Republicans want to permanently dismantle

the safety netrdquo

In fact Ryanrsquos plan was deemed so

ldquobipartisanrdquo that some worried aloud that it

could hurt his standing with Republicans

Washington Post columnist Melinda Henne-

berger (72414) citing Ryanrsquos statements

that he wanted to ldquotalk about how we can

repair the safety netrdquo and have the govern-

ment ldquoprovide resourcesrdquo to poor people

questioned whether it meant Ryan was giv-

ing up on seeking the 2016 Republican pres-idential nomination

And LA Times columnist Doyle

McManus (72714) under the headline

ldquoHas the GOP Gone Softrdquo singled out

Ryan for proposing policies that ldquomay face

their toughest audience inside the GOPrdquo

For the media to evaluate economic poli-

cies based on whether they please both

Democrats and Republicans is nothing

new as wersquove witnessed on battles over

everything from the stimulus plan (FAIR

Blog 2209) to the debt ceiling (FAIRBlog 71511) In fact during the battles

over welfare reform itself back in 1996

coverage largely focused on which bills

could win the support of both partiesrsquo lead-

ershipmdashwith the San Francisco Chronicleeditorial board (72796) writing approving-

ly that Congress had ldquowhipped itself into a

fair frenzy of bipartisanshiprdquo with welfare

reform and other bills

The problem with bipartisanship as a

moral touchstone should be obvious Not

only does it define sensible policies as beingwhatever the leadership of the Democrats and

Republicans can agree on but it allows one

party to shift the debate by moving its own

goalposts and thus what counts as bipartisan

While the Washington Post editorial

board (72414) singled out shifting money to

EITC as the ldquomost bipartisan part of Mr

Ryanrsquos planrdquo the Timesrsquo Irwin (72414)

acknowledged that it was hardly a new one

for conservatives ldquoWhat was once a conser-

vative idea created in the Gerald Ford admin-

istration and expanded by President Reagan

and both presidents Bush is now more con-

troversial on the rightrdquo since it would elimi-

nate income taxes for more poor Americans

making them what the Wall Street Journal(112002) once derided as ldquolucky duckiesrdquo

If the nationrsquos media were actually con-

cerned about finding programs that help

the poor itrsquos not hard For one therersquos the

food stamp program that Ryan wants toeliminate which has low overheadmdash95 per-

cent of spending goes directly to benefitsmdash

and which by itself lifts nearly 5 million

people out of poverty every year (NewRepublic 81613)

Or as the Center for Economic and

Policy Researchrsquos Shawn Fremstad (TheHill 72214) noted if Ryan truly wanted to

boost the earnings of the working poor

instead of work requirements and EITC

hikes he could accomplish the same t

by raising the federal minimum wage so

thing that is supported by 80 percen

Americans including a majority of Re

licans (Hart Research 72313)mdasha bip

san plan if ever there was one

But then helping the poor or even pu

ing poverty policies that most Americans

agree on isnrsquot really the point for Ry

supporters ldquoGiving people money re

does make them better-off Itrsquos better to more money to buy groceries and other b

necessities than lessrdquo admitted Salam

getting more money from the governm

doesnrsquot really make you less poorrdquo

In the world of punditry then itrsquos

about helping the poor afford groceries

about making sure that theyrsquove earned

right to deserve groceries That may be ldquob

tisanrdquomdashin the halls of Congress anywa

but that doesnrsquot make it smart policy 983150

Itrsquos not often that a media outletrsquos decision

to ldquorecalibrate its languagerdquo attracts much

attention But when itrsquos the New York

Times and the shift is about what to call

torture in the Newspaper of Record such

changes matter

In August 2014 10 years after the initial

revelations that made US torture an interna-

tional news story Times executive editor

Dean Baquet wrote a short piece for the

Times website (8714) stating that the word

ldquotorturerdquo would be used to describe ldquoinci-

dents in which we know for sure that inter-rogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an

effort to get informationrdquo

In other words the newspaper is now

accepting the reality that the term can be

accurately applied to some actions of the

United States Ten years ago when it was

revealed that the CIA was torturing ldquoWar on

Terrorrdquo prisoners criticsmdashincluding

FAIRmdashwere asking the Times to call US

torture by its name (FAIR Action Alert51404) The paper had officially or not

carved out an exception for the US gov

ment whereby torture would be descr

euphemistically as ldquoenhancedrdquo or ldquoha

interrogations

So this shift if it is to be considered a

significant comes a decade too late

thatrsquos the just the start Baquetrsquos reasonin

revealing He writes that the Times resi

the label for so long because ldquothe situa

was murkyrdquo and that the ldquoJustice Dep

ment insisted that the techniques did not

to the legal definition of lsquotorturersquordquo Su

most countries that practice torture wresist prosecuting themselves so itrsquos ha

a reasonable standard for a media outle

Perhaps most illuminating though

Baquetrsquos admission that the Jus

Departmentrsquos decision not to prosecute

torturers motivated the paperrsquos shift

government

has made clear that it will not prosecut

in connection with the interrogatio

program The result is that today th

Paper says it will call it what it ismdash when it reports on it at all

NYT Fails First Test of New Torture Policy

by Peter Hart

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1116

Extra October 2014 983157

debate is focused less on whether the

methods violated a statute or treaty

provision and more on whether they

worked

So the Times will call torture by its

name now that no one is likely to be prose-

cuted and because the debate eventually

became ldquofocusedrdquo on its practical benefits

Thus allegations of torture that are walled

off from legal accountability are safemdashassuming the paper even covers them at all

The first test of the New York Timesrsquo new

policy came with the release of an

August 11 Amnesty International report

on torture in Afghanistan Itrsquos a test the

Times failed

The report covered 10 discrete episodes

of torture and brutality that killed dozens of

Afghan civilians But the most explosive

stories concern the actions of a US Special

Operations unit that was linked to torture

killings and disappearances betweenNovember 2012 and February 2013 The

evidence gathered by Amnesty strongly

suggests that US personnel were intimately

involved In one especially harrowing

account an Afghan man named

Naimatullah talks about a raid on his fami-

lyrsquos home by US Special Forces

Naimatullah said that the Americans

brought two of his brothers

Esmatullah and Siddiqullah into two

separate rooms and started beating

them They also beat Hekmatullah in

the yard ldquoI could hear them beating the

othersrdquo Naimatullah said ldquoand when I

saw them they were in terrible shaperdquo

Hekmattullah told Amnesty

International that the Special Forces

operatives ldquodragged me from my room

by the back of my collar and then

threw me down the stairs While I fell

my shoulder and buttocks were frac-

tured Even now I have problem walk-

ing it is painful and I canrsquot stand

straightrdquo

According to Amnestyrsquos report US

forces then took Naimatullahrsquos three broth-

ers away Only Hekmattullah was ever seen

again

Amnesty reports that several of the fam-

ilies that were able to recover the remains of

the missing reported that the bodies showed

signs of torture from what appeared to be

acid burns on clothing to gruesome injuries

The report received attention from other

outlets like the LA Times and WashingtonPost but was not featured in the New York

Times A FAIR Action Alert (81814) noted

the disconnect between the Timesrsquo new tor-

ture policy and its silence on the Amnesty

report Times public editor MargaretSullivan (81914) seemed to agree with

FAIRrsquos take writing that Amnesty ldquopulled

together a great deal of informationmdashespe-

cially about the role of the American mili-

tarymdashin a comprehensive and forceful way

that would have benefited Times readersrdquo

But others at the Times didnrsquot see why

they should have bothered Foreign editor

Joseph Kahn told Sullivan that Amnestyrsquos

findings ldquoappeared to be recycledrdquo and ldquodid

not add much to what we have already on

many occasions reportedrdquo

Itrsquos true that the Times has reported on

the allegations of torture in Afghanistan

But therersquos one clear lesson one can draw

from that reporting As the evidence of US

culpability grew the paper got less interest-

ed

On February 25 2013 the New YorkTimes reported that the Afghan govern-

ment had ldquobarred elite American forces

from operating in a strategic province

adjoining Kabul on Sunday citing com-

plaints that Afghans working for AmericanSpecial Operations forces had tortured and

killed villagers in the areardquo

The Times emphasized the damage this

could do to the US mission The move

ldquowould effectively exclude the American

militaryrsquos main source of offensive firepow-

er from the areardquo

A month later the Times (32113)

reported that the Afghan government was

compromising on its exclusion of US

troops ldquobreaking an increasingly acrimo-

nious impasserdquo The paper reminded reade

that the source of the dispute was ldquocom

plaints related to abuses by American forc

and accompanying Afghan men durin

night raids in the province accusations th

coalition has deniedrdquo The paper added th

certain ldquoAfghan and Western official

blamed the deaths and torture on local insu

gents

Almost two months later (51313) cam

the headline ldquoAfghans Say an AmericTortured Civiliansrdquo But this was not abo

American military personnel the Americ

in question was identified as Zakar

Kandahari an Afghan-American who w

working as an interpreter for the Speci

Forces unit The Times included a comme

from a US officialmdashldquospeaking on the cond

tion of anonymity in line with official po

cyrdquomdashwho insisted the US had no role ldquoW

have done three investigations down ther

and all absolve ISAF [International Securi

Assistance Force] forces and Special Forc

of all wrongdoingrdquoSome might find such denials unpersu

sive as the Times reported (51313

Afghan officials had a video of at least o

torture session and the remains of the vi

tims were turning up just outside the U

base

The Times (52213) reminded reade

days later that ldquothere has been no tes

mony directly tying American soldiers

the abuse or killing of those detaineesrdquo T

paper added that ldquothe American military h

described Mr Kandahari as a freelan

interpreter who had volunteered to help t

American Special Forces who allowed hi

to live at their base in exchangerdquo

Weeks later the Times (6513) w

reporting the discovery of more bodies ju

outside the US basemdashand that Afghan an

US governments were ldquoin sharp disagre

ment about who is responsiblerdquo

The story made the paper once again o

July 8 with the news that Kandahari h

been arrested The paperrsquos account aga

reiterated US claims that it had nothing do with the torture but Heather Barr

Human Rights Watch offered a dissentin

view

The US said they investigated thoroughly

therersquos nothing there so everyone should

go away and accept their word that they

checked and did nothing wrong I donrsquot

think that ends the discussion Therersquos a

lot more explaining that needs to be done

that hasnrsquot happened yetrsquo

New York Timesrsquo Dean Baquet We can call it ldquotorturerdquo now

that itrsquos clear no one will be punished for it

Missing a Premium

983088

Please email fairfairorg

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1216

That explaining would have to happen

elsewhere though The New York Timesran just one more story that mentioned the

controversy a July 23 dispatch that once

again stated that US officials ldquohave cleared

their troops of responsibility in any torture

or killingrdquo

The paper added that government offi-

cials ldquohave refused to offer further explana-

tion of what might have happened to the

dead menrdquo One would think the arrest of the principal suspect might inspire new

reporting

And it didmdashjust not in the New YorkTimes A major investigation by RollingStonersquos Matthieu Aikins (11613) raised

serious doubts about the US denials about

Kandahari and the unit ldquoMany of the men

who disappeared in Nerkh were rounded up

by the Americans in broad daylight in front

of dozens of witnessesrdquo Aikins reported He

added that over five months

Rolling Stone has interviewed more

than two dozen eyewitnesses and vic-

timsrsquo families whorsquove provided consis-

tent and detailed allegations of the

involvement of American forces in the

disappearance of the 10 men and has

talked to Afghan and Western officials

who were familiar with confidential

Afghan-government UN and Red

Cross investigations that found the

allegations credible

Aikins even tracked down Kandahari for

a prison interview unsurprisingly he

denied responsibility for the killings The

US argument that a rogue interpreter carried

out an extensive campaign of torture is not

only far-fetched Aikins wrote that it is

in a certain sense irrelevant Under the

well-established legal principle of

command responsibility military offi-

cials who knowingly allow their subor-

dinates to commit war crimes are them-

selves criminally responsible

To Aikins these stories ldquowould amount

to some of the gravest war crimes perpetrat-

ed by American forces since 2001rdquo But

they remained obscure to readers of the

New York Times even after the Amnesty

report corroborated his charges

But the Times didnrsquot entirely ignore Rol-ling Stonesrsquo reporting on February 16 2014

the Times mentioned that Aikinsrsquo exposeacute

had received a George Polk Award 983150

New York Times investigative reporter

James Risen is taking a stand Despite

being hounded by both the Bush and

Obama administrations to reveal his

sources he has vowed to go to jail rather

than abandon his pledge of confidentiality

As fellow journalists and journalism

advocacy groups rush to his side many fear

that the US Department of Justice within the

self-proclaimed ldquomost transparent adminis-tration in historyrdquo is preparing to deliver a

body blow to the First Amendmentrsquos prom-

ise of press freedom

ldquoThis case is the closest wersquove come to

the edge of the precipice to reportersource

privilege being bannedrdquo said Jesselyn

Radack director of national security and

human rights for the Government Account-

ability Project in a phone interview

R

isen a Pulitzer Prizendashwinning reporter

has been ordered by the DoJ to testify in

the prosecution of former CIA employeeJeffrey Sterling who is accused of leaking

information about a botched Clinton-era

CIA mission to give Iran phony nuclear

informationmdashwhich ended up giving Iran

real information on how to build a bomb

Risen wrote about the failed operation in his

2006 book State of War

Risen was initially subpoenaed by the

Bush administration in 2008 but the order

expired as the reporter fought against it

through the courts To the surprise of many

the subpoena was renewed under PresidentObama in 2010mdashdespite repeated calls to

drop the pursuit

ldquoRisen informed the public about the

dangerous stupidity of a CIA operation and

seriously embarrassed the agency in the

processrdquo said Norman Solomon a longtime

FAIR associate and co-founder of

RootsActionorg an online advocacy group

in an email exchange ldquoEvidently a pair of

unforgivable sins in the eyes of both the

Bush and Obama administrationsrdquo

If the government does uphold its sub

na and Risen is punished for taking

stand journalists and free press advoc

say that this would set a dangerous pr

dent for the interpretation of press free

under the First Amendment

ldquoFunctionally a reporter will no lo

be able to promise source confidential

Radack explained ldquoThis will impact pe

who want to disclose wrongdoingrdquo said ldquoWhistleblowers disclosing fr

waste abuse and illegality will no longe

to the pressrdquo

Robust investigative journalism

already suffered from budget cuts and w

ing interest in long-form journalism

this ldquochilling effectrdquo on sources will pro

the ldquofinal nail in the coffin of the free p

as we know itrdquo Radack added

I

n 2011 a federal District Court ruled

Risen could not be compelled by the

ernment to reveal his sources ldquoA crimtrial subpoena is not a free pass for the

ernment to rifle through a reporterrsquos n

bookrdquo wrote District Court Judge Le

Brinkema adding that Risen was prote

by a limited ldquoreporterrsquos privilegerdquo unde

First Amendment

The government challenged that d

sion and in 2013 the US Court of App

for the Fourth Circuit in Richm

Virginia reinstated the subpoena arg

that the First Amendment did not pro

Risen from being forced to testify aghis source

In June 2014 Risenrsquos legal b

reached an insurmountable barrier when

US Supreme Court refused to take up

case affirming the lower court ruling N

Risen will have to testify or face conte

of court charges which can lead to e

imprisonment or up to $1000 a day in f

After the high court passed on the c

Risenrsquos attorney Joel Kurtzberg told

Committee to Protect Journalists (62

12 983157 October 2014 Extra

Risen case tests reportersrsquo power to revealgovernment wrongdoing

Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

by Lauren McCauley

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1316

Extra October 2014 983157

that he hopes the government wonrsquot hold

Risen in contempt ldquofor doing nothing other

than reporting the news and keeping his

promise to his sourcerdquo He noted that the

ldquoball is now in the governmentrsquos courtrdquo

On August 14 a coalition of journalists

media advocacy groups and independentmedia outlets delivered over 100000

signatures to the Department of Justice

calling on the Obama administration to drop

its subpoena

The petitionmdashorganized by Roots

Action along with FAIR the Center for

Media and Democracy Freedom of the

Press Foundation The Nation Institute and

The Progressivemdashargues that ldquowithout

confidentiality journalism would be

reduced to official storiesmdasha situation anti-

thetical to the First Amendmentrdquo

On the day the petition was turned in

Risen was joined by a number of free press

advocates including Radack and Solomon

at a press conference at the National Press

Club in Washington DC Speaking before

the roomful of reporters Risen said ldquoThe

real reason Irsquom doing this is for the future of

journalismrdquo

ldquoFreedom of the press is the most impor-

tant freedomrdquo agreed Delphine Halgand

director of Reporters Without Bordersrsquo Wash-

ington office who also spoke at the press

conference ldquoIt is the freedom that allows usto verify the existence of all other freedomsrdquo

When asked about the Risen case at a

closed-door meeting with a group of

journalists Attorney General Eric

Holder (New York Times 52814) report-

edly declared ldquoAs long as Irsquom attorney gen-

eral no reporter who is doing his job is

going to go to jailrdquo

Despite this pronouncement the prose-

cution of whistleblowers has become a

mainstay of Obamarsquos presidency

(Extra 911 FAIR Media

Advisory 82713) During his

time in office the DoJ has pur-

sued eight prosecutions of leakers

under the Espionage Act more

than double the total number of

such prosecutions since the law

was enacted

McClatchy News (62013)

also revealed the existence of agovernment employee ldquotattletalerdquo

program By having government

employees spying and reporting

on each other the Obama initia-

tive dubbed ldquoInsider Threatrdquo aims

to thwart future leakers

According to the Reporters Without Bor-

dersrsquo annual Press Freedom Index (21214)

the US dropped 13 positions from 2013 to

2014 and now ranks 46th worldwide The

report notes

In the US the hunt for leaks and

whistleblowers serves as a warning to

those thinking of satisfying a public

interest need for information about the

imperial prerogatives assumed by the

worldrsquos leading power

Advocates say to ensure the protectio

of journalists in this post-911 surveillan

state it is critical to pass a federal shie

law that will protect reporters from beinforced to disclose confidential informatio

or sources in court (Most states have som

sort of law or protection in place)

There is a shield bill currently makin

its way through CongressmdashS 987 know

as the Free Flow of Information Act

though there is concern that the legislatio

has too many loopholes that allow the go

ernment to claim broad ldquonational security

exceptions and leave some whistleblowe

without protection (Dissenter 51214)

The New York Timesrsquo James Risen at the Roots Action Press Conference

at the National Press Club in Washington DC ldquoThe real reason Irsquom doing

this is for the future of journalismrdquo

NYT Has Benefitted From Leakersmdashbut Not Vice Versa

A s the Department of Justice doggedly pursues Pulitzer Prizendashwinner James Risen the New York

Times has been forced to enter the fray of the governmentrsquos so-called ldquowar on informationrdquo

The Times like many mainstream publications has openly acknowledged its practice of seek-

ing government approval for sensitive stories (2613) and often serves as a government mouthpiece by

publishing sanctioned ldquoleaksrdquo of information

And although the Times has benefitted enormously from actual leaks of government secrets that

were vital for the public to know it has historically maintained a cautiousmdashif not skepticalmdashdistance

from those who risked their careers and liberty to reveal such truths

Despite publishing the invaluable Pentagon Papers which exposed government deceptions about the

Vietnam War the Times refused to provide leaker Daniel Ellsberg with any help in his criminal case

According to Ellsberg thenndashexecutive editor Abe Rosenthal told the whistleblower that the paper had no

policy for supporting a source who is being prosecuted for leaking information

ldquoThe Timesrdquo Ellsberg explained ldquothinks of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken the lawrdquo

The paper has given even less support to Chelsea Manning despite having partnered with Wikileaks

in July 2010 to release important revelations from the hun-

dreds of thousands of classified war logs and State

Department cables revealed by Manning

In addition to disparaging her character and questioning

her motives in a Bill Keller column (31113) the Times treat-

ed Manningrsquos trial as a noneventmdashnot sending a single

reporter and only running one AP wire story (123012) on it

Later New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan

(51212) wrote that the paper had ldquomissed the boatrdquo by not

covering Manningrsquos pretrial testimony

The paper did run an editorial (1114) supporting NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden however that was months

after an earlier editorial (8613) essentially calling for Snowden to be extradited for prosecution

In a January 2013 column about the prosecution of Chelsea Manning journalist Glenn Greenwald

warned corporate media that they ldquomight want to take a serious interestrdquo in the case and ldquomarshal oppo-

sition to what is being done to Bradley Manningrdquo

He continued ldquoIf not out of concern for the injustices to which he is being subjected then out of self-

interest to ensure that their reporters and their past and future whistleblowing sources cannot be simi-

larly persecutedrdquo

It seems that time has comemdashLMcC

Daniel Ellsberg The New York Times ldquothinks

of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken

the lawrdquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1416

In a recent interview with Times colleague

Maureen Dowd (81714) Risen refer-

enced Obamarsquos ldquomost transparent admin-

istrationrdquo claim

ldquoItrsquos hypocriticalrdquo Risen said ldquoA lot of

peopledonrsquot want to believe that Obama

wants to crack down on the press and

whistleblowers But he does Hersquos the great-

est enemy to press freedom in a generationrdquo

Among those who have come to Risenrsquos

defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prizendashwin-

ning reporters who each signed the Roots

Action petition and issued personal state-

ments on his behalf

Included in the testimonies is one from

Risenrsquos New York Times colleague Barry

Bearak who wrote that Risen ldquois carrying

the banner for every American journalistrdquo

ldquoIf he goes to jailrdquo Bearak continued

good bit of our nationrsquos freedom wil

locked away with himrdquo 983150

Lauren McCauley is an assistant edito

the website Common Dreams and a d

mentary producer her most recent fil

Mississippi Messiah about civil ri

leader James Meredith

14 983157 October 2014 Extra

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

Who Rules Public TV

by Aldo Guerrero

T

he corporate and financial sectors have

an overwhelming presence on the gov-

erning boards of major public televi-

sion stations a new FAIR study findsThe study looked at the occupations of

the current trustees of WNET (New York

CityNewark) WGBH (Boston) WETA

(Washington DC) WTTW (Chicago) and

KCET (Los Angeles)

Out of these boardsrsquo 182 total members

152mdashor 84 percentmdashhave corporate back-

grounds including 138 who are executives

at elite businesses Another 14 members

appear to be on the board because of their

familiesrsquo corporate-derived wealth often

with a primary affiliation as an officer of a

family charitable foundationMany board members are affiliated with

major corporations like Boeing Wells Fargo

and Citigroup Seventy-five board mem-

bers nearly half of all those with corporate

ties are financial industry executives

Another 24 are corporate lawyers

Public TV board members without corpo-

rate ties were few and far between Of

these nine are categorized as academics

while six are affiliated with nonprofit groups

(not counting family grant-making founda-

tions) There are three former government

officials two non-corporate lawyers two

journalists one religious educator and a for-

mer principal of a magnet school Six board

members are station insiders

WNET WGBH and WETA are consid-

ered to be the ldquobig threerdquo PBS affiliates

producing a large share of programming for

PBS nationally WTTW and KCET were

included because they serve two of the

largest US metropolitan areas Four of these

stations are affiliated with PBS KCET dis-

affiliated in 2010 but remains a prominent

regional public television station

The boards range in size from WTTWrsquos

63 members to KCETrsquos 20 WTTW and

WNET have the most corporate representa-

tion on their boards each at 92 percent

KCETrsquos board is 80 percent corporate-affil-

iated while DCrsquos WETA is at 73 percent

Corporate-tied board members were least

common at WGBH where they still made

up two-thirds of the board

One hundred sixteen members (64 per-

cent) are male It was not possible to do a

breakdown of board membersrsquo ethnicities

Last year the issue of corporate influence

over public television was thrust into the

spotlight when the film Park Avenue

Money Power and the American Dream was

broadcast by PBS affiliate WNET (NewYorker 52713 FAIR Blog 52113) The

film examined the concentration of wealth

and power in the United States by lookin

the super-rich residents of 740

Avenuemdashwho included then-WNET b

member and major station donor DKoch a billionaire industrialist well kn

for his donations to right-wing causes

WNET president Neil Shapiro was

to be ldquoconcernedrdquo about a film critica

one of his biggest funders WNET ende

not receiving a large donation from Koc

potentially in the seven-figure rang

because Park Avenue was broadcast

New Yorkerrsquos Jane Mayer reported

PBS then preemptively pulled the

on Citizen Koch another film that exam

the Koch familyrsquos political influenc

apparently practicing self-censorship inattempt to placate a wealthy donor K

would eventually resign from the WNboard of trustees Since then a camp

has been launched demanding that K

also resign from the board of Bost

WGBH where he is still a trustee

High-powered executives likes David Koch overwhelm

dominate the boards of trustees at public TV stations

This documentary caused trouble when it aired on WNET

because of the money and power on the PBS affiliatersquos

board

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 216

2 983157 October 2014 Extra

EDITOR Jim Naureckas

PUBLISHER Deborah Thomas

PROGRAM DIRECTOR Janine Jackson

SENIOR ANALYST Steve Rendall

ACTIVISM DIRECTOR Peter Hart

Columnists

Rania Khalek Josmar Trujillo

Contributing Writer

Neil deMause

InternsVolunteers

Aldo Guerrero

Associates

Hollie Ainbinder Robin Andersen Kim Deterline

Laura Flanders Carolyn Francis Karl Grossman

Edward Herman Jim Horwitz William Hoynes

Sam Husseini Norman Solomon

Advisory BoardJames Abourezk Edward Asner Ben Bagdikian

Jackson Browne Helen Caldicott Noam Chomsky

Mark Dowie Barbara Ehrenreich Susan Faludi

Phillip Frazer Herbert Chao Gunther Doug Henwood

Dolores Huerta Nicholas Johnson Paula Kamen

Frances Moore Lappeacute Katha Pollitt Tim Robbins

Susan Sarandon Stacey Sher Bob Siegel Eleanor Smeal

Steven Van Zandt Helen Zia

FAIR FOUNDER

Jeff Cohen

COUNTERSPIN ENGINEERS

Alex Noyes Kelly Spivey

LEGAL COUNSEL

William Schaap Joel Kupferman

FAIRExtra Editorial Office

124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

Tel 212-633-6700

fairfairorg

httpwwwfairorg

Subscription Inquiries

fairfairorg

Extra (ISSN 0895-2310) is published 10 times a year

monthly except for JulyAugust and JanuaryFebruary byFAIR (Fairness amp Accuracy In Reporting Inc) US amp

Canadian subscriptions are $25 per year (foreign $48) write

to Extra Subscription Service PO Box 170 Congers NY

10920-9930 call 800-847-3993 or email extracambey-

westcom Periodicals postage paid at NY NY 10001 and

additional mailing offices POSTMASTER Send address

changes to Extra Subscription Service PO Box 170

Congers NY 10920-9930 copy FAIR 2014 All rights reserved

PRINTED IN THE USA

ExtraThe Magazine of FAIRmdashThe Media Watch Group

3 SoundBites

RACE LENS

4 FTP Film Tha Police

Communities of color use media to protect themselves

by Josmar Trujillo

5 Michael Brown Had a Father

But will Ferguson shift media ideas on lsquofixingrsquo black men

by Janine Jackson

COUNTERSPIN INTERVIEW

7 lsquoThe Black Voice Is in Jeopardyrsquo

Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

9 Both Sides Now

Plans to ease poverty donrsquot have to workmdashso long as theyrsquore bipartisan

by Neil deMause

10 NYT Fails First Test of New Torture Policy

Paper says it will call it what it ismdashwhen it reports on it at all

by Peter Hart

12 Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

Risen case tests reportersrsquo power to reveal government wrongdoing

by Lauren McCauley

FAIR STUDY

14 Who Rules Public TV

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

by Aldo Guerrero

Volume 27 Number 9 October 201

Contents

FAIR the national media watch group has been offering well-documented criticism

of media bias and censorship since 1986 We work to invigorate the First Amendmen

by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices

that marginalize public interest minority and dissenting viewpoints As an anti-cen

sorship organization we expose neglected news stories and defend working journal

ists when they are muzzled As a progressive group we believe that structural reform

is needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates establish independent pub-

lic broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 316

Extra October 2014 983157

Labor Leaders Left Out

FAIR (Media Advisory 82814) looked

at how often labor leaders appeared

on the networksrsquo Sunday morning

chat showsmdashand couldnrsquot find a

single one from the beginning of

2014 through late August

Thatrsquos not to say that labor issueswerenrsquot discussedmdashwe found Repub-

lican lawmakers talking about the

need to send a message to teachers

unions for example But worker

representatives werenrsquot invited to

the conversation

Meanwhile CEOs made a dozen

appearances on the Sunday shows

including the current or former heads

of Apple AOL Starbucks and FedEx

Former Hewlett Packard CEO and

Republican candidate Carly Fiorina

alone appeared four times

It wasnrsquot a total shutout for labor

though An ABC quiz segment

(3214) asked which American presi-

dent was once head of a labor union

the answer was Ronald Reagan Yes

the only labor leader mentioned on a

Sunday chat show was the famously

anti-labor president

All in a Dayrsquos Work When journalists at SportsIllustrated

com part of the Time Inc magazine

group were facing layoffs manage-

ment ranked them on various quali-

ties on a scale from 2 to 10 Alongwith such journalistic criteria as

ldquoquality of writingrdquo and ldquoimpact of

storiesnewsworthinessrdquo the journal-

ists were judged on whether or not

he or she ldquoproduces content that is

beneficial to advertiser relationshiprdquo

(Gawker 81814) Apparently thatrsquos

seen as part of a reporterrsquos job at

magazines like Time Incrsquos where

editors are supervised by the busi-

ness staff (FAIR Blog 1214)

OrsquoReillyrsquosSelective StatisticsldquoOver the weekend the New York

Times called for the USA to legalize

marijuana all over the placerdquo Fox

Newsrsquo Bill OrsquoReilly (72814) fulmi-

nated ldquoNo surprise that paperrsquos far

left on its editorial page so its stanceis predictablerdquo (Legalizing marijuana

is a ldquofar-leftrdquo stance taken by a

majority of AmericansmdashGallup

102213)

OrsquoReilly disdainfully quoted a line

from the Times editorial (72714)mdash

ldquoThe result is racist falling dispropor-

tionately on young black men ruining

their lives and creating new genera-

tions of career criminalsrdquomdashand then

attempted to set the record straight

According to the US Sentencing

Commission about 5000 crimi-

nals were sentenced for marijua-

na offenses in 2013 at the federal

leveland here is the kicker 63

percent of those convicted on the

federal level were Hispanic Just

11 percent black

Typically OrsquoReillyrsquos statistics were

deceptive Just before that quoted

sentence the Times noted that

ldquothere were 658000 arrests for mari-

juana possession in 2012rdquomdashover-

whelmingly at the state and local

level And as the ACLU (613) pointed

out ldquoMarijuana use is roughly equalamong blacks and whites yet blacks

are 373 times as likely to be arrested

for marijuana possessionrdquo

ldquoItrsquos about race not drugsrdquo

said OrsquoReilly Thatrsquos the one part he

got right

Sourcersquos Secret CIA TiesldquoRevelations from former NSA con-

tract worker Edward Snowden

harmed national securityrdquo Thatrsquos the

claim an NPR report by Dina Temple-

Raston (Morning Edition 8114) put

forthmdashciting not just anonymous ldquoUS

government officialsrdquo but ldquoa new

reportby big data firm Recorded

Futurerdquo as well

The reportrsquos evidence is flimsymdash

basically itrsquos that militant groups

changed their software after

Snowdenrsquos revelations though the

reportrsquos own timeline shows these

changes started before Snowden

went public (FAIR Blog 81314)

But even fishier is NPRrsquos lack of

disclosure Recorded Future as

listeners were not told is a project

launched with the financial backing of

the CIA and is a registered vendor for

the NSA itself (Intercept 81214)

Traditional Pot vs Social KettleldquoSocial Media Silences Debaterdquo

declared a New York Times headline

(82614) over a story reporting that

outlets like Facebook and Twitter

are ldquotamping down diversity of opin-

ion and stifling debate about public

affairsrdquo As opposed to the diverse

opinion and free-wheeling debate to

be had in asocial media like the

Times presumably

The counterintuitive claim that

social media repress discussion is

based on a study that looked at

whether people shared political view

with their family and friends using

just one topic as a case study NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden Ye

researchers found that people are

more reluctant to use the Internet to

discuss disturbing revelations about

government surveillancemdashand forthat the Times blames social media

not government surveillance 983150

S o u n d B i t e s

Bill OrsquoReilly

Carly Fiorina

Correction

The September 2014 issue of

Extra published the wrong

diagram to illustrate the Turing

test This is the correct diagram

ldquoTelling Blows Against Hamasrdquo How the New York Times (82214)

framed a photo from Gaza of ldquorelatives of three Palestinian children who

medics said were killed in an Israeli airstrikersquo

Get the latest blog posts

and Action Alerts

at fairorg

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 416

4 983157 October 2014 Extra

R A C E L E N S

Communities of color use media to protect themselves

FTP Film Tha Police

by Josmar Trujillo

The arrest of Ramsey Orta in August on

gun charges would have barely regis-

tered on the daily crime blotter in New

York City had he not been at the center

of the most controversial police-related

death in the cityrsquos recent memory

Police choking Eric Garner to death dur-

ing a routine arrest on Staten Island made

national news in July Orta a local resident

filmed the entire encounter and the video

became the rallying point for a renewed

push against police brutality

Shortly thereafter the police shooting

death of Michael Brown in FergusonMissouri brought mainstream media out by

the truckloads to cover the ensuing protests

mdashand the heavy-handed militarized police

response to that communityrsquos outrage

In the case of Orta who says he was set up

by police as retribution for the Garner video

(Daily News 8414) the decision to film the

encounter is representative of a growing trend

of copwatchingmdashwhich is exactly what it

sounds like filming cops Even as traditional

media cover the Ferguson police through

clouds of teargas communities of color are

learning to rely on themselves to report onwhat happens around them and to them

As Malkia Cyril pointed out recently on

CounterSpin (82214mdashsee page 7) the

ldquodecentralized nature of the Internetrdquo

allowed for ldquodemocratizedrdquo coverage of the

Ferguson protests In contrast to corporate

media bewildered when a Midwestern

police department resembled Egyptian

national policemdashldquoThis doesnrsquot make any

senserdquo CNNrsquos Jake Tapper declared (FAIR

Blog 81914)mdashstreet reporters recognize

police aggression as part of a pattern theyrsquove

had to confront in order to document

Citizen journalism is a potentially inspir-

ing development in bursting the corporate

media bubble overall but particularly for

cases of police brutality both at the individ-

ual (Brown) and community (protesters)

levels The Web plays a crucial role for mar-

ginalized communities black and Latino in

particular by disseminating incidents media

wonrsquot covermdashor wonrsquot stop spinning

Somewhere in America during the

time it takes to read this column therersquoll

likely be an incident of police harassment

of the black and brown Whether or not

the incident is a story media canrsquot ignore

(involving a fatal encounter say or a

public figure like Harvard professor Skip

Gates) these encounters are the context

that surrounds high-profile incidents like

the ones in Staten Island and Ferguson This

includes racial profiling mass incarceration

and the long history of systemic brutality

Copwatching videos disseminated initial-

ly through decentralized Internet media

like Black Twitter can bring those expe-

riences to the national dialogue And videos

that donrsquot make national news can still make

the rounds on the Internet via sites focused

on street culture like World Star Hip Hop

or dedicated to police videos like the Free

Thought Project or Photography Is Not aCrimemdashwhich are best described as inver-

sions of the long-running show Cops show-

casing police encounters through the eyes of

the publicThe idea is that everyday people with

camera phones and access to the Internet

can put police aggression and misconduct

on blastmdashwith the hope of influencing opin-

ion and politics But there are at least two

factors in traditional media coverage that

make public perceptions of police difficult

to move even amid an avalanche of disturb-

ing amateur police videos

One is the traditional role of not just

media in general but criminal justice media

(reporters and outlets that focus on poli

and crime) specifically When hip-hop a

Talib Kweli criticized CNNrsquos Don Le

(Politico 82114) for failing to repre

his and other protestersrsquo experiences

couldrsquove added the critique emanating f

social media that traditional media w

adding to the criminalization of black

by their choice of pictures used on air

Jazeera America 81414)

These distortions happen often at

local level as well culminating in m

coverage that favors official narratives

community input (FAIR Blog 619

Likely a result of the well-known tend

to favor power-holders in order to pres

access bias in criminal justice media

deeply prejudice public opinion

The other factor affects media

whole the issue of diversity W

reporters covering a police scan

especially one in which race is key are

ly less equipped by experience to un

stand the situation We use all sortexperts in other fields to add depth into

ries they may have insight into So wh

we send white reporters into communitie

color to cover police brutality

Polls find whites have a generally fa

able perception of police (Pew 825

Huffington Post 82114)mdashand rarely

in overpoliced communities The urge

and proximity to the issue of police bru

ty is one that residents of communitie

color are best suited to document Whic

why copwatching as an invaluable m

tool at their disposal is here to stay 983150

Ramsey Orta (left) who recorded the NYPD choking Eric

Garner to death

DC police officer preventing a citizen from using the

Amendment (Photography Is Not a Crime 9714)

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 516

Any effort to improve the lives of black

men that meets with the hearty

approval of Bill OrsquoReilly ought to set

off a few alarm bells But My Brotherrsquos

Keeper an initiative announced by Barack

Obama in February was received benignly

by the corporate press with the closest thing

to criticism being ldquoShould he have acted

earlierrdquo (ABC This Week 3214)

Reports displayed a telling vagueness

MBK was described as ldquoa program aimed at

giving young men of color a shot at successrdquo

(NBC Nightly News 22714) an effort ldquoto

reverse underachievement among young

black and Hispanic malesrdquo (AP 22714)

and as ldquocommitments from foundations and

businesses to help keep young minority men

in the classroom and out of prisonrdquo

(Washington Post 22814) ABCrsquos Diane

Sawyer (22714) called it ldquoa plan to help

kids succeed even when theyrsquore angry and

have made mistakesrdquo

Serious sounds were made about the

problem George Stephanopoulos (This

Week 3214) presented as ldquothe fact thatyoung black men are more likely than other

Americans to drop out of school be sent to

prison or end up murderedrdquo but with little

interest in ascertaining just how MBK with

its focus on mentoring or ldquohigh standards

and up-close motivationrdquo (CBS EveningNews 22714) would address it

Myriad deeper questions were left to big

mediarsquos margins USA Today (3314)

ran Tavis Smileyrsquos critique that ldquowhat

these young brothers really need is not so

much to be lsquokeptrsquo but to have their human-ity and dignity respectedrdquo A Chicago Tri-

bune source (22814) likened the plan to ldquoa

band-aid on a gunshot woundrdquo

The New York Times (31214) noted

such core concerns as MBKrsquos exclusion of

women and girls its reinforcement of patri-

archal norms and its reliance on philan-

thropic noblesse oblige over government

action but consigned them to its ldquoRoom for

Debaterdquo feature

Independent media gave critics more

space The Nationrsquos Mychal Denzel

Smith (22814) for example sug-

gested that despite some admirable

aspects MBK

ignores the root problem We can

turn every black and brown boy

into a ldquorespectablerdquo citizen But

the moment we do the rules for

what constitutes ldquorespectablerdquo

will change Thatrsquos how racism

works

At Salon (3614) Brittney

Cooper called out the proposalrsquos

male-only focus given that black

women and girls fare as poorly and

even worse in some ways includ-

ing the fact that ldquosingle black women have

the lowest net wealth of any group with

research showing a median wealth of $100rdquo

B

ut itrsquos not surprising that corporate

reporters in the main saw little to ques-

tion in the idea that entrenched socio-economic disparities could be meaningfully

addressed without systemic change or even

new resources that the fundamental prob-

lem facing men of color is ldquobrokenrdquo fami-

lies in need of a dominant male and that a

proper point of emphasis is that as Brian

Williams (NBC Nightly News 22714)

explained ldquothey cannot blame the circum-

stances of their birthrdquo

These media have a long inglorious his-

tory of singling out black males as ldquosuper-

predatorsrdquo (Extra 198) and shiftless grifters

and in some ways the ldquouniquely endan-geredrdquo black male is a variant rather than an

antidote to that pathological depiction The

narrative may start by talking about ldquohur-

dlesrdquo black men face but on examination it

generally locates those obstacles within

black men themselves including those who

as Stephanopoulos put it ldquoend up murderedrdquo

When Michael Brownmdashwith a father in

his life and accepted to collegemdashwas

shot dead in the street in Ferguson

Missouri by a white police officer corpora

media had a chance to revisit the assumptio

that what black men need most is a mento

But rather than question the analysis they

embraced media instead found everythin

ldquonewrdquo Suddenly we learned that US poli

forces are militarized Some police disr

spect black people Different communitihave different experiences

Thatrsquos not to belittle media coverag

which was better than it might have bee

There was the predictable culture-blamin

from the predictable quarters (See MB

booster Bill OrsquoReillymdash82614mdashwho di

missed protestersrsquo concerns because the id

of white privilege is a ldquobig lierdquo expound

by ldquorace hustlersrdquo) But when you can fin

a column headlined ldquoIn Defense of Lootin

in the Daily Mississippian (82614) y

know itrsquos not quite business as usual

USA Today (81514) reported on tincidence of killings by police (at least 40

a year) and decried the lack of reliable dat

The Christian Science Monitor (8211

explored the damage inflicted by St Lou

segregation and white flight The NeRepublic (82014) explained the partic

lars of ldquoself defenserdquo laws in Missouri an

elsewhere that combined with ldquoentrench

racial and occupational biasesrdquo make hom

cide convictions of police officers li

Fergusonrsquos Darren Wilson ldquobasical

Extra October 2014 983157

C O V E R S T O R Y

But will Ferguson shift media ideas on lsquofixingrsquo black men

Michael Brown Had a Father

by Janine Jackson

The presence of two parents in Michael Brownrsquos life (Michael Brown S

left and Lesley McSpadden) did not shake the prevailing media assum

tion that what young black men need is a man in their lives

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 616

6 983157 October 2014 Extra

impossiblerdquo All of this helpfully moves the

conversation from black peoplersquos ldquofeelingsrdquo

to demonstrable facts

But big media donrsquot really have them-

selves to credit for the elevation of

Brownrsquos murder beyond lamentable anec-

dote They were largely reacting to the vig-

orous public outcry and to the Ferguson

Police Departmentrsquos especially heavy-hand-

ed response including assaults on reportersthemselves And they were struggling to keep

up as those following the story turned

instead to Black Twitter and other online

sources for news and perspective (See next

page)

Now mainstream media are asking

whether Ferguson will be a ldquomomentrdquo or a

ldquomovementrdquo for black activists but they

might more appropriately ask the same of their

own engagement with the issues Ferguson

puts on the table As Salonrsquos Cooper

(82614) put it real progress would entail

a real commitment to due process pro-

tection of voting rights a livable wage

the dissolution of the prisonindustrial

complex funding of good public edu-

cation at both K-12 and college levels

a serious commitment to affirmative

action food security and full reproduc-

tive justice for all women Those are

the kinds of conditions under which

black communities and all communi-

ties could thrive

A failure to see things on that scale to

treat what wersquore now calling ldquoFergusonrdquo not

as aberrant but as reflective of US social

systems and institutions risks setting us

back to appeals to individual betterment the

ldquopull up your pantsrdquo logic critics see in

MBK

And not insignificantly a focus on the

individual over the structural tells white

people that racism is a personal thing

they ldquojust donrsquot understandrdquo and therefore

canrsquot fight that progress is a zero-sum gamein which therersquos nothing people of con-

science can do together Recognition of the

irreducibility (beyond class culture cloth-

ing or family structure) of anti-black racism

is laudable and overdue But it need not

erase the non-black anti-racists who could

be engaged in resisting policies and prac-

tices that overwhelmingly hurt people of

color like for just one example the practice

of funding police departments with low-

level warrants that target the poormdashas spot-

lighted by the Daily Beastrsquos Michael Daly

(82214) who is white

Ferguson could be a turning point for

media coverage of racism But should cor-

porate media ldquoforgetrdquo what they now sug-

gest they are learningmdashas they have

previous ldquomomentsrdquo (Extra 792 8

the good news is that every day more

ple are talking around them and mo

forward without them 983150

Extra receives no money from advertisers

or corporate underwriters and depends on

subscribers for its existence Please consider

subscribing or spread the word by giving a

gift subscription to Extra Choose a

traditional print subscription a digital PDF

edition or both together

I want to subscribe to the printedition of Extra983151 Yes Send me a two-year subscription

(20 issues) to Extra for $45

983151 I want a one-year subscription (10 issues)

to Extra for $25

983151 Irsquom a subscriber please renew me early

(Your expiration date is on your mailing

label above your name)

983151 One year (10 issues) for $25

983151 Two years (20 issues) for $45

Irsquod like to have the digital edition983151 Irsquod like a two-year digital subscription to

Extra for $27

983151 I want a one-year digital subscription toExtra for $15

Want both Get print + digital983151 One-year print + digital (pdf) subscription

only $35

983151 Two-year print + digital (pdf) subscription

only $65

Name______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City _______________________________________________

StateZip ___________________________________________

Email Address_______________________________________

983151 MasterCard 983151 VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No________________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature___________________________________________

Journalism in the Public Interest

To order

fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorg

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

fairor

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 716

Extra October 2014 983157

marginalized in mainstream media The

numbers of black journalists able to work inmainstream media has decreased over the

last 10 years significantly

And what we find is that both these jour-

nalists and the community journalists that

wersquore talking about on Twitter have found

social media to be an outlet to be a way to

share their work in a way that wasnrsquot able to

happen on CNN MSNBC or any of the

other cable news outlets Because cable is

owned by mega-corporations and doesnrsquot

allow for the kind of independent voice that

a more social platform on the Internet

allows forSo Black Twittermdashreminiscent of and

reflecting the black blog an independent

black voicemdashthatrsquos what really brought the

story of Ferguson to the majority of black

audiences

CS On the one hand you want to say that

itrsquos not the technology thatrsquos key I mean

media and other powers could have tried to

listen to black people if they were writing

on parchment you know But at the same

time the technology and the kind of com-

munication that it makes possible is some-

thing different isnrsquot it

MC Absolutely The decentralized nature

of the Internet allows for a level of democ-

ratized voice that wersquove never seen I mea

the Internetmdashas a platform as a vehicle fvoice in black communitiesmdashhas becom

one of the most powerful ways to bypass th

exclusionary and discriminatory mai

stream media And because of that becau

of its decentralized and democratiz

nature black people are very conscious

the need to fight to maintain their online an

digital voice

CS Letrsquos talk about that fight We know th

for corporate media this story is going to g

away Every racist act in corporate media

an anecdote Wersquore told that things ldquoraiquestionsrdquo when they might more approp

ately be said to answer them We hea

ldquoGosh this doesnrsquot look like America

when it looks exactly like America

And Ta-Nehisi Coates [Atlantic 8151

wrote recently about the ldquopolitics of chan

ing the subjectrdquo You know Letrsquos talk abo

black folks killing each other

All of this is why even when dece

coverage happens it feels like reinventin

the wheel and it points up the need for

sustained space to have a conversation th

doesnrsquot just serve as corrective of that dom

inant narrative and stop there but mov

forward So what is the state of play on t

fight to have the Internet be that sort

space

MC Right now as the people of Ferguso

are on the front lines demanding justice f

yet another murder of a young black man

unarmedmdashblack people are also on the fro

lines to maintain the right to speak onli

about the rampant police brutality in o

communitiesAnd one of the front lines that black pe

ple are fighting on is the fight for the ope

Internet Black communities across th

country are saying loud and clear that th

want to keep the Internet open We unde

stand that the only way that the court

Verizon v FCC said very clearly that t

only way the Federal Communicatio

Commission can enforce non-discrimin

tion rules online is to reclassify broadban

as a Title II common carrier service

There likely would have been media cover-

age of the Ferguson Missouri police killingof Michael Brown and the public protests

that followed But itrsquos hard to imagine that

the tone of that coverage would be the same

mdashwith stories validating black peoplersquos

anger questioning the militarization of

police and challenging mediarsquos criminaliza-

tion of people of colormdashwere it not for the

forceful intervention of black social media

where so-called ldquomainstreamrdquo perspectives

werenrsquot just called out but circumvented

Many people will tell you they didnrsquot

learn what was happening in Fergusonmdash

much less why it matteredmdashfrom the paperor the TV at all The implications of that fact

inform the work of Malkia Cyril executive

director of the Center for Media Justice

which is also home to the Media Action

Grassroots Network (MAG-Net) Counter-

Spinrsquos Janine Jackson talked to her by

phone from the Bay Area

CounterSpin Whatrsquos happening in Ferguson

isnrsquot a story about the Internet of course

but it has put in high relief the need for

black people to tell our own stories in our

own voices and not to wait until somebody

else decides the storyrsquos important Before

we talk about the threats to that space whose

power wersquore just discovering letrsquos talk for a

minute about that power I was sort of tick-

led to see David Carr at the New YorkTimes [81814] credit Twitter per se for

showing that something significant was

underway in Ferguson Letrsquos put a finer

point on it It was particular folks using

Twitter and other tools to tell this story

wasnrsquot it

Malkia Cyril Yes I mean the lingo ldquoBlack

Twitterrdquo isnrsquot about the company at all Itrsquos

about the hundreds of black blogs inde-

pendent black blogs and black bloggers

websites individual pundits that used the

social media platform to microblog and talk

about what they see as the primary issues

affecting black communities

And one of the reasons that is so impor-

tant is because these journalistsmdashblack

journalistsmdashhave been slowly excluded and

Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

lsquoThe Black Voice Is in Jeopardyrsquo

C O U N T E R S P I N I N T E R V I E W

Malkia Cyril ldquoThe Internetmdashas a platform as a vehicle for

voice in black communitiesmdashhas become one of the most

powerful ways to bypass the exclusionary and discriminato-

ry mainstream mediardquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 816

8 983157 October 2014 Extra

MC It was never a meaningful separation

and civil rights activists in the 1960s knew

that very well when they took television

news station WLBT to task for their failure

to cover segregation in the South And in

fact that casemdashthe case of WLBTmdash

became the defining case that allowed for

public comment in media policy processes

So civil rights organizations have long been

an advocate for media as a civil rights issue

Itrsquos only as media and telecommunica-tions have become so lucrative itrsquos only as

telecommunications companies have used

the buyouts of our communities as a public

relations strategy that these issues have

become technocratic wonky and separate

from the core issues of social justice

What we know what Ferguson shows

us what it shows me is that in fact there is

no path to victory to change without the

visibility and representation that media pro-

vides And that as long as that media is

Now let me explain that for a minute

because people say ldquoWell what is Title IIrdquo

Title II simply means that the Internet

should be treated as a public utility it

should be regulated like a public utility

Some organizations are concerned that if we

regulate the Internet as a public utility itrsquoll

kill innovation But what black communi-

ties know very well is two things One

public utilitiesmdashwhen they are truly pub-

licmdashare secure and reliable So thatrsquos num-ber one We want a reliable platform for

independent voices and treating it like a

utility regulating it as such makes it a civil

right that we can access publicly So thatrsquos

number one

Number two some organizations and

individuals have been concerned that if we

treat the Internet like a public utility that a

future FCC that a future Congress will

come along and take that away And to that

I think black communities are very clear

When we fought against segregation in

education we did not accept anything lessthan the ruling in Brown v Board of

Education There were rulings prior to that

There were court cases for more than a

decade prior to that victory We didnrsquot

accept any piecemeal half-baked legisla-

tion We only took what was morally right

and just And that was an end to segregation

in education And thatrsquos what wersquore talking

about right now

Ultimately reclassifying broadband

would ensure no segregation online that all

voices would be able to join the public con-

versation and that black voices in particular

would be able to be raised around issues

like police brutality like the incident in

Ferguson And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

for

CS Used to be when you told someone that

you were working with media policy they

would come back with ldquoOh well I do real

activism Irsquom in the streetrdquo and media is

somehow an ancillary issue That dayrsquos over

isnrsquot it I mean not everyone can work on

every issue but the separation of media pol-icy issues from other issues that we care

about is not a meaningful separation

owned operated and controlled by

largest Internet service providers the lar

cable companies the largest private f

lies the black voice is in jeopardy An

the black voice is in jeopardy black

dom is in jeopardy

And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

Wersquore not fighting for some back-end t

nical technocratic issue Wersquore fighting

the cause of black freedom Wersquore figh

for the same cause that all the black newpers right after slavery were fighting

Wersquore fighting for an end to any kind of

tem that violates or limits our voice

that is what wersquore talking about here to

Itrsquos not about media policy Itrsquos about

justice983150

Malkia Cyrilrsquos recent article ldquoThank

Black Internet for Bringing Ferguso

Merdquo appeared on the Huffington

(81514) among other outlets

Wear FAIR Everywhere You Go

If yoursquore like us you donrsquot trust the corporate

media to tell it straightmdashor report the stories that

matter

So why not spread the word

Send a bold message--and support FAIR--with our

Donrsquot Trust Corporate Media shirt

The shirts are 100 cotton and union-mademdash

just check the labelmdashand are available in Small

Medium Large and XLarge

Limited quantities available so order yours todaymdashthese wonrsquot last long

T-shirtmdash$20

983151 Sm 983151 Med 983151 Large 983151 XLarge

Includes shipping no international orders please

Name________________________________________________

Address ______________________________________________

City _________________________________________________

StateZip _____________________________________________

983151 MasterCard 983151 VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No__________________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature_____________________________________________

To order

fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

fairo

Join the Conversation

If yoursquore on Twitter connect with FAIR friendsand staff about the issues that matter to you themost Be a part of the discussion while stayingup-to-date on the latest news and information

Follow us FAIRmediawatch

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 916

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1016

10 983157 October 2014 Extra

pushing them as a way to tackle poverty

This in the eyes of many news outlets was a

welcome shift toward ldquobipartisanshiprdquo

ldquoRyanrsquos poverty plan mixes partiesrsquo

ideasrdquo trumpeted the Milwaukee Journal-

Sentinel (72414) saying its combination

of EITC hikes with block grants ldquoaspires to

find some common ground between right

and leftrdquo ldquoCreative ideas are rare in Wash-

ingtonrdquo asserted a Boston Herald editorial

(72814) adding that ldquoRyanrsquos approachdestroys the Democratic narrative that

Republicans want to permanently dismantle

the safety netrdquo

In fact Ryanrsquos plan was deemed so

ldquobipartisanrdquo that some worried aloud that it

could hurt his standing with Republicans

Washington Post columnist Melinda Henne-

berger (72414) citing Ryanrsquos statements

that he wanted to ldquotalk about how we can

repair the safety netrdquo and have the govern-

ment ldquoprovide resourcesrdquo to poor people

questioned whether it meant Ryan was giv-

ing up on seeking the 2016 Republican pres-idential nomination

And LA Times columnist Doyle

McManus (72714) under the headline

ldquoHas the GOP Gone Softrdquo singled out

Ryan for proposing policies that ldquomay face

their toughest audience inside the GOPrdquo

For the media to evaluate economic poli-

cies based on whether they please both

Democrats and Republicans is nothing

new as wersquove witnessed on battles over

everything from the stimulus plan (FAIR

Blog 2209) to the debt ceiling (FAIRBlog 71511) In fact during the battles

over welfare reform itself back in 1996

coverage largely focused on which bills

could win the support of both partiesrsquo lead-

ershipmdashwith the San Francisco Chronicleeditorial board (72796) writing approving-

ly that Congress had ldquowhipped itself into a

fair frenzy of bipartisanshiprdquo with welfare

reform and other bills

The problem with bipartisanship as a

moral touchstone should be obvious Not

only does it define sensible policies as beingwhatever the leadership of the Democrats and

Republicans can agree on but it allows one

party to shift the debate by moving its own

goalposts and thus what counts as bipartisan

While the Washington Post editorial

board (72414) singled out shifting money to

EITC as the ldquomost bipartisan part of Mr

Ryanrsquos planrdquo the Timesrsquo Irwin (72414)

acknowledged that it was hardly a new one

for conservatives ldquoWhat was once a conser-

vative idea created in the Gerald Ford admin-

istration and expanded by President Reagan

and both presidents Bush is now more con-

troversial on the rightrdquo since it would elimi-

nate income taxes for more poor Americans

making them what the Wall Street Journal(112002) once derided as ldquolucky duckiesrdquo

If the nationrsquos media were actually con-

cerned about finding programs that help

the poor itrsquos not hard For one therersquos the

food stamp program that Ryan wants toeliminate which has low overheadmdash95 per-

cent of spending goes directly to benefitsmdash

and which by itself lifts nearly 5 million

people out of poverty every year (NewRepublic 81613)

Or as the Center for Economic and

Policy Researchrsquos Shawn Fremstad (TheHill 72214) noted if Ryan truly wanted to

boost the earnings of the working poor

instead of work requirements and EITC

hikes he could accomplish the same t

by raising the federal minimum wage so

thing that is supported by 80 percen

Americans including a majority of Re

licans (Hart Research 72313)mdasha bip

san plan if ever there was one

But then helping the poor or even pu

ing poverty policies that most Americans

agree on isnrsquot really the point for Ry

supporters ldquoGiving people money re

does make them better-off Itrsquos better to more money to buy groceries and other b

necessities than lessrdquo admitted Salam

getting more money from the governm

doesnrsquot really make you less poorrdquo

In the world of punditry then itrsquos

about helping the poor afford groceries

about making sure that theyrsquove earned

right to deserve groceries That may be ldquob

tisanrdquomdashin the halls of Congress anywa

but that doesnrsquot make it smart policy 983150

Itrsquos not often that a media outletrsquos decision

to ldquorecalibrate its languagerdquo attracts much

attention But when itrsquos the New York

Times and the shift is about what to call

torture in the Newspaper of Record such

changes matter

In August 2014 10 years after the initial

revelations that made US torture an interna-

tional news story Times executive editor

Dean Baquet wrote a short piece for the

Times website (8714) stating that the word

ldquotorturerdquo would be used to describe ldquoinci-

dents in which we know for sure that inter-rogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an

effort to get informationrdquo

In other words the newspaper is now

accepting the reality that the term can be

accurately applied to some actions of the

United States Ten years ago when it was

revealed that the CIA was torturing ldquoWar on

Terrorrdquo prisoners criticsmdashincluding

FAIRmdashwere asking the Times to call US

torture by its name (FAIR Action Alert51404) The paper had officially or not

carved out an exception for the US gov

ment whereby torture would be descr

euphemistically as ldquoenhancedrdquo or ldquoha

interrogations

So this shift if it is to be considered a

significant comes a decade too late

thatrsquos the just the start Baquetrsquos reasonin

revealing He writes that the Times resi

the label for so long because ldquothe situa

was murkyrdquo and that the ldquoJustice Dep

ment insisted that the techniques did not

to the legal definition of lsquotorturersquordquo Su

most countries that practice torture wresist prosecuting themselves so itrsquos ha

a reasonable standard for a media outle

Perhaps most illuminating though

Baquetrsquos admission that the Jus

Departmentrsquos decision not to prosecute

torturers motivated the paperrsquos shift

government

has made clear that it will not prosecut

in connection with the interrogatio

program The result is that today th

Paper says it will call it what it ismdash when it reports on it at all

NYT Fails First Test of New Torture Policy

by Peter Hart

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1116

Extra October 2014 983157

debate is focused less on whether the

methods violated a statute or treaty

provision and more on whether they

worked

So the Times will call torture by its

name now that no one is likely to be prose-

cuted and because the debate eventually

became ldquofocusedrdquo on its practical benefits

Thus allegations of torture that are walled

off from legal accountability are safemdashassuming the paper even covers them at all

The first test of the New York Timesrsquo new

policy came with the release of an

August 11 Amnesty International report

on torture in Afghanistan Itrsquos a test the

Times failed

The report covered 10 discrete episodes

of torture and brutality that killed dozens of

Afghan civilians But the most explosive

stories concern the actions of a US Special

Operations unit that was linked to torture

killings and disappearances betweenNovember 2012 and February 2013 The

evidence gathered by Amnesty strongly

suggests that US personnel were intimately

involved In one especially harrowing

account an Afghan man named

Naimatullah talks about a raid on his fami-

lyrsquos home by US Special Forces

Naimatullah said that the Americans

brought two of his brothers

Esmatullah and Siddiqullah into two

separate rooms and started beating

them They also beat Hekmatullah in

the yard ldquoI could hear them beating the

othersrdquo Naimatullah said ldquoand when I

saw them they were in terrible shaperdquo

Hekmattullah told Amnesty

International that the Special Forces

operatives ldquodragged me from my room

by the back of my collar and then

threw me down the stairs While I fell

my shoulder and buttocks were frac-

tured Even now I have problem walk-

ing it is painful and I canrsquot stand

straightrdquo

According to Amnestyrsquos report US

forces then took Naimatullahrsquos three broth-

ers away Only Hekmattullah was ever seen

again

Amnesty reports that several of the fam-

ilies that were able to recover the remains of

the missing reported that the bodies showed

signs of torture from what appeared to be

acid burns on clothing to gruesome injuries

The report received attention from other

outlets like the LA Times and WashingtonPost but was not featured in the New York

Times A FAIR Action Alert (81814) noted

the disconnect between the Timesrsquo new tor-

ture policy and its silence on the Amnesty

report Times public editor MargaretSullivan (81914) seemed to agree with

FAIRrsquos take writing that Amnesty ldquopulled

together a great deal of informationmdashespe-

cially about the role of the American mili-

tarymdashin a comprehensive and forceful way

that would have benefited Times readersrdquo

But others at the Times didnrsquot see why

they should have bothered Foreign editor

Joseph Kahn told Sullivan that Amnestyrsquos

findings ldquoappeared to be recycledrdquo and ldquodid

not add much to what we have already on

many occasions reportedrdquo

Itrsquos true that the Times has reported on

the allegations of torture in Afghanistan

But therersquos one clear lesson one can draw

from that reporting As the evidence of US

culpability grew the paper got less interest-

ed

On February 25 2013 the New YorkTimes reported that the Afghan govern-

ment had ldquobarred elite American forces

from operating in a strategic province

adjoining Kabul on Sunday citing com-

plaints that Afghans working for AmericanSpecial Operations forces had tortured and

killed villagers in the areardquo

The Times emphasized the damage this

could do to the US mission The move

ldquowould effectively exclude the American

militaryrsquos main source of offensive firepow-

er from the areardquo

A month later the Times (32113)

reported that the Afghan government was

compromising on its exclusion of US

troops ldquobreaking an increasingly acrimo-

nious impasserdquo The paper reminded reade

that the source of the dispute was ldquocom

plaints related to abuses by American forc

and accompanying Afghan men durin

night raids in the province accusations th

coalition has deniedrdquo The paper added th

certain ldquoAfghan and Western official

blamed the deaths and torture on local insu

gents

Almost two months later (51313) cam

the headline ldquoAfghans Say an AmericTortured Civiliansrdquo But this was not abo

American military personnel the Americ

in question was identified as Zakar

Kandahari an Afghan-American who w

working as an interpreter for the Speci

Forces unit The Times included a comme

from a US officialmdashldquospeaking on the cond

tion of anonymity in line with official po

cyrdquomdashwho insisted the US had no role ldquoW

have done three investigations down ther

and all absolve ISAF [International Securi

Assistance Force] forces and Special Forc

of all wrongdoingrdquoSome might find such denials unpersu

sive as the Times reported (51313

Afghan officials had a video of at least o

torture session and the remains of the vi

tims were turning up just outside the U

base

The Times (52213) reminded reade

days later that ldquothere has been no tes

mony directly tying American soldiers

the abuse or killing of those detaineesrdquo T

paper added that ldquothe American military h

described Mr Kandahari as a freelan

interpreter who had volunteered to help t

American Special Forces who allowed hi

to live at their base in exchangerdquo

Weeks later the Times (6513) w

reporting the discovery of more bodies ju

outside the US basemdashand that Afghan an

US governments were ldquoin sharp disagre

ment about who is responsiblerdquo

The story made the paper once again o

July 8 with the news that Kandahari h

been arrested The paperrsquos account aga

reiterated US claims that it had nothing do with the torture but Heather Barr

Human Rights Watch offered a dissentin

view

The US said they investigated thoroughly

therersquos nothing there so everyone should

go away and accept their word that they

checked and did nothing wrong I donrsquot

think that ends the discussion Therersquos a

lot more explaining that needs to be done

that hasnrsquot happened yetrsquo

New York Timesrsquo Dean Baquet We can call it ldquotorturerdquo now

that itrsquos clear no one will be punished for it

Missing a Premium

983088

Please email fairfairorg

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1216

That explaining would have to happen

elsewhere though The New York Timesran just one more story that mentioned the

controversy a July 23 dispatch that once

again stated that US officials ldquohave cleared

their troops of responsibility in any torture

or killingrdquo

The paper added that government offi-

cials ldquohave refused to offer further explana-

tion of what might have happened to the

dead menrdquo One would think the arrest of the principal suspect might inspire new

reporting

And it didmdashjust not in the New YorkTimes A major investigation by RollingStonersquos Matthieu Aikins (11613) raised

serious doubts about the US denials about

Kandahari and the unit ldquoMany of the men

who disappeared in Nerkh were rounded up

by the Americans in broad daylight in front

of dozens of witnessesrdquo Aikins reported He

added that over five months

Rolling Stone has interviewed more

than two dozen eyewitnesses and vic-

timsrsquo families whorsquove provided consis-

tent and detailed allegations of the

involvement of American forces in the

disappearance of the 10 men and has

talked to Afghan and Western officials

who were familiar with confidential

Afghan-government UN and Red

Cross investigations that found the

allegations credible

Aikins even tracked down Kandahari for

a prison interview unsurprisingly he

denied responsibility for the killings The

US argument that a rogue interpreter carried

out an extensive campaign of torture is not

only far-fetched Aikins wrote that it is

in a certain sense irrelevant Under the

well-established legal principle of

command responsibility military offi-

cials who knowingly allow their subor-

dinates to commit war crimes are them-

selves criminally responsible

To Aikins these stories ldquowould amount

to some of the gravest war crimes perpetrat-

ed by American forces since 2001rdquo But

they remained obscure to readers of the

New York Times even after the Amnesty

report corroborated his charges

But the Times didnrsquot entirely ignore Rol-ling Stonesrsquo reporting on February 16 2014

the Times mentioned that Aikinsrsquo exposeacute

had received a George Polk Award 983150

New York Times investigative reporter

James Risen is taking a stand Despite

being hounded by both the Bush and

Obama administrations to reveal his

sources he has vowed to go to jail rather

than abandon his pledge of confidentiality

As fellow journalists and journalism

advocacy groups rush to his side many fear

that the US Department of Justice within the

self-proclaimed ldquomost transparent adminis-tration in historyrdquo is preparing to deliver a

body blow to the First Amendmentrsquos prom-

ise of press freedom

ldquoThis case is the closest wersquove come to

the edge of the precipice to reportersource

privilege being bannedrdquo said Jesselyn

Radack director of national security and

human rights for the Government Account-

ability Project in a phone interview

R

isen a Pulitzer Prizendashwinning reporter

has been ordered by the DoJ to testify in

the prosecution of former CIA employeeJeffrey Sterling who is accused of leaking

information about a botched Clinton-era

CIA mission to give Iran phony nuclear

informationmdashwhich ended up giving Iran

real information on how to build a bomb

Risen wrote about the failed operation in his

2006 book State of War

Risen was initially subpoenaed by the

Bush administration in 2008 but the order

expired as the reporter fought against it

through the courts To the surprise of many

the subpoena was renewed under PresidentObama in 2010mdashdespite repeated calls to

drop the pursuit

ldquoRisen informed the public about the

dangerous stupidity of a CIA operation and

seriously embarrassed the agency in the

processrdquo said Norman Solomon a longtime

FAIR associate and co-founder of

RootsActionorg an online advocacy group

in an email exchange ldquoEvidently a pair of

unforgivable sins in the eyes of both the

Bush and Obama administrationsrdquo

If the government does uphold its sub

na and Risen is punished for taking

stand journalists and free press advoc

say that this would set a dangerous pr

dent for the interpretation of press free

under the First Amendment

ldquoFunctionally a reporter will no lo

be able to promise source confidential

Radack explained ldquoThis will impact pe

who want to disclose wrongdoingrdquo said ldquoWhistleblowers disclosing fr

waste abuse and illegality will no longe

to the pressrdquo

Robust investigative journalism

already suffered from budget cuts and w

ing interest in long-form journalism

this ldquochilling effectrdquo on sources will pro

the ldquofinal nail in the coffin of the free p

as we know itrdquo Radack added

I

n 2011 a federal District Court ruled

Risen could not be compelled by the

ernment to reveal his sources ldquoA crimtrial subpoena is not a free pass for the

ernment to rifle through a reporterrsquos n

bookrdquo wrote District Court Judge Le

Brinkema adding that Risen was prote

by a limited ldquoreporterrsquos privilegerdquo unde

First Amendment

The government challenged that d

sion and in 2013 the US Court of App

for the Fourth Circuit in Richm

Virginia reinstated the subpoena arg

that the First Amendment did not pro

Risen from being forced to testify aghis source

In June 2014 Risenrsquos legal b

reached an insurmountable barrier when

US Supreme Court refused to take up

case affirming the lower court ruling N

Risen will have to testify or face conte

of court charges which can lead to e

imprisonment or up to $1000 a day in f

After the high court passed on the c

Risenrsquos attorney Joel Kurtzberg told

Committee to Protect Journalists (62

12 983157 October 2014 Extra

Risen case tests reportersrsquo power to revealgovernment wrongdoing

Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

by Lauren McCauley

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1316

Extra October 2014 983157

that he hopes the government wonrsquot hold

Risen in contempt ldquofor doing nothing other

than reporting the news and keeping his

promise to his sourcerdquo He noted that the

ldquoball is now in the governmentrsquos courtrdquo

On August 14 a coalition of journalists

media advocacy groups and independentmedia outlets delivered over 100000

signatures to the Department of Justice

calling on the Obama administration to drop

its subpoena

The petitionmdashorganized by Roots

Action along with FAIR the Center for

Media and Democracy Freedom of the

Press Foundation The Nation Institute and

The Progressivemdashargues that ldquowithout

confidentiality journalism would be

reduced to official storiesmdasha situation anti-

thetical to the First Amendmentrdquo

On the day the petition was turned in

Risen was joined by a number of free press

advocates including Radack and Solomon

at a press conference at the National Press

Club in Washington DC Speaking before

the roomful of reporters Risen said ldquoThe

real reason Irsquom doing this is for the future of

journalismrdquo

ldquoFreedom of the press is the most impor-

tant freedomrdquo agreed Delphine Halgand

director of Reporters Without Bordersrsquo Wash-

ington office who also spoke at the press

conference ldquoIt is the freedom that allows usto verify the existence of all other freedomsrdquo

When asked about the Risen case at a

closed-door meeting with a group of

journalists Attorney General Eric

Holder (New York Times 52814) report-

edly declared ldquoAs long as Irsquom attorney gen-

eral no reporter who is doing his job is

going to go to jailrdquo

Despite this pronouncement the prose-

cution of whistleblowers has become a

mainstay of Obamarsquos presidency

(Extra 911 FAIR Media

Advisory 82713) During his

time in office the DoJ has pur-

sued eight prosecutions of leakers

under the Espionage Act more

than double the total number of

such prosecutions since the law

was enacted

McClatchy News (62013)

also revealed the existence of agovernment employee ldquotattletalerdquo

program By having government

employees spying and reporting

on each other the Obama initia-

tive dubbed ldquoInsider Threatrdquo aims

to thwart future leakers

According to the Reporters Without Bor-

dersrsquo annual Press Freedom Index (21214)

the US dropped 13 positions from 2013 to

2014 and now ranks 46th worldwide The

report notes

In the US the hunt for leaks and

whistleblowers serves as a warning to

those thinking of satisfying a public

interest need for information about the

imperial prerogatives assumed by the

worldrsquos leading power

Advocates say to ensure the protectio

of journalists in this post-911 surveillan

state it is critical to pass a federal shie

law that will protect reporters from beinforced to disclose confidential informatio

or sources in court (Most states have som

sort of law or protection in place)

There is a shield bill currently makin

its way through CongressmdashS 987 know

as the Free Flow of Information Act

though there is concern that the legislatio

has too many loopholes that allow the go

ernment to claim broad ldquonational security

exceptions and leave some whistleblowe

without protection (Dissenter 51214)

The New York Timesrsquo James Risen at the Roots Action Press Conference

at the National Press Club in Washington DC ldquoThe real reason Irsquom doing

this is for the future of journalismrdquo

NYT Has Benefitted From Leakersmdashbut Not Vice Versa

A s the Department of Justice doggedly pursues Pulitzer Prizendashwinner James Risen the New York

Times has been forced to enter the fray of the governmentrsquos so-called ldquowar on informationrdquo

The Times like many mainstream publications has openly acknowledged its practice of seek-

ing government approval for sensitive stories (2613) and often serves as a government mouthpiece by

publishing sanctioned ldquoleaksrdquo of information

And although the Times has benefitted enormously from actual leaks of government secrets that

were vital for the public to know it has historically maintained a cautiousmdashif not skepticalmdashdistance

from those who risked their careers and liberty to reveal such truths

Despite publishing the invaluable Pentagon Papers which exposed government deceptions about the

Vietnam War the Times refused to provide leaker Daniel Ellsberg with any help in his criminal case

According to Ellsberg thenndashexecutive editor Abe Rosenthal told the whistleblower that the paper had no

policy for supporting a source who is being prosecuted for leaking information

ldquoThe Timesrdquo Ellsberg explained ldquothinks of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken the lawrdquo

The paper has given even less support to Chelsea Manning despite having partnered with Wikileaks

in July 2010 to release important revelations from the hun-

dreds of thousands of classified war logs and State

Department cables revealed by Manning

In addition to disparaging her character and questioning

her motives in a Bill Keller column (31113) the Times treat-

ed Manningrsquos trial as a noneventmdashnot sending a single

reporter and only running one AP wire story (123012) on it

Later New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan

(51212) wrote that the paper had ldquomissed the boatrdquo by not

covering Manningrsquos pretrial testimony

The paper did run an editorial (1114) supporting NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden however that was months

after an earlier editorial (8613) essentially calling for Snowden to be extradited for prosecution

In a January 2013 column about the prosecution of Chelsea Manning journalist Glenn Greenwald

warned corporate media that they ldquomight want to take a serious interestrdquo in the case and ldquomarshal oppo-

sition to what is being done to Bradley Manningrdquo

He continued ldquoIf not out of concern for the injustices to which he is being subjected then out of self-

interest to ensure that their reporters and their past and future whistleblowing sources cannot be simi-

larly persecutedrdquo

It seems that time has comemdashLMcC

Daniel Ellsberg The New York Times ldquothinks

of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken

the lawrdquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1416

In a recent interview with Times colleague

Maureen Dowd (81714) Risen refer-

enced Obamarsquos ldquomost transparent admin-

istrationrdquo claim

ldquoItrsquos hypocriticalrdquo Risen said ldquoA lot of

peopledonrsquot want to believe that Obama

wants to crack down on the press and

whistleblowers But he does Hersquos the great-

est enemy to press freedom in a generationrdquo

Among those who have come to Risenrsquos

defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prizendashwin-

ning reporters who each signed the Roots

Action petition and issued personal state-

ments on his behalf

Included in the testimonies is one from

Risenrsquos New York Times colleague Barry

Bearak who wrote that Risen ldquois carrying

the banner for every American journalistrdquo

ldquoIf he goes to jailrdquo Bearak continued

good bit of our nationrsquos freedom wil

locked away with himrdquo 983150

Lauren McCauley is an assistant edito

the website Common Dreams and a d

mentary producer her most recent fil

Mississippi Messiah about civil ri

leader James Meredith

14 983157 October 2014 Extra

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

Who Rules Public TV

by Aldo Guerrero

T

he corporate and financial sectors have

an overwhelming presence on the gov-

erning boards of major public televi-

sion stations a new FAIR study findsThe study looked at the occupations of

the current trustees of WNET (New York

CityNewark) WGBH (Boston) WETA

(Washington DC) WTTW (Chicago) and

KCET (Los Angeles)

Out of these boardsrsquo 182 total members

152mdashor 84 percentmdashhave corporate back-

grounds including 138 who are executives

at elite businesses Another 14 members

appear to be on the board because of their

familiesrsquo corporate-derived wealth often

with a primary affiliation as an officer of a

family charitable foundationMany board members are affiliated with

major corporations like Boeing Wells Fargo

and Citigroup Seventy-five board mem-

bers nearly half of all those with corporate

ties are financial industry executives

Another 24 are corporate lawyers

Public TV board members without corpo-

rate ties were few and far between Of

these nine are categorized as academics

while six are affiliated with nonprofit groups

(not counting family grant-making founda-

tions) There are three former government

officials two non-corporate lawyers two

journalists one religious educator and a for-

mer principal of a magnet school Six board

members are station insiders

WNET WGBH and WETA are consid-

ered to be the ldquobig threerdquo PBS affiliates

producing a large share of programming for

PBS nationally WTTW and KCET were

included because they serve two of the

largest US metropolitan areas Four of these

stations are affiliated with PBS KCET dis-

affiliated in 2010 but remains a prominent

regional public television station

The boards range in size from WTTWrsquos

63 members to KCETrsquos 20 WTTW and

WNET have the most corporate representa-

tion on their boards each at 92 percent

KCETrsquos board is 80 percent corporate-affil-

iated while DCrsquos WETA is at 73 percent

Corporate-tied board members were least

common at WGBH where they still made

up two-thirds of the board

One hundred sixteen members (64 per-

cent) are male It was not possible to do a

breakdown of board membersrsquo ethnicities

Last year the issue of corporate influence

over public television was thrust into the

spotlight when the film Park Avenue

Money Power and the American Dream was

broadcast by PBS affiliate WNET (NewYorker 52713 FAIR Blog 52113) The

film examined the concentration of wealth

and power in the United States by lookin

the super-rich residents of 740

Avenuemdashwho included then-WNET b

member and major station donor DKoch a billionaire industrialist well kn

for his donations to right-wing causes

WNET president Neil Shapiro was

to be ldquoconcernedrdquo about a film critica

one of his biggest funders WNET ende

not receiving a large donation from Koc

potentially in the seven-figure rang

because Park Avenue was broadcast

New Yorkerrsquos Jane Mayer reported

PBS then preemptively pulled the

on Citizen Koch another film that exam

the Koch familyrsquos political influenc

apparently practicing self-censorship inattempt to placate a wealthy donor K

would eventually resign from the WNboard of trustees Since then a camp

has been launched demanding that K

also resign from the board of Bost

WGBH where he is still a trustee

High-powered executives likes David Koch overwhelm

dominate the boards of trustees at public TV stations

This documentary caused trouble when it aired on WNET

because of the money and power on the PBS affiliatersquos

board

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 316

Extra October 2014 983157

Labor Leaders Left Out

FAIR (Media Advisory 82814) looked

at how often labor leaders appeared

on the networksrsquo Sunday morning

chat showsmdashand couldnrsquot find a

single one from the beginning of

2014 through late August

Thatrsquos not to say that labor issueswerenrsquot discussedmdashwe found Repub-

lican lawmakers talking about the

need to send a message to teachers

unions for example But worker

representatives werenrsquot invited to

the conversation

Meanwhile CEOs made a dozen

appearances on the Sunday shows

including the current or former heads

of Apple AOL Starbucks and FedEx

Former Hewlett Packard CEO and

Republican candidate Carly Fiorina

alone appeared four times

It wasnrsquot a total shutout for labor

though An ABC quiz segment

(3214) asked which American presi-

dent was once head of a labor union

the answer was Ronald Reagan Yes

the only labor leader mentioned on a

Sunday chat show was the famously

anti-labor president

All in a Dayrsquos Work When journalists at SportsIllustrated

com part of the Time Inc magazine

group were facing layoffs manage-

ment ranked them on various quali-

ties on a scale from 2 to 10 Alongwith such journalistic criteria as

ldquoquality of writingrdquo and ldquoimpact of

storiesnewsworthinessrdquo the journal-

ists were judged on whether or not

he or she ldquoproduces content that is

beneficial to advertiser relationshiprdquo

(Gawker 81814) Apparently thatrsquos

seen as part of a reporterrsquos job at

magazines like Time Incrsquos where

editors are supervised by the busi-

ness staff (FAIR Blog 1214)

OrsquoReillyrsquosSelective StatisticsldquoOver the weekend the New York

Times called for the USA to legalize

marijuana all over the placerdquo Fox

Newsrsquo Bill OrsquoReilly (72814) fulmi-

nated ldquoNo surprise that paperrsquos far

left on its editorial page so its stanceis predictablerdquo (Legalizing marijuana

is a ldquofar-leftrdquo stance taken by a

majority of AmericansmdashGallup

102213)

OrsquoReilly disdainfully quoted a line

from the Times editorial (72714)mdash

ldquoThe result is racist falling dispropor-

tionately on young black men ruining

their lives and creating new genera-

tions of career criminalsrdquomdashand then

attempted to set the record straight

According to the US Sentencing

Commission about 5000 crimi-

nals were sentenced for marijua-

na offenses in 2013 at the federal

leveland here is the kicker 63

percent of those convicted on the

federal level were Hispanic Just

11 percent black

Typically OrsquoReillyrsquos statistics were

deceptive Just before that quoted

sentence the Times noted that

ldquothere were 658000 arrests for mari-

juana possession in 2012rdquomdashover-

whelmingly at the state and local

level And as the ACLU (613) pointed

out ldquoMarijuana use is roughly equalamong blacks and whites yet blacks

are 373 times as likely to be arrested

for marijuana possessionrdquo

ldquoItrsquos about race not drugsrdquo

said OrsquoReilly Thatrsquos the one part he

got right

Sourcersquos Secret CIA TiesldquoRevelations from former NSA con-

tract worker Edward Snowden

harmed national securityrdquo Thatrsquos the

claim an NPR report by Dina Temple-

Raston (Morning Edition 8114) put

forthmdashciting not just anonymous ldquoUS

government officialsrdquo but ldquoa new

reportby big data firm Recorded

Futurerdquo as well

The reportrsquos evidence is flimsymdash

basically itrsquos that militant groups

changed their software after

Snowdenrsquos revelations though the

reportrsquos own timeline shows these

changes started before Snowden

went public (FAIR Blog 81314)

But even fishier is NPRrsquos lack of

disclosure Recorded Future as

listeners were not told is a project

launched with the financial backing of

the CIA and is a registered vendor for

the NSA itself (Intercept 81214)

Traditional Pot vs Social KettleldquoSocial Media Silences Debaterdquo

declared a New York Times headline

(82614) over a story reporting that

outlets like Facebook and Twitter

are ldquotamping down diversity of opin-

ion and stifling debate about public

affairsrdquo As opposed to the diverse

opinion and free-wheeling debate to

be had in asocial media like the

Times presumably

The counterintuitive claim that

social media repress discussion is

based on a study that looked at

whether people shared political view

with their family and friends using

just one topic as a case study NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden Ye

researchers found that people are

more reluctant to use the Internet to

discuss disturbing revelations about

government surveillancemdashand forthat the Times blames social media

not government surveillance 983150

S o u n d B i t e s

Bill OrsquoReilly

Carly Fiorina

Correction

The September 2014 issue of

Extra published the wrong

diagram to illustrate the Turing

test This is the correct diagram

ldquoTelling Blows Against Hamasrdquo How the New York Times (82214)

framed a photo from Gaza of ldquorelatives of three Palestinian children who

medics said were killed in an Israeli airstrikersquo

Get the latest blog posts

and Action Alerts

at fairorg

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 416

4 983157 October 2014 Extra

R A C E L E N S

Communities of color use media to protect themselves

FTP Film Tha Police

by Josmar Trujillo

The arrest of Ramsey Orta in August on

gun charges would have barely regis-

tered on the daily crime blotter in New

York City had he not been at the center

of the most controversial police-related

death in the cityrsquos recent memory

Police choking Eric Garner to death dur-

ing a routine arrest on Staten Island made

national news in July Orta a local resident

filmed the entire encounter and the video

became the rallying point for a renewed

push against police brutality

Shortly thereafter the police shooting

death of Michael Brown in FergusonMissouri brought mainstream media out by

the truckloads to cover the ensuing protests

mdashand the heavy-handed militarized police

response to that communityrsquos outrage

In the case of Orta who says he was set up

by police as retribution for the Garner video

(Daily News 8414) the decision to film the

encounter is representative of a growing trend

of copwatchingmdashwhich is exactly what it

sounds like filming cops Even as traditional

media cover the Ferguson police through

clouds of teargas communities of color are

learning to rely on themselves to report onwhat happens around them and to them

As Malkia Cyril pointed out recently on

CounterSpin (82214mdashsee page 7) the

ldquodecentralized nature of the Internetrdquo

allowed for ldquodemocratizedrdquo coverage of the

Ferguson protests In contrast to corporate

media bewildered when a Midwestern

police department resembled Egyptian

national policemdashldquoThis doesnrsquot make any

senserdquo CNNrsquos Jake Tapper declared (FAIR

Blog 81914)mdashstreet reporters recognize

police aggression as part of a pattern theyrsquove

had to confront in order to document

Citizen journalism is a potentially inspir-

ing development in bursting the corporate

media bubble overall but particularly for

cases of police brutality both at the individ-

ual (Brown) and community (protesters)

levels The Web plays a crucial role for mar-

ginalized communities black and Latino in

particular by disseminating incidents media

wonrsquot covermdashor wonrsquot stop spinning

Somewhere in America during the

time it takes to read this column therersquoll

likely be an incident of police harassment

of the black and brown Whether or not

the incident is a story media canrsquot ignore

(involving a fatal encounter say or a

public figure like Harvard professor Skip

Gates) these encounters are the context

that surrounds high-profile incidents like

the ones in Staten Island and Ferguson This

includes racial profiling mass incarceration

and the long history of systemic brutality

Copwatching videos disseminated initial-

ly through decentralized Internet media

like Black Twitter can bring those expe-

riences to the national dialogue And videos

that donrsquot make national news can still make

the rounds on the Internet via sites focused

on street culture like World Star Hip Hop

or dedicated to police videos like the Free

Thought Project or Photography Is Not aCrimemdashwhich are best described as inver-

sions of the long-running show Cops show-

casing police encounters through the eyes of

the publicThe idea is that everyday people with

camera phones and access to the Internet

can put police aggression and misconduct

on blastmdashwith the hope of influencing opin-

ion and politics But there are at least two

factors in traditional media coverage that

make public perceptions of police difficult

to move even amid an avalanche of disturb-

ing amateur police videos

One is the traditional role of not just

media in general but criminal justice media

(reporters and outlets that focus on poli

and crime) specifically When hip-hop a

Talib Kweli criticized CNNrsquos Don Le

(Politico 82114) for failing to repre

his and other protestersrsquo experiences

couldrsquove added the critique emanating f

social media that traditional media w

adding to the criminalization of black

by their choice of pictures used on air

Jazeera America 81414)

These distortions happen often at

local level as well culminating in m

coverage that favors official narratives

community input (FAIR Blog 619

Likely a result of the well-known tend

to favor power-holders in order to pres

access bias in criminal justice media

deeply prejudice public opinion

The other factor affects media

whole the issue of diversity W

reporters covering a police scan

especially one in which race is key are

ly less equipped by experience to un

stand the situation We use all sortexperts in other fields to add depth into

ries they may have insight into So wh

we send white reporters into communitie

color to cover police brutality

Polls find whites have a generally fa

able perception of police (Pew 825

Huffington Post 82114)mdashand rarely

in overpoliced communities The urge

and proximity to the issue of police bru

ty is one that residents of communitie

color are best suited to document Whic

why copwatching as an invaluable m

tool at their disposal is here to stay 983150

Ramsey Orta (left) who recorded the NYPD choking Eric

Garner to death

DC police officer preventing a citizen from using the

Amendment (Photography Is Not a Crime 9714)

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 516

Any effort to improve the lives of black

men that meets with the hearty

approval of Bill OrsquoReilly ought to set

off a few alarm bells But My Brotherrsquos

Keeper an initiative announced by Barack

Obama in February was received benignly

by the corporate press with the closest thing

to criticism being ldquoShould he have acted

earlierrdquo (ABC This Week 3214)

Reports displayed a telling vagueness

MBK was described as ldquoa program aimed at

giving young men of color a shot at successrdquo

(NBC Nightly News 22714) an effort ldquoto

reverse underachievement among young

black and Hispanic malesrdquo (AP 22714)

and as ldquocommitments from foundations and

businesses to help keep young minority men

in the classroom and out of prisonrdquo

(Washington Post 22814) ABCrsquos Diane

Sawyer (22714) called it ldquoa plan to help

kids succeed even when theyrsquore angry and

have made mistakesrdquo

Serious sounds were made about the

problem George Stephanopoulos (This

Week 3214) presented as ldquothe fact thatyoung black men are more likely than other

Americans to drop out of school be sent to

prison or end up murderedrdquo but with little

interest in ascertaining just how MBK with

its focus on mentoring or ldquohigh standards

and up-close motivationrdquo (CBS EveningNews 22714) would address it

Myriad deeper questions were left to big

mediarsquos margins USA Today (3314)

ran Tavis Smileyrsquos critique that ldquowhat

these young brothers really need is not so

much to be lsquokeptrsquo but to have their human-ity and dignity respectedrdquo A Chicago Tri-

bune source (22814) likened the plan to ldquoa

band-aid on a gunshot woundrdquo

The New York Times (31214) noted

such core concerns as MBKrsquos exclusion of

women and girls its reinforcement of patri-

archal norms and its reliance on philan-

thropic noblesse oblige over government

action but consigned them to its ldquoRoom for

Debaterdquo feature

Independent media gave critics more

space The Nationrsquos Mychal Denzel

Smith (22814) for example sug-

gested that despite some admirable

aspects MBK

ignores the root problem We can

turn every black and brown boy

into a ldquorespectablerdquo citizen But

the moment we do the rules for

what constitutes ldquorespectablerdquo

will change Thatrsquos how racism

works

At Salon (3614) Brittney

Cooper called out the proposalrsquos

male-only focus given that black

women and girls fare as poorly and

even worse in some ways includ-

ing the fact that ldquosingle black women have

the lowest net wealth of any group with

research showing a median wealth of $100rdquo

B

ut itrsquos not surprising that corporate

reporters in the main saw little to ques-

tion in the idea that entrenched socio-economic disparities could be meaningfully

addressed without systemic change or even

new resources that the fundamental prob-

lem facing men of color is ldquobrokenrdquo fami-

lies in need of a dominant male and that a

proper point of emphasis is that as Brian

Williams (NBC Nightly News 22714)

explained ldquothey cannot blame the circum-

stances of their birthrdquo

These media have a long inglorious his-

tory of singling out black males as ldquosuper-

predatorsrdquo (Extra 198) and shiftless grifters

and in some ways the ldquouniquely endan-geredrdquo black male is a variant rather than an

antidote to that pathological depiction The

narrative may start by talking about ldquohur-

dlesrdquo black men face but on examination it

generally locates those obstacles within

black men themselves including those who

as Stephanopoulos put it ldquoend up murderedrdquo

When Michael Brownmdashwith a father in

his life and accepted to collegemdashwas

shot dead in the street in Ferguson

Missouri by a white police officer corpora

media had a chance to revisit the assumptio

that what black men need most is a mento

But rather than question the analysis they

embraced media instead found everythin

ldquonewrdquo Suddenly we learned that US poli

forces are militarized Some police disr

spect black people Different communitihave different experiences

Thatrsquos not to belittle media coverag

which was better than it might have bee

There was the predictable culture-blamin

from the predictable quarters (See MB

booster Bill OrsquoReillymdash82614mdashwho di

missed protestersrsquo concerns because the id

of white privilege is a ldquobig lierdquo expound

by ldquorace hustlersrdquo) But when you can fin

a column headlined ldquoIn Defense of Lootin

in the Daily Mississippian (82614) y

know itrsquos not quite business as usual

USA Today (81514) reported on tincidence of killings by police (at least 40

a year) and decried the lack of reliable dat

The Christian Science Monitor (8211

explored the damage inflicted by St Lou

segregation and white flight The NeRepublic (82014) explained the partic

lars of ldquoself defenserdquo laws in Missouri an

elsewhere that combined with ldquoentrench

racial and occupational biasesrdquo make hom

cide convictions of police officers li

Fergusonrsquos Darren Wilson ldquobasical

Extra October 2014 983157

C O V E R S T O R Y

But will Ferguson shift media ideas on lsquofixingrsquo black men

Michael Brown Had a Father

by Janine Jackson

The presence of two parents in Michael Brownrsquos life (Michael Brown S

left and Lesley McSpadden) did not shake the prevailing media assum

tion that what young black men need is a man in their lives

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 616

6 983157 October 2014 Extra

impossiblerdquo All of this helpfully moves the

conversation from black peoplersquos ldquofeelingsrdquo

to demonstrable facts

But big media donrsquot really have them-

selves to credit for the elevation of

Brownrsquos murder beyond lamentable anec-

dote They were largely reacting to the vig-

orous public outcry and to the Ferguson

Police Departmentrsquos especially heavy-hand-

ed response including assaults on reportersthemselves And they were struggling to keep

up as those following the story turned

instead to Black Twitter and other online

sources for news and perspective (See next

page)

Now mainstream media are asking

whether Ferguson will be a ldquomomentrdquo or a

ldquomovementrdquo for black activists but they

might more appropriately ask the same of their

own engagement with the issues Ferguson

puts on the table As Salonrsquos Cooper

(82614) put it real progress would entail

a real commitment to due process pro-

tection of voting rights a livable wage

the dissolution of the prisonindustrial

complex funding of good public edu-

cation at both K-12 and college levels

a serious commitment to affirmative

action food security and full reproduc-

tive justice for all women Those are

the kinds of conditions under which

black communities and all communi-

ties could thrive

A failure to see things on that scale to

treat what wersquore now calling ldquoFergusonrdquo not

as aberrant but as reflective of US social

systems and institutions risks setting us

back to appeals to individual betterment the

ldquopull up your pantsrdquo logic critics see in

MBK

And not insignificantly a focus on the

individual over the structural tells white

people that racism is a personal thing

they ldquojust donrsquot understandrdquo and therefore

canrsquot fight that progress is a zero-sum gamein which therersquos nothing people of con-

science can do together Recognition of the

irreducibility (beyond class culture cloth-

ing or family structure) of anti-black racism

is laudable and overdue But it need not

erase the non-black anti-racists who could

be engaged in resisting policies and prac-

tices that overwhelmingly hurt people of

color like for just one example the practice

of funding police departments with low-

level warrants that target the poormdashas spot-

lighted by the Daily Beastrsquos Michael Daly

(82214) who is white

Ferguson could be a turning point for

media coverage of racism But should cor-

porate media ldquoforgetrdquo what they now sug-

gest they are learningmdashas they have

previous ldquomomentsrdquo (Extra 792 8

the good news is that every day more

ple are talking around them and mo

forward without them 983150

Extra receives no money from advertisers

or corporate underwriters and depends on

subscribers for its existence Please consider

subscribing or spread the word by giving a

gift subscription to Extra Choose a

traditional print subscription a digital PDF

edition or both together

I want to subscribe to the printedition of Extra983151 Yes Send me a two-year subscription

(20 issues) to Extra for $45

983151 I want a one-year subscription (10 issues)

to Extra for $25

983151 Irsquom a subscriber please renew me early

(Your expiration date is on your mailing

label above your name)

983151 One year (10 issues) for $25

983151 Two years (20 issues) for $45

Irsquod like to have the digital edition983151 Irsquod like a two-year digital subscription to

Extra for $27

983151 I want a one-year digital subscription toExtra for $15

Want both Get print + digital983151 One-year print + digital (pdf) subscription

only $35

983151 Two-year print + digital (pdf) subscription

only $65

Name______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City _______________________________________________

StateZip ___________________________________________

Email Address_______________________________________

983151 MasterCard 983151 VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No________________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature___________________________________________

Journalism in the Public Interest

To order

fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorg

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

fairor

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 716

Extra October 2014 983157

marginalized in mainstream media The

numbers of black journalists able to work inmainstream media has decreased over the

last 10 years significantly

And what we find is that both these jour-

nalists and the community journalists that

wersquore talking about on Twitter have found

social media to be an outlet to be a way to

share their work in a way that wasnrsquot able to

happen on CNN MSNBC or any of the

other cable news outlets Because cable is

owned by mega-corporations and doesnrsquot

allow for the kind of independent voice that

a more social platform on the Internet

allows forSo Black Twittermdashreminiscent of and

reflecting the black blog an independent

black voicemdashthatrsquos what really brought the

story of Ferguson to the majority of black

audiences

CS On the one hand you want to say that

itrsquos not the technology thatrsquos key I mean

media and other powers could have tried to

listen to black people if they were writing

on parchment you know But at the same

time the technology and the kind of com-

munication that it makes possible is some-

thing different isnrsquot it

MC Absolutely The decentralized nature

of the Internet allows for a level of democ-

ratized voice that wersquove never seen I mea

the Internetmdashas a platform as a vehicle fvoice in black communitiesmdashhas becom

one of the most powerful ways to bypass th

exclusionary and discriminatory mai

stream media And because of that becau

of its decentralized and democratiz

nature black people are very conscious

the need to fight to maintain their online an

digital voice

CS Letrsquos talk about that fight We know th

for corporate media this story is going to g

away Every racist act in corporate media

an anecdote Wersquore told that things ldquoraiquestionsrdquo when they might more approp

ately be said to answer them We hea

ldquoGosh this doesnrsquot look like America

when it looks exactly like America

And Ta-Nehisi Coates [Atlantic 8151

wrote recently about the ldquopolitics of chan

ing the subjectrdquo You know Letrsquos talk abo

black folks killing each other

All of this is why even when dece

coverage happens it feels like reinventin

the wheel and it points up the need for

sustained space to have a conversation th

doesnrsquot just serve as corrective of that dom

inant narrative and stop there but mov

forward So what is the state of play on t

fight to have the Internet be that sort

space

MC Right now as the people of Ferguso

are on the front lines demanding justice f

yet another murder of a young black man

unarmedmdashblack people are also on the fro

lines to maintain the right to speak onli

about the rampant police brutality in o

communitiesAnd one of the front lines that black pe

ple are fighting on is the fight for the ope

Internet Black communities across th

country are saying loud and clear that th

want to keep the Internet open We unde

stand that the only way that the court

Verizon v FCC said very clearly that t

only way the Federal Communicatio

Commission can enforce non-discrimin

tion rules online is to reclassify broadban

as a Title II common carrier service

There likely would have been media cover-

age of the Ferguson Missouri police killingof Michael Brown and the public protests

that followed But itrsquos hard to imagine that

the tone of that coverage would be the same

mdashwith stories validating black peoplersquos

anger questioning the militarization of

police and challenging mediarsquos criminaliza-

tion of people of colormdashwere it not for the

forceful intervention of black social media

where so-called ldquomainstreamrdquo perspectives

werenrsquot just called out but circumvented

Many people will tell you they didnrsquot

learn what was happening in Fergusonmdash

much less why it matteredmdashfrom the paperor the TV at all The implications of that fact

inform the work of Malkia Cyril executive

director of the Center for Media Justice

which is also home to the Media Action

Grassroots Network (MAG-Net) Counter-

Spinrsquos Janine Jackson talked to her by

phone from the Bay Area

CounterSpin Whatrsquos happening in Ferguson

isnrsquot a story about the Internet of course

but it has put in high relief the need for

black people to tell our own stories in our

own voices and not to wait until somebody

else decides the storyrsquos important Before

we talk about the threats to that space whose

power wersquore just discovering letrsquos talk for a

minute about that power I was sort of tick-

led to see David Carr at the New YorkTimes [81814] credit Twitter per se for

showing that something significant was

underway in Ferguson Letrsquos put a finer

point on it It was particular folks using

Twitter and other tools to tell this story

wasnrsquot it

Malkia Cyril Yes I mean the lingo ldquoBlack

Twitterrdquo isnrsquot about the company at all Itrsquos

about the hundreds of black blogs inde-

pendent black blogs and black bloggers

websites individual pundits that used the

social media platform to microblog and talk

about what they see as the primary issues

affecting black communities

And one of the reasons that is so impor-

tant is because these journalistsmdashblack

journalistsmdashhave been slowly excluded and

Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

lsquoThe Black Voice Is in Jeopardyrsquo

C O U N T E R S P I N I N T E R V I E W

Malkia Cyril ldquoThe Internetmdashas a platform as a vehicle for

voice in black communitiesmdashhas become one of the most

powerful ways to bypass the exclusionary and discriminato-

ry mainstream mediardquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 816

8 983157 October 2014 Extra

MC It was never a meaningful separation

and civil rights activists in the 1960s knew

that very well when they took television

news station WLBT to task for their failure

to cover segregation in the South And in

fact that casemdashthe case of WLBTmdash

became the defining case that allowed for

public comment in media policy processes

So civil rights organizations have long been

an advocate for media as a civil rights issue

Itrsquos only as media and telecommunica-tions have become so lucrative itrsquos only as

telecommunications companies have used

the buyouts of our communities as a public

relations strategy that these issues have

become technocratic wonky and separate

from the core issues of social justice

What we know what Ferguson shows

us what it shows me is that in fact there is

no path to victory to change without the

visibility and representation that media pro-

vides And that as long as that media is

Now let me explain that for a minute

because people say ldquoWell what is Title IIrdquo

Title II simply means that the Internet

should be treated as a public utility it

should be regulated like a public utility

Some organizations are concerned that if we

regulate the Internet as a public utility itrsquoll

kill innovation But what black communi-

ties know very well is two things One

public utilitiesmdashwhen they are truly pub-

licmdashare secure and reliable So thatrsquos num-ber one We want a reliable platform for

independent voices and treating it like a

utility regulating it as such makes it a civil

right that we can access publicly So thatrsquos

number one

Number two some organizations and

individuals have been concerned that if we

treat the Internet like a public utility that a

future FCC that a future Congress will

come along and take that away And to that

I think black communities are very clear

When we fought against segregation in

education we did not accept anything lessthan the ruling in Brown v Board of

Education There were rulings prior to that

There were court cases for more than a

decade prior to that victory We didnrsquot

accept any piecemeal half-baked legisla-

tion We only took what was morally right

and just And that was an end to segregation

in education And thatrsquos what wersquore talking

about right now

Ultimately reclassifying broadband

would ensure no segregation online that all

voices would be able to join the public con-

versation and that black voices in particular

would be able to be raised around issues

like police brutality like the incident in

Ferguson And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

for

CS Used to be when you told someone that

you were working with media policy they

would come back with ldquoOh well I do real

activism Irsquom in the streetrdquo and media is

somehow an ancillary issue That dayrsquos over

isnrsquot it I mean not everyone can work on

every issue but the separation of media pol-icy issues from other issues that we care

about is not a meaningful separation

owned operated and controlled by

largest Internet service providers the lar

cable companies the largest private f

lies the black voice is in jeopardy An

the black voice is in jeopardy black

dom is in jeopardy

And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

Wersquore not fighting for some back-end t

nical technocratic issue Wersquore fighting

the cause of black freedom Wersquore figh

for the same cause that all the black newpers right after slavery were fighting

Wersquore fighting for an end to any kind of

tem that violates or limits our voice

that is what wersquore talking about here to

Itrsquos not about media policy Itrsquos about

justice983150

Malkia Cyrilrsquos recent article ldquoThank

Black Internet for Bringing Ferguso

Merdquo appeared on the Huffington

(81514) among other outlets

Wear FAIR Everywhere You Go

If yoursquore like us you donrsquot trust the corporate

media to tell it straightmdashor report the stories that

matter

So why not spread the word

Send a bold message--and support FAIR--with our

Donrsquot Trust Corporate Media shirt

The shirts are 100 cotton and union-mademdash

just check the labelmdashand are available in Small

Medium Large and XLarge

Limited quantities available so order yours todaymdashthese wonrsquot last long

T-shirtmdash$20

983151 Sm 983151 Med 983151 Large 983151 XLarge

Includes shipping no international orders please

Name________________________________________________

Address ______________________________________________

City _________________________________________________

StateZip _____________________________________________

983151 MasterCard 983151 VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No__________________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature_____________________________________________

To order

fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

fairo

Join the Conversation

If yoursquore on Twitter connect with FAIR friendsand staff about the issues that matter to you themost Be a part of the discussion while stayingup-to-date on the latest news and information

Follow us FAIRmediawatch

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 916

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1016

10 983157 October 2014 Extra

pushing them as a way to tackle poverty

This in the eyes of many news outlets was a

welcome shift toward ldquobipartisanshiprdquo

ldquoRyanrsquos poverty plan mixes partiesrsquo

ideasrdquo trumpeted the Milwaukee Journal-

Sentinel (72414) saying its combination

of EITC hikes with block grants ldquoaspires to

find some common ground between right

and leftrdquo ldquoCreative ideas are rare in Wash-

ingtonrdquo asserted a Boston Herald editorial

(72814) adding that ldquoRyanrsquos approachdestroys the Democratic narrative that

Republicans want to permanently dismantle

the safety netrdquo

In fact Ryanrsquos plan was deemed so

ldquobipartisanrdquo that some worried aloud that it

could hurt his standing with Republicans

Washington Post columnist Melinda Henne-

berger (72414) citing Ryanrsquos statements

that he wanted to ldquotalk about how we can

repair the safety netrdquo and have the govern-

ment ldquoprovide resourcesrdquo to poor people

questioned whether it meant Ryan was giv-

ing up on seeking the 2016 Republican pres-idential nomination

And LA Times columnist Doyle

McManus (72714) under the headline

ldquoHas the GOP Gone Softrdquo singled out

Ryan for proposing policies that ldquomay face

their toughest audience inside the GOPrdquo

For the media to evaluate economic poli-

cies based on whether they please both

Democrats and Republicans is nothing

new as wersquove witnessed on battles over

everything from the stimulus plan (FAIR

Blog 2209) to the debt ceiling (FAIRBlog 71511) In fact during the battles

over welfare reform itself back in 1996

coverage largely focused on which bills

could win the support of both partiesrsquo lead-

ershipmdashwith the San Francisco Chronicleeditorial board (72796) writing approving-

ly that Congress had ldquowhipped itself into a

fair frenzy of bipartisanshiprdquo with welfare

reform and other bills

The problem with bipartisanship as a

moral touchstone should be obvious Not

only does it define sensible policies as beingwhatever the leadership of the Democrats and

Republicans can agree on but it allows one

party to shift the debate by moving its own

goalposts and thus what counts as bipartisan

While the Washington Post editorial

board (72414) singled out shifting money to

EITC as the ldquomost bipartisan part of Mr

Ryanrsquos planrdquo the Timesrsquo Irwin (72414)

acknowledged that it was hardly a new one

for conservatives ldquoWhat was once a conser-

vative idea created in the Gerald Ford admin-

istration and expanded by President Reagan

and both presidents Bush is now more con-

troversial on the rightrdquo since it would elimi-

nate income taxes for more poor Americans

making them what the Wall Street Journal(112002) once derided as ldquolucky duckiesrdquo

If the nationrsquos media were actually con-

cerned about finding programs that help

the poor itrsquos not hard For one therersquos the

food stamp program that Ryan wants toeliminate which has low overheadmdash95 per-

cent of spending goes directly to benefitsmdash

and which by itself lifts nearly 5 million

people out of poverty every year (NewRepublic 81613)

Or as the Center for Economic and

Policy Researchrsquos Shawn Fremstad (TheHill 72214) noted if Ryan truly wanted to

boost the earnings of the working poor

instead of work requirements and EITC

hikes he could accomplish the same t

by raising the federal minimum wage so

thing that is supported by 80 percen

Americans including a majority of Re

licans (Hart Research 72313)mdasha bip

san plan if ever there was one

But then helping the poor or even pu

ing poverty policies that most Americans

agree on isnrsquot really the point for Ry

supporters ldquoGiving people money re

does make them better-off Itrsquos better to more money to buy groceries and other b

necessities than lessrdquo admitted Salam

getting more money from the governm

doesnrsquot really make you less poorrdquo

In the world of punditry then itrsquos

about helping the poor afford groceries

about making sure that theyrsquove earned

right to deserve groceries That may be ldquob

tisanrdquomdashin the halls of Congress anywa

but that doesnrsquot make it smart policy 983150

Itrsquos not often that a media outletrsquos decision

to ldquorecalibrate its languagerdquo attracts much

attention But when itrsquos the New York

Times and the shift is about what to call

torture in the Newspaper of Record such

changes matter

In August 2014 10 years after the initial

revelations that made US torture an interna-

tional news story Times executive editor

Dean Baquet wrote a short piece for the

Times website (8714) stating that the word

ldquotorturerdquo would be used to describe ldquoinci-

dents in which we know for sure that inter-rogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an

effort to get informationrdquo

In other words the newspaper is now

accepting the reality that the term can be

accurately applied to some actions of the

United States Ten years ago when it was

revealed that the CIA was torturing ldquoWar on

Terrorrdquo prisoners criticsmdashincluding

FAIRmdashwere asking the Times to call US

torture by its name (FAIR Action Alert51404) The paper had officially or not

carved out an exception for the US gov

ment whereby torture would be descr

euphemistically as ldquoenhancedrdquo or ldquoha

interrogations

So this shift if it is to be considered a

significant comes a decade too late

thatrsquos the just the start Baquetrsquos reasonin

revealing He writes that the Times resi

the label for so long because ldquothe situa

was murkyrdquo and that the ldquoJustice Dep

ment insisted that the techniques did not

to the legal definition of lsquotorturersquordquo Su

most countries that practice torture wresist prosecuting themselves so itrsquos ha

a reasonable standard for a media outle

Perhaps most illuminating though

Baquetrsquos admission that the Jus

Departmentrsquos decision not to prosecute

torturers motivated the paperrsquos shift

government

has made clear that it will not prosecut

in connection with the interrogatio

program The result is that today th

Paper says it will call it what it ismdash when it reports on it at all

NYT Fails First Test of New Torture Policy

by Peter Hart

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1116

Extra October 2014 983157

debate is focused less on whether the

methods violated a statute or treaty

provision and more on whether they

worked

So the Times will call torture by its

name now that no one is likely to be prose-

cuted and because the debate eventually

became ldquofocusedrdquo on its practical benefits

Thus allegations of torture that are walled

off from legal accountability are safemdashassuming the paper even covers them at all

The first test of the New York Timesrsquo new

policy came with the release of an

August 11 Amnesty International report

on torture in Afghanistan Itrsquos a test the

Times failed

The report covered 10 discrete episodes

of torture and brutality that killed dozens of

Afghan civilians But the most explosive

stories concern the actions of a US Special

Operations unit that was linked to torture

killings and disappearances betweenNovember 2012 and February 2013 The

evidence gathered by Amnesty strongly

suggests that US personnel were intimately

involved In one especially harrowing

account an Afghan man named

Naimatullah talks about a raid on his fami-

lyrsquos home by US Special Forces

Naimatullah said that the Americans

brought two of his brothers

Esmatullah and Siddiqullah into two

separate rooms and started beating

them They also beat Hekmatullah in

the yard ldquoI could hear them beating the

othersrdquo Naimatullah said ldquoand when I

saw them they were in terrible shaperdquo

Hekmattullah told Amnesty

International that the Special Forces

operatives ldquodragged me from my room

by the back of my collar and then

threw me down the stairs While I fell

my shoulder and buttocks were frac-

tured Even now I have problem walk-

ing it is painful and I canrsquot stand

straightrdquo

According to Amnestyrsquos report US

forces then took Naimatullahrsquos three broth-

ers away Only Hekmattullah was ever seen

again

Amnesty reports that several of the fam-

ilies that were able to recover the remains of

the missing reported that the bodies showed

signs of torture from what appeared to be

acid burns on clothing to gruesome injuries

The report received attention from other

outlets like the LA Times and WashingtonPost but was not featured in the New York

Times A FAIR Action Alert (81814) noted

the disconnect between the Timesrsquo new tor-

ture policy and its silence on the Amnesty

report Times public editor MargaretSullivan (81914) seemed to agree with

FAIRrsquos take writing that Amnesty ldquopulled

together a great deal of informationmdashespe-

cially about the role of the American mili-

tarymdashin a comprehensive and forceful way

that would have benefited Times readersrdquo

But others at the Times didnrsquot see why

they should have bothered Foreign editor

Joseph Kahn told Sullivan that Amnestyrsquos

findings ldquoappeared to be recycledrdquo and ldquodid

not add much to what we have already on

many occasions reportedrdquo

Itrsquos true that the Times has reported on

the allegations of torture in Afghanistan

But therersquos one clear lesson one can draw

from that reporting As the evidence of US

culpability grew the paper got less interest-

ed

On February 25 2013 the New YorkTimes reported that the Afghan govern-

ment had ldquobarred elite American forces

from operating in a strategic province

adjoining Kabul on Sunday citing com-

plaints that Afghans working for AmericanSpecial Operations forces had tortured and

killed villagers in the areardquo

The Times emphasized the damage this

could do to the US mission The move

ldquowould effectively exclude the American

militaryrsquos main source of offensive firepow-

er from the areardquo

A month later the Times (32113)

reported that the Afghan government was

compromising on its exclusion of US

troops ldquobreaking an increasingly acrimo-

nious impasserdquo The paper reminded reade

that the source of the dispute was ldquocom

plaints related to abuses by American forc

and accompanying Afghan men durin

night raids in the province accusations th

coalition has deniedrdquo The paper added th

certain ldquoAfghan and Western official

blamed the deaths and torture on local insu

gents

Almost two months later (51313) cam

the headline ldquoAfghans Say an AmericTortured Civiliansrdquo But this was not abo

American military personnel the Americ

in question was identified as Zakar

Kandahari an Afghan-American who w

working as an interpreter for the Speci

Forces unit The Times included a comme

from a US officialmdashldquospeaking on the cond

tion of anonymity in line with official po

cyrdquomdashwho insisted the US had no role ldquoW

have done three investigations down ther

and all absolve ISAF [International Securi

Assistance Force] forces and Special Forc

of all wrongdoingrdquoSome might find such denials unpersu

sive as the Times reported (51313

Afghan officials had a video of at least o

torture session and the remains of the vi

tims were turning up just outside the U

base

The Times (52213) reminded reade

days later that ldquothere has been no tes

mony directly tying American soldiers

the abuse or killing of those detaineesrdquo T

paper added that ldquothe American military h

described Mr Kandahari as a freelan

interpreter who had volunteered to help t

American Special Forces who allowed hi

to live at their base in exchangerdquo

Weeks later the Times (6513) w

reporting the discovery of more bodies ju

outside the US basemdashand that Afghan an

US governments were ldquoin sharp disagre

ment about who is responsiblerdquo

The story made the paper once again o

July 8 with the news that Kandahari h

been arrested The paperrsquos account aga

reiterated US claims that it had nothing do with the torture but Heather Barr

Human Rights Watch offered a dissentin

view

The US said they investigated thoroughly

therersquos nothing there so everyone should

go away and accept their word that they

checked and did nothing wrong I donrsquot

think that ends the discussion Therersquos a

lot more explaining that needs to be done

that hasnrsquot happened yetrsquo

New York Timesrsquo Dean Baquet We can call it ldquotorturerdquo now

that itrsquos clear no one will be punished for it

Missing a Premium

983088

Please email fairfairorg

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1216

That explaining would have to happen

elsewhere though The New York Timesran just one more story that mentioned the

controversy a July 23 dispatch that once

again stated that US officials ldquohave cleared

their troops of responsibility in any torture

or killingrdquo

The paper added that government offi-

cials ldquohave refused to offer further explana-

tion of what might have happened to the

dead menrdquo One would think the arrest of the principal suspect might inspire new

reporting

And it didmdashjust not in the New YorkTimes A major investigation by RollingStonersquos Matthieu Aikins (11613) raised

serious doubts about the US denials about

Kandahari and the unit ldquoMany of the men

who disappeared in Nerkh were rounded up

by the Americans in broad daylight in front

of dozens of witnessesrdquo Aikins reported He

added that over five months

Rolling Stone has interviewed more

than two dozen eyewitnesses and vic-

timsrsquo families whorsquove provided consis-

tent and detailed allegations of the

involvement of American forces in the

disappearance of the 10 men and has

talked to Afghan and Western officials

who were familiar with confidential

Afghan-government UN and Red

Cross investigations that found the

allegations credible

Aikins even tracked down Kandahari for

a prison interview unsurprisingly he

denied responsibility for the killings The

US argument that a rogue interpreter carried

out an extensive campaign of torture is not

only far-fetched Aikins wrote that it is

in a certain sense irrelevant Under the

well-established legal principle of

command responsibility military offi-

cials who knowingly allow their subor-

dinates to commit war crimes are them-

selves criminally responsible

To Aikins these stories ldquowould amount

to some of the gravest war crimes perpetrat-

ed by American forces since 2001rdquo But

they remained obscure to readers of the

New York Times even after the Amnesty

report corroborated his charges

But the Times didnrsquot entirely ignore Rol-ling Stonesrsquo reporting on February 16 2014

the Times mentioned that Aikinsrsquo exposeacute

had received a George Polk Award 983150

New York Times investigative reporter

James Risen is taking a stand Despite

being hounded by both the Bush and

Obama administrations to reveal his

sources he has vowed to go to jail rather

than abandon his pledge of confidentiality

As fellow journalists and journalism

advocacy groups rush to his side many fear

that the US Department of Justice within the

self-proclaimed ldquomost transparent adminis-tration in historyrdquo is preparing to deliver a

body blow to the First Amendmentrsquos prom-

ise of press freedom

ldquoThis case is the closest wersquove come to

the edge of the precipice to reportersource

privilege being bannedrdquo said Jesselyn

Radack director of national security and

human rights for the Government Account-

ability Project in a phone interview

R

isen a Pulitzer Prizendashwinning reporter

has been ordered by the DoJ to testify in

the prosecution of former CIA employeeJeffrey Sterling who is accused of leaking

information about a botched Clinton-era

CIA mission to give Iran phony nuclear

informationmdashwhich ended up giving Iran

real information on how to build a bomb

Risen wrote about the failed operation in his

2006 book State of War

Risen was initially subpoenaed by the

Bush administration in 2008 but the order

expired as the reporter fought against it

through the courts To the surprise of many

the subpoena was renewed under PresidentObama in 2010mdashdespite repeated calls to

drop the pursuit

ldquoRisen informed the public about the

dangerous stupidity of a CIA operation and

seriously embarrassed the agency in the

processrdquo said Norman Solomon a longtime

FAIR associate and co-founder of

RootsActionorg an online advocacy group

in an email exchange ldquoEvidently a pair of

unforgivable sins in the eyes of both the

Bush and Obama administrationsrdquo

If the government does uphold its sub

na and Risen is punished for taking

stand journalists and free press advoc

say that this would set a dangerous pr

dent for the interpretation of press free

under the First Amendment

ldquoFunctionally a reporter will no lo

be able to promise source confidential

Radack explained ldquoThis will impact pe

who want to disclose wrongdoingrdquo said ldquoWhistleblowers disclosing fr

waste abuse and illegality will no longe

to the pressrdquo

Robust investigative journalism

already suffered from budget cuts and w

ing interest in long-form journalism

this ldquochilling effectrdquo on sources will pro

the ldquofinal nail in the coffin of the free p

as we know itrdquo Radack added

I

n 2011 a federal District Court ruled

Risen could not be compelled by the

ernment to reveal his sources ldquoA crimtrial subpoena is not a free pass for the

ernment to rifle through a reporterrsquos n

bookrdquo wrote District Court Judge Le

Brinkema adding that Risen was prote

by a limited ldquoreporterrsquos privilegerdquo unde

First Amendment

The government challenged that d

sion and in 2013 the US Court of App

for the Fourth Circuit in Richm

Virginia reinstated the subpoena arg

that the First Amendment did not pro

Risen from being forced to testify aghis source

In June 2014 Risenrsquos legal b

reached an insurmountable barrier when

US Supreme Court refused to take up

case affirming the lower court ruling N

Risen will have to testify or face conte

of court charges which can lead to e

imprisonment or up to $1000 a day in f

After the high court passed on the c

Risenrsquos attorney Joel Kurtzberg told

Committee to Protect Journalists (62

12 983157 October 2014 Extra

Risen case tests reportersrsquo power to revealgovernment wrongdoing

Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

by Lauren McCauley

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1316

Extra October 2014 983157

that he hopes the government wonrsquot hold

Risen in contempt ldquofor doing nothing other

than reporting the news and keeping his

promise to his sourcerdquo He noted that the

ldquoball is now in the governmentrsquos courtrdquo

On August 14 a coalition of journalists

media advocacy groups and independentmedia outlets delivered over 100000

signatures to the Department of Justice

calling on the Obama administration to drop

its subpoena

The petitionmdashorganized by Roots

Action along with FAIR the Center for

Media and Democracy Freedom of the

Press Foundation The Nation Institute and

The Progressivemdashargues that ldquowithout

confidentiality journalism would be

reduced to official storiesmdasha situation anti-

thetical to the First Amendmentrdquo

On the day the petition was turned in

Risen was joined by a number of free press

advocates including Radack and Solomon

at a press conference at the National Press

Club in Washington DC Speaking before

the roomful of reporters Risen said ldquoThe

real reason Irsquom doing this is for the future of

journalismrdquo

ldquoFreedom of the press is the most impor-

tant freedomrdquo agreed Delphine Halgand

director of Reporters Without Bordersrsquo Wash-

ington office who also spoke at the press

conference ldquoIt is the freedom that allows usto verify the existence of all other freedomsrdquo

When asked about the Risen case at a

closed-door meeting with a group of

journalists Attorney General Eric

Holder (New York Times 52814) report-

edly declared ldquoAs long as Irsquom attorney gen-

eral no reporter who is doing his job is

going to go to jailrdquo

Despite this pronouncement the prose-

cution of whistleblowers has become a

mainstay of Obamarsquos presidency

(Extra 911 FAIR Media

Advisory 82713) During his

time in office the DoJ has pur-

sued eight prosecutions of leakers

under the Espionage Act more

than double the total number of

such prosecutions since the law

was enacted

McClatchy News (62013)

also revealed the existence of agovernment employee ldquotattletalerdquo

program By having government

employees spying and reporting

on each other the Obama initia-

tive dubbed ldquoInsider Threatrdquo aims

to thwart future leakers

According to the Reporters Without Bor-

dersrsquo annual Press Freedom Index (21214)

the US dropped 13 positions from 2013 to

2014 and now ranks 46th worldwide The

report notes

In the US the hunt for leaks and

whistleblowers serves as a warning to

those thinking of satisfying a public

interest need for information about the

imperial prerogatives assumed by the

worldrsquos leading power

Advocates say to ensure the protectio

of journalists in this post-911 surveillan

state it is critical to pass a federal shie

law that will protect reporters from beinforced to disclose confidential informatio

or sources in court (Most states have som

sort of law or protection in place)

There is a shield bill currently makin

its way through CongressmdashS 987 know

as the Free Flow of Information Act

though there is concern that the legislatio

has too many loopholes that allow the go

ernment to claim broad ldquonational security

exceptions and leave some whistleblowe

without protection (Dissenter 51214)

The New York Timesrsquo James Risen at the Roots Action Press Conference

at the National Press Club in Washington DC ldquoThe real reason Irsquom doing

this is for the future of journalismrdquo

NYT Has Benefitted From Leakersmdashbut Not Vice Versa

A s the Department of Justice doggedly pursues Pulitzer Prizendashwinner James Risen the New York

Times has been forced to enter the fray of the governmentrsquos so-called ldquowar on informationrdquo

The Times like many mainstream publications has openly acknowledged its practice of seek-

ing government approval for sensitive stories (2613) and often serves as a government mouthpiece by

publishing sanctioned ldquoleaksrdquo of information

And although the Times has benefitted enormously from actual leaks of government secrets that

were vital for the public to know it has historically maintained a cautiousmdashif not skepticalmdashdistance

from those who risked their careers and liberty to reveal such truths

Despite publishing the invaluable Pentagon Papers which exposed government deceptions about the

Vietnam War the Times refused to provide leaker Daniel Ellsberg with any help in his criminal case

According to Ellsberg thenndashexecutive editor Abe Rosenthal told the whistleblower that the paper had no

policy for supporting a source who is being prosecuted for leaking information

ldquoThe Timesrdquo Ellsberg explained ldquothinks of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken the lawrdquo

The paper has given even less support to Chelsea Manning despite having partnered with Wikileaks

in July 2010 to release important revelations from the hun-

dreds of thousands of classified war logs and State

Department cables revealed by Manning

In addition to disparaging her character and questioning

her motives in a Bill Keller column (31113) the Times treat-

ed Manningrsquos trial as a noneventmdashnot sending a single

reporter and only running one AP wire story (123012) on it

Later New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan

(51212) wrote that the paper had ldquomissed the boatrdquo by not

covering Manningrsquos pretrial testimony

The paper did run an editorial (1114) supporting NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden however that was months

after an earlier editorial (8613) essentially calling for Snowden to be extradited for prosecution

In a January 2013 column about the prosecution of Chelsea Manning journalist Glenn Greenwald

warned corporate media that they ldquomight want to take a serious interestrdquo in the case and ldquomarshal oppo-

sition to what is being done to Bradley Manningrdquo

He continued ldquoIf not out of concern for the injustices to which he is being subjected then out of self-

interest to ensure that their reporters and their past and future whistleblowing sources cannot be simi-

larly persecutedrdquo

It seems that time has comemdashLMcC

Daniel Ellsberg The New York Times ldquothinks

of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken

the lawrdquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1416

In a recent interview with Times colleague

Maureen Dowd (81714) Risen refer-

enced Obamarsquos ldquomost transparent admin-

istrationrdquo claim

ldquoItrsquos hypocriticalrdquo Risen said ldquoA lot of

peopledonrsquot want to believe that Obama

wants to crack down on the press and

whistleblowers But he does Hersquos the great-

est enemy to press freedom in a generationrdquo

Among those who have come to Risenrsquos

defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prizendashwin-

ning reporters who each signed the Roots

Action petition and issued personal state-

ments on his behalf

Included in the testimonies is one from

Risenrsquos New York Times colleague Barry

Bearak who wrote that Risen ldquois carrying

the banner for every American journalistrdquo

ldquoIf he goes to jailrdquo Bearak continued

good bit of our nationrsquos freedom wil

locked away with himrdquo 983150

Lauren McCauley is an assistant edito

the website Common Dreams and a d

mentary producer her most recent fil

Mississippi Messiah about civil ri

leader James Meredith

14 983157 October 2014 Extra

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

Who Rules Public TV

by Aldo Guerrero

T

he corporate and financial sectors have

an overwhelming presence on the gov-

erning boards of major public televi-

sion stations a new FAIR study findsThe study looked at the occupations of

the current trustees of WNET (New York

CityNewark) WGBH (Boston) WETA

(Washington DC) WTTW (Chicago) and

KCET (Los Angeles)

Out of these boardsrsquo 182 total members

152mdashor 84 percentmdashhave corporate back-

grounds including 138 who are executives

at elite businesses Another 14 members

appear to be on the board because of their

familiesrsquo corporate-derived wealth often

with a primary affiliation as an officer of a

family charitable foundationMany board members are affiliated with

major corporations like Boeing Wells Fargo

and Citigroup Seventy-five board mem-

bers nearly half of all those with corporate

ties are financial industry executives

Another 24 are corporate lawyers

Public TV board members without corpo-

rate ties were few and far between Of

these nine are categorized as academics

while six are affiliated with nonprofit groups

(not counting family grant-making founda-

tions) There are three former government

officials two non-corporate lawyers two

journalists one religious educator and a for-

mer principal of a magnet school Six board

members are station insiders

WNET WGBH and WETA are consid-

ered to be the ldquobig threerdquo PBS affiliates

producing a large share of programming for

PBS nationally WTTW and KCET were

included because they serve two of the

largest US metropolitan areas Four of these

stations are affiliated with PBS KCET dis-

affiliated in 2010 but remains a prominent

regional public television station

The boards range in size from WTTWrsquos

63 members to KCETrsquos 20 WTTW and

WNET have the most corporate representa-

tion on their boards each at 92 percent

KCETrsquos board is 80 percent corporate-affil-

iated while DCrsquos WETA is at 73 percent

Corporate-tied board members were least

common at WGBH where they still made

up two-thirds of the board

One hundred sixteen members (64 per-

cent) are male It was not possible to do a

breakdown of board membersrsquo ethnicities

Last year the issue of corporate influence

over public television was thrust into the

spotlight when the film Park Avenue

Money Power and the American Dream was

broadcast by PBS affiliate WNET (NewYorker 52713 FAIR Blog 52113) The

film examined the concentration of wealth

and power in the United States by lookin

the super-rich residents of 740

Avenuemdashwho included then-WNET b

member and major station donor DKoch a billionaire industrialist well kn

for his donations to right-wing causes

WNET president Neil Shapiro was

to be ldquoconcernedrdquo about a film critica

one of his biggest funders WNET ende

not receiving a large donation from Koc

potentially in the seven-figure rang

because Park Avenue was broadcast

New Yorkerrsquos Jane Mayer reported

PBS then preemptively pulled the

on Citizen Koch another film that exam

the Koch familyrsquos political influenc

apparently practicing self-censorship inattempt to placate a wealthy donor K

would eventually resign from the WNboard of trustees Since then a camp

has been launched demanding that K

also resign from the board of Bost

WGBH where he is still a trustee

High-powered executives likes David Koch overwhelm

dominate the boards of trustees at public TV stations

This documentary caused trouble when it aired on WNET

because of the money and power on the PBS affiliatersquos

board

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 416

4 983157 October 2014 Extra

R A C E L E N S

Communities of color use media to protect themselves

FTP Film Tha Police

by Josmar Trujillo

The arrest of Ramsey Orta in August on

gun charges would have barely regis-

tered on the daily crime blotter in New

York City had he not been at the center

of the most controversial police-related

death in the cityrsquos recent memory

Police choking Eric Garner to death dur-

ing a routine arrest on Staten Island made

national news in July Orta a local resident

filmed the entire encounter and the video

became the rallying point for a renewed

push against police brutality

Shortly thereafter the police shooting

death of Michael Brown in FergusonMissouri brought mainstream media out by

the truckloads to cover the ensuing protests

mdashand the heavy-handed militarized police

response to that communityrsquos outrage

In the case of Orta who says he was set up

by police as retribution for the Garner video

(Daily News 8414) the decision to film the

encounter is representative of a growing trend

of copwatchingmdashwhich is exactly what it

sounds like filming cops Even as traditional

media cover the Ferguson police through

clouds of teargas communities of color are

learning to rely on themselves to report onwhat happens around them and to them

As Malkia Cyril pointed out recently on

CounterSpin (82214mdashsee page 7) the

ldquodecentralized nature of the Internetrdquo

allowed for ldquodemocratizedrdquo coverage of the

Ferguson protests In contrast to corporate

media bewildered when a Midwestern

police department resembled Egyptian

national policemdashldquoThis doesnrsquot make any

senserdquo CNNrsquos Jake Tapper declared (FAIR

Blog 81914)mdashstreet reporters recognize

police aggression as part of a pattern theyrsquove

had to confront in order to document

Citizen journalism is a potentially inspir-

ing development in bursting the corporate

media bubble overall but particularly for

cases of police brutality both at the individ-

ual (Brown) and community (protesters)

levels The Web plays a crucial role for mar-

ginalized communities black and Latino in

particular by disseminating incidents media

wonrsquot covermdashor wonrsquot stop spinning

Somewhere in America during the

time it takes to read this column therersquoll

likely be an incident of police harassment

of the black and brown Whether or not

the incident is a story media canrsquot ignore

(involving a fatal encounter say or a

public figure like Harvard professor Skip

Gates) these encounters are the context

that surrounds high-profile incidents like

the ones in Staten Island and Ferguson This

includes racial profiling mass incarceration

and the long history of systemic brutality

Copwatching videos disseminated initial-

ly through decentralized Internet media

like Black Twitter can bring those expe-

riences to the national dialogue And videos

that donrsquot make national news can still make

the rounds on the Internet via sites focused

on street culture like World Star Hip Hop

or dedicated to police videos like the Free

Thought Project or Photography Is Not aCrimemdashwhich are best described as inver-

sions of the long-running show Cops show-

casing police encounters through the eyes of

the publicThe idea is that everyday people with

camera phones and access to the Internet

can put police aggression and misconduct

on blastmdashwith the hope of influencing opin-

ion and politics But there are at least two

factors in traditional media coverage that

make public perceptions of police difficult

to move even amid an avalanche of disturb-

ing amateur police videos

One is the traditional role of not just

media in general but criminal justice media

(reporters and outlets that focus on poli

and crime) specifically When hip-hop a

Talib Kweli criticized CNNrsquos Don Le

(Politico 82114) for failing to repre

his and other protestersrsquo experiences

couldrsquove added the critique emanating f

social media that traditional media w

adding to the criminalization of black

by their choice of pictures used on air

Jazeera America 81414)

These distortions happen often at

local level as well culminating in m

coverage that favors official narratives

community input (FAIR Blog 619

Likely a result of the well-known tend

to favor power-holders in order to pres

access bias in criminal justice media

deeply prejudice public opinion

The other factor affects media

whole the issue of diversity W

reporters covering a police scan

especially one in which race is key are

ly less equipped by experience to un

stand the situation We use all sortexperts in other fields to add depth into

ries they may have insight into So wh

we send white reporters into communitie

color to cover police brutality

Polls find whites have a generally fa

able perception of police (Pew 825

Huffington Post 82114)mdashand rarely

in overpoliced communities The urge

and proximity to the issue of police bru

ty is one that residents of communitie

color are best suited to document Whic

why copwatching as an invaluable m

tool at their disposal is here to stay 983150

Ramsey Orta (left) who recorded the NYPD choking Eric

Garner to death

DC police officer preventing a citizen from using the

Amendment (Photography Is Not a Crime 9714)

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 516

Any effort to improve the lives of black

men that meets with the hearty

approval of Bill OrsquoReilly ought to set

off a few alarm bells But My Brotherrsquos

Keeper an initiative announced by Barack

Obama in February was received benignly

by the corporate press with the closest thing

to criticism being ldquoShould he have acted

earlierrdquo (ABC This Week 3214)

Reports displayed a telling vagueness

MBK was described as ldquoa program aimed at

giving young men of color a shot at successrdquo

(NBC Nightly News 22714) an effort ldquoto

reverse underachievement among young

black and Hispanic malesrdquo (AP 22714)

and as ldquocommitments from foundations and

businesses to help keep young minority men

in the classroom and out of prisonrdquo

(Washington Post 22814) ABCrsquos Diane

Sawyer (22714) called it ldquoa plan to help

kids succeed even when theyrsquore angry and

have made mistakesrdquo

Serious sounds were made about the

problem George Stephanopoulos (This

Week 3214) presented as ldquothe fact thatyoung black men are more likely than other

Americans to drop out of school be sent to

prison or end up murderedrdquo but with little

interest in ascertaining just how MBK with

its focus on mentoring or ldquohigh standards

and up-close motivationrdquo (CBS EveningNews 22714) would address it

Myriad deeper questions were left to big

mediarsquos margins USA Today (3314)

ran Tavis Smileyrsquos critique that ldquowhat

these young brothers really need is not so

much to be lsquokeptrsquo but to have their human-ity and dignity respectedrdquo A Chicago Tri-

bune source (22814) likened the plan to ldquoa

band-aid on a gunshot woundrdquo

The New York Times (31214) noted

such core concerns as MBKrsquos exclusion of

women and girls its reinforcement of patri-

archal norms and its reliance on philan-

thropic noblesse oblige over government

action but consigned them to its ldquoRoom for

Debaterdquo feature

Independent media gave critics more

space The Nationrsquos Mychal Denzel

Smith (22814) for example sug-

gested that despite some admirable

aspects MBK

ignores the root problem We can

turn every black and brown boy

into a ldquorespectablerdquo citizen But

the moment we do the rules for

what constitutes ldquorespectablerdquo

will change Thatrsquos how racism

works

At Salon (3614) Brittney

Cooper called out the proposalrsquos

male-only focus given that black

women and girls fare as poorly and

even worse in some ways includ-

ing the fact that ldquosingle black women have

the lowest net wealth of any group with

research showing a median wealth of $100rdquo

B

ut itrsquos not surprising that corporate

reporters in the main saw little to ques-

tion in the idea that entrenched socio-economic disparities could be meaningfully

addressed without systemic change or even

new resources that the fundamental prob-

lem facing men of color is ldquobrokenrdquo fami-

lies in need of a dominant male and that a

proper point of emphasis is that as Brian

Williams (NBC Nightly News 22714)

explained ldquothey cannot blame the circum-

stances of their birthrdquo

These media have a long inglorious his-

tory of singling out black males as ldquosuper-

predatorsrdquo (Extra 198) and shiftless grifters

and in some ways the ldquouniquely endan-geredrdquo black male is a variant rather than an

antidote to that pathological depiction The

narrative may start by talking about ldquohur-

dlesrdquo black men face but on examination it

generally locates those obstacles within

black men themselves including those who

as Stephanopoulos put it ldquoend up murderedrdquo

When Michael Brownmdashwith a father in

his life and accepted to collegemdashwas

shot dead in the street in Ferguson

Missouri by a white police officer corpora

media had a chance to revisit the assumptio

that what black men need most is a mento

But rather than question the analysis they

embraced media instead found everythin

ldquonewrdquo Suddenly we learned that US poli

forces are militarized Some police disr

spect black people Different communitihave different experiences

Thatrsquos not to belittle media coverag

which was better than it might have bee

There was the predictable culture-blamin

from the predictable quarters (See MB

booster Bill OrsquoReillymdash82614mdashwho di

missed protestersrsquo concerns because the id

of white privilege is a ldquobig lierdquo expound

by ldquorace hustlersrdquo) But when you can fin

a column headlined ldquoIn Defense of Lootin

in the Daily Mississippian (82614) y

know itrsquos not quite business as usual

USA Today (81514) reported on tincidence of killings by police (at least 40

a year) and decried the lack of reliable dat

The Christian Science Monitor (8211

explored the damage inflicted by St Lou

segregation and white flight The NeRepublic (82014) explained the partic

lars of ldquoself defenserdquo laws in Missouri an

elsewhere that combined with ldquoentrench

racial and occupational biasesrdquo make hom

cide convictions of police officers li

Fergusonrsquos Darren Wilson ldquobasical

Extra October 2014 983157

C O V E R S T O R Y

But will Ferguson shift media ideas on lsquofixingrsquo black men

Michael Brown Had a Father

by Janine Jackson

The presence of two parents in Michael Brownrsquos life (Michael Brown S

left and Lesley McSpadden) did not shake the prevailing media assum

tion that what young black men need is a man in their lives

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 616

6 983157 October 2014 Extra

impossiblerdquo All of this helpfully moves the

conversation from black peoplersquos ldquofeelingsrdquo

to demonstrable facts

But big media donrsquot really have them-

selves to credit for the elevation of

Brownrsquos murder beyond lamentable anec-

dote They were largely reacting to the vig-

orous public outcry and to the Ferguson

Police Departmentrsquos especially heavy-hand-

ed response including assaults on reportersthemselves And they were struggling to keep

up as those following the story turned

instead to Black Twitter and other online

sources for news and perspective (See next

page)

Now mainstream media are asking

whether Ferguson will be a ldquomomentrdquo or a

ldquomovementrdquo for black activists but they

might more appropriately ask the same of their

own engagement with the issues Ferguson

puts on the table As Salonrsquos Cooper

(82614) put it real progress would entail

a real commitment to due process pro-

tection of voting rights a livable wage

the dissolution of the prisonindustrial

complex funding of good public edu-

cation at both K-12 and college levels

a serious commitment to affirmative

action food security and full reproduc-

tive justice for all women Those are

the kinds of conditions under which

black communities and all communi-

ties could thrive

A failure to see things on that scale to

treat what wersquore now calling ldquoFergusonrdquo not

as aberrant but as reflective of US social

systems and institutions risks setting us

back to appeals to individual betterment the

ldquopull up your pantsrdquo logic critics see in

MBK

And not insignificantly a focus on the

individual over the structural tells white

people that racism is a personal thing

they ldquojust donrsquot understandrdquo and therefore

canrsquot fight that progress is a zero-sum gamein which therersquos nothing people of con-

science can do together Recognition of the

irreducibility (beyond class culture cloth-

ing or family structure) of anti-black racism

is laudable and overdue But it need not

erase the non-black anti-racists who could

be engaged in resisting policies and prac-

tices that overwhelmingly hurt people of

color like for just one example the practice

of funding police departments with low-

level warrants that target the poormdashas spot-

lighted by the Daily Beastrsquos Michael Daly

(82214) who is white

Ferguson could be a turning point for

media coverage of racism But should cor-

porate media ldquoforgetrdquo what they now sug-

gest they are learningmdashas they have

previous ldquomomentsrdquo (Extra 792 8

the good news is that every day more

ple are talking around them and mo

forward without them 983150

Extra receives no money from advertisers

or corporate underwriters and depends on

subscribers for its existence Please consider

subscribing or spread the word by giving a

gift subscription to Extra Choose a

traditional print subscription a digital PDF

edition or both together

I want to subscribe to the printedition of Extra983151 Yes Send me a two-year subscription

(20 issues) to Extra for $45

983151 I want a one-year subscription (10 issues)

to Extra for $25

983151 Irsquom a subscriber please renew me early

(Your expiration date is on your mailing

label above your name)

983151 One year (10 issues) for $25

983151 Two years (20 issues) for $45

Irsquod like to have the digital edition983151 Irsquod like a two-year digital subscription to

Extra for $27

983151 I want a one-year digital subscription toExtra for $15

Want both Get print + digital983151 One-year print + digital (pdf) subscription

only $35

983151 Two-year print + digital (pdf) subscription

only $65

Name______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City _______________________________________________

StateZip ___________________________________________

Email Address_______________________________________

983151 MasterCard 983151 VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No________________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature___________________________________________

Journalism in the Public Interest

To order

fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorg

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

fairor

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 716

Extra October 2014 983157

marginalized in mainstream media The

numbers of black journalists able to work inmainstream media has decreased over the

last 10 years significantly

And what we find is that both these jour-

nalists and the community journalists that

wersquore talking about on Twitter have found

social media to be an outlet to be a way to

share their work in a way that wasnrsquot able to

happen on CNN MSNBC or any of the

other cable news outlets Because cable is

owned by mega-corporations and doesnrsquot

allow for the kind of independent voice that

a more social platform on the Internet

allows forSo Black Twittermdashreminiscent of and

reflecting the black blog an independent

black voicemdashthatrsquos what really brought the

story of Ferguson to the majority of black

audiences

CS On the one hand you want to say that

itrsquos not the technology thatrsquos key I mean

media and other powers could have tried to

listen to black people if they were writing

on parchment you know But at the same

time the technology and the kind of com-

munication that it makes possible is some-

thing different isnrsquot it

MC Absolutely The decentralized nature

of the Internet allows for a level of democ-

ratized voice that wersquove never seen I mea

the Internetmdashas a platform as a vehicle fvoice in black communitiesmdashhas becom

one of the most powerful ways to bypass th

exclusionary and discriminatory mai

stream media And because of that becau

of its decentralized and democratiz

nature black people are very conscious

the need to fight to maintain their online an

digital voice

CS Letrsquos talk about that fight We know th

for corporate media this story is going to g

away Every racist act in corporate media

an anecdote Wersquore told that things ldquoraiquestionsrdquo when they might more approp

ately be said to answer them We hea

ldquoGosh this doesnrsquot look like America

when it looks exactly like America

And Ta-Nehisi Coates [Atlantic 8151

wrote recently about the ldquopolitics of chan

ing the subjectrdquo You know Letrsquos talk abo

black folks killing each other

All of this is why even when dece

coverage happens it feels like reinventin

the wheel and it points up the need for

sustained space to have a conversation th

doesnrsquot just serve as corrective of that dom

inant narrative and stop there but mov

forward So what is the state of play on t

fight to have the Internet be that sort

space

MC Right now as the people of Ferguso

are on the front lines demanding justice f

yet another murder of a young black man

unarmedmdashblack people are also on the fro

lines to maintain the right to speak onli

about the rampant police brutality in o

communitiesAnd one of the front lines that black pe

ple are fighting on is the fight for the ope

Internet Black communities across th

country are saying loud and clear that th

want to keep the Internet open We unde

stand that the only way that the court

Verizon v FCC said very clearly that t

only way the Federal Communicatio

Commission can enforce non-discrimin

tion rules online is to reclassify broadban

as a Title II common carrier service

There likely would have been media cover-

age of the Ferguson Missouri police killingof Michael Brown and the public protests

that followed But itrsquos hard to imagine that

the tone of that coverage would be the same

mdashwith stories validating black peoplersquos

anger questioning the militarization of

police and challenging mediarsquos criminaliza-

tion of people of colormdashwere it not for the

forceful intervention of black social media

where so-called ldquomainstreamrdquo perspectives

werenrsquot just called out but circumvented

Many people will tell you they didnrsquot

learn what was happening in Fergusonmdash

much less why it matteredmdashfrom the paperor the TV at all The implications of that fact

inform the work of Malkia Cyril executive

director of the Center for Media Justice

which is also home to the Media Action

Grassroots Network (MAG-Net) Counter-

Spinrsquos Janine Jackson talked to her by

phone from the Bay Area

CounterSpin Whatrsquos happening in Ferguson

isnrsquot a story about the Internet of course

but it has put in high relief the need for

black people to tell our own stories in our

own voices and not to wait until somebody

else decides the storyrsquos important Before

we talk about the threats to that space whose

power wersquore just discovering letrsquos talk for a

minute about that power I was sort of tick-

led to see David Carr at the New YorkTimes [81814] credit Twitter per se for

showing that something significant was

underway in Ferguson Letrsquos put a finer

point on it It was particular folks using

Twitter and other tools to tell this story

wasnrsquot it

Malkia Cyril Yes I mean the lingo ldquoBlack

Twitterrdquo isnrsquot about the company at all Itrsquos

about the hundreds of black blogs inde-

pendent black blogs and black bloggers

websites individual pundits that used the

social media platform to microblog and talk

about what they see as the primary issues

affecting black communities

And one of the reasons that is so impor-

tant is because these journalistsmdashblack

journalistsmdashhave been slowly excluded and

Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

lsquoThe Black Voice Is in Jeopardyrsquo

C O U N T E R S P I N I N T E R V I E W

Malkia Cyril ldquoThe Internetmdashas a platform as a vehicle for

voice in black communitiesmdashhas become one of the most

powerful ways to bypass the exclusionary and discriminato-

ry mainstream mediardquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 816

8 983157 October 2014 Extra

MC It was never a meaningful separation

and civil rights activists in the 1960s knew

that very well when they took television

news station WLBT to task for their failure

to cover segregation in the South And in

fact that casemdashthe case of WLBTmdash

became the defining case that allowed for

public comment in media policy processes

So civil rights organizations have long been

an advocate for media as a civil rights issue

Itrsquos only as media and telecommunica-tions have become so lucrative itrsquos only as

telecommunications companies have used

the buyouts of our communities as a public

relations strategy that these issues have

become technocratic wonky and separate

from the core issues of social justice

What we know what Ferguson shows

us what it shows me is that in fact there is

no path to victory to change without the

visibility and representation that media pro-

vides And that as long as that media is

Now let me explain that for a minute

because people say ldquoWell what is Title IIrdquo

Title II simply means that the Internet

should be treated as a public utility it

should be regulated like a public utility

Some organizations are concerned that if we

regulate the Internet as a public utility itrsquoll

kill innovation But what black communi-

ties know very well is two things One

public utilitiesmdashwhen they are truly pub-

licmdashare secure and reliable So thatrsquos num-ber one We want a reliable platform for

independent voices and treating it like a

utility regulating it as such makes it a civil

right that we can access publicly So thatrsquos

number one

Number two some organizations and

individuals have been concerned that if we

treat the Internet like a public utility that a

future FCC that a future Congress will

come along and take that away And to that

I think black communities are very clear

When we fought against segregation in

education we did not accept anything lessthan the ruling in Brown v Board of

Education There were rulings prior to that

There were court cases for more than a

decade prior to that victory We didnrsquot

accept any piecemeal half-baked legisla-

tion We only took what was morally right

and just And that was an end to segregation

in education And thatrsquos what wersquore talking

about right now

Ultimately reclassifying broadband

would ensure no segregation online that all

voices would be able to join the public con-

versation and that black voices in particular

would be able to be raised around issues

like police brutality like the incident in

Ferguson And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

for

CS Used to be when you told someone that

you were working with media policy they

would come back with ldquoOh well I do real

activism Irsquom in the streetrdquo and media is

somehow an ancillary issue That dayrsquos over

isnrsquot it I mean not everyone can work on

every issue but the separation of media pol-icy issues from other issues that we care

about is not a meaningful separation

owned operated and controlled by

largest Internet service providers the lar

cable companies the largest private f

lies the black voice is in jeopardy An

the black voice is in jeopardy black

dom is in jeopardy

And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

Wersquore not fighting for some back-end t

nical technocratic issue Wersquore fighting

the cause of black freedom Wersquore figh

for the same cause that all the black newpers right after slavery were fighting

Wersquore fighting for an end to any kind of

tem that violates or limits our voice

that is what wersquore talking about here to

Itrsquos not about media policy Itrsquos about

justice983150

Malkia Cyrilrsquos recent article ldquoThank

Black Internet for Bringing Ferguso

Merdquo appeared on the Huffington

(81514) among other outlets

Wear FAIR Everywhere You Go

If yoursquore like us you donrsquot trust the corporate

media to tell it straightmdashor report the stories that

matter

So why not spread the word

Send a bold message--and support FAIR--with our

Donrsquot Trust Corporate Media shirt

The shirts are 100 cotton and union-mademdash

just check the labelmdashand are available in Small

Medium Large and XLarge

Limited quantities available so order yours todaymdashthese wonrsquot last long

T-shirtmdash$20

983151 Sm 983151 Med 983151 Large 983151 XLarge

Includes shipping no international orders please

Name________________________________________________

Address ______________________________________________

City _________________________________________________

StateZip _____________________________________________

983151 MasterCard 983151 VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No__________________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature_____________________________________________

To order

fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

fairo

Join the Conversation

If yoursquore on Twitter connect with FAIR friendsand staff about the issues that matter to you themost Be a part of the discussion while stayingup-to-date on the latest news and information

Follow us FAIRmediawatch

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 916

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1016

10 983157 October 2014 Extra

pushing them as a way to tackle poverty

This in the eyes of many news outlets was a

welcome shift toward ldquobipartisanshiprdquo

ldquoRyanrsquos poverty plan mixes partiesrsquo

ideasrdquo trumpeted the Milwaukee Journal-

Sentinel (72414) saying its combination

of EITC hikes with block grants ldquoaspires to

find some common ground between right

and leftrdquo ldquoCreative ideas are rare in Wash-

ingtonrdquo asserted a Boston Herald editorial

(72814) adding that ldquoRyanrsquos approachdestroys the Democratic narrative that

Republicans want to permanently dismantle

the safety netrdquo

In fact Ryanrsquos plan was deemed so

ldquobipartisanrdquo that some worried aloud that it

could hurt his standing with Republicans

Washington Post columnist Melinda Henne-

berger (72414) citing Ryanrsquos statements

that he wanted to ldquotalk about how we can

repair the safety netrdquo and have the govern-

ment ldquoprovide resourcesrdquo to poor people

questioned whether it meant Ryan was giv-

ing up on seeking the 2016 Republican pres-idential nomination

And LA Times columnist Doyle

McManus (72714) under the headline

ldquoHas the GOP Gone Softrdquo singled out

Ryan for proposing policies that ldquomay face

their toughest audience inside the GOPrdquo

For the media to evaluate economic poli-

cies based on whether they please both

Democrats and Republicans is nothing

new as wersquove witnessed on battles over

everything from the stimulus plan (FAIR

Blog 2209) to the debt ceiling (FAIRBlog 71511) In fact during the battles

over welfare reform itself back in 1996

coverage largely focused on which bills

could win the support of both partiesrsquo lead-

ershipmdashwith the San Francisco Chronicleeditorial board (72796) writing approving-

ly that Congress had ldquowhipped itself into a

fair frenzy of bipartisanshiprdquo with welfare

reform and other bills

The problem with bipartisanship as a

moral touchstone should be obvious Not

only does it define sensible policies as beingwhatever the leadership of the Democrats and

Republicans can agree on but it allows one

party to shift the debate by moving its own

goalposts and thus what counts as bipartisan

While the Washington Post editorial

board (72414) singled out shifting money to

EITC as the ldquomost bipartisan part of Mr

Ryanrsquos planrdquo the Timesrsquo Irwin (72414)

acknowledged that it was hardly a new one

for conservatives ldquoWhat was once a conser-

vative idea created in the Gerald Ford admin-

istration and expanded by President Reagan

and both presidents Bush is now more con-

troversial on the rightrdquo since it would elimi-

nate income taxes for more poor Americans

making them what the Wall Street Journal(112002) once derided as ldquolucky duckiesrdquo

If the nationrsquos media were actually con-

cerned about finding programs that help

the poor itrsquos not hard For one therersquos the

food stamp program that Ryan wants toeliminate which has low overheadmdash95 per-

cent of spending goes directly to benefitsmdash

and which by itself lifts nearly 5 million

people out of poverty every year (NewRepublic 81613)

Or as the Center for Economic and

Policy Researchrsquos Shawn Fremstad (TheHill 72214) noted if Ryan truly wanted to

boost the earnings of the working poor

instead of work requirements and EITC

hikes he could accomplish the same t

by raising the federal minimum wage so

thing that is supported by 80 percen

Americans including a majority of Re

licans (Hart Research 72313)mdasha bip

san plan if ever there was one

But then helping the poor or even pu

ing poverty policies that most Americans

agree on isnrsquot really the point for Ry

supporters ldquoGiving people money re

does make them better-off Itrsquos better to more money to buy groceries and other b

necessities than lessrdquo admitted Salam

getting more money from the governm

doesnrsquot really make you less poorrdquo

In the world of punditry then itrsquos

about helping the poor afford groceries

about making sure that theyrsquove earned

right to deserve groceries That may be ldquob

tisanrdquomdashin the halls of Congress anywa

but that doesnrsquot make it smart policy 983150

Itrsquos not often that a media outletrsquos decision

to ldquorecalibrate its languagerdquo attracts much

attention But when itrsquos the New York

Times and the shift is about what to call

torture in the Newspaper of Record such

changes matter

In August 2014 10 years after the initial

revelations that made US torture an interna-

tional news story Times executive editor

Dean Baquet wrote a short piece for the

Times website (8714) stating that the word

ldquotorturerdquo would be used to describe ldquoinci-

dents in which we know for sure that inter-rogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an

effort to get informationrdquo

In other words the newspaper is now

accepting the reality that the term can be

accurately applied to some actions of the

United States Ten years ago when it was

revealed that the CIA was torturing ldquoWar on

Terrorrdquo prisoners criticsmdashincluding

FAIRmdashwere asking the Times to call US

torture by its name (FAIR Action Alert51404) The paper had officially or not

carved out an exception for the US gov

ment whereby torture would be descr

euphemistically as ldquoenhancedrdquo or ldquoha

interrogations

So this shift if it is to be considered a

significant comes a decade too late

thatrsquos the just the start Baquetrsquos reasonin

revealing He writes that the Times resi

the label for so long because ldquothe situa

was murkyrdquo and that the ldquoJustice Dep

ment insisted that the techniques did not

to the legal definition of lsquotorturersquordquo Su

most countries that practice torture wresist prosecuting themselves so itrsquos ha

a reasonable standard for a media outle

Perhaps most illuminating though

Baquetrsquos admission that the Jus

Departmentrsquos decision not to prosecute

torturers motivated the paperrsquos shift

government

has made clear that it will not prosecut

in connection with the interrogatio

program The result is that today th

Paper says it will call it what it ismdash when it reports on it at all

NYT Fails First Test of New Torture Policy

by Peter Hart

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1116

Extra October 2014 983157

debate is focused less on whether the

methods violated a statute or treaty

provision and more on whether they

worked

So the Times will call torture by its

name now that no one is likely to be prose-

cuted and because the debate eventually

became ldquofocusedrdquo on its practical benefits

Thus allegations of torture that are walled

off from legal accountability are safemdashassuming the paper even covers them at all

The first test of the New York Timesrsquo new

policy came with the release of an

August 11 Amnesty International report

on torture in Afghanistan Itrsquos a test the

Times failed

The report covered 10 discrete episodes

of torture and brutality that killed dozens of

Afghan civilians But the most explosive

stories concern the actions of a US Special

Operations unit that was linked to torture

killings and disappearances betweenNovember 2012 and February 2013 The

evidence gathered by Amnesty strongly

suggests that US personnel were intimately

involved In one especially harrowing

account an Afghan man named

Naimatullah talks about a raid on his fami-

lyrsquos home by US Special Forces

Naimatullah said that the Americans

brought two of his brothers

Esmatullah and Siddiqullah into two

separate rooms and started beating

them They also beat Hekmatullah in

the yard ldquoI could hear them beating the

othersrdquo Naimatullah said ldquoand when I

saw them they were in terrible shaperdquo

Hekmattullah told Amnesty

International that the Special Forces

operatives ldquodragged me from my room

by the back of my collar and then

threw me down the stairs While I fell

my shoulder and buttocks were frac-

tured Even now I have problem walk-

ing it is painful and I canrsquot stand

straightrdquo

According to Amnestyrsquos report US

forces then took Naimatullahrsquos three broth-

ers away Only Hekmattullah was ever seen

again

Amnesty reports that several of the fam-

ilies that were able to recover the remains of

the missing reported that the bodies showed

signs of torture from what appeared to be

acid burns on clothing to gruesome injuries

The report received attention from other

outlets like the LA Times and WashingtonPost but was not featured in the New York

Times A FAIR Action Alert (81814) noted

the disconnect between the Timesrsquo new tor-

ture policy and its silence on the Amnesty

report Times public editor MargaretSullivan (81914) seemed to agree with

FAIRrsquos take writing that Amnesty ldquopulled

together a great deal of informationmdashespe-

cially about the role of the American mili-

tarymdashin a comprehensive and forceful way

that would have benefited Times readersrdquo

But others at the Times didnrsquot see why

they should have bothered Foreign editor

Joseph Kahn told Sullivan that Amnestyrsquos

findings ldquoappeared to be recycledrdquo and ldquodid

not add much to what we have already on

many occasions reportedrdquo

Itrsquos true that the Times has reported on

the allegations of torture in Afghanistan

But therersquos one clear lesson one can draw

from that reporting As the evidence of US

culpability grew the paper got less interest-

ed

On February 25 2013 the New YorkTimes reported that the Afghan govern-

ment had ldquobarred elite American forces

from operating in a strategic province

adjoining Kabul on Sunday citing com-

plaints that Afghans working for AmericanSpecial Operations forces had tortured and

killed villagers in the areardquo

The Times emphasized the damage this

could do to the US mission The move

ldquowould effectively exclude the American

militaryrsquos main source of offensive firepow-

er from the areardquo

A month later the Times (32113)

reported that the Afghan government was

compromising on its exclusion of US

troops ldquobreaking an increasingly acrimo-

nious impasserdquo The paper reminded reade

that the source of the dispute was ldquocom

plaints related to abuses by American forc

and accompanying Afghan men durin

night raids in the province accusations th

coalition has deniedrdquo The paper added th

certain ldquoAfghan and Western official

blamed the deaths and torture on local insu

gents

Almost two months later (51313) cam

the headline ldquoAfghans Say an AmericTortured Civiliansrdquo But this was not abo

American military personnel the Americ

in question was identified as Zakar

Kandahari an Afghan-American who w

working as an interpreter for the Speci

Forces unit The Times included a comme

from a US officialmdashldquospeaking on the cond

tion of anonymity in line with official po

cyrdquomdashwho insisted the US had no role ldquoW

have done three investigations down ther

and all absolve ISAF [International Securi

Assistance Force] forces and Special Forc

of all wrongdoingrdquoSome might find such denials unpersu

sive as the Times reported (51313

Afghan officials had a video of at least o

torture session and the remains of the vi

tims were turning up just outside the U

base

The Times (52213) reminded reade

days later that ldquothere has been no tes

mony directly tying American soldiers

the abuse or killing of those detaineesrdquo T

paper added that ldquothe American military h

described Mr Kandahari as a freelan

interpreter who had volunteered to help t

American Special Forces who allowed hi

to live at their base in exchangerdquo

Weeks later the Times (6513) w

reporting the discovery of more bodies ju

outside the US basemdashand that Afghan an

US governments were ldquoin sharp disagre

ment about who is responsiblerdquo

The story made the paper once again o

July 8 with the news that Kandahari h

been arrested The paperrsquos account aga

reiterated US claims that it had nothing do with the torture but Heather Barr

Human Rights Watch offered a dissentin

view

The US said they investigated thoroughly

therersquos nothing there so everyone should

go away and accept their word that they

checked and did nothing wrong I donrsquot

think that ends the discussion Therersquos a

lot more explaining that needs to be done

that hasnrsquot happened yetrsquo

New York Timesrsquo Dean Baquet We can call it ldquotorturerdquo now

that itrsquos clear no one will be punished for it

Missing a Premium

983088

Please email fairfairorg

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1216

That explaining would have to happen

elsewhere though The New York Timesran just one more story that mentioned the

controversy a July 23 dispatch that once

again stated that US officials ldquohave cleared

their troops of responsibility in any torture

or killingrdquo

The paper added that government offi-

cials ldquohave refused to offer further explana-

tion of what might have happened to the

dead menrdquo One would think the arrest of the principal suspect might inspire new

reporting

And it didmdashjust not in the New YorkTimes A major investigation by RollingStonersquos Matthieu Aikins (11613) raised

serious doubts about the US denials about

Kandahari and the unit ldquoMany of the men

who disappeared in Nerkh were rounded up

by the Americans in broad daylight in front

of dozens of witnessesrdquo Aikins reported He

added that over five months

Rolling Stone has interviewed more

than two dozen eyewitnesses and vic-

timsrsquo families whorsquove provided consis-

tent and detailed allegations of the

involvement of American forces in the

disappearance of the 10 men and has

talked to Afghan and Western officials

who were familiar with confidential

Afghan-government UN and Red

Cross investigations that found the

allegations credible

Aikins even tracked down Kandahari for

a prison interview unsurprisingly he

denied responsibility for the killings The

US argument that a rogue interpreter carried

out an extensive campaign of torture is not

only far-fetched Aikins wrote that it is

in a certain sense irrelevant Under the

well-established legal principle of

command responsibility military offi-

cials who knowingly allow their subor-

dinates to commit war crimes are them-

selves criminally responsible

To Aikins these stories ldquowould amount

to some of the gravest war crimes perpetrat-

ed by American forces since 2001rdquo But

they remained obscure to readers of the

New York Times even after the Amnesty

report corroborated his charges

But the Times didnrsquot entirely ignore Rol-ling Stonesrsquo reporting on February 16 2014

the Times mentioned that Aikinsrsquo exposeacute

had received a George Polk Award 983150

New York Times investigative reporter

James Risen is taking a stand Despite

being hounded by both the Bush and

Obama administrations to reveal his

sources he has vowed to go to jail rather

than abandon his pledge of confidentiality

As fellow journalists and journalism

advocacy groups rush to his side many fear

that the US Department of Justice within the

self-proclaimed ldquomost transparent adminis-tration in historyrdquo is preparing to deliver a

body blow to the First Amendmentrsquos prom-

ise of press freedom

ldquoThis case is the closest wersquove come to

the edge of the precipice to reportersource

privilege being bannedrdquo said Jesselyn

Radack director of national security and

human rights for the Government Account-

ability Project in a phone interview

R

isen a Pulitzer Prizendashwinning reporter

has been ordered by the DoJ to testify in

the prosecution of former CIA employeeJeffrey Sterling who is accused of leaking

information about a botched Clinton-era

CIA mission to give Iran phony nuclear

informationmdashwhich ended up giving Iran

real information on how to build a bomb

Risen wrote about the failed operation in his

2006 book State of War

Risen was initially subpoenaed by the

Bush administration in 2008 but the order

expired as the reporter fought against it

through the courts To the surprise of many

the subpoena was renewed under PresidentObama in 2010mdashdespite repeated calls to

drop the pursuit

ldquoRisen informed the public about the

dangerous stupidity of a CIA operation and

seriously embarrassed the agency in the

processrdquo said Norman Solomon a longtime

FAIR associate and co-founder of

RootsActionorg an online advocacy group

in an email exchange ldquoEvidently a pair of

unforgivable sins in the eyes of both the

Bush and Obama administrationsrdquo

If the government does uphold its sub

na and Risen is punished for taking

stand journalists and free press advoc

say that this would set a dangerous pr

dent for the interpretation of press free

under the First Amendment

ldquoFunctionally a reporter will no lo

be able to promise source confidential

Radack explained ldquoThis will impact pe

who want to disclose wrongdoingrdquo said ldquoWhistleblowers disclosing fr

waste abuse and illegality will no longe

to the pressrdquo

Robust investigative journalism

already suffered from budget cuts and w

ing interest in long-form journalism

this ldquochilling effectrdquo on sources will pro

the ldquofinal nail in the coffin of the free p

as we know itrdquo Radack added

I

n 2011 a federal District Court ruled

Risen could not be compelled by the

ernment to reveal his sources ldquoA crimtrial subpoena is not a free pass for the

ernment to rifle through a reporterrsquos n

bookrdquo wrote District Court Judge Le

Brinkema adding that Risen was prote

by a limited ldquoreporterrsquos privilegerdquo unde

First Amendment

The government challenged that d

sion and in 2013 the US Court of App

for the Fourth Circuit in Richm

Virginia reinstated the subpoena arg

that the First Amendment did not pro

Risen from being forced to testify aghis source

In June 2014 Risenrsquos legal b

reached an insurmountable barrier when

US Supreme Court refused to take up

case affirming the lower court ruling N

Risen will have to testify or face conte

of court charges which can lead to e

imprisonment or up to $1000 a day in f

After the high court passed on the c

Risenrsquos attorney Joel Kurtzberg told

Committee to Protect Journalists (62

12 983157 October 2014 Extra

Risen case tests reportersrsquo power to revealgovernment wrongdoing

Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

by Lauren McCauley

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1316

Extra October 2014 983157

that he hopes the government wonrsquot hold

Risen in contempt ldquofor doing nothing other

than reporting the news and keeping his

promise to his sourcerdquo He noted that the

ldquoball is now in the governmentrsquos courtrdquo

On August 14 a coalition of journalists

media advocacy groups and independentmedia outlets delivered over 100000

signatures to the Department of Justice

calling on the Obama administration to drop

its subpoena

The petitionmdashorganized by Roots

Action along with FAIR the Center for

Media and Democracy Freedom of the

Press Foundation The Nation Institute and

The Progressivemdashargues that ldquowithout

confidentiality journalism would be

reduced to official storiesmdasha situation anti-

thetical to the First Amendmentrdquo

On the day the petition was turned in

Risen was joined by a number of free press

advocates including Radack and Solomon

at a press conference at the National Press

Club in Washington DC Speaking before

the roomful of reporters Risen said ldquoThe

real reason Irsquom doing this is for the future of

journalismrdquo

ldquoFreedom of the press is the most impor-

tant freedomrdquo agreed Delphine Halgand

director of Reporters Without Bordersrsquo Wash-

ington office who also spoke at the press

conference ldquoIt is the freedom that allows usto verify the existence of all other freedomsrdquo

When asked about the Risen case at a

closed-door meeting with a group of

journalists Attorney General Eric

Holder (New York Times 52814) report-

edly declared ldquoAs long as Irsquom attorney gen-

eral no reporter who is doing his job is

going to go to jailrdquo

Despite this pronouncement the prose-

cution of whistleblowers has become a

mainstay of Obamarsquos presidency

(Extra 911 FAIR Media

Advisory 82713) During his

time in office the DoJ has pur-

sued eight prosecutions of leakers

under the Espionage Act more

than double the total number of

such prosecutions since the law

was enacted

McClatchy News (62013)

also revealed the existence of agovernment employee ldquotattletalerdquo

program By having government

employees spying and reporting

on each other the Obama initia-

tive dubbed ldquoInsider Threatrdquo aims

to thwart future leakers

According to the Reporters Without Bor-

dersrsquo annual Press Freedom Index (21214)

the US dropped 13 positions from 2013 to

2014 and now ranks 46th worldwide The

report notes

In the US the hunt for leaks and

whistleblowers serves as a warning to

those thinking of satisfying a public

interest need for information about the

imperial prerogatives assumed by the

worldrsquos leading power

Advocates say to ensure the protectio

of journalists in this post-911 surveillan

state it is critical to pass a federal shie

law that will protect reporters from beinforced to disclose confidential informatio

or sources in court (Most states have som

sort of law or protection in place)

There is a shield bill currently makin

its way through CongressmdashS 987 know

as the Free Flow of Information Act

though there is concern that the legislatio

has too many loopholes that allow the go

ernment to claim broad ldquonational security

exceptions and leave some whistleblowe

without protection (Dissenter 51214)

The New York Timesrsquo James Risen at the Roots Action Press Conference

at the National Press Club in Washington DC ldquoThe real reason Irsquom doing

this is for the future of journalismrdquo

NYT Has Benefitted From Leakersmdashbut Not Vice Versa

A s the Department of Justice doggedly pursues Pulitzer Prizendashwinner James Risen the New York

Times has been forced to enter the fray of the governmentrsquos so-called ldquowar on informationrdquo

The Times like many mainstream publications has openly acknowledged its practice of seek-

ing government approval for sensitive stories (2613) and often serves as a government mouthpiece by

publishing sanctioned ldquoleaksrdquo of information

And although the Times has benefitted enormously from actual leaks of government secrets that

were vital for the public to know it has historically maintained a cautiousmdashif not skepticalmdashdistance

from those who risked their careers and liberty to reveal such truths

Despite publishing the invaluable Pentagon Papers which exposed government deceptions about the

Vietnam War the Times refused to provide leaker Daniel Ellsberg with any help in his criminal case

According to Ellsberg thenndashexecutive editor Abe Rosenthal told the whistleblower that the paper had no

policy for supporting a source who is being prosecuted for leaking information

ldquoThe Timesrdquo Ellsberg explained ldquothinks of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken the lawrdquo

The paper has given even less support to Chelsea Manning despite having partnered with Wikileaks

in July 2010 to release important revelations from the hun-

dreds of thousands of classified war logs and State

Department cables revealed by Manning

In addition to disparaging her character and questioning

her motives in a Bill Keller column (31113) the Times treat-

ed Manningrsquos trial as a noneventmdashnot sending a single

reporter and only running one AP wire story (123012) on it

Later New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan

(51212) wrote that the paper had ldquomissed the boatrdquo by not

covering Manningrsquos pretrial testimony

The paper did run an editorial (1114) supporting NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden however that was months

after an earlier editorial (8613) essentially calling for Snowden to be extradited for prosecution

In a January 2013 column about the prosecution of Chelsea Manning journalist Glenn Greenwald

warned corporate media that they ldquomight want to take a serious interestrdquo in the case and ldquomarshal oppo-

sition to what is being done to Bradley Manningrdquo

He continued ldquoIf not out of concern for the injustices to which he is being subjected then out of self-

interest to ensure that their reporters and their past and future whistleblowing sources cannot be simi-

larly persecutedrdquo

It seems that time has comemdashLMcC

Daniel Ellsberg The New York Times ldquothinks

of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken

the lawrdquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1416

In a recent interview with Times colleague

Maureen Dowd (81714) Risen refer-

enced Obamarsquos ldquomost transparent admin-

istrationrdquo claim

ldquoItrsquos hypocriticalrdquo Risen said ldquoA lot of

peopledonrsquot want to believe that Obama

wants to crack down on the press and

whistleblowers But he does Hersquos the great-

est enemy to press freedom in a generationrdquo

Among those who have come to Risenrsquos

defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prizendashwin-

ning reporters who each signed the Roots

Action petition and issued personal state-

ments on his behalf

Included in the testimonies is one from

Risenrsquos New York Times colleague Barry

Bearak who wrote that Risen ldquois carrying

the banner for every American journalistrdquo

ldquoIf he goes to jailrdquo Bearak continued

good bit of our nationrsquos freedom wil

locked away with himrdquo 983150

Lauren McCauley is an assistant edito

the website Common Dreams and a d

mentary producer her most recent fil

Mississippi Messiah about civil ri

leader James Meredith

14 983157 October 2014 Extra

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

Who Rules Public TV

by Aldo Guerrero

T

he corporate and financial sectors have

an overwhelming presence on the gov-

erning boards of major public televi-

sion stations a new FAIR study findsThe study looked at the occupations of

the current trustees of WNET (New York

CityNewark) WGBH (Boston) WETA

(Washington DC) WTTW (Chicago) and

KCET (Los Angeles)

Out of these boardsrsquo 182 total members

152mdashor 84 percentmdashhave corporate back-

grounds including 138 who are executives

at elite businesses Another 14 members

appear to be on the board because of their

familiesrsquo corporate-derived wealth often

with a primary affiliation as an officer of a

family charitable foundationMany board members are affiliated with

major corporations like Boeing Wells Fargo

and Citigroup Seventy-five board mem-

bers nearly half of all those with corporate

ties are financial industry executives

Another 24 are corporate lawyers

Public TV board members without corpo-

rate ties were few and far between Of

these nine are categorized as academics

while six are affiliated with nonprofit groups

(not counting family grant-making founda-

tions) There are three former government

officials two non-corporate lawyers two

journalists one religious educator and a for-

mer principal of a magnet school Six board

members are station insiders

WNET WGBH and WETA are consid-

ered to be the ldquobig threerdquo PBS affiliates

producing a large share of programming for

PBS nationally WTTW and KCET were

included because they serve two of the

largest US metropolitan areas Four of these

stations are affiliated with PBS KCET dis-

affiliated in 2010 but remains a prominent

regional public television station

The boards range in size from WTTWrsquos

63 members to KCETrsquos 20 WTTW and

WNET have the most corporate representa-

tion on their boards each at 92 percent

KCETrsquos board is 80 percent corporate-affil-

iated while DCrsquos WETA is at 73 percent

Corporate-tied board members were least

common at WGBH where they still made

up two-thirds of the board

One hundred sixteen members (64 per-

cent) are male It was not possible to do a

breakdown of board membersrsquo ethnicities

Last year the issue of corporate influence

over public television was thrust into the

spotlight when the film Park Avenue

Money Power and the American Dream was

broadcast by PBS affiliate WNET (NewYorker 52713 FAIR Blog 52113) The

film examined the concentration of wealth

and power in the United States by lookin

the super-rich residents of 740

Avenuemdashwho included then-WNET b

member and major station donor DKoch a billionaire industrialist well kn

for his donations to right-wing causes

WNET president Neil Shapiro was

to be ldquoconcernedrdquo about a film critica

one of his biggest funders WNET ende

not receiving a large donation from Koc

potentially in the seven-figure rang

because Park Avenue was broadcast

New Yorkerrsquos Jane Mayer reported

PBS then preemptively pulled the

on Citizen Koch another film that exam

the Koch familyrsquos political influenc

apparently practicing self-censorship inattempt to placate a wealthy donor K

would eventually resign from the WNboard of trustees Since then a camp

has been launched demanding that K

also resign from the board of Bost

WGBH where he is still a trustee

High-powered executives likes David Koch overwhelm

dominate the boards of trustees at public TV stations

This documentary caused trouble when it aired on WNET

because of the money and power on the PBS affiliatersquos

board

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 516

Any effort to improve the lives of black

men that meets with the hearty

approval of Bill OrsquoReilly ought to set

off a few alarm bells But My Brotherrsquos

Keeper an initiative announced by Barack

Obama in February was received benignly

by the corporate press with the closest thing

to criticism being ldquoShould he have acted

earlierrdquo (ABC This Week 3214)

Reports displayed a telling vagueness

MBK was described as ldquoa program aimed at

giving young men of color a shot at successrdquo

(NBC Nightly News 22714) an effort ldquoto

reverse underachievement among young

black and Hispanic malesrdquo (AP 22714)

and as ldquocommitments from foundations and

businesses to help keep young minority men

in the classroom and out of prisonrdquo

(Washington Post 22814) ABCrsquos Diane

Sawyer (22714) called it ldquoa plan to help

kids succeed even when theyrsquore angry and

have made mistakesrdquo

Serious sounds were made about the

problem George Stephanopoulos (This

Week 3214) presented as ldquothe fact thatyoung black men are more likely than other

Americans to drop out of school be sent to

prison or end up murderedrdquo but with little

interest in ascertaining just how MBK with

its focus on mentoring or ldquohigh standards

and up-close motivationrdquo (CBS EveningNews 22714) would address it

Myriad deeper questions were left to big

mediarsquos margins USA Today (3314)

ran Tavis Smileyrsquos critique that ldquowhat

these young brothers really need is not so

much to be lsquokeptrsquo but to have their human-ity and dignity respectedrdquo A Chicago Tri-

bune source (22814) likened the plan to ldquoa

band-aid on a gunshot woundrdquo

The New York Times (31214) noted

such core concerns as MBKrsquos exclusion of

women and girls its reinforcement of patri-

archal norms and its reliance on philan-

thropic noblesse oblige over government

action but consigned them to its ldquoRoom for

Debaterdquo feature

Independent media gave critics more

space The Nationrsquos Mychal Denzel

Smith (22814) for example sug-

gested that despite some admirable

aspects MBK

ignores the root problem We can

turn every black and brown boy

into a ldquorespectablerdquo citizen But

the moment we do the rules for

what constitutes ldquorespectablerdquo

will change Thatrsquos how racism

works

At Salon (3614) Brittney

Cooper called out the proposalrsquos

male-only focus given that black

women and girls fare as poorly and

even worse in some ways includ-

ing the fact that ldquosingle black women have

the lowest net wealth of any group with

research showing a median wealth of $100rdquo

B

ut itrsquos not surprising that corporate

reporters in the main saw little to ques-

tion in the idea that entrenched socio-economic disparities could be meaningfully

addressed without systemic change or even

new resources that the fundamental prob-

lem facing men of color is ldquobrokenrdquo fami-

lies in need of a dominant male and that a

proper point of emphasis is that as Brian

Williams (NBC Nightly News 22714)

explained ldquothey cannot blame the circum-

stances of their birthrdquo

These media have a long inglorious his-

tory of singling out black males as ldquosuper-

predatorsrdquo (Extra 198) and shiftless grifters

and in some ways the ldquouniquely endan-geredrdquo black male is a variant rather than an

antidote to that pathological depiction The

narrative may start by talking about ldquohur-

dlesrdquo black men face but on examination it

generally locates those obstacles within

black men themselves including those who

as Stephanopoulos put it ldquoend up murderedrdquo

When Michael Brownmdashwith a father in

his life and accepted to collegemdashwas

shot dead in the street in Ferguson

Missouri by a white police officer corpora

media had a chance to revisit the assumptio

that what black men need most is a mento

But rather than question the analysis they

embraced media instead found everythin

ldquonewrdquo Suddenly we learned that US poli

forces are militarized Some police disr

spect black people Different communitihave different experiences

Thatrsquos not to belittle media coverag

which was better than it might have bee

There was the predictable culture-blamin

from the predictable quarters (See MB

booster Bill OrsquoReillymdash82614mdashwho di

missed protestersrsquo concerns because the id

of white privilege is a ldquobig lierdquo expound

by ldquorace hustlersrdquo) But when you can fin

a column headlined ldquoIn Defense of Lootin

in the Daily Mississippian (82614) y

know itrsquos not quite business as usual

USA Today (81514) reported on tincidence of killings by police (at least 40

a year) and decried the lack of reliable dat

The Christian Science Monitor (8211

explored the damage inflicted by St Lou

segregation and white flight The NeRepublic (82014) explained the partic

lars of ldquoself defenserdquo laws in Missouri an

elsewhere that combined with ldquoentrench

racial and occupational biasesrdquo make hom

cide convictions of police officers li

Fergusonrsquos Darren Wilson ldquobasical

Extra October 2014 983157

C O V E R S T O R Y

But will Ferguson shift media ideas on lsquofixingrsquo black men

Michael Brown Had a Father

by Janine Jackson

The presence of two parents in Michael Brownrsquos life (Michael Brown S

left and Lesley McSpadden) did not shake the prevailing media assum

tion that what young black men need is a man in their lives

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 616

6 983157 October 2014 Extra

impossiblerdquo All of this helpfully moves the

conversation from black peoplersquos ldquofeelingsrdquo

to demonstrable facts

But big media donrsquot really have them-

selves to credit for the elevation of

Brownrsquos murder beyond lamentable anec-

dote They were largely reacting to the vig-

orous public outcry and to the Ferguson

Police Departmentrsquos especially heavy-hand-

ed response including assaults on reportersthemselves And they were struggling to keep

up as those following the story turned

instead to Black Twitter and other online

sources for news and perspective (See next

page)

Now mainstream media are asking

whether Ferguson will be a ldquomomentrdquo or a

ldquomovementrdquo for black activists but they

might more appropriately ask the same of their

own engagement with the issues Ferguson

puts on the table As Salonrsquos Cooper

(82614) put it real progress would entail

a real commitment to due process pro-

tection of voting rights a livable wage

the dissolution of the prisonindustrial

complex funding of good public edu-

cation at both K-12 and college levels

a serious commitment to affirmative

action food security and full reproduc-

tive justice for all women Those are

the kinds of conditions under which

black communities and all communi-

ties could thrive

A failure to see things on that scale to

treat what wersquore now calling ldquoFergusonrdquo not

as aberrant but as reflective of US social

systems and institutions risks setting us

back to appeals to individual betterment the

ldquopull up your pantsrdquo logic critics see in

MBK

And not insignificantly a focus on the

individual over the structural tells white

people that racism is a personal thing

they ldquojust donrsquot understandrdquo and therefore

canrsquot fight that progress is a zero-sum gamein which therersquos nothing people of con-

science can do together Recognition of the

irreducibility (beyond class culture cloth-

ing or family structure) of anti-black racism

is laudable and overdue But it need not

erase the non-black anti-racists who could

be engaged in resisting policies and prac-

tices that overwhelmingly hurt people of

color like for just one example the practice

of funding police departments with low-

level warrants that target the poormdashas spot-

lighted by the Daily Beastrsquos Michael Daly

(82214) who is white

Ferguson could be a turning point for

media coverage of racism But should cor-

porate media ldquoforgetrdquo what they now sug-

gest they are learningmdashas they have

previous ldquomomentsrdquo (Extra 792 8

the good news is that every day more

ple are talking around them and mo

forward without them 983150

Extra receives no money from advertisers

or corporate underwriters and depends on

subscribers for its existence Please consider

subscribing or spread the word by giving a

gift subscription to Extra Choose a

traditional print subscription a digital PDF

edition or both together

I want to subscribe to the printedition of Extra983151 Yes Send me a two-year subscription

(20 issues) to Extra for $45

983151 I want a one-year subscription (10 issues)

to Extra for $25

983151 Irsquom a subscriber please renew me early

(Your expiration date is on your mailing

label above your name)

983151 One year (10 issues) for $25

983151 Two years (20 issues) for $45

Irsquod like to have the digital edition983151 Irsquod like a two-year digital subscription to

Extra for $27

983151 I want a one-year digital subscription toExtra for $15

Want both Get print + digital983151 One-year print + digital (pdf) subscription

only $35

983151 Two-year print + digital (pdf) subscription

only $65

Name______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City _______________________________________________

StateZip ___________________________________________

Email Address_______________________________________

983151 MasterCard 983151 VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No________________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature___________________________________________

Journalism in the Public Interest

To order

fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorg

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

fairor

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 716

Extra October 2014 983157

marginalized in mainstream media The

numbers of black journalists able to work inmainstream media has decreased over the

last 10 years significantly

And what we find is that both these jour-

nalists and the community journalists that

wersquore talking about on Twitter have found

social media to be an outlet to be a way to

share their work in a way that wasnrsquot able to

happen on CNN MSNBC or any of the

other cable news outlets Because cable is

owned by mega-corporations and doesnrsquot

allow for the kind of independent voice that

a more social platform on the Internet

allows forSo Black Twittermdashreminiscent of and

reflecting the black blog an independent

black voicemdashthatrsquos what really brought the

story of Ferguson to the majority of black

audiences

CS On the one hand you want to say that

itrsquos not the technology thatrsquos key I mean

media and other powers could have tried to

listen to black people if they were writing

on parchment you know But at the same

time the technology and the kind of com-

munication that it makes possible is some-

thing different isnrsquot it

MC Absolutely The decentralized nature

of the Internet allows for a level of democ-

ratized voice that wersquove never seen I mea

the Internetmdashas a platform as a vehicle fvoice in black communitiesmdashhas becom

one of the most powerful ways to bypass th

exclusionary and discriminatory mai

stream media And because of that becau

of its decentralized and democratiz

nature black people are very conscious

the need to fight to maintain their online an

digital voice

CS Letrsquos talk about that fight We know th

for corporate media this story is going to g

away Every racist act in corporate media

an anecdote Wersquore told that things ldquoraiquestionsrdquo when they might more approp

ately be said to answer them We hea

ldquoGosh this doesnrsquot look like America

when it looks exactly like America

And Ta-Nehisi Coates [Atlantic 8151

wrote recently about the ldquopolitics of chan

ing the subjectrdquo You know Letrsquos talk abo

black folks killing each other

All of this is why even when dece

coverage happens it feels like reinventin

the wheel and it points up the need for

sustained space to have a conversation th

doesnrsquot just serve as corrective of that dom

inant narrative and stop there but mov

forward So what is the state of play on t

fight to have the Internet be that sort

space

MC Right now as the people of Ferguso

are on the front lines demanding justice f

yet another murder of a young black man

unarmedmdashblack people are also on the fro

lines to maintain the right to speak onli

about the rampant police brutality in o

communitiesAnd one of the front lines that black pe

ple are fighting on is the fight for the ope

Internet Black communities across th

country are saying loud and clear that th

want to keep the Internet open We unde

stand that the only way that the court

Verizon v FCC said very clearly that t

only way the Federal Communicatio

Commission can enforce non-discrimin

tion rules online is to reclassify broadban

as a Title II common carrier service

There likely would have been media cover-

age of the Ferguson Missouri police killingof Michael Brown and the public protests

that followed But itrsquos hard to imagine that

the tone of that coverage would be the same

mdashwith stories validating black peoplersquos

anger questioning the militarization of

police and challenging mediarsquos criminaliza-

tion of people of colormdashwere it not for the

forceful intervention of black social media

where so-called ldquomainstreamrdquo perspectives

werenrsquot just called out but circumvented

Many people will tell you they didnrsquot

learn what was happening in Fergusonmdash

much less why it matteredmdashfrom the paperor the TV at all The implications of that fact

inform the work of Malkia Cyril executive

director of the Center for Media Justice

which is also home to the Media Action

Grassroots Network (MAG-Net) Counter-

Spinrsquos Janine Jackson talked to her by

phone from the Bay Area

CounterSpin Whatrsquos happening in Ferguson

isnrsquot a story about the Internet of course

but it has put in high relief the need for

black people to tell our own stories in our

own voices and not to wait until somebody

else decides the storyrsquos important Before

we talk about the threats to that space whose

power wersquore just discovering letrsquos talk for a

minute about that power I was sort of tick-

led to see David Carr at the New YorkTimes [81814] credit Twitter per se for

showing that something significant was

underway in Ferguson Letrsquos put a finer

point on it It was particular folks using

Twitter and other tools to tell this story

wasnrsquot it

Malkia Cyril Yes I mean the lingo ldquoBlack

Twitterrdquo isnrsquot about the company at all Itrsquos

about the hundreds of black blogs inde-

pendent black blogs and black bloggers

websites individual pundits that used the

social media platform to microblog and talk

about what they see as the primary issues

affecting black communities

And one of the reasons that is so impor-

tant is because these journalistsmdashblack

journalistsmdashhave been slowly excluded and

Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

lsquoThe Black Voice Is in Jeopardyrsquo

C O U N T E R S P I N I N T E R V I E W

Malkia Cyril ldquoThe Internetmdashas a platform as a vehicle for

voice in black communitiesmdashhas become one of the most

powerful ways to bypass the exclusionary and discriminato-

ry mainstream mediardquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 816

8 983157 October 2014 Extra

MC It was never a meaningful separation

and civil rights activists in the 1960s knew

that very well when they took television

news station WLBT to task for their failure

to cover segregation in the South And in

fact that casemdashthe case of WLBTmdash

became the defining case that allowed for

public comment in media policy processes

So civil rights organizations have long been

an advocate for media as a civil rights issue

Itrsquos only as media and telecommunica-tions have become so lucrative itrsquos only as

telecommunications companies have used

the buyouts of our communities as a public

relations strategy that these issues have

become technocratic wonky and separate

from the core issues of social justice

What we know what Ferguson shows

us what it shows me is that in fact there is

no path to victory to change without the

visibility and representation that media pro-

vides And that as long as that media is

Now let me explain that for a minute

because people say ldquoWell what is Title IIrdquo

Title II simply means that the Internet

should be treated as a public utility it

should be regulated like a public utility

Some organizations are concerned that if we

regulate the Internet as a public utility itrsquoll

kill innovation But what black communi-

ties know very well is two things One

public utilitiesmdashwhen they are truly pub-

licmdashare secure and reliable So thatrsquos num-ber one We want a reliable platform for

independent voices and treating it like a

utility regulating it as such makes it a civil

right that we can access publicly So thatrsquos

number one

Number two some organizations and

individuals have been concerned that if we

treat the Internet like a public utility that a

future FCC that a future Congress will

come along and take that away And to that

I think black communities are very clear

When we fought against segregation in

education we did not accept anything lessthan the ruling in Brown v Board of

Education There were rulings prior to that

There were court cases for more than a

decade prior to that victory We didnrsquot

accept any piecemeal half-baked legisla-

tion We only took what was morally right

and just And that was an end to segregation

in education And thatrsquos what wersquore talking

about right now

Ultimately reclassifying broadband

would ensure no segregation online that all

voices would be able to join the public con-

versation and that black voices in particular

would be able to be raised around issues

like police brutality like the incident in

Ferguson And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

for

CS Used to be when you told someone that

you were working with media policy they

would come back with ldquoOh well I do real

activism Irsquom in the streetrdquo and media is

somehow an ancillary issue That dayrsquos over

isnrsquot it I mean not everyone can work on

every issue but the separation of media pol-icy issues from other issues that we care

about is not a meaningful separation

owned operated and controlled by

largest Internet service providers the lar

cable companies the largest private f

lies the black voice is in jeopardy An

the black voice is in jeopardy black

dom is in jeopardy

And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

Wersquore not fighting for some back-end t

nical technocratic issue Wersquore fighting

the cause of black freedom Wersquore figh

for the same cause that all the black newpers right after slavery were fighting

Wersquore fighting for an end to any kind of

tem that violates or limits our voice

that is what wersquore talking about here to

Itrsquos not about media policy Itrsquos about

justice983150

Malkia Cyrilrsquos recent article ldquoThank

Black Internet for Bringing Ferguso

Merdquo appeared on the Huffington

(81514) among other outlets

Wear FAIR Everywhere You Go

If yoursquore like us you donrsquot trust the corporate

media to tell it straightmdashor report the stories that

matter

So why not spread the word

Send a bold message--and support FAIR--with our

Donrsquot Trust Corporate Media shirt

The shirts are 100 cotton and union-mademdash

just check the labelmdashand are available in Small

Medium Large and XLarge

Limited quantities available so order yours todaymdashthese wonrsquot last long

T-shirtmdash$20

983151 Sm 983151 Med 983151 Large 983151 XLarge

Includes shipping no international orders please

Name________________________________________________

Address ______________________________________________

City _________________________________________________

StateZip _____________________________________________

983151 MasterCard 983151 VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No__________________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature_____________________________________________

To order

fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

fairo

Join the Conversation

If yoursquore on Twitter connect with FAIR friendsand staff about the issues that matter to you themost Be a part of the discussion while stayingup-to-date on the latest news and information

Follow us FAIRmediawatch

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 916

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1016

10 983157 October 2014 Extra

pushing them as a way to tackle poverty

This in the eyes of many news outlets was a

welcome shift toward ldquobipartisanshiprdquo

ldquoRyanrsquos poverty plan mixes partiesrsquo

ideasrdquo trumpeted the Milwaukee Journal-

Sentinel (72414) saying its combination

of EITC hikes with block grants ldquoaspires to

find some common ground between right

and leftrdquo ldquoCreative ideas are rare in Wash-

ingtonrdquo asserted a Boston Herald editorial

(72814) adding that ldquoRyanrsquos approachdestroys the Democratic narrative that

Republicans want to permanently dismantle

the safety netrdquo

In fact Ryanrsquos plan was deemed so

ldquobipartisanrdquo that some worried aloud that it

could hurt his standing with Republicans

Washington Post columnist Melinda Henne-

berger (72414) citing Ryanrsquos statements

that he wanted to ldquotalk about how we can

repair the safety netrdquo and have the govern-

ment ldquoprovide resourcesrdquo to poor people

questioned whether it meant Ryan was giv-

ing up on seeking the 2016 Republican pres-idential nomination

And LA Times columnist Doyle

McManus (72714) under the headline

ldquoHas the GOP Gone Softrdquo singled out

Ryan for proposing policies that ldquomay face

their toughest audience inside the GOPrdquo

For the media to evaluate economic poli-

cies based on whether they please both

Democrats and Republicans is nothing

new as wersquove witnessed on battles over

everything from the stimulus plan (FAIR

Blog 2209) to the debt ceiling (FAIRBlog 71511) In fact during the battles

over welfare reform itself back in 1996

coverage largely focused on which bills

could win the support of both partiesrsquo lead-

ershipmdashwith the San Francisco Chronicleeditorial board (72796) writing approving-

ly that Congress had ldquowhipped itself into a

fair frenzy of bipartisanshiprdquo with welfare

reform and other bills

The problem with bipartisanship as a

moral touchstone should be obvious Not

only does it define sensible policies as beingwhatever the leadership of the Democrats and

Republicans can agree on but it allows one

party to shift the debate by moving its own

goalposts and thus what counts as bipartisan

While the Washington Post editorial

board (72414) singled out shifting money to

EITC as the ldquomost bipartisan part of Mr

Ryanrsquos planrdquo the Timesrsquo Irwin (72414)

acknowledged that it was hardly a new one

for conservatives ldquoWhat was once a conser-

vative idea created in the Gerald Ford admin-

istration and expanded by President Reagan

and both presidents Bush is now more con-

troversial on the rightrdquo since it would elimi-

nate income taxes for more poor Americans

making them what the Wall Street Journal(112002) once derided as ldquolucky duckiesrdquo

If the nationrsquos media were actually con-

cerned about finding programs that help

the poor itrsquos not hard For one therersquos the

food stamp program that Ryan wants toeliminate which has low overheadmdash95 per-

cent of spending goes directly to benefitsmdash

and which by itself lifts nearly 5 million

people out of poverty every year (NewRepublic 81613)

Or as the Center for Economic and

Policy Researchrsquos Shawn Fremstad (TheHill 72214) noted if Ryan truly wanted to

boost the earnings of the working poor

instead of work requirements and EITC

hikes he could accomplish the same t

by raising the federal minimum wage so

thing that is supported by 80 percen

Americans including a majority of Re

licans (Hart Research 72313)mdasha bip

san plan if ever there was one

But then helping the poor or even pu

ing poverty policies that most Americans

agree on isnrsquot really the point for Ry

supporters ldquoGiving people money re

does make them better-off Itrsquos better to more money to buy groceries and other b

necessities than lessrdquo admitted Salam

getting more money from the governm

doesnrsquot really make you less poorrdquo

In the world of punditry then itrsquos

about helping the poor afford groceries

about making sure that theyrsquove earned

right to deserve groceries That may be ldquob

tisanrdquomdashin the halls of Congress anywa

but that doesnrsquot make it smart policy 983150

Itrsquos not often that a media outletrsquos decision

to ldquorecalibrate its languagerdquo attracts much

attention But when itrsquos the New York

Times and the shift is about what to call

torture in the Newspaper of Record such

changes matter

In August 2014 10 years after the initial

revelations that made US torture an interna-

tional news story Times executive editor

Dean Baquet wrote a short piece for the

Times website (8714) stating that the word

ldquotorturerdquo would be used to describe ldquoinci-

dents in which we know for sure that inter-rogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an

effort to get informationrdquo

In other words the newspaper is now

accepting the reality that the term can be

accurately applied to some actions of the

United States Ten years ago when it was

revealed that the CIA was torturing ldquoWar on

Terrorrdquo prisoners criticsmdashincluding

FAIRmdashwere asking the Times to call US

torture by its name (FAIR Action Alert51404) The paper had officially or not

carved out an exception for the US gov

ment whereby torture would be descr

euphemistically as ldquoenhancedrdquo or ldquoha

interrogations

So this shift if it is to be considered a

significant comes a decade too late

thatrsquos the just the start Baquetrsquos reasonin

revealing He writes that the Times resi

the label for so long because ldquothe situa

was murkyrdquo and that the ldquoJustice Dep

ment insisted that the techniques did not

to the legal definition of lsquotorturersquordquo Su

most countries that practice torture wresist prosecuting themselves so itrsquos ha

a reasonable standard for a media outle

Perhaps most illuminating though

Baquetrsquos admission that the Jus

Departmentrsquos decision not to prosecute

torturers motivated the paperrsquos shift

government

has made clear that it will not prosecut

in connection with the interrogatio

program The result is that today th

Paper says it will call it what it ismdash when it reports on it at all

NYT Fails First Test of New Torture Policy

by Peter Hart

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1116

Extra October 2014 983157

debate is focused less on whether the

methods violated a statute or treaty

provision and more on whether they

worked

So the Times will call torture by its

name now that no one is likely to be prose-

cuted and because the debate eventually

became ldquofocusedrdquo on its practical benefits

Thus allegations of torture that are walled

off from legal accountability are safemdashassuming the paper even covers them at all

The first test of the New York Timesrsquo new

policy came with the release of an

August 11 Amnesty International report

on torture in Afghanistan Itrsquos a test the

Times failed

The report covered 10 discrete episodes

of torture and brutality that killed dozens of

Afghan civilians But the most explosive

stories concern the actions of a US Special

Operations unit that was linked to torture

killings and disappearances betweenNovember 2012 and February 2013 The

evidence gathered by Amnesty strongly

suggests that US personnel were intimately

involved In one especially harrowing

account an Afghan man named

Naimatullah talks about a raid on his fami-

lyrsquos home by US Special Forces

Naimatullah said that the Americans

brought two of his brothers

Esmatullah and Siddiqullah into two

separate rooms and started beating

them They also beat Hekmatullah in

the yard ldquoI could hear them beating the

othersrdquo Naimatullah said ldquoand when I

saw them they were in terrible shaperdquo

Hekmattullah told Amnesty

International that the Special Forces

operatives ldquodragged me from my room

by the back of my collar and then

threw me down the stairs While I fell

my shoulder and buttocks were frac-

tured Even now I have problem walk-

ing it is painful and I canrsquot stand

straightrdquo

According to Amnestyrsquos report US

forces then took Naimatullahrsquos three broth-

ers away Only Hekmattullah was ever seen

again

Amnesty reports that several of the fam-

ilies that were able to recover the remains of

the missing reported that the bodies showed

signs of torture from what appeared to be

acid burns on clothing to gruesome injuries

The report received attention from other

outlets like the LA Times and WashingtonPost but was not featured in the New York

Times A FAIR Action Alert (81814) noted

the disconnect between the Timesrsquo new tor-

ture policy and its silence on the Amnesty

report Times public editor MargaretSullivan (81914) seemed to agree with

FAIRrsquos take writing that Amnesty ldquopulled

together a great deal of informationmdashespe-

cially about the role of the American mili-

tarymdashin a comprehensive and forceful way

that would have benefited Times readersrdquo

But others at the Times didnrsquot see why

they should have bothered Foreign editor

Joseph Kahn told Sullivan that Amnestyrsquos

findings ldquoappeared to be recycledrdquo and ldquodid

not add much to what we have already on

many occasions reportedrdquo

Itrsquos true that the Times has reported on

the allegations of torture in Afghanistan

But therersquos one clear lesson one can draw

from that reporting As the evidence of US

culpability grew the paper got less interest-

ed

On February 25 2013 the New YorkTimes reported that the Afghan govern-

ment had ldquobarred elite American forces

from operating in a strategic province

adjoining Kabul on Sunday citing com-

plaints that Afghans working for AmericanSpecial Operations forces had tortured and

killed villagers in the areardquo

The Times emphasized the damage this

could do to the US mission The move

ldquowould effectively exclude the American

militaryrsquos main source of offensive firepow-

er from the areardquo

A month later the Times (32113)

reported that the Afghan government was

compromising on its exclusion of US

troops ldquobreaking an increasingly acrimo-

nious impasserdquo The paper reminded reade

that the source of the dispute was ldquocom

plaints related to abuses by American forc

and accompanying Afghan men durin

night raids in the province accusations th

coalition has deniedrdquo The paper added th

certain ldquoAfghan and Western official

blamed the deaths and torture on local insu

gents

Almost two months later (51313) cam

the headline ldquoAfghans Say an AmericTortured Civiliansrdquo But this was not abo

American military personnel the Americ

in question was identified as Zakar

Kandahari an Afghan-American who w

working as an interpreter for the Speci

Forces unit The Times included a comme

from a US officialmdashldquospeaking on the cond

tion of anonymity in line with official po

cyrdquomdashwho insisted the US had no role ldquoW

have done three investigations down ther

and all absolve ISAF [International Securi

Assistance Force] forces and Special Forc

of all wrongdoingrdquoSome might find such denials unpersu

sive as the Times reported (51313

Afghan officials had a video of at least o

torture session and the remains of the vi

tims were turning up just outside the U

base

The Times (52213) reminded reade

days later that ldquothere has been no tes

mony directly tying American soldiers

the abuse or killing of those detaineesrdquo T

paper added that ldquothe American military h

described Mr Kandahari as a freelan

interpreter who had volunteered to help t

American Special Forces who allowed hi

to live at their base in exchangerdquo

Weeks later the Times (6513) w

reporting the discovery of more bodies ju

outside the US basemdashand that Afghan an

US governments were ldquoin sharp disagre

ment about who is responsiblerdquo

The story made the paper once again o

July 8 with the news that Kandahari h

been arrested The paperrsquos account aga

reiterated US claims that it had nothing do with the torture but Heather Barr

Human Rights Watch offered a dissentin

view

The US said they investigated thoroughly

therersquos nothing there so everyone should

go away and accept their word that they

checked and did nothing wrong I donrsquot

think that ends the discussion Therersquos a

lot more explaining that needs to be done

that hasnrsquot happened yetrsquo

New York Timesrsquo Dean Baquet We can call it ldquotorturerdquo now

that itrsquos clear no one will be punished for it

Missing a Premium

983088

Please email fairfairorg

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1216

That explaining would have to happen

elsewhere though The New York Timesran just one more story that mentioned the

controversy a July 23 dispatch that once

again stated that US officials ldquohave cleared

their troops of responsibility in any torture

or killingrdquo

The paper added that government offi-

cials ldquohave refused to offer further explana-

tion of what might have happened to the

dead menrdquo One would think the arrest of the principal suspect might inspire new

reporting

And it didmdashjust not in the New YorkTimes A major investigation by RollingStonersquos Matthieu Aikins (11613) raised

serious doubts about the US denials about

Kandahari and the unit ldquoMany of the men

who disappeared in Nerkh were rounded up

by the Americans in broad daylight in front

of dozens of witnessesrdquo Aikins reported He

added that over five months

Rolling Stone has interviewed more

than two dozen eyewitnesses and vic-

timsrsquo families whorsquove provided consis-

tent and detailed allegations of the

involvement of American forces in the

disappearance of the 10 men and has

talked to Afghan and Western officials

who were familiar with confidential

Afghan-government UN and Red

Cross investigations that found the

allegations credible

Aikins even tracked down Kandahari for

a prison interview unsurprisingly he

denied responsibility for the killings The

US argument that a rogue interpreter carried

out an extensive campaign of torture is not

only far-fetched Aikins wrote that it is

in a certain sense irrelevant Under the

well-established legal principle of

command responsibility military offi-

cials who knowingly allow their subor-

dinates to commit war crimes are them-

selves criminally responsible

To Aikins these stories ldquowould amount

to some of the gravest war crimes perpetrat-

ed by American forces since 2001rdquo But

they remained obscure to readers of the

New York Times even after the Amnesty

report corroborated his charges

But the Times didnrsquot entirely ignore Rol-ling Stonesrsquo reporting on February 16 2014

the Times mentioned that Aikinsrsquo exposeacute

had received a George Polk Award 983150

New York Times investigative reporter

James Risen is taking a stand Despite

being hounded by both the Bush and

Obama administrations to reveal his

sources he has vowed to go to jail rather

than abandon his pledge of confidentiality

As fellow journalists and journalism

advocacy groups rush to his side many fear

that the US Department of Justice within the

self-proclaimed ldquomost transparent adminis-tration in historyrdquo is preparing to deliver a

body blow to the First Amendmentrsquos prom-

ise of press freedom

ldquoThis case is the closest wersquove come to

the edge of the precipice to reportersource

privilege being bannedrdquo said Jesselyn

Radack director of national security and

human rights for the Government Account-

ability Project in a phone interview

R

isen a Pulitzer Prizendashwinning reporter

has been ordered by the DoJ to testify in

the prosecution of former CIA employeeJeffrey Sterling who is accused of leaking

information about a botched Clinton-era

CIA mission to give Iran phony nuclear

informationmdashwhich ended up giving Iran

real information on how to build a bomb

Risen wrote about the failed operation in his

2006 book State of War

Risen was initially subpoenaed by the

Bush administration in 2008 but the order

expired as the reporter fought against it

through the courts To the surprise of many

the subpoena was renewed under PresidentObama in 2010mdashdespite repeated calls to

drop the pursuit

ldquoRisen informed the public about the

dangerous stupidity of a CIA operation and

seriously embarrassed the agency in the

processrdquo said Norman Solomon a longtime

FAIR associate and co-founder of

RootsActionorg an online advocacy group

in an email exchange ldquoEvidently a pair of

unforgivable sins in the eyes of both the

Bush and Obama administrationsrdquo

If the government does uphold its sub

na and Risen is punished for taking

stand journalists and free press advoc

say that this would set a dangerous pr

dent for the interpretation of press free

under the First Amendment

ldquoFunctionally a reporter will no lo

be able to promise source confidential

Radack explained ldquoThis will impact pe

who want to disclose wrongdoingrdquo said ldquoWhistleblowers disclosing fr

waste abuse and illegality will no longe

to the pressrdquo

Robust investigative journalism

already suffered from budget cuts and w

ing interest in long-form journalism

this ldquochilling effectrdquo on sources will pro

the ldquofinal nail in the coffin of the free p

as we know itrdquo Radack added

I

n 2011 a federal District Court ruled

Risen could not be compelled by the

ernment to reveal his sources ldquoA crimtrial subpoena is not a free pass for the

ernment to rifle through a reporterrsquos n

bookrdquo wrote District Court Judge Le

Brinkema adding that Risen was prote

by a limited ldquoreporterrsquos privilegerdquo unde

First Amendment

The government challenged that d

sion and in 2013 the US Court of App

for the Fourth Circuit in Richm

Virginia reinstated the subpoena arg

that the First Amendment did not pro

Risen from being forced to testify aghis source

In June 2014 Risenrsquos legal b

reached an insurmountable barrier when

US Supreme Court refused to take up

case affirming the lower court ruling N

Risen will have to testify or face conte

of court charges which can lead to e

imprisonment or up to $1000 a day in f

After the high court passed on the c

Risenrsquos attorney Joel Kurtzberg told

Committee to Protect Journalists (62

12 983157 October 2014 Extra

Risen case tests reportersrsquo power to revealgovernment wrongdoing

Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

by Lauren McCauley

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1316

Extra October 2014 983157

that he hopes the government wonrsquot hold

Risen in contempt ldquofor doing nothing other

than reporting the news and keeping his

promise to his sourcerdquo He noted that the

ldquoball is now in the governmentrsquos courtrdquo

On August 14 a coalition of journalists

media advocacy groups and independentmedia outlets delivered over 100000

signatures to the Department of Justice

calling on the Obama administration to drop

its subpoena

The petitionmdashorganized by Roots

Action along with FAIR the Center for

Media and Democracy Freedom of the

Press Foundation The Nation Institute and

The Progressivemdashargues that ldquowithout

confidentiality journalism would be

reduced to official storiesmdasha situation anti-

thetical to the First Amendmentrdquo

On the day the petition was turned in

Risen was joined by a number of free press

advocates including Radack and Solomon

at a press conference at the National Press

Club in Washington DC Speaking before

the roomful of reporters Risen said ldquoThe

real reason Irsquom doing this is for the future of

journalismrdquo

ldquoFreedom of the press is the most impor-

tant freedomrdquo agreed Delphine Halgand

director of Reporters Without Bordersrsquo Wash-

ington office who also spoke at the press

conference ldquoIt is the freedom that allows usto verify the existence of all other freedomsrdquo

When asked about the Risen case at a

closed-door meeting with a group of

journalists Attorney General Eric

Holder (New York Times 52814) report-

edly declared ldquoAs long as Irsquom attorney gen-

eral no reporter who is doing his job is

going to go to jailrdquo

Despite this pronouncement the prose-

cution of whistleblowers has become a

mainstay of Obamarsquos presidency

(Extra 911 FAIR Media

Advisory 82713) During his

time in office the DoJ has pur-

sued eight prosecutions of leakers

under the Espionage Act more

than double the total number of

such prosecutions since the law

was enacted

McClatchy News (62013)

also revealed the existence of agovernment employee ldquotattletalerdquo

program By having government

employees spying and reporting

on each other the Obama initia-

tive dubbed ldquoInsider Threatrdquo aims

to thwart future leakers

According to the Reporters Without Bor-

dersrsquo annual Press Freedom Index (21214)

the US dropped 13 positions from 2013 to

2014 and now ranks 46th worldwide The

report notes

In the US the hunt for leaks and

whistleblowers serves as a warning to

those thinking of satisfying a public

interest need for information about the

imperial prerogatives assumed by the

worldrsquos leading power

Advocates say to ensure the protectio

of journalists in this post-911 surveillan

state it is critical to pass a federal shie

law that will protect reporters from beinforced to disclose confidential informatio

or sources in court (Most states have som

sort of law or protection in place)

There is a shield bill currently makin

its way through CongressmdashS 987 know

as the Free Flow of Information Act

though there is concern that the legislatio

has too many loopholes that allow the go

ernment to claim broad ldquonational security

exceptions and leave some whistleblowe

without protection (Dissenter 51214)

The New York Timesrsquo James Risen at the Roots Action Press Conference

at the National Press Club in Washington DC ldquoThe real reason Irsquom doing

this is for the future of journalismrdquo

NYT Has Benefitted From Leakersmdashbut Not Vice Versa

A s the Department of Justice doggedly pursues Pulitzer Prizendashwinner James Risen the New York

Times has been forced to enter the fray of the governmentrsquos so-called ldquowar on informationrdquo

The Times like many mainstream publications has openly acknowledged its practice of seek-

ing government approval for sensitive stories (2613) and often serves as a government mouthpiece by

publishing sanctioned ldquoleaksrdquo of information

And although the Times has benefitted enormously from actual leaks of government secrets that

were vital for the public to know it has historically maintained a cautiousmdashif not skepticalmdashdistance

from those who risked their careers and liberty to reveal such truths

Despite publishing the invaluable Pentagon Papers which exposed government deceptions about the

Vietnam War the Times refused to provide leaker Daniel Ellsberg with any help in his criminal case

According to Ellsberg thenndashexecutive editor Abe Rosenthal told the whistleblower that the paper had no

policy for supporting a source who is being prosecuted for leaking information

ldquoThe Timesrdquo Ellsberg explained ldquothinks of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken the lawrdquo

The paper has given even less support to Chelsea Manning despite having partnered with Wikileaks

in July 2010 to release important revelations from the hun-

dreds of thousands of classified war logs and State

Department cables revealed by Manning

In addition to disparaging her character and questioning

her motives in a Bill Keller column (31113) the Times treat-

ed Manningrsquos trial as a noneventmdashnot sending a single

reporter and only running one AP wire story (123012) on it

Later New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan

(51212) wrote that the paper had ldquomissed the boatrdquo by not

covering Manningrsquos pretrial testimony

The paper did run an editorial (1114) supporting NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden however that was months

after an earlier editorial (8613) essentially calling for Snowden to be extradited for prosecution

In a January 2013 column about the prosecution of Chelsea Manning journalist Glenn Greenwald

warned corporate media that they ldquomight want to take a serious interestrdquo in the case and ldquomarshal oppo-

sition to what is being done to Bradley Manningrdquo

He continued ldquoIf not out of concern for the injustices to which he is being subjected then out of self-

interest to ensure that their reporters and their past and future whistleblowing sources cannot be simi-

larly persecutedrdquo

It seems that time has comemdashLMcC

Daniel Ellsberg The New York Times ldquothinks

of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken

the lawrdquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1416

In a recent interview with Times colleague

Maureen Dowd (81714) Risen refer-

enced Obamarsquos ldquomost transparent admin-

istrationrdquo claim

ldquoItrsquos hypocriticalrdquo Risen said ldquoA lot of

peopledonrsquot want to believe that Obama

wants to crack down on the press and

whistleblowers But he does Hersquos the great-

est enemy to press freedom in a generationrdquo

Among those who have come to Risenrsquos

defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prizendashwin-

ning reporters who each signed the Roots

Action petition and issued personal state-

ments on his behalf

Included in the testimonies is one from

Risenrsquos New York Times colleague Barry

Bearak who wrote that Risen ldquois carrying

the banner for every American journalistrdquo

ldquoIf he goes to jailrdquo Bearak continued

good bit of our nationrsquos freedom wil

locked away with himrdquo 983150

Lauren McCauley is an assistant edito

the website Common Dreams and a d

mentary producer her most recent fil

Mississippi Messiah about civil ri

leader James Meredith

14 983157 October 2014 Extra

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

Who Rules Public TV

by Aldo Guerrero

T

he corporate and financial sectors have

an overwhelming presence on the gov-

erning boards of major public televi-

sion stations a new FAIR study findsThe study looked at the occupations of

the current trustees of WNET (New York

CityNewark) WGBH (Boston) WETA

(Washington DC) WTTW (Chicago) and

KCET (Los Angeles)

Out of these boardsrsquo 182 total members

152mdashor 84 percentmdashhave corporate back-

grounds including 138 who are executives

at elite businesses Another 14 members

appear to be on the board because of their

familiesrsquo corporate-derived wealth often

with a primary affiliation as an officer of a

family charitable foundationMany board members are affiliated with

major corporations like Boeing Wells Fargo

and Citigroup Seventy-five board mem-

bers nearly half of all those with corporate

ties are financial industry executives

Another 24 are corporate lawyers

Public TV board members without corpo-

rate ties were few and far between Of

these nine are categorized as academics

while six are affiliated with nonprofit groups

(not counting family grant-making founda-

tions) There are three former government

officials two non-corporate lawyers two

journalists one religious educator and a for-

mer principal of a magnet school Six board

members are station insiders

WNET WGBH and WETA are consid-

ered to be the ldquobig threerdquo PBS affiliates

producing a large share of programming for

PBS nationally WTTW and KCET were

included because they serve two of the

largest US metropolitan areas Four of these

stations are affiliated with PBS KCET dis-

affiliated in 2010 but remains a prominent

regional public television station

The boards range in size from WTTWrsquos

63 members to KCETrsquos 20 WTTW and

WNET have the most corporate representa-

tion on their boards each at 92 percent

KCETrsquos board is 80 percent corporate-affil-

iated while DCrsquos WETA is at 73 percent

Corporate-tied board members were least

common at WGBH where they still made

up two-thirds of the board

One hundred sixteen members (64 per-

cent) are male It was not possible to do a

breakdown of board membersrsquo ethnicities

Last year the issue of corporate influence

over public television was thrust into the

spotlight when the film Park Avenue

Money Power and the American Dream was

broadcast by PBS affiliate WNET (NewYorker 52713 FAIR Blog 52113) The

film examined the concentration of wealth

and power in the United States by lookin

the super-rich residents of 740

Avenuemdashwho included then-WNET b

member and major station donor DKoch a billionaire industrialist well kn

for his donations to right-wing causes

WNET president Neil Shapiro was

to be ldquoconcernedrdquo about a film critica

one of his biggest funders WNET ende

not receiving a large donation from Koc

potentially in the seven-figure rang

because Park Avenue was broadcast

New Yorkerrsquos Jane Mayer reported

PBS then preemptively pulled the

on Citizen Koch another film that exam

the Koch familyrsquos political influenc

apparently practicing self-censorship inattempt to placate a wealthy donor K

would eventually resign from the WNboard of trustees Since then a camp

has been launched demanding that K

also resign from the board of Bost

WGBH where he is still a trustee

High-powered executives likes David Koch overwhelm

dominate the boards of trustees at public TV stations

This documentary caused trouble when it aired on WNET

because of the money and power on the PBS affiliatersquos

board

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 616

6 983157 October 2014 Extra

impossiblerdquo All of this helpfully moves the

conversation from black peoplersquos ldquofeelingsrdquo

to demonstrable facts

But big media donrsquot really have them-

selves to credit for the elevation of

Brownrsquos murder beyond lamentable anec-

dote They were largely reacting to the vig-

orous public outcry and to the Ferguson

Police Departmentrsquos especially heavy-hand-

ed response including assaults on reportersthemselves And they were struggling to keep

up as those following the story turned

instead to Black Twitter and other online

sources for news and perspective (See next

page)

Now mainstream media are asking

whether Ferguson will be a ldquomomentrdquo or a

ldquomovementrdquo for black activists but they

might more appropriately ask the same of their

own engagement with the issues Ferguson

puts on the table As Salonrsquos Cooper

(82614) put it real progress would entail

a real commitment to due process pro-

tection of voting rights a livable wage

the dissolution of the prisonindustrial

complex funding of good public edu-

cation at both K-12 and college levels

a serious commitment to affirmative

action food security and full reproduc-

tive justice for all women Those are

the kinds of conditions under which

black communities and all communi-

ties could thrive

A failure to see things on that scale to

treat what wersquore now calling ldquoFergusonrdquo not

as aberrant but as reflective of US social

systems and institutions risks setting us

back to appeals to individual betterment the

ldquopull up your pantsrdquo logic critics see in

MBK

And not insignificantly a focus on the

individual over the structural tells white

people that racism is a personal thing

they ldquojust donrsquot understandrdquo and therefore

canrsquot fight that progress is a zero-sum gamein which therersquos nothing people of con-

science can do together Recognition of the

irreducibility (beyond class culture cloth-

ing or family structure) of anti-black racism

is laudable and overdue But it need not

erase the non-black anti-racists who could

be engaged in resisting policies and prac-

tices that overwhelmingly hurt people of

color like for just one example the practice

of funding police departments with low-

level warrants that target the poormdashas spot-

lighted by the Daily Beastrsquos Michael Daly

(82214) who is white

Ferguson could be a turning point for

media coverage of racism But should cor-

porate media ldquoforgetrdquo what they now sug-

gest they are learningmdashas they have

previous ldquomomentsrdquo (Extra 792 8

the good news is that every day more

ple are talking around them and mo

forward without them 983150

Extra receives no money from advertisers

or corporate underwriters and depends on

subscribers for its existence Please consider

subscribing or spread the word by giving a

gift subscription to Extra Choose a

traditional print subscription a digital PDF

edition or both together

I want to subscribe to the printedition of Extra983151 Yes Send me a two-year subscription

(20 issues) to Extra for $45

983151 I want a one-year subscription (10 issues)

to Extra for $25

983151 Irsquom a subscriber please renew me early

(Your expiration date is on your mailing

label above your name)

983151 One year (10 issues) for $25

983151 Two years (20 issues) for $45

Irsquod like to have the digital edition983151 Irsquod like a two-year digital subscription to

Extra for $27

983151 I want a one-year digital subscription toExtra for $15

Want both Get print + digital983151 One-year print + digital (pdf) subscription

only $35

983151 Two-year print + digital (pdf) subscription

only $65

Name______________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

City _______________________________________________

StateZip ___________________________________________

Email Address_______________________________________

983151 MasterCard 983151 VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No________________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature___________________________________________

Journalism in the Public Interest

To order

fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorg

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

fairor

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 716

Extra October 2014 983157

marginalized in mainstream media The

numbers of black journalists able to work inmainstream media has decreased over the

last 10 years significantly

And what we find is that both these jour-

nalists and the community journalists that

wersquore talking about on Twitter have found

social media to be an outlet to be a way to

share their work in a way that wasnrsquot able to

happen on CNN MSNBC or any of the

other cable news outlets Because cable is

owned by mega-corporations and doesnrsquot

allow for the kind of independent voice that

a more social platform on the Internet

allows forSo Black Twittermdashreminiscent of and

reflecting the black blog an independent

black voicemdashthatrsquos what really brought the

story of Ferguson to the majority of black

audiences

CS On the one hand you want to say that

itrsquos not the technology thatrsquos key I mean

media and other powers could have tried to

listen to black people if they were writing

on parchment you know But at the same

time the technology and the kind of com-

munication that it makes possible is some-

thing different isnrsquot it

MC Absolutely The decentralized nature

of the Internet allows for a level of democ-

ratized voice that wersquove never seen I mea

the Internetmdashas a platform as a vehicle fvoice in black communitiesmdashhas becom

one of the most powerful ways to bypass th

exclusionary and discriminatory mai

stream media And because of that becau

of its decentralized and democratiz

nature black people are very conscious

the need to fight to maintain their online an

digital voice

CS Letrsquos talk about that fight We know th

for corporate media this story is going to g

away Every racist act in corporate media

an anecdote Wersquore told that things ldquoraiquestionsrdquo when they might more approp

ately be said to answer them We hea

ldquoGosh this doesnrsquot look like America

when it looks exactly like America

And Ta-Nehisi Coates [Atlantic 8151

wrote recently about the ldquopolitics of chan

ing the subjectrdquo You know Letrsquos talk abo

black folks killing each other

All of this is why even when dece

coverage happens it feels like reinventin

the wheel and it points up the need for

sustained space to have a conversation th

doesnrsquot just serve as corrective of that dom

inant narrative and stop there but mov

forward So what is the state of play on t

fight to have the Internet be that sort

space

MC Right now as the people of Ferguso

are on the front lines demanding justice f

yet another murder of a young black man

unarmedmdashblack people are also on the fro

lines to maintain the right to speak onli

about the rampant police brutality in o

communitiesAnd one of the front lines that black pe

ple are fighting on is the fight for the ope

Internet Black communities across th

country are saying loud and clear that th

want to keep the Internet open We unde

stand that the only way that the court

Verizon v FCC said very clearly that t

only way the Federal Communicatio

Commission can enforce non-discrimin

tion rules online is to reclassify broadban

as a Title II common carrier service

There likely would have been media cover-

age of the Ferguson Missouri police killingof Michael Brown and the public protests

that followed But itrsquos hard to imagine that

the tone of that coverage would be the same

mdashwith stories validating black peoplersquos

anger questioning the militarization of

police and challenging mediarsquos criminaliza-

tion of people of colormdashwere it not for the

forceful intervention of black social media

where so-called ldquomainstreamrdquo perspectives

werenrsquot just called out but circumvented

Many people will tell you they didnrsquot

learn what was happening in Fergusonmdash

much less why it matteredmdashfrom the paperor the TV at all The implications of that fact

inform the work of Malkia Cyril executive

director of the Center for Media Justice

which is also home to the Media Action

Grassroots Network (MAG-Net) Counter-

Spinrsquos Janine Jackson talked to her by

phone from the Bay Area

CounterSpin Whatrsquos happening in Ferguson

isnrsquot a story about the Internet of course

but it has put in high relief the need for

black people to tell our own stories in our

own voices and not to wait until somebody

else decides the storyrsquos important Before

we talk about the threats to that space whose

power wersquore just discovering letrsquos talk for a

minute about that power I was sort of tick-

led to see David Carr at the New YorkTimes [81814] credit Twitter per se for

showing that something significant was

underway in Ferguson Letrsquos put a finer

point on it It was particular folks using

Twitter and other tools to tell this story

wasnrsquot it

Malkia Cyril Yes I mean the lingo ldquoBlack

Twitterrdquo isnrsquot about the company at all Itrsquos

about the hundreds of black blogs inde-

pendent black blogs and black bloggers

websites individual pundits that used the

social media platform to microblog and talk

about what they see as the primary issues

affecting black communities

And one of the reasons that is so impor-

tant is because these journalistsmdashblack

journalistsmdashhave been slowly excluded and

Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

lsquoThe Black Voice Is in Jeopardyrsquo

C O U N T E R S P I N I N T E R V I E W

Malkia Cyril ldquoThe Internetmdashas a platform as a vehicle for

voice in black communitiesmdashhas become one of the most

powerful ways to bypass the exclusionary and discriminato-

ry mainstream mediardquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 816

8 983157 October 2014 Extra

MC It was never a meaningful separation

and civil rights activists in the 1960s knew

that very well when they took television

news station WLBT to task for their failure

to cover segregation in the South And in

fact that casemdashthe case of WLBTmdash

became the defining case that allowed for

public comment in media policy processes

So civil rights organizations have long been

an advocate for media as a civil rights issue

Itrsquos only as media and telecommunica-tions have become so lucrative itrsquos only as

telecommunications companies have used

the buyouts of our communities as a public

relations strategy that these issues have

become technocratic wonky and separate

from the core issues of social justice

What we know what Ferguson shows

us what it shows me is that in fact there is

no path to victory to change without the

visibility and representation that media pro-

vides And that as long as that media is

Now let me explain that for a minute

because people say ldquoWell what is Title IIrdquo

Title II simply means that the Internet

should be treated as a public utility it

should be regulated like a public utility

Some organizations are concerned that if we

regulate the Internet as a public utility itrsquoll

kill innovation But what black communi-

ties know very well is two things One

public utilitiesmdashwhen they are truly pub-

licmdashare secure and reliable So thatrsquos num-ber one We want a reliable platform for

independent voices and treating it like a

utility regulating it as such makes it a civil

right that we can access publicly So thatrsquos

number one

Number two some organizations and

individuals have been concerned that if we

treat the Internet like a public utility that a

future FCC that a future Congress will

come along and take that away And to that

I think black communities are very clear

When we fought against segregation in

education we did not accept anything lessthan the ruling in Brown v Board of

Education There were rulings prior to that

There were court cases for more than a

decade prior to that victory We didnrsquot

accept any piecemeal half-baked legisla-

tion We only took what was morally right

and just And that was an end to segregation

in education And thatrsquos what wersquore talking

about right now

Ultimately reclassifying broadband

would ensure no segregation online that all

voices would be able to join the public con-

versation and that black voices in particular

would be able to be raised around issues

like police brutality like the incident in

Ferguson And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

for

CS Used to be when you told someone that

you were working with media policy they

would come back with ldquoOh well I do real

activism Irsquom in the streetrdquo and media is

somehow an ancillary issue That dayrsquos over

isnrsquot it I mean not everyone can work on

every issue but the separation of media pol-icy issues from other issues that we care

about is not a meaningful separation

owned operated and controlled by

largest Internet service providers the lar

cable companies the largest private f

lies the black voice is in jeopardy An

the black voice is in jeopardy black

dom is in jeopardy

And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

Wersquore not fighting for some back-end t

nical technocratic issue Wersquore fighting

the cause of black freedom Wersquore figh

for the same cause that all the black newpers right after slavery were fighting

Wersquore fighting for an end to any kind of

tem that violates or limits our voice

that is what wersquore talking about here to

Itrsquos not about media policy Itrsquos about

justice983150

Malkia Cyrilrsquos recent article ldquoThank

Black Internet for Bringing Ferguso

Merdquo appeared on the Huffington

(81514) among other outlets

Wear FAIR Everywhere You Go

If yoursquore like us you donrsquot trust the corporate

media to tell it straightmdashor report the stories that

matter

So why not spread the word

Send a bold message--and support FAIR--with our

Donrsquot Trust Corporate Media shirt

The shirts are 100 cotton and union-mademdash

just check the labelmdashand are available in Small

Medium Large and XLarge

Limited quantities available so order yours todaymdashthese wonrsquot last long

T-shirtmdash$20

983151 Sm 983151 Med 983151 Large 983151 XLarge

Includes shipping no international orders please

Name________________________________________________

Address ______________________________________________

City _________________________________________________

StateZip _____________________________________________

983151 MasterCard 983151 VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No__________________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature_____________________________________________

To order

fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

fairo

Join the Conversation

If yoursquore on Twitter connect with FAIR friendsand staff about the issues that matter to you themost Be a part of the discussion while stayingup-to-date on the latest news and information

Follow us FAIRmediawatch

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 916

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1016

10 983157 October 2014 Extra

pushing them as a way to tackle poverty

This in the eyes of many news outlets was a

welcome shift toward ldquobipartisanshiprdquo

ldquoRyanrsquos poverty plan mixes partiesrsquo

ideasrdquo trumpeted the Milwaukee Journal-

Sentinel (72414) saying its combination

of EITC hikes with block grants ldquoaspires to

find some common ground between right

and leftrdquo ldquoCreative ideas are rare in Wash-

ingtonrdquo asserted a Boston Herald editorial

(72814) adding that ldquoRyanrsquos approachdestroys the Democratic narrative that

Republicans want to permanently dismantle

the safety netrdquo

In fact Ryanrsquos plan was deemed so

ldquobipartisanrdquo that some worried aloud that it

could hurt his standing with Republicans

Washington Post columnist Melinda Henne-

berger (72414) citing Ryanrsquos statements

that he wanted to ldquotalk about how we can

repair the safety netrdquo and have the govern-

ment ldquoprovide resourcesrdquo to poor people

questioned whether it meant Ryan was giv-

ing up on seeking the 2016 Republican pres-idential nomination

And LA Times columnist Doyle

McManus (72714) under the headline

ldquoHas the GOP Gone Softrdquo singled out

Ryan for proposing policies that ldquomay face

their toughest audience inside the GOPrdquo

For the media to evaluate economic poli-

cies based on whether they please both

Democrats and Republicans is nothing

new as wersquove witnessed on battles over

everything from the stimulus plan (FAIR

Blog 2209) to the debt ceiling (FAIRBlog 71511) In fact during the battles

over welfare reform itself back in 1996

coverage largely focused on which bills

could win the support of both partiesrsquo lead-

ershipmdashwith the San Francisco Chronicleeditorial board (72796) writing approving-

ly that Congress had ldquowhipped itself into a

fair frenzy of bipartisanshiprdquo with welfare

reform and other bills

The problem with bipartisanship as a

moral touchstone should be obvious Not

only does it define sensible policies as beingwhatever the leadership of the Democrats and

Republicans can agree on but it allows one

party to shift the debate by moving its own

goalposts and thus what counts as bipartisan

While the Washington Post editorial

board (72414) singled out shifting money to

EITC as the ldquomost bipartisan part of Mr

Ryanrsquos planrdquo the Timesrsquo Irwin (72414)

acknowledged that it was hardly a new one

for conservatives ldquoWhat was once a conser-

vative idea created in the Gerald Ford admin-

istration and expanded by President Reagan

and both presidents Bush is now more con-

troversial on the rightrdquo since it would elimi-

nate income taxes for more poor Americans

making them what the Wall Street Journal(112002) once derided as ldquolucky duckiesrdquo

If the nationrsquos media were actually con-

cerned about finding programs that help

the poor itrsquos not hard For one therersquos the

food stamp program that Ryan wants toeliminate which has low overheadmdash95 per-

cent of spending goes directly to benefitsmdash

and which by itself lifts nearly 5 million

people out of poverty every year (NewRepublic 81613)

Or as the Center for Economic and

Policy Researchrsquos Shawn Fremstad (TheHill 72214) noted if Ryan truly wanted to

boost the earnings of the working poor

instead of work requirements and EITC

hikes he could accomplish the same t

by raising the federal minimum wage so

thing that is supported by 80 percen

Americans including a majority of Re

licans (Hart Research 72313)mdasha bip

san plan if ever there was one

But then helping the poor or even pu

ing poverty policies that most Americans

agree on isnrsquot really the point for Ry

supporters ldquoGiving people money re

does make them better-off Itrsquos better to more money to buy groceries and other b

necessities than lessrdquo admitted Salam

getting more money from the governm

doesnrsquot really make you less poorrdquo

In the world of punditry then itrsquos

about helping the poor afford groceries

about making sure that theyrsquove earned

right to deserve groceries That may be ldquob

tisanrdquomdashin the halls of Congress anywa

but that doesnrsquot make it smart policy 983150

Itrsquos not often that a media outletrsquos decision

to ldquorecalibrate its languagerdquo attracts much

attention But when itrsquos the New York

Times and the shift is about what to call

torture in the Newspaper of Record such

changes matter

In August 2014 10 years after the initial

revelations that made US torture an interna-

tional news story Times executive editor

Dean Baquet wrote a short piece for the

Times website (8714) stating that the word

ldquotorturerdquo would be used to describe ldquoinci-

dents in which we know for sure that inter-rogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an

effort to get informationrdquo

In other words the newspaper is now

accepting the reality that the term can be

accurately applied to some actions of the

United States Ten years ago when it was

revealed that the CIA was torturing ldquoWar on

Terrorrdquo prisoners criticsmdashincluding

FAIRmdashwere asking the Times to call US

torture by its name (FAIR Action Alert51404) The paper had officially or not

carved out an exception for the US gov

ment whereby torture would be descr

euphemistically as ldquoenhancedrdquo or ldquoha

interrogations

So this shift if it is to be considered a

significant comes a decade too late

thatrsquos the just the start Baquetrsquos reasonin

revealing He writes that the Times resi

the label for so long because ldquothe situa

was murkyrdquo and that the ldquoJustice Dep

ment insisted that the techniques did not

to the legal definition of lsquotorturersquordquo Su

most countries that practice torture wresist prosecuting themselves so itrsquos ha

a reasonable standard for a media outle

Perhaps most illuminating though

Baquetrsquos admission that the Jus

Departmentrsquos decision not to prosecute

torturers motivated the paperrsquos shift

government

has made clear that it will not prosecut

in connection with the interrogatio

program The result is that today th

Paper says it will call it what it ismdash when it reports on it at all

NYT Fails First Test of New Torture Policy

by Peter Hart

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1116

Extra October 2014 983157

debate is focused less on whether the

methods violated a statute or treaty

provision and more on whether they

worked

So the Times will call torture by its

name now that no one is likely to be prose-

cuted and because the debate eventually

became ldquofocusedrdquo on its practical benefits

Thus allegations of torture that are walled

off from legal accountability are safemdashassuming the paper even covers them at all

The first test of the New York Timesrsquo new

policy came with the release of an

August 11 Amnesty International report

on torture in Afghanistan Itrsquos a test the

Times failed

The report covered 10 discrete episodes

of torture and brutality that killed dozens of

Afghan civilians But the most explosive

stories concern the actions of a US Special

Operations unit that was linked to torture

killings and disappearances betweenNovember 2012 and February 2013 The

evidence gathered by Amnesty strongly

suggests that US personnel were intimately

involved In one especially harrowing

account an Afghan man named

Naimatullah talks about a raid on his fami-

lyrsquos home by US Special Forces

Naimatullah said that the Americans

brought two of his brothers

Esmatullah and Siddiqullah into two

separate rooms and started beating

them They also beat Hekmatullah in

the yard ldquoI could hear them beating the

othersrdquo Naimatullah said ldquoand when I

saw them they were in terrible shaperdquo

Hekmattullah told Amnesty

International that the Special Forces

operatives ldquodragged me from my room

by the back of my collar and then

threw me down the stairs While I fell

my shoulder and buttocks were frac-

tured Even now I have problem walk-

ing it is painful and I canrsquot stand

straightrdquo

According to Amnestyrsquos report US

forces then took Naimatullahrsquos three broth-

ers away Only Hekmattullah was ever seen

again

Amnesty reports that several of the fam-

ilies that were able to recover the remains of

the missing reported that the bodies showed

signs of torture from what appeared to be

acid burns on clothing to gruesome injuries

The report received attention from other

outlets like the LA Times and WashingtonPost but was not featured in the New York

Times A FAIR Action Alert (81814) noted

the disconnect between the Timesrsquo new tor-

ture policy and its silence on the Amnesty

report Times public editor MargaretSullivan (81914) seemed to agree with

FAIRrsquos take writing that Amnesty ldquopulled

together a great deal of informationmdashespe-

cially about the role of the American mili-

tarymdashin a comprehensive and forceful way

that would have benefited Times readersrdquo

But others at the Times didnrsquot see why

they should have bothered Foreign editor

Joseph Kahn told Sullivan that Amnestyrsquos

findings ldquoappeared to be recycledrdquo and ldquodid

not add much to what we have already on

many occasions reportedrdquo

Itrsquos true that the Times has reported on

the allegations of torture in Afghanistan

But therersquos one clear lesson one can draw

from that reporting As the evidence of US

culpability grew the paper got less interest-

ed

On February 25 2013 the New YorkTimes reported that the Afghan govern-

ment had ldquobarred elite American forces

from operating in a strategic province

adjoining Kabul on Sunday citing com-

plaints that Afghans working for AmericanSpecial Operations forces had tortured and

killed villagers in the areardquo

The Times emphasized the damage this

could do to the US mission The move

ldquowould effectively exclude the American

militaryrsquos main source of offensive firepow-

er from the areardquo

A month later the Times (32113)

reported that the Afghan government was

compromising on its exclusion of US

troops ldquobreaking an increasingly acrimo-

nious impasserdquo The paper reminded reade

that the source of the dispute was ldquocom

plaints related to abuses by American forc

and accompanying Afghan men durin

night raids in the province accusations th

coalition has deniedrdquo The paper added th

certain ldquoAfghan and Western official

blamed the deaths and torture on local insu

gents

Almost two months later (51313) cam

the headline ldquoAfghans Say an AmericTortured Civiliansrdquo But this was not abo

American military personnel the Americ

in question was identified as Zakar

Kandahari an Afghan-American who w

working as an interpreter for the Speci

Forces unit The Times included a comme

from a US officialmdashldquospeaking on the cond

tion of anonymity in line with official po

cyrdquomdashwho insisted the US had no role ldquoW

have done three investigations down ther

and all absolve ISAF [International Securi

Assistance Force] forces and Special Forc

of all wrongdoingrdquoSome might find such denials unpersu

sive as the Times reported (51313

Afghan officials had a video of at least o

torture session and the remains of the vi

tims were turning up just outside the U

base

The Times (52213) reminded reade

days later that ldquothere has been no tes

mony directly tying American soldiers

the abuse or killing of those detaineesrdquo T

paper added that ldquothe American military h

described Mr Kandahari as a freelan

interpreter who had volunteered to help t

American Special Forces who allowed hi

to live at their base in exchangerdquo

Weeks later the Times (6513) w

reporting the discovery of more bodies ju

outside the US basemdashand that Afghan an

US governments were ldquoin sharp disagre

ment about who is responsiblerdquo

The story made the paper once again o

July 8 with the news that Kandahari h

been arrested The paperrsquos account aga

reiterated US claims that it had nothing do with the torture but Heather Barr

Human Rights Watch offered a dissentin

view

The US said they investigated thoroughly

therersquos nothing there so everyone should

go away and accept their word that they

checked and did nothing wrong I donrsquot

think that ends the discussion Therersquos a

lot more explaining that needs to be done

that hasnrsquot happened yetrsquo

New York Timesrsquo Dean Baquet We can call it ldquotorturerdquo now

that itrsquos clear no one will be punished for it

Missing a Premium

983088

Please email fairfairorg

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1216

That explaining would have to happen

elsewhere though The New York Timesran just one more story that mentioned the

controversy a July 23 dispatch that once

again stated that US officials ldquohave cleared

their troops of responsibility in any torture

or killingrdquo

The paper added that government offi-

cials ldquohave refused to offer further explana-

tion of what might have happened to the

dead menrdquo One would think the arrest of the principal suspect might inspire new

reporting

And it didmdashjust not in the New YorkTimes A major investigation by RollingStonersquos Matthieu Aikins (11613) raised

serious doubts about the US denials about

Kandahari and the unit ldquoMany of the men

who disappeared in Nerkh were rounded up

by the Americans in broad daylight in front

of dozens of witnessesrdquo Aikins reported He

added that over five months

Rolling Stone has interviewed more

than two dozen eyewitnesses and vic-

timsrsquo families whorsquove provided consis-

tent and detailed allegations of the

involvement of American forces in the

disappearance of the 10 men and has

talked to Afghan and Western officials

who were familiar with confidential

Afghan-government UN and Red

Cross investigations that found the

allegations credible

Aikins even tracked down Kandahari for

a prison interview unsurprisingly he

denied responsibility for the killings The

US argument that a rogue interpreter carried

out an extensive campaign of torture is not

only far-fetched Aikins wrote that it is

in a certain sense irrelevant Under the

well-established legal principle of

command responsibility military offi-

cials who knowingly allow their subor-

dinates to commit war crimes are them-

selves criminally responsible

To Aikins these stories ldquowould amount

to some of the gravest war crimes perpetrat-

ed by American forces since 2001rdquo But

they remained obscure to readers of the

New York Times even after the Amnesty

report corroborated his charges

But the Times didnrsquot entirely ignore Rol-ling Stonesrsquo reporting on February 16 2014

the Times mentioned that Aikinsrsquo exposeacute

had received a George Polk Award 983150

New York Times investigative reporter

James Risen is taking a stand Despite

being hounded by both the Bush and

Obama administrations to reveal his

sources he has vowed to go to jail rather

than abandon his pledge of confidentiality

As fellow journalists and journalism

advocacy groups rush to his side many fear

that the US Department of Justice within the

self-proclaimed ldquomost transparent adminis-tration in historyrdquo is preparing to deliver a

body blow to the First Amendmentrsquos prom-

ise of press freedom

ldquoThis case is the closest wersquove come to

the edge of the precipice to reportersource

privilege being bannedrdquo said Jesselyn

Radack director of national security and

human rights for the Government Account-

ability Project in a phone interview

R

isen a Pulitzer Prizendashwinning reporter

has been ordered by the DoJ to testify in

the prosecution of former CIA employeeJeffrey Sterling who is accused of leaking

information about a botched Clinton-era

CIA mission to give Iran phony nuclear

informationmdashwhich ended up giving Iran

real information on how to build a bomb

Risen wrote about the failed operation in his

2006 book State of War

Risen was initially subpoenaed by the

Bush administration in 2008 but the order

expired as the reporter fought against it

through the courts To the surprise of many

the subpoena was renewed under PresidentObama in 2010mdashdespite repeated calls to

drop the pursuit

ldquoRisen informed the public about the

dangerous stupidity of a CIA operation and

seriously embarrassed the agency in the

processrdquo said Norman Solomon a longtime

FAIR associate and co-founder of

RootsActionorg an online advocacy group

in an email exchange ldquoEvidently a pair of

unforgivable sins in the eyes of both the

Bush and Obama administrationsrdquo

If the government does uphold its sub

na and Risen is punished for taking

stand journalists and free press advoc

say that this would set a dangerous pr

dent for the interpretation of press free

under the First Amendment

ldquoFunctionally a reporter will no lo

be able to promise source confidential

Radack explained ldquoThis will impact pe

who want to disclose wrongdoingrdquo said ldquoWhistleblowers disclosing fr

waste abuse and illegality will no longe

to the pressrdquo

Robust investigative journalism

already suffered from budget cuts and w

ing interest in long-form journalism

this ldquochilling effectrdquo on sources will pro

the ldquofinal nail in the coffin of the free p

as we know itrdquo Radack added

I

n 2011 a federal District Court ruled

Risen could not be compelled by the

ernment to reveal his sources ldquoA crimtrial subpoena is not a free pass for the

ernment to rifle through a reporterrsquos n

bookrdquo wrote District Court Judge Le

Brinkema adding that Risen was prote

by a limited ldquoreporterrsquos privilegerdquo unde

First Amendment

The government challenged that d

sion and in 2013 the US Court of App

for the Fourth Circuit in Richm

Virginia reinstated the subpoena arg

that the First Amendment did not pro

Risen from being forced to testify aghis source

In June 2014 Risenrsquos legal b

reached an insurmountable barrier when

US Supreme Court refused to take up

case affirming the lower court ruling N

Risen will have to testify or face conte

of court charges which can lead to e

imprisonment or up to $1000 a day in f

After the high court passed on the c

Risenrsquos attorney Joel Kurtzberg told

Committee to Protect Journalists (62

12 983157 October 2014 Extra

Risen case tests reportersrsquo power to revealgovernment wrongdoing

Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

by Lauren McCauley

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1316

Extra October 2014 983157

that he hopes the government wonrsquot hold

Risen in contempt ldquofor doing nothing other

than reporting the news and keeping his

promise to his sourcerdquo He noted that the

ldquoball is now in the governmentrsquos courtrdquo

On August 14 a coalition of journalists

media advocacy groups and independentmedia outlets delivered over 100000

signatures to the Department of Justice

calling on the Obama administration to drop

its subpoena

The petitionmdashorganized by Roots

Action along with FAIR the Center for

Media and Democracy Freedom of the

Press Foundation The Nation Institute and

The Progressivemdashargues that ldquowithout

confidentiality journalism would be

reduced to official storiesmdasha situation anti-

thetical to the First Amendmentrdquo

On the day the petition was turned in

Risen was joined by a number of free press

advocates including Radack and Solomon

at a press conference at the National Press

Club in Washington DC Speaking before

the roomful of reporters Risen said ldquoThe

real reason Irsquom doing this is for the future of

journalismrdquo

ldquoFreedom of the press is the most impor-

tant freedomrdquo agreed Delphine Halgand

director of Reporters Without Bordersrsquo Wash-

ington office who also spoke at the press

conference ldquoIt is the freedom that allows usto verify the existence of all other freedomsrdquo

When asked about the Risen case at a

closed-door meeting with a group of

journalists Attorney General Eric

Holder (New York Times 52814) report-

edly declared ldquoAs long as Irsquom attorney gen-

eral no reporter who is doing his job is

going to go to jailrdquo

Despite this pronouncement the prose-

cution of whistleblowers has become a

mainstay of Obamarsquos presidency

(Extra 911 FAIR Media

Advisory 82713) During his

time in office the DoJ has pur-

sued eight prosecutions of leakers

under the Espionage Act more

than double the total number of

such prosecutions since the law

was enacted

McClatchy News (62013)

also revealed the existence of agovernment employee ldquotattletalerdquo

program By having government

employees spying and reporting

on each other the Obama initia-

tive dubbed ldquoInsider Threatrdquo aims

to thwart future leakers

According to the Reporters Without Bor-

dersrsquo annual Press Freedom Index (21214)

the US dropped 13 positions from 2013 to

2014 and now ranks 46th worldwide The

report notes

In the US the hunt for leaks and

whistleblowers serves as a warning to

those thinking of satisfying a public

interest need for information about the

imperial prerogatives assumed by the

worldrsquos leading power

Advocates say to ensure the protectio

of journalists in this post-911 surveillan

state it is critical to pass a federal shie

law that will protect reporters from beinforced to disclose confidential informatio

or sources in court (Most states have som

sort of law or protection in place)

There is a shield bill currently makin

its way through CongressmdashS 987 know

as the Free Flow of Information Act

though there is concern that the legislatio

has too many loopholes that allow the go

ernment to claim broad ldquonational security

exceptions and leave some whistleblowe

without protection (Dissenter 51214)

The New York Timesrsquo James Risen at the Roots Action Press Conference

at the National Press Club in Washington DC ldquoThe real reason Irsquom doing

this is for the future of journalismrdquo

NYT Has Benefitted From Leakersmdashbut Not Vice Versa

A s the Department of Justice doggedly pursues Pulitzer Prizendashwinner James Risen the New York

Times has been forced to enter the fray of the governmentrsquos so-called ldquowar on informationrdquo

The Times like many mainstream publications has openly acknowledged its practice of seek-

ing government approval for sensitive stories (2613) and often serves as a government mouthpiece by

publishing sanctioned ldquoleaksrdquo of information

And although the Times has benefitted enormously from actual leaks of government secrets that

were vital for the public to know it has historically maintained a cautiousmdashif not skepticalmdashdistance

from those who risked their careers and liberty to reveal such truths

Despite publishing the invaluable Pentagon Papers which exposed government deceptions about the

Vietnam War the Times refused to provide leaker Daniel Ellsberg with any help in his criminal case

According to Ellsberg thenndashexecutive editor Abe Rosenthal told the whistleblower that the paper had no

policy for supporting a source who is being prosecuted for leaking information

ldquoThe Timesrdquo Ellsberg explained ldquothinks of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken the lawrdquo

The paper has given even less support to Chelsea Manning despite having partnered with Wikileaks

in July 2010 to release important revelations from the hun-

dreds of thousands of classified war logs and State

Department cables revealed by Manning

In addition to disparaging her character and questioning

her motives in a Bill Keller column (31113) the Times treat-

ed Manningrsquos trial as a noneventmdashnot sending a single

reporter and only running one AP wire story (123012) on it

Later New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan

(51212) wrote that the paper had ldquomissed the boatrdquo by not

covering Manningrsquos pretrial testimony

The paper did run an editorial (1114) supporting NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden however that was months

after an earlier editorial (8613) essentially calling for Snowden to be extradited for prosecution

In a January 2013 column about the prosecution of Chelsea Manning journalist Glenn Greenwald

warned corporate media that they ldquomight want to take a serious interestrdquo in the case and ldquomarshal oppo-

sition to what is being done to Bradley Manningrdquo

He continued ldquoIf not out of concern for the injustices to which he is being subjected then out of self-

interest to ensure that their reporters and their past and future whistleblowing sources cannot be simi-

larly persecutedrdquo

It seems that time has comemdashLMcC

Daniel Ellsberg The New York Times ldquothinks

of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken

the lawrdquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1416

In a recent interview with Times colleague

Maureen Dowd (81714) Risen refer-

enced Obamarsquos ldquomost transparent admin-

istrationrdquo claim

ldquoItrsquos hypocriticalrdquo Risen said ldquoA lot of

peopledonrsquot want to believe that Obama

wants to crack down on the press and

whistleblowers But he does Hersquos the great-

est enemy to press freedom in a generationrdquo

Among those who have come to Risenrsquos

defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prizendashwin-

ning reporters who each signed the Roots

Action petition and issued personal state-

ments on his behalf

Included in the testimonies is one from

Risenrsquos New York Times colleague Barry

Bearak who wrote that Risen ldquois carrying

the banner for every American journalistrdquo

ldquoIf he goes to jailrdquo Bearak continued

good bit of our nationrsquos freedom wil

locked away with himrdquo 983150

Lauren McCauley is an assistant edito

the website Common Dreams and a d

mentary producer her most recent fil

Mississippi Messiah about civil ri

leader James Meredith

14 983157 October 2014 Extra

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

Who Rules Public TV

by Aldo Guerrero

T

he corporate and financial sectors have

an overwhelming presence on the gov-

erning boards of major public televi-

sion stations a new FAIR study findsThe study looked at the occupations of

the current trustees of WNET (New York

CityNewark) WGBH (Boston) WETA

(Washington DC) WTTW (Chicago) and

KCET (Los Angeles)

Out of these boardsrsquo 182 total members

152mdashor 84 percentmdashhave corporate back-

grounds including 138 who are executives

at elite businesses Another 14 members

appear to be on the board because of their

familiesrsquo corporate-derived wealth often

with a primary affiliation as an officer of a

family charitable foundationMany board members are affiliated with

major corporations like Boeing Wells Fargo

and Citigroup Seventy-five board mem-

bers nearly half of all those with corporate

ties are financial industry executives

Another 24 are corporate lawyers

Public TV board members without corpo-

rate ties were few and far between Of

these nine are categorized as academics

while six are affiliated with nonprofit groups

(not counting family grant-making founda-

tions) There are three former government

officials two non-corporate lawyers two

journalists one religious educator and a for-

mer principal of a magnet school Six board

members are station insiders

WNET WGBH and WETA are consid-

ered to be the ldquobig threerdquo PBS affiliates

producing a large share of programming for

PBS nationally WTTW and KCET were

included because they serve two of the

largest US metropolitan areas Four of these

stations are affiliated with PBS KCET dis-

affiliated in 2010 but remains a prominent

regional public television station

The boards range in size from WTTWrsquos

63 members to KCETrsquos 20 WTTW and

WNET have the most corporate representa-

tion on their boards each at 92 percent

KCETrsquos board is 80 percent corporate-affil-

iated while DCrsquos WETA is at 73 percent

Corporate-tied board members were least

common at WGBH where they still made

up two-thirds of the board

One hundred sixteen members (64 per-

cent) are male It was not possible to do a

breakdown of board membersrsquo ethnicities

Last year the issue of corporate influence

over public television was thrust into the

spotlight when the film Park Avenue

Money Power and the American Dream was

broadcast by PBS affiliate WNET (NewYorker 52713 FAIR Blog 52113) The

film examined the concentration of wealth

and power in the United States by lookin

the super-rich residents of 740

Avenuemdashwho included then-WNET b

member and major station donor DKoch a billionaire industrialist well kn

for his donations to right-wing causes

WNET president Neil Shapiro was

to be ldquoconcernedrdquo about a film critica

one of his biggest funders WNET ende

not receiving a large donation from Koc

potentially in the seven-figure rang

because Park Avenue was broadcast

New Yorkerrsquos Jane Mayer reported

PBS then preemptively pulled the

on Citizen Koch another film that exam

the Koch familyrsquos political influenc

apparently practicing self-censorship inattempt to placate a wealthy donor K

would eventually resign from the WNboard of trustees Since then a camp

has been launched demanding that K

also resign from the board of Bost

WGBH where he is still a trustee

High-powered executives likes David Koch overwhelm

dominate the boards of trustees at public TV stations

This documentary caused trouble when it aired on WNET

because of the money and power on the PBS affiliatersquos

board

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 716

Extra October 2014 983157

marginalized in mainstream media The

numbers of black journalists able to work inmainstream media has decreased over the

last 10 years significantly

And what we find is that both these jour-

nalists and the community journalists that

wersquore talking about on Twitter have found

social media to be an outlet to be a way to

share their work in a way that wasnrsquot able to

happen on CNN MSNBC or any of the

other cable news outlets Because cable is

owned by mega-corporations and doesnrsquot

allow for the kind of independent voice that

a more social platform on the Internet

allows forSo Black Twittermdashreminiscent of and

reflecting the black blog an independent

black voicemdashthatrsquos what really brought the

story of Ferguson to the majority of black

audiences

CS On the one hand you want to say that

itrsquos not the technology thatrsquos key I mean

media and other powers could have tried to

listen to black people if they were writing

on parchment you know But at the same

time the technology and the kind of com-

munication that it makes possible is some-

thing different isnrsquot it

MC Absolutely The decentralized nature

of the Internet allows for a level of democ-

ratized voice that wersquove never seen I mea

the Internetmdashas a platform as a vehicle fvoice in black communitiesmdashhas becom

one of the most powerful ways to bypass th

exclusionary and discriminatory mai

stream media And because of that becau

of its decentralized and democratiz

nature black people are very conscious

the need to fight to maintain their online an

digital voice

CS Letrsquos talk about that fight We know th

for corporate media this story is going to g

away Every racist act in corporate media

an anecdote Wersquore told that things ldquoraiquestionsrdquo when they might more approp

ately be said to answer them We hea

ldquoGosh this doesnrsquot look like America

when it looks exactly like America

And Ta-Nehisi Coates [Atlantic 8151

wrote recently about the ldquopolitics of chan

ing the subjectrdquo You know Letrsquos talk abo

black folks killing each other

All of this is why even when dece

coverage happens it feels like reinventin

the wheel and it points up the need for

sustained space to have a conversation th

doesnrsquot just serve as corrective of that dom

inant narrative and stop there but mov

forward So what is the state of play on t

fight to have the Internet be that sort

space

MC Right now as the people of Ferguso

are on the front lines demanding justice f

yet another murder of a young black man

unarmedmdashblack people are also on the fro

lines to maintain the right to speak onli

about the rampant police brutality in o

communitiesAnd one of the front lines that black pe

ple are fighting on is the fight for the ope

Internet Black communities across th

country are saying loud and clear that th

want to keep the Internet open We unde

stand that the only way that the court

Verizon v FCC said very clearly that t

only way the Federal Communicatio

Commission can enforce non-discrimin

tion rules online is to reclassify broadban

as a Title II common carrier service

There likely would have been media cover-

age of the Ferguson Missouri police killingof Michael Brown and the public protests

that followed But itrsquos hard to imagine that

the tone of that coverage would be the same

mdashwith stories validating black peoplersquos

anger questioning the militarization of

police and challenging mediarsquos criminaliza-

tion of people of colormdashwere it not for the

forceful intervention of black social media

where so-called ldquomainstreamrdquo perspectives

werenrsquot just called out but circumvented

Many people will tell you they didnrsquot

learn what was happening in Fergusonmdash

much less why it matteredmdashfrom the paperor the TV at all The implications of that fact

inform the work of Malkia Cyril executive

director of the Center for Media Justice

which is also home to the Media Action

Grassroots Network (MAG-Net) Counter-

Spinrsquos Janine Jackson talked to her by

phone from the Bay Area

CounterSpin Whatrsquos happening in Ferguson

isnrsquot a story about the Internet of course

but it has put in high relief the need for

black people to tell our own stories in our

own voices and not to wait until somebody

else decides the storyrsquos important Before

we talk about the threats to that space whose

power wersquore just discovering letrsquos talk for a

minute about that power I was sort of tick-

led to see David Carr at the New YorkTimes [81814] credit Twitter per se for

showing that something significant was

underway in Ferguson Letrsquos put a finer

point on it It was particular folks using

Twitter and other tools to tell this story

wasnrsquot it

Malkia Cyril Yes I mean the lingo ldquoBlack

Twitterrdquo isnrsquot about the company at all Itrsquos

about the hundreds of black blogs inde-

pendent black blogs and black bloggers

websites individual pundits that used the

social media platform to microblog and talk

about what they see as the primary issues

affecting black communities

And one of the reasons that is so impor-

tant is because these journalistsmdashblack

journalistsmdashhave been slowly excluded and

Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

lsquoThe Black Voice Is in Jeopardyrsquo

C O U N T E R S P I N I N T E R V I E W

Malkia Cyril ldquoThe Internetmdashas a platform as a vehicle for

voice in black communitiesmdashhas become one of the most

powerful ways to bypass the exclusionary and discriminato-

ry mainstream mediardquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 816

8 983157 October 2014 Extra

MC It was never a meaningful separation

and civil rights activists in the 1960s knew

that very well when they took television

news station WLBT to task for their failure

to cover segregation in the South And in

fact that casemdashthe case of WLBTmdash

became the defining case that allowed for

public comment in media policy processes

So civil rights organizations have long been

an advocate for media as a civil rights issue

Itrsquos only as media and telecommunica-tions have become so lucrative itrsquos only as

telecommunications companies have used

the buyouts of our communities as a public

relations strategy that these issues have

become technocratic wonky and separate

from the core issues of social justice

What we know what Ferguson shows

us what it shows me is that in fact there is

no path to victory to change without the

visibility and representation that media pro-

vides And that as long as that media is

Now let me explain that for a minute

because people say ldquoWell what is Title IIrdquo

Title II simply means that the Internet

should be treated as a public utility it

should be regulated like a public utility

Some organizations are concerned that if we

regulate the Internet as a public utility itrsquoll

kill innovation But what black communi-

ties know very well is two things One

public utilitiesmdashwhen they are truly pub-

licmdashare secure and reliable So thatrsquos num-ber one We want a reliable platform for

independent voices and treating it like a

utility regulating it as such makes it a civil

right that we can access publicly So thatrsquos

number one

Number two some organizations and

individuals have been concerned that if we

treat the Internet like a public utility that a

future FCC that a future Congress will

come along and take that away And to that

I think black communities are very clear

When we fought against segregation in

education we did not accept anything lessthan the ruling in Brown v Board of

Education There were rulings prior to that

There were court cases for more than a

decade prior to that victory We didnrsquot

accept any piecemeal half-baked legisla-

tion We only took what was morally right

and just And that was an end to segregation

in education And thatrsquos what wersquore talking

about right now

Ultimately reclassifying broadband

would ensure no segregation online that all

voices would be able to join the public con-

versation and that black voices in particular

would be able to be raised around issues

like police brutality like the incident in

Ferguson And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

for

CS Used to be when you told someone that

you were working with media policy they

would come back with ldquoOh well I do real

activism Irsquom in the streetrdquo and media is

somehow an ancillary issue That dayrsquos over

isnrsquot it I mean not everyone can work on

every issue but the separation of media pol-icy issues from other issues that we care

about is not a meaningful separation

owned operated and controlled by

largest Internet service providers the lar

cable companies the largest private f

lies the black voice is in jeopardy An

the black voice is in jeopardy black

dom is in jeopardy

And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

Wersquore not fighting for some back-end t

nical technocratic issue Wersquore fighting

the cause of black freedom Wersquore figh

for the same cause that all the black newpers right after slavery were fighting

Wersquore fighting for an end to any kind of

tem that violates or limits our voice

that is what wersquore talking about here to

Itrsquos not about media policy Itrsquos about

justice983150

Malkia Cyrilrsquos recent article ldquoThank

Black Internet for Bringing Ferguso

Merdquo appeared on the Huffington

(81514) among other outlets

Wear FAIR Everywhere You Go

If yoursquore like us you donrsquot trust the corporate

media to tell it straightmdashor report the stories that

matter

So why not spread the word

Send a bold message--and support FAIR--with our

Donrsquot Trust Corporate Media shirt

The shirts are 100 cotton and union-mademdash

just check the labelmdashand are available in Small

Medium Large and XLarge

Limited quantities available so order yours todaymdashthese wonrsquot last long

T-shirtmdash$20

983151 Sm 983151 Med 983151 Large 983151 XLarge

Includes shipping no international orders please

Name________________________________________________

Address ______________________________________________

City _________________________________________________

StateZip _____________________________________________

983151 MasterCard 983151 VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No__________________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature_____________________________________________

To order

fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

fairo

Join the Conversation

If yoursquore on Twitter connect with FAIR friendsand staff about the issues that matter to you themost Be a part of the discussion while stayingup-to-date on the latest news and information

Follow us FAIRmediawatch

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 916

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1016

10 983157 October 2014 Extra

pushing them as a way to tackle poverty

This in the eyes of many news outlets was a

welcome shift toward ldquobipartisanshiprdquo

ldquoRyanrsquos poverty plan mixes partiesrsquo

ideasrdquo trumpeted the Milwaukee Journal-

Sentinel (72414) saying its combination

of EITC hikes with block grants ldquoaspires to

find some common ground between right

and leftrdquo ldquoCreative ideas are rare in Wash-

ingtonrdquo asserted a Boston Herald editorial

(72814) adding that ldquoRyanrsquos approachdestroys the Democratic narrative that

Republicans want to permanently dismantle

the safety netrdquo

In fact Ryanrsquos plan was deemed so

ldquobipartisanrdquo that some worried aloud that it

could hurt his standing with Republicans

Washington Post columnist Melinda Henne-

berger (72414) citing Ryanrsquos statements

that he wanted to ldquotalk about how we can

repair the safety netrdquo and have the govern-

ment ldquoprovide resourcesrdquo to poor people

questioned whether it meant Ryan was giv-

ing up on seeking the 2016 Republican pres-idential nomination

And LA Times columnist Doyle

McManus (72714) under the headline

ldquoHas the GOP Gone Softrdquo singled out

Ryan for proposing policies that ldquomay face

their toughest audience inside the GOPrdquo

For the media to evaluate economic poli-

cies based on whether they please both

Democrats and Republicans is nothing

new as wersquove witnessed on battles over

everything from the stimulus plan (FAIR

Blog 2209) to the debt ceiling (FAIRBlog 71511) In fact during the battles

over welfare reform itself back in 1996

coverage largely focused on which bills

could win the support of both partiesrsquo lead-

ershipmdashwith the San Francisco Chronicleeditorial board (72796) writing approving-

ly that Congress had ldquowhipped itself into a

fair frenzy of bipartisanshiprdquo with welfare

reform and other bills

The problem with bipartisanship as a

moral touchstone should be obvious Not

only does it define sensible policies as beingwhatever the leadership of the Democrats and

Republicans can agree on but it allows one

party to shift the debate by moving its own

goalposts and thus what counts as bipartisan

While the Washington Post editorial

board (72414) singled out shifting money to

EITC as the ldquomost bipartisan part of Mr

Ryanrsquos planrdquo the Timesrsquo Irwin (72414)

acknowledged that it was hardly a new one

for conservatives ldquoWhat was once a conser-

vative idea created in the Gerald Ford admin-

istration and expanded by President Reagan

and both presidents Bush is now more con-

troversial on the rightrdquo since it would elimi-

nate income taxes for more poor Americans

making them what the Wall Street Journal(112002) once derided as ldquolucky duckiesrdquo

If the nationrsquos media were actually con-

cerned about finding programs that help

the poor itrsquos not hard For one therersquos the

food stamp program that Ryan wants toeliminate which has low overheadmdash95 per-

cent of spending goes directly to benefitsmdash

and which by itself lifts nearly 5 million

people out of poverty every year (NewRepublic 81613)

Or as the Center for Economic and

Policy Researchrsquos Shawn Fremstad (TheHill 72214) noted if Ryan truly wanted to

boost the earnings of the working poor

instead of work requirements and EITC

hikes he could accomplish the same t

by raising the federal minimum wage so

thing that is supported by 80 percen

Americans including a majority of Re

licans (Hart Research 72313)mdasha bip

san plan if ever there was one

But then helping the poor or even pu

ing poverty policies that most Americans

agree on isnrsquot really the point for Ry

supporters ldquoGiving people money re

does make them better-off Itrsquos better to more money to buy groceries and other b

necessities than lessrdquo admitted Salam

getting more money from the governm

doesnrsquot really make you less poorrdquo

In the world of punditry then itrsquos

about helping the poor afford groceries

about making sure that theyrsquove earned

right to deserve groceries That may be ldquob

tisanrdquomdashin the halls of Congress anywa

but that doesnrsquot make it smart policy 983150

Itrsquos not often that a media outletrsquos decision

to ldquorecalibrate its languagerdquo attracts much

attention But when itrsquos the New York

Times and the shift is about what to call

torture in the Newspaper of Record such

changes matter

In August 2014 10 years after the initial

revelations that made US torture an interna-

tional news story Times executive editor

Dean Baquet wrote a short piece for the

Times website (8714) stating that the word

ldquotorturerdquo would be used to describe ldquoinci-

dents in which we know for sure that inter-rogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an

effort to get informationrdquo

In other words the newspaper is now

accepting the reality that the term can be

accurately applied to some actions of the

United States Ten years ago when it was

revealed that the CIA was torturing ldquoWar on

Terrorrdquo prisoners criticsmdashincluding

FAIRmdashwere asking the Times to call US

torture by its name (FAIR Action Alert51404) The paper had officially or not

carved out an exception for the US gov

ment whereby torture would be descr

euphemistically as ldquoenhancedrdquo or ldquoha

interrogations

So this shift if it is to be considered a

significant comes a decade too late

thatrsquos the just the start Baquetrsquos reasonin

revealing He writes that the Times resi

the label for so long because ldquothe situa

was murkyrdquo and that the ldquoJustice Dep

ment insisted that the techniques did not

to the legal definition of lsquotorturersquordquo Su

most countries that practice torture wresist prosecuting themselves so itrsquos ha

a reasonable standard for a media outle

Perhaps most illuminating though

Baquetrsquos admission that the Jus

Departmentrsquos decision not to prosecute

torturers motivated the paperrsquos shift

government

has made clear that it will not prosecut

in connection with the interrogatio

program The result is that today th

Paper says it will call it what it ismdash when it reports on it at all

NYT Fails First Test of New Torture Policy

by Peter Hart

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1116

Extra October 2014 983157

debate is focused less on whether the

methods violated a statute or treaty

provision and more on whether they

worked

So the Times will call torture by its

name now that no one is likely to be prose-

cuted and because the debate eventually

became ldquofocusedrdquo on its practical benefits

Thus allegations of torture that are walled

off from legal accountability are safemdashassuming the paper even covers them at all

The first test of the New York Timesrsquo new

policy came with the release of an

August 11 Amnesty International report

on torture in Afghanistan Itrsquos a test the

Times failed

The report covered 10 discrete episodes

of torture and brutality that killed dozens of

Afghan civilians But the most explosive

stories concern the actions of a US Special

Operations unit that was linked to torture

killings and disappearances betweenNovember 2012 and February 2013 The

evidence gathered by Amnesty strongly

suggests that US personnel were intimately

involved In one especially harrowing

account an Afghan man named

Naimatullah talks about a raid on his fami-

lyrsquos home by US Special Forces

Naimatullah said that the Americans

brought two of his brothers

Esmatullah and Siddiqullah into two

separate rooms and started beating

them They also beat Hekmatullah in

the yard ldquoI could hear them beating the

othersrdquo Naimatullah said ldquoand when I

saw them they were in terrible shaperdquo

Hekmattullah told Amnesty

International that the Special Forces

operatives ldquodragged me from my room

by the back of my collar and then

threw me down the stairs While I fell

my shoulder and buttocks were frac-

tured Even now I have problem walk-

ing it is painful and I canrsquot stand

straightrdquo

According to Amnestyrsquos report US

forces then took Naimatullahrsquos three broth-

ers away Only Hekmattullah was ever seen

again

Amnesty reports that several of the fam-

ilies that were able to recover the remains of

the missing reported that the bodies showed

signs of torture from what appeared to be

acid burns on clothing to gruesome injuries

The report received attention from other

outlets like the LA Times and WashingtonPost but was not featured in the New York

Times A FAIR Action Alert (81814) noted

the disconnect between the Timesrsquo new tor-

ture policy and its silence on the Amnesty

report Times public editor MargaretSullivan (81914) seemed to agree with

FAIRrsquos take writing that Amnesty ldquopulled

together a great deal of informationmdashespe-

cially about the role of the American mili-

tarymdashin a comprehensive and forceful way

that would have benefited Times readersrdquo

But others at the Times didnrsquot see why

they should have bothered Foreign editor

Joseph Kahn told Sullivan that Amnestyrsquos

findings ldquoappeared to be recycledrdquo and ldquodid

not add much to what we have already on

many occasions reportedrdquo

Itrsquos true that the Times has reported on

the allegations of torture in Afghanistan

But therersquos one clear lesson one can draw

from that reporting As the evidence of US

culpability grew the paper got less interest-

ed

On February 25 2013 the New YorkTimes reported that the Afghan govern-

ment had ldquobarred elite American forces

from operating in a strategic province

adjoining Kabul on Sunday citing com-

plaints that Afghans working for AmericanSpecial Operations forces had tortured and

killed villagers in the areardquo

The Times emphasized the damage this

could do to the US mission The move

ldquowould effectively exclude the American

militaryrsquos main source of offensive firepow-

er from the areardquo

A month later the Times (32113)

reported that the Afghan government was

compromising on its exclusion of US

troops ldquobreaking an increasingly acrimo-

nious impasserdquo The paper reminded reade

that the source of the dispute was ldquocom

plaints related to abuses by American forc

and accompanying Afghan men durin

night raids in the province accusations th

coalition has deniedrdquo The paper added th

certain ldquoAfghan and Western official

blamed the deaths and torture on local insu

gents

Almost two months later (51313) cam

the headline ldquoAfghans Say an AmericTortured Civiliansrdquo But this was not abo

American military personnel the Americ

in question was identified as Zakar

Kandahari an Afghan-American who w

working as an interpreter for the Speci

Forces unit The Times included a comme

from a US officialmdashldquospeaking on the cond

tion of anonymity in line with official po

cyrdquomdashwho insisted the US had no role ldquoW

have done three investigations down ther

and all absolve ISAF [International Securi

Assistance Force] forces and Special Forc

of all wrongdoingrdquoSome might find such denials unpersu

sive as the Times reported (51313

Afghan officials had a video of at least o

torture session and the remains of the vi

tims were turning up just outside the U

base

The Times (52213) reminded reade

days later that ldquothere has been no tes

mony directly tying American soldiers

the abuse or killing of those detaineesrdquo T

paper added that ldquothe American military h

described Mr Kandahari as a freelan

interpreter who had volunteered to help t

American Special Forces who allowed hi

to live at their base in exchangerdquo

Weeks later the Times (6513) w

reporting the discovery of more bodies ju

outside the US basemdashand that Afghan an

US governments were ldquoin sharp disagre

ment about who is responsiblerdquo

The story made the paper once again o

July 8 with the news that Kandahari h

been arrested The paperrsquos account aga

reiterated US claims that it had nothing do with the torture but Heather Barr

Human Rights Watch offered a dissentin

view

The US said they investigated thoroughly

therersquos nothing there so everyone should

go away and accept their word that they

checked and did nothing wrong I donrsquot

think that ends the discussion Therersquos a

lot more explaining that needs to be done

that hasnrsquot happened yetrsquo

New York Timesrsquo Dean Baquet We can call it ldquotorturerdquo now

that itrsquos clear no one will be punished for it

Missing a Premium

983088

Please email fairfairorg

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1216

That explaining would have to happen

elsewhere though The New York Timesran just one more story that mentioned the

controversy a July 23 dispatch that once

again stated that US officials ldquohave cleared

their troops of responsibility in any torture

or killingrdquo

The paper added that government offi-

cials ldquohave refused to offer further explana-

tion of what might have happened to the

dead menrdquo One would think the arrest of the principal suspect might inspire new

reporting

And it didmdashjust not in the New YorkTimes A major investigation by RollingStonersquos Matthieu Aikins (11613) raised

serious doubts about the US denials about

Kandahari and the unit ldquoMany of the men

who disappeared in Nerkh were rounded up

by the Americans in broad daylight in front

of dozens of witnessesrdquo Aikins reported He

added that over five months

Rolling Stone has interviewed more

than two dozen eyewitnesses and vic-

timsrsquo families whorsquove provided consis-

tent and detailed allegations of the

involvement of American forces in the

disappearance of the 10 men and has

talked to Afghan and Western officials

who were familiar with confidential

Afghan-government UN and Red

Cross investigations that found the

allegations credible

Aikins even tracked down Kandahari for

a prison interview unsurprisingly he

denied responsibility for the killings The

US argument that a rogue interpreter carried

out an extensive campaign of torture is not

only far-fetched Aikins wrote that it is

in a certain sense irrelevant Under the

well-established legal principle of

command responsibility military offi-

cials who knowingly allow their subor-

dinates to commit war crimes are them-

selves criminally responsible

To Aikins these stories ldquowould amount

to some of the gravest war crimes perpetrat-

ed by American forces since 2001rdquo But

they remained obscure to readers of the

New York Times even after the Amnesty

report corroborated his charges

But the Times didnrsquot entirely ignore Rol-ling Stonesrsquo reporting on February 16 2014

the Times mentioned that Aikinsrsquo exposeacute

had received a George Polk Award 983150

New York Times investigative reporter

James Risen is taking a stand Despite

being hounded by both the Bush and

Obama administrations to reveal his

sources he has vowed to go to jail rather

than abandon his pledge of confidentiality

As fellow journalists and journalism

advocacy groups rush to his side many fear

that the US Department of Justice within the

self-proclaimed ldquomost transparent adminis-tration in historyrdquo is preparing to deliver a

body blow to the First Amendmentrsquos prom-

ise of press freedom

ldquoThis case is the closest wersquove come to

the edge of the precipice to reportersource

privilege being bannedrdquo said Jesselyn

Radack director of national security and

human rights for the Government Account-

ability Project in a phone interview

R

isen a Pulitzer Prizendashwinning reporter

has been ordered by the DoJ to testify in

the prosecution of former CIA employeeJeffrey Sterling who is accused of leaking

information about a botched Clinton-era

CIA mission to give Iran phony nuclear

informationmdashwhich ended up giving Iran

real information on how to build a bomb

Risen wrote about the failed operation in his

2006 book State of War

Risen was initially subpoenaed by the

Bush administration in 2008 but the order

expired as the reporter fought against it

through the courts To the surprise of many

the subpoena was renewed under PresidentObama in 2010mdashdespite repeated calls to

drop the pursuit

ldquoRisen informed the public about the

dangerous stupidity of a CIA operation and

seriously embarrassed the agency in the

processrdquo said Norman Solomon a longtime

FAIR associate and co-founder of

RootsActionorg an online advocacy group

in an email exchange ldquoEvidently a pair of

unforgivable sins in the eyes of both the

Bush and Obama administrationsrdquo

If the government does uphold its sub

na and Risen is punished for taking

stand journalists and free press advoc

say that this would set a dangerous pr

dent for the interpretation of press free

under the First Amendment

ldquoFunctionally a reporter will no lo

be able to promise source confidential

Radack explained ldquoThis will impact pe

who want to disclose wrongdoingrdquo said ldquoWhistleblowers disclosing fr

waste abuse and illegality will no longe

to the pressrdquo

Robust investigative journalism

already suffered from budget cuts and w

ing interest in long-form journalism

this ldquochilling effectrdquo on sources will pro

the ldquofinal nail in the coffin of the free p

as we know itrdquo Radack added

I

n 2011 a federal District Court ruled

Risen could not be compelled by the

ernment to reveal his sources ldquoA crimtrial subpoena is not a free pass for the

ernment to rifle through a reporterrsquos n

bookrdquo wrote District Court Judge Le

Brinkema adding that Risen was prote

by a limited ldquoreporterrsquos privilegerdquo unde

First Amendment

The government challenged that d

sion and in 2013 the US Court of App

for the Fourth Circuit in Richm

Virginia reinstated the subpoena arg

that the First Amendment did not pro

Risen from being forced to testify aghis source

In June 2014 Risenrsquos legal b

reached an insurmountable barrier when

US Supreme Court refused to take up

case affirming the lower court ruling N

Risen will have to testify or face conte

of court charges which can lead to e

imprisonment or up to $1000 a day in f

After the high court passed on the c

Risenrsquos attorney Joel Kurtzberg told

Committee to Protect Journalists (62

12 983157 October 2014 Extra

Risen case tests reportersrsquo power to revealgovernment wrongdoing

Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

by Lauren McCauley

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1316

Extra October 2014 983157

that he hopes the government wonrsquot hold

Risen in contempt ldquofor doing nothing other

than reporting the news and keeping his

promise to his sourcerdquo He noted that the

ldquoball is now in the governmentrsquos courtrdquo

On August 14 a coalition of journalists

media advocacy groups and independentmedia outlets delivered over 100000

signatures to the Department of Justice

calling on the Obama administration to drop

its subpoena

The petitionmdashorganized by Roots

Action along with FAIR the Center for

Media and Democracy Freedom of the

Press Foundation The Nation Institute and

The Progressivemdashargues that ldquowithout

confidentiality journalism would be

reduced to official storiesmdasha situation anti-

thetical to the First Amendmentrdquo

On the day the petition was turned in

Risen was joined by a number of free press

advocates including Radack and Solomon

at a press conference at the National Press

Club in Washington DC Speaking before

the roomful of reporters Risen said ldquoThe

real reason Irsquom doing this is for the future of

journalismrdquo

ldquoFreedom of the press is the most impor-

tant freedomrdquo agreed Delphine Halgand

director of Reporters Without Bordersrsquo Wash-

ington office who also spoke at the press

conference ldquoIt is the freedom that allows usto verify the existence of all other freedomsrdquo

When asked about the Risen case at a

closed-door meeting with a group of

journalists Attorney General Eric

Holder (New York Times 52814) report-

edly declared ldquoAs long as Irsquom attorney gen-

eral no reporter who is doing his job is

going to go to jailrdquo

Despite this pronouncement the prose-

cution of whistleblowers has become a

mainstay of Obamarsquos presidency

(Extra 911 FAIR Media

Advisory 82713) During his

time in office the DoJ has pur-

sued eight prosecutions of leakers

under the Espionage Act more

than double the total number of

such prosecutions since the law

was enacted

McClatchy News (62013)

also revealed the existence of agovernment employee ldquotattletalerdquo

program By having government

employees spying and reporting

on each other the Obama initia-

tive dubbed ldquoInsider Threatrdquo aims

to thwart future leakers

According to the Reporters Without Bor-

dersrsquo annual Press Freedom Index (21214)

the US dropped 13 positions from 2013 to

2014 and now ranks 46th worldwide The

report notes

In the US the hunt for leaks and

whistleblowers serves as a warning to

those thinking of satisfying a public

interest need for information about the

imperial prerogatives assumed by the

worldrsquos leading power

Advocates say to ensure the protectio

of journalists in this post-911 surveillan

state it is critical to pass a federal shie

law that will protect reporters from beinforced to disclose confidential informatio

or sources in court (Most states have som

sort of law or protection in place)

There is a shield bill currently makin

its way through CongressmdashS 987 know

as the Free Flow of Information Act

though there is concern that the legislatio

has too many loopholes that allow the go

ernment to claim broad ldquonational security

exceptions and leave some whistleblowe

without protection (Dissenter 51214)

The New York Timesrsquo James Risen at the Roots Action Press Conference

at the National Press Club in Washington DC ldquoThe real reason Irsquom doing

this is for the future of journalismrdquo

NYT Has Benefitted From Leakersmdashbut Not Vice Versa

A s the Department of Justice doggedly pursues Pulitzer Prizendashwinner James Risen the New York

Times has been forced to enter the fray of the governmentrsquos so-called ldquowar on informationrdquo

The Times like many mainstream publications has openly acknowledged its practice of seek-

ing government approval for sensitive stories (2613) and often serves as a government mouthpiece by

publishing sanctioned ldquoleaksrdquo of information

And although the Times has benefitted enormously from actual leaks of government secrets that

were vital for the public to know it has historically maintained a cautiousmdashif not skepticalmdashdistance

from those who risked their careers and liberty to reveal such truths

Despite publishing the invaluable Pentagon Papers which exposed government deceptions about the

Vietnam War the Times refused to provide leaker Daniel Ellsberg with any help in his criminal case

According to Ellsberg thenndashexecutive editor Abe Rosenthal told the whistleblower that the paper had no

policy for supporting a source who is being prosecuted for leaking information

ldquoThe Timesrdquo Ellsberg explained ldquothinks of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken the lawrdquo

The paper has given even less support to Chelsea Manning despite having partnered with Wikileaks

in July 2010 to release important revelations from the hun-

dreds of thousands of classified war logs and State

Department cables revealed by Manning

In addition to disparaging her character and questioning

her motives in a Bill Keller column (31113) the Times treat-

ed Manningrsquos trial as a noneventmdashnot sending a single

reporter and only running one AP wire story (123012) on it

Later New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan

(51212) wrote that the paper had ldquomissed the boatrdquo by not

covering Manningrsquos pretrial testimony

The paper did run an editorial (1114) supporting NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden however that was months

after an earlier editorial (8613) essentially calling for Snowden to be extradited for prosecution

In a January 2013 column about the prosecution of Chelsea Manning journalist Glenn Greenwald

warned corporate media that they ldquomight want to take a serious interestrdquo in the case and ldquomarshal oppo-

sition to what is being done to Bradley Manningrdquo

He continued ldquoIf not out of concern for the injustices to which he is being subjected then out of self-

interest to ensure that their reporters and their past and future whistleblowing sources cannot be simi-

larly persecutedrdquo

It seems that time has comemdashLMcC

Daniel Ellsberg The New York Times ldquothinks

of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken

the lawrdquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1416

In a recent interview with Times colleague

Maureen Dowd (81714) Risen refer-

enced Obamarsquos ldquomost transparent admin-

istrationrdquo claim

ldquoItrsquos hypocriticalrdquo Risen said ldquoA lot of

peopledonrsquot want to believe that Obama

wants to crack down on the press and

whistleblowers But he does Hersquos the great-

est enemy to press freedom in a generationrdquo

Among those who have come to Risenrsquos

defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prizendashwin-

ning reporters who each signed the Roots

Action petition and issued personal state-

ments on his behalf

Included in the testimonies is one from

Risenrsquos New York Times colleague Barry

Bearak who wrote that Risen ldquois carrying

the banner for every American journalistrdquo

ldquoIf he goes to jailrdquo Bearak continued

good bit of our nationrsquos freedom wil

locked away with himrdquo 983150

Lauren McCauley is an assistant edito

the website Common Dreams and a d

mentary producer her most recent fil

Mississippi Messiah about civil ri

leader James Meredith

14 983157 October 2014 Extra

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

Who Rules Public TV

by Aldo Guerrero

T

he corporate and financial sectors have

an overwhelming presence on the gov-

erning boards of major public televi-

sion stations a new FAIR study findsThe study looked at the occupations of

the current trustees of WNET (New York

CityNewark) WGBH (Boston) WETA

(Washington DC) WTTW (Chicago) and

KCET (Los Angeles)

Out of these boardsrsquo 182 total members

152mdashor 84 percentmdashhave corporate back-

grounds including 138 who are executives

at elite businesses Another 14 members

appear to be on the board because of their

familiesrsquo corporate-derived wealth often

with a primary affiliation as an officer of a

family charitable foundationMany board members are affiliated with

major corporations like Boeing Wells Fargo

and Citigroup Seventy-five board mem-

bers nearly half of all those with corporate

ties are financial industry executives

Another 24 are corporate lawyers

Public TV board members without corpo-

rate ties were few and far between Of

these nine are categorized as academics

while six are affiliated with nonprofit groups

(not counting family grant-making founda-

tions) There are three former government

officials two non-corporate lawyers two

journalists one religious educator and a for-

mer principal of a magnet school Six board

members are station insiders

WNET WGBH and WETA are consid-

ered to be the ldquobig threerdquo PBS affiliates

producing a large share of programming for

PBS nationally WTTW and KCET were

included because they serve two of the

largest US metropolitan areas Four of these

stations are affiliated with PBS KCET dis-

affiliated in 2010 but remains a prominent

regional public television station

The boards range in size from WTTWrsquos

63 members to KCETrsquos 20 WTTW and

WNET have the most corporate representa-

tion on their boards each at 92 percent

KCETrsquos board is 80 percent corporate-affil-

iated while DCrsquos WETA is at 73 percent

Corporate-tied board members were least

common at WGBH where they still made

up two-thirds of the board

One hundred sixteen members (64 per-

cent) are male It was not possible to do a

breakdown of board membersrsquo ethnicities

Last year the issue of corporate influence

over public television was thrust into the

spotlight when the film Park Avenue

Money Power and the American Dream was

broadcast by PBS affiliate WNET (NewYorker 52713 FAIR Blog 52113) The

film examined the concentration of wealth

and power in the United States by lookin

the super-rich residents of 740

Avenuemdashwho included then-WNET b

member and major station donor DKoch a billionaire industrialist well kn

for his donations to right-wing causes

WNET president Neil Shapiro was

to be ldquoconcernedrdquo about a film critica

one of his biggest funders WNET ende

not receiving a large donation from Koc

potentially in the seven-figure rang

because Park Avenue was broadcast

New Yorkerrsquos Jane Mayer reported

PBS then preemptively pulled the

on Citizen Koch another film that exam

the Koch familyrsquos political influenc

apparently practicing self-censorship inattempt to placate a wealthy donor K

would eventually resign from the WNboard of trustees Since then a camp

has been launched demanding that K

also resign from the board of Bost

WGBH where he is still a trustee

High-powered executives likes David Koch overwhelm

dominate the boards of trustees at public TV stations

This documentary caused trouble when it aired on WNET

because of the money and power on the PBS affiliatersquos

board

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 816

8 983157 October 2014 Extra

MC It was never a meaningful separation

and civil rights activists in the 1960s knew

that very well when they took television

news station WLBT to task for their failure

to cover segregation in the South And in

fact that casemdashthe case of WLBTmdash

became the defining case that allowed for

public comment in media policy processes

So civil rights organizations have long been

an advocate for media as a civil rights issue

Itrsquos only as media and telecommunica-tions have become so lucrative itrsquos only as

telecommunications companies have used

the buyouts of our communities as a public

relations strategy that these issues have

become technocratic wonky and separate

from the core issues of social justice

What we know what Ferguson shows

us what it shows me is that in fact there is

no path to victory to change without the

visibility and representation that media pro-

vides And that as long as that media is

Now let me explain that for a minute

because people say ldquoWell what is Title IIrdquo

Title II simply means that the Internet

should be treated as a public utility it

should be regulated like a public utility

Some organizations are concerned that if we

regulate the Internet as a public utility itrsquoll

kill innovation But what black communi-

ties know very well is two things One

public utilitiesmdashwhen they are truly pub-

licmdashare secure and reliable So thatrsquos num-ber one We want a reliable platform for

independent voices and treating it like a

utility regulating it as such makes it a civil

right that we can access publicly So thatrsquos

number one

Number two some organizations and

individuals have been concerned that if we

treat the Internet like a public utility that a

future FCC that a future Congress will

come along and take that away And to that

I think black communities are very clear

When we fought against segregation in

education we did not accept anything lessthan the ruling in Brown v Board of

Education There were rulings prior to that

There were court cases for more than a

decade prior to that victory We didnrsquot

accept any piecemeal half-baked legisla-

tion We only took what was morally right

and just And that was an end to segregation

in education And thatrsquos what wersquore talking

about right now

Ultimately reclassifying broadband

would ensure no segregation online that all

voices would be able to join the public con-

versation and that black voices in particular

would be able to be raised around issues

like police brutality like the incident in

Ferguson And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

for

CS Used to be when you told someone that

you were working with media policy they

would come back with ldquoOh well I do real

activism Irsquom in the streetrdquo and media is

somehow an ancillary issue That dayrsquos over

isnrsquot it I mean not everyone can work on

every issue but the separation of media pol-icy issues from other issues that we care

about is not a meaningful separation

owned operated and controlled by

largest Internet service providers the lar

cable companies the largest private f

lies the black voice is in jeopardy An

the black voice is in jeopardy black

dom is in jeopardy

And thatrsquos what wersquore fighting

Wersquore not fighting for some back-end t

nical technocratic issue Wersquore fighting

the cause of black freedom Wersquore figh

for the same cause that all the black newpers right after slavery were fighting

Wersquore fighting for an end to any kind of

tem that violates or limits our voice

that is what wersquore talking about here to

Itrsquos not about media policy Itrsquos about

justice983150

Malkia Cyrilrsquos recent article ldquoThank

Black Internet for Bringing Ferguso

Merdquo appeared on the Huffington

(81514) among other outlets

Wear FAIR Everywhere You Go

If yoursquore like us you donrsquot trust the corporate

media to tell it straightmdashor report the stories that

matter

So why not spread the word

Send a bold message--and support FAIR--with our

Donrsquot Trust Corporate Media shirt

The shirts are 100 cotton and union-mademdash

just check the labelmdashand are available in Small

Medium Large and XLarge

Limited quantities available so order yours todaymdashthese wonrsquot last long

T-shirtmdash$20

983151 Sm 983151 Med 983151 Large 983151 XLarge

Includes shipping no international orders please

Name________________________________________________

Address ______________________________________________

City _________________________________________________

StateZip _____________________________________________

983151 MasterCard 983151 VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No__________________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature_____________________________________________

To order

fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

New York NY 10001

fairo

Join the Conversation

If yoursquore on Twitter connect with FAIR friendsand staff about the issues that matter to you themost Be a part of the discussion while stayingup-to-date on the latest news and information

Follow us FAIRmediawatch

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 916

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1016

10 983157 October 2014 Extra

pushing them as a way to tackle poverty

This in the eyes of many news outlets was a

welcome shift toward ldquobipartisanshiprdquo

ldquoRyanrsquos poverty plan mixes partiesrsquo

ideasrdquo trumpeted the Milwaukee Journal-

Sentinel (72414) saying its combination

of EITC hikes with block grants ldquoaspires to

find some common ground between right

and leftrdquo ldquoCreative ideas are rare in Wash-

ingtonrdquo asserted a Boston Herald editorial

(72814) adding that ldquoRyanrsquos approachdestroys the Democratic narrative that

Republicans want to permanently dismantle

the safety netrdquo

In fact Ryanrsquos plan was deemed so

ldquobipartisanrdquo that some worried aloud that it

could hurt his standing with Republicans

Washington Post columnist Melinda Henne-

berger (72414) citing Ryanrsquos statements

that he wanted to ldquotalk about how we can

repair the safety netrdquo and have the govern-

ment ldquoprovide resourcesrdquo to poor people

questioned whether it meant Ryan was giv-

ing up on seeking the 2016 Republican pres-idential nomination

And LA Times columnist Doyle

McManus (72714) under the headline

ldquoHas the GOP Gone Softrdquo singled out

Ryan for proposing policies that ldquomay face

their toughest audience inside the GOPrdquo

For the media to evaluate economic poli-

cies based on whether they please both

Democrats and Republicans is nothing

new as wersquove witnessed on battles over

everything from the stimulus plan (FAIR

Blog 2209) to the debt ceiling (FAIRBlog 71511) In fact during the battles

over welfare reform itself back in 1996

coverage largely focused on which bills

could win the support of both partiesrsquo lead-

ershipmdashwith the San Francisco Chronicleeditorial board (72796) writing approving-

ly that Congress had ldquowhipped itself into a

fair frenzy of bipartisanshiprdquo with welfare

reform and other bills

The problem with bipartisanship as a

moral touchstone should be obvious Not

only does it define sensible policies as beingwhatever the leadership of the Democrats and

Republicans can agree on but it allows one

party to shift the debate by moving its own

goalposts and thus what counts as bipartisan

While the Washington Post editorial

board (72414) singled out shifting money to

EITC as the ldquomost bipartisan part of Mr

Ryanrsquos planrdquo the Timesrsquo Irwin (72414)

acknowledged that it was hardly a new one

for conservatives ldquoWhat was once a conser-

vative idea created in the Gerald Ford admin-

istration and expanded by President Reagan

and both presidents Bush is now more con-

troversial on the rightrdquo since it would elimi-

nate income taxes for more poor Americans

making them what the Wall Street Journal(112002) once derided as ldquolucky duckiesrdquo

If the nationrsquos media were actually con-

cerned about finding programs that help

the poor itrsquos not hard For one therersquos the

food stamp program that Ryan wants toeliminate which has low overheadmdash95 per-

cent of spending goes directly to benefitsmdash

and which by itself lifts nearly 5 million

people out of poverty every year (NewRepublic 81613)

Or as the Center for Economic and

Policy Researchrsquos Shawn Fremstad (TheHill 72214) noted if Ryan truly wanted to

boost the earnings of the working poor

instead of work requirements and EITC

hikes he could accomplish the same t

by raising the federal minimum wage so

thing that is supported by 80 percen

Americans including a majority of Re

licans (Hart Research 72313)mdasha bip

san plan if ever there was one

But then helping the poor or even pu

ing poverty policies that most Americans

agree on isnrsquot really the point for Ry

supporters ldquoGiving people money re

does make them better-off Itrsquos better to more money to buy groceries and other b

necessities than lessrdquo admitted Salam

getting more money from the governm

doesnrsquot really make you less poorrdquo

In the world of punditry then itrsquos

about helping the poor afford groceries

about making sure that theyrsquove earned

right to deserve groceries That may be ldquob

tisanrdquomdashin the halls of Congress anywa

but that doesnrsquot make it smart policy 983150

Itrsquos not often that a media outletrsquos decision

to ldquorecalibrate its languagerdquo attracts much

attention But when itrsquos the New York

Times and the shift is about what to call

torture in the Newspaper of Record such

changes matter

In August 2014 10 years after the initial

revelations that made US torture an interna-

tional news story Times executive editor

Dean Baquet wrote a short piece for the

Times website (8714) stating that the word

ldquotorturerdquo would be used to describe ldquoinci-

dents in which we know for sure that inter-rogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an

effort to get informationrdquo

In other words the newspaper is now

accepting the reality that the term can be

accurately applied to some actions of the

United States Ten years ago when it was

revealed that the CIA was torturing ldquoWar on

Terrorrdquo prisoners criticsmdashincluding

FAIRmdashwere asking the Times to call US

torture by its name (FAIR Action Alert51404) The paper had officially or not

carved out an exception for the US gov

ment whereby torture would be descr

euphemistically as ldquoenhancedrdquo or ldquoha

interrogations

So this shift if it is to be considered a

significant comes a decade too late

thatrsquos the just the start Baquetrsquos reasonin

revealing He writes that the Times resi

the label for so long because ldquothe situa

was murkyrdquo and that the ldquoJustice Dep

ment insisted that the techniques did not

to the legal definition of lsquotorturersquordquo Su

most countries that practice torture wresist prosecuting themselves so itrsquos ha

a reasonable standard for a media outle

Perhaps most illuminating though

Baquetrsquos admission that the Jus

Departmentrsquos decision not to prosecute

torturers motivated the paperrsquos shift

government

has made clear that it will not prosecut

in connection with the interrogatio

program The result is that today th

Paper says it will call it what it ismdash when it reports on it at all

NYT Fails First Test of New Torture Policy

by Peter Hart

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1116

Extra October 2014 983157

debate is focused less on whether the

methods violated a statute or treaty

provision and more on whether they

worked

So the Times will call torture by its

name now that no one is likely to be prose-

cuted and because the debate eventually

became ldquofocusedrdquo on its practical benefits

Thus allegations of torture that are walled

off from legal accountability are safemdashassuming the paper even covers them at all

The first test of the New York Timesrsquo new

policy came with the release of an

August 11 Amnesty International report

on torture in Afghanistan Itrsquos a test the

Times failed

The report covered 10 discrete episodes

of torture and brutality that killed dozens of

Afghan civilians But the most explosive

stories concern the actions of a US Special

Operations unit that was linked to torture

killings and disappearances betweenNovember 2012 and February 2013 The

evidence gathered by Amnesty strongly

suggests that US personnel were intimately

involved In one especially harrowing

account an Afghan man named

Naimatullah talks about a raid on his fami-

lyrsquos home by US Special Forces

Naimatullah said that the Americans

brought two of his brothers

Esmatullah and Siddiqullah into two

separate rooms and started beating

them They also beat Hekmatullah in

the yard ldquoI could hear them beating the

othersrdquo Naimatullah said ldquoand when I

saw them they were in terrible shaperdquo

Hekmattullah told Amnesty

International that the Special Forces

operatives ldquodragged me from my room

by the back of my collar and then

threw me down the stairs While I fell

my shoulder and buttocks were frac-

tured Even now I have problem walk-

ing it is painful and I canrsquot stand

straightrdquo

According to Amnestyrsquos report US

forces then took Naimatullahrsquos three broth-

ers away Only Hekmattullah was ever seen

again

Amnesty reports that several of the fam-

ilies that were able to recover the remains of

the missing reported that the bodies showed

signs of torture from what appeared to be

acid burns on clothing to gruesome injuries

The report received attention from other

outlets like the LA Times and WashingtonPost but was not featured in the New York

Times A FAIR Action Alert (81814) noted

the disconnect between the Timesrsquo new tor-

ture policy and its silence on the Amnesty

report Times public editor MargaretSullivan (81914) seemed to agree with

FAIRrsquos take writing that Amnesty ldquopulled

together a great deal of informationmdashespe-

cially about the role of the American mili-

tarymdashin a comprehensive and forceful way

that would have benefited Times readersrdquo

But others at the Times didnrsquot see why

they should have bothered Foreign editor

Joseph Kahn told Sullivan that Amnestyrsquos

findings ldquoappeared to be recycledrdquo and ldquodid

not add much to what we have already on

many occasions reportedrdquo

Itrsquos true that the Times has reported on

the allegations of torture in Afghanistan

But therersquos one clear lesson one can draw

from that reporting As the evidence of US

culpability grew the paper got less interest-

ed

On February 25 2013 the New YorkTimes reported that the Afghan govern-

ment had ldquobarred elite American forces

from operating in a strategic province

adjoining Kabul on Sunday citing com-

plaints that Afghans working for AmericanSpecial Operations forces had tortured and

killed villagers in the areardquo

The Times emphasized the damage this

could do to the US mission The move

ldquowould effectively exclude the American

militaryrsquos main source of offensive firepow-

er from the areardquo

A month later the Times (32113)

reported that the Afghan government was

compromising on its exclusion of US

troops ldquobreaking an increasingly acrimo-

nious impasserdquo The paper reminded reade

that the source of the dispute was ldquocom

plaints related to abuses by American forc

and accompanying Afghan men durin

night raids in the province accusations th

coalition has deniedrdquo The paper added th

certain ldquoAfghan and Western official

blamed the deaths and torture on local insu

gents

Almost two months later (51313) cam

the headline ldquoAfghans Say an AmericTortured Civiliansrdquo But this was not abo

American military personnel the Americ

in question was identified as Zakar

Kandahari an Afghan-American who w

working as an interpreter for the Speci

Forces unit The Times included a comme

from a US officialmdashldquospeaking on the cond

tion of anonymity in line with official po

cyrdquomdashwho insisted the US had no role ldquoW

have done three investigations down ther

and all absolve ISAF [International Securi

Assistance Force] forces and Special Forc

of all wrongdoingrdquoSome might find such denials unpersu

sive as the Times reported (51313

Afghan officials had a video of at least o

torture session and the remains of the vi

tims were turning up just outside the U

base

The Times (52213) reminded reade

days later that ldquothere has been no tes

mony directly tying American soldiers

the abuse or killing of those detaineesrdquo T

paper added that ldquothe American military h

described Mr Kandahari as a freelan

interpreter who had volunteered to help t

American Special Forces who allowed hi

to live at their base in exchangerdquo

Weeks later the Times (6513) w

reporting the discovery of more bodies ju

outside the US basemdashand that Afghan an

US governments were ldquoin sharp disagre

ment about who is responsiblerdquo

The story made the paper once again o

July 8 with the news that Kandahari h

been arrested The paperrsquos account aga

reiterated US claims that it had nothing do with the torture but Heather Barr

Human Rights Watch offered a dissentin

view

The US said they investigated thoroughly

therersquos nothing there so everyone should

go away and accept their word that they

checked and did nothing wrong I donrsquot

think that ends the discussion Therersquos a

lot more explaining that needs to be done

that hasnrsquot happened yetrsquo

New York Timesrsquo Dean Baquet We can call it ldquotorturerdquo now

that itrsquos clear no one will be punished for it

Missing a Premium

983088

Please email fairfairorg

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1216

That explaining would have to happen

elsewhere though The New York Timesran just one more story that mentioned the

controversy a July 23 dispatch that once

again stated that US officials ldquohave cleared

their troops of responsibility in any torture

or killingrdquo

The paper added that government offi-

cials ldquohave refused to offer further explana-

tion of what might have happened to the

dead menrdquo One would think the arrest of the principal suspect might inspire new

reporting

And it didmdashjust not in the New YorkTimes A major investigation by RollingStonersquos Matthieu Aikins (11613) raised

serious doubts about the US denials about

Kandahari and the unit ldquoMany of the men

who disappeared in Nerkh were rounded up

by the Americans in broad daylight in front

of dozens of witnessesrdquo Aikins reported He

added that over five months

Rolling Stone has interviewed more

than two dozen eyewitnesses and vic-

timsrsquo families whorsquove provided consis-

tent and detailed allegations of the

involvement of American forces in the

disappearance of the 10 men and has

talked to Afghan and Western officials

who were familiar with confidential

Afghan-government UN and Red

Cross investigations that found the

allegations credible

Aikins even tracked down Kandahari for

a prison interview unsurprisingly he

denied responsibility for the killings The

US argument that a rogue interpreter carried

out an extensive campaign of torture is not

only far-fetched Aikins wrote that it is

in a certain sense irrelevant Under the

well-established legal principle of

command responsibility military offi-

cials who knowingly allow their subor-

dinates to commit war crimes are them-

selves criminally responsible

To Aikins these stories ldquowould amount

to some of the gravest war crimes perpetrat-

ed by American forces since 2001rdquo But

they remained obscure to readers of the

New York Times even after the Amnesty

report corroborated his charges

But the Times didnrsquot entirely ignore Rol-ling Stonesrsquo reporting on February 16 2014

the Times mentioned that Aikinsrsquo exposeacute

had received a George Polk Award 983150

New York Times investigative reporter

James Risen is taking a stand Despite

being hounded by both the Bush and

Obama administrations to reveal his

sources he has vowed to go to jail rather

than abandon his pledge of confidentiality

As fellow journalists and journalism

advocacy groups rush to his side many fear

that the US Department of Justice within the

self-proclaimed ldquomost transparent adminis-tration in historyrdquo is preparing to deliver a

body blow to the First Amendmentrsquos prom-

ise of press freedom

ldquoThis case is the closest wersquove come to

the edge of the precipice to reportersource

privilege being bannedrdquo said Jesselyn

Radack director of national security and

human rights for the Government Account-

ability Project in a phone interview

R

isen a Pulitzer Prizendashwinning reporter

has been ordered by the DoJ to testify in

the prosecution of former CIA employeeJeffrey Sterling who is accused of leaking

information about a botched Clinton-era

CIA mission to give Iran phony nuclear

informationmdashwhich ended up giving Iran

real information on how to build a bomb

Risen wrote about the failed operation in his

2006 book State of War

Risen was initially subpoenaed by the

Bush administration in 2008 but the order

expired as the reporter fought against it

through the courts To the surprise of many

the subpoena was renewed under PresidentObama in 2010mdashdespite repeated calls to

drop the pursuit

ldquoRisen informed the public about the

dangerous stupidity of a CIA operation and

seriously embarrassed the agency in the

processrdquo said Norman Solomon a longtime

FAIR associate and co-founder of

RootsActionorg an online advocacy group

in an email exchange ldquoEvidently a pair of

unforgivable sins in the eyes of both the

Bush and Obama administrationsrdquo

If the government does uphold its sub

na and Risen is punished for taking

stand journalists and free press advoc

say that this would set a dangerous pr

dent for the interpretation of press free

under the First Amendment

ldquoFunctionally a reporter will no lo

be able to promise source confidential

Radack explained ldquoThis will impact pe

who want to disclose wrongdoingrdquo said ldquoWhistleblowers disclosing fr

waste abuse and illegality will no longe

to the pressrdquo

Robust investigative journalism

already suffered from budget cuts and w

ing interest in long-form journalism

this ldquochilling effectrdquo on sources will pro

the ldquofinal nail in the coffin of the free p

as we know itrdquo Radack added

I

n 2011 a federal District Court ruled

Risen could not be compelled by the

ernment to reveal his sources ldquoA crimtrial subpoena is not a free pass for the

ernment to rifle through a reporterrsquos n

bookrdquo wrote District Court Judge Le

Brinkema adding that Risen was prote

by a limited ldquoreporterrsquos privilegerdquo unde

First Amendment

The government challenged that d

sion and in 2013 the US Court of App

for the Fourth Circuit in Richm

Virginia reinstated the subpoena arg

that the First Amendment did not pro

Risen from being forced to testify aghis source

In June 2014 Risenrsquos legal b

reached an insurmountable barrier when

US Supreme Court refused to take up

case affirming the lower court ruling N

Risen will have to testify or face conte

of court charges which can lead to e

imprisonment or up to $1000 a day in f

After the high court passed on the c

Risenrsquos attorney Joel Kurtzberg told

Committee to Protect Journalists (62

12 983157 October 2014 Extra

Risen case tests reportersrsquo power to revealgovernment wrongdoing

Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

by Lauren McCauley

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1316

Extra October 2014 983157

that he hopes the government wonrsquot hold

Risen in contempt ldquofor doing nothing other

than reporting the news and keeping his

promise to his sourcerdquo He noted that the

ldquoball is now in the governmentrsquos courtrdquo

On August 14 a coalition of journalists

media advocacy groups and independentmedia outlets delivered over 100000

signatures to the Department of Justice

calling on the Obama administration to drop

its subpoena

The petitionmdashorganized by Roots

Action along with FAIR the Center for

Media and Democracy Freedom of the

Press Foundation The Nation Institute and

The Progressivemdashargues that ldquowithout

confidentiality journalism would be

reduced to official storiesmdasha situation anti-

thetical to the First Amendmentrdquo

On the day the petition was turned in

Risen was joined by a number of free press

advocates including Radack and Solomon

at a press conference at the National Press

Club in Washington DC Speaking before

the roomful of reporters Risen said ldquoThe

real reason Irsquom doing this is for the future of

journalismrdquo

ldquoFreedom of the press is the most impor-

tant freedomrdquo agreed Delphine Halgand

director of Reporters Without Bordersrsquo Wash-

ington office who also spoke at the press

conference ldquoIt is the freedom that allows usto verify the existence of all other freedomsrdquo

When asked about the Risen case at a

closed-door meeting with a group of

journalists Attorney General Eric

Holder (New York Times 52814) report-

edly declared ldquoAs long as Irsquom attorney gen-

eral no reporter who is doing his job is

going to go to jailrdquo

Despite this pronouncement the prose-

cution of whistleblowers has become a

mainstay of Obamarsquos presidency

(Extra 911 FAIR Media

Advisory 82713) During his

time in office the DoJ has pur-

sued eight prosecutions of leakers

under the Espionage Act more

than double the total number of

such prosecutions since the law

was enacted

McClatchy News (62013)

also revealed the existence of agovernment employee ldquotattletalerdquo

program By having government

employees spying and reporting

on each other the Obama initia-

tive dubbed ldquoInsider Threatrdquo aims

to thwart future leakers

According to the Reporters Without Bor-

dersrsquo annual Press Freedom Index (21214)

the US dropped 13 positions from 2013 to

2014 and now ranks 46th worldwide The

report notes

In the US the hunt for leaks and

whistleblowers serves as a warning to

those thinking of satisfying a public

interest need for information about the

imperial prerogatives assumed by the

worldrsquos leading power

Advocates say to ensure the protectio

of journalists in this post-911 surveillan

state it is critical to pass a federal shie

law that will protect reporters from beinforced to disclose confidential informatio

or sources in court (Most states have som

sort of law or protection in place)

There is a shield bill currently makin

its way through CongressmdashS 987 know

as the Free Flow of Information Act

though there is concern that the legislatio

has too many loopholes that allow the go

ernment to claim broad ldquonational security

exceptions and leave some whistleblowe

without protection (Dissenter 51214)

The New York Timesrsquo James Risen at the Roots Action Press Conference

at the National Press Club in Washington DC ldquoThe real reason Irsquom doing

this is for the future of journalismrdquo

NYT Has Benefitted From Leakersmdashbut Not Vice Versa

A s the Department of Justice doggedly pursues Pulitzer Prizendashwinner James Risen the New York

Times has been forced to enter the fray of the governmentrsquos so-called ldquowar on informationrdquo

The Times like many mainstream publications has openly acknowledged its practice of seek-

ing government approval for sensitive stories (2613) and often serves as a government mouthpiece by

publishing sanctioned ldquoleaksrdquo of information

And although the Times has benefitted enormously from actual leaks of government secrets that

were vital for the public to know it has historically maintained a cautiousmdashif not skepticalmdashdistance

from those who risked their careers and liberty to reveal such truths

Despite publishing the invaluable Pentagon Papers which exposed government deceptions about the

Vietnam War the Times refused to provide leaker Daniel Ellsberg with any help in his criminal case

According to Ellsberg thenndashexecutive editor Abe Rosenthal told the whistleblower that the paper had no

policy for supporting a source who is being prosecuted for leaking information

ldquoThe Timesrdquo Ellsberg explained ldquothinks of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken the lawrdquo

The paper has given even less support to Chelsea Manning despite having partnered with Wikileaks

in July 2010 to release important revelations from the hun-

dreds of thousands of classified war logs and State

Department cables revealed by Manning

In addition to disparaging her character and questioning

her motives in a Bill Keller column (31113) the Times treat-

ed Manningrsquos trial as a noneventmdashnot sending a single

reporter and only running one AP wire story (123012) on it

Later New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan

(51212) wrote that the paper had ldquomissed the boatrdquo by not

covering Manningrsquos pretrial testimony

The paper did run an editorial (1114) supporting NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden however that was months

after an earlier editorial (8613) essentially calling for Snowden to be extradited for prosecution

In a January 2013 column about the prosecution of Chelsea Manning journalist Glenn Greenwald

warned corporate media that they ldquomight want to take a serious interestrdquo in the case and ldquomarshal oppo-

sition to what is being done to Bradley Manningrdquo

He continued ldquoIf not out of concern for the injustices to which he is being subjected then out of self-

interest to ensure that their reporters and their past and future whistleblowing sources cannot be simi-

larly persecutedrdquo

It seems that time has comemdashLMcC

Daniel Ellsberg The New York Times ldquothinks

of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken

the lawrdquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1416

In a recent interview with Times colleague

Maureen Dowd (81714) Risen refer-

enced Obamarsquos ldquomost transparent admin-

istrationrdquo claim

ldquoItrsquos hypocriticalrdquo Risen said ldquoA lot of

peopledonrsquot want to believe that Obama

wants to crack down on the press and

whistleblowers But he does Hersquos the great-

est enemy to press freedom in a generationrdquo

Among those who have come to Risenrsquos

defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prizendashwin-

ning reporters who each signed the Roots

Action petition and issued personal state-

ments on his behalf

Included in the testimonies is one from

Risenrsquos New York Times colleague Barry

Bearak who wrote that Risen ldquois carrying

the banner for every American journalistrdquo

ldquoIf he goes to jailrdquo Bearak continued

good bit of our nationrsquos freedom wil

locked away with himrdquo 983150

Lauren McCauley is an assistant edito

the website Common Dreams and a d

mentary producer her most recent fil

Mississippi Messiah about civil ri

leader James Meredith

14 983157 October 2014 Extra

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

Who Rules Public TV

by Aldo Guerrero

T

he corporate and financial sectors have

an overwhelming presence on the gov-

erning boards of major public televi-

sion stations a new FAIR study findsThe study looked at the occupations of

the current trustees of WNET (New York

CityNewark) WGBH (Boston) WETA

(Washington DC) WTTW (Chicago) and

KCET (Los Angeles)

Out of these boardsrsquo 182 total members

152mdashor 84 percentmdashhave corporate back-

grounds including 138 who are executives

at elite businesses Another 14 members

appear to be on the board because of their

familiesrsquo corporate-derived wealth often

with a primary affiliation as an officer of a

family charitable foundationMany board members are affiliated with

major corporations like Boeing Wells Fargo

and Citigroup Seventy-five board mem-

bers nearly half of all those with corporate

ties are financial industry executives

Another 24 are corporate lawyers

Public TV board members without corpo-

rate ties were few and far between Of

these nine are categorized as academics

while six are affiliated with nonprofit groups

(not counting family grant-making founda-

tions) There are three former government

officials two non-corporate lawyers two

journalists one religious educator and a for-

mer principal of a magnet school Six board

members are station insiders

WNET WGBH and WETA are consid-

ered to be the ldquobig threerdquo PBS affiliates

producing a large share of programming for

PBS nationally WTTW and KCET were

included because they serve two of the

largest US metropolitan areas Four of these

stations are affiliated with PBS KCET dis-

affiliated in 2010 but remains a prominent

regional public television station

The boards range in size from WTTWrsquos

63 members to KCETrsquos 20 WTTW and

WNET have the most corporate representa-

tion on their boards each at 92 percent

KCETrsquos board is 80 percent corporate-affil-

iated while DCrsquos WETA is at 73 percent

Corporate-tied board members were least

common at WGBH where they still made

up two-thirds of the board

One hundred sixteen members (64 per-

cent) are male It was not possible to do a

breakdown of board membersrsquo ethnicities

Last year the issue of corporate influence

over public television was thrust into the

spotlight when the film Park Avenue

Money Power and the American Dream was

broadcast by PBS affiliate WNET (NewYorker 52713 FAIR Blog 52113) The

film examined the concentration of wealth

and power in the United States by lookin

the super-rich residents of 740

Avenuemdashwho included then-WNET b

member and major station donor DKoch a billionaire industrialist well kn

for his donations to right-wing causes

WNET president Neil Shapiro was

to be ldquoconcernedrdquo about a film critica

one of his biggest funders WNET ende

not receiving a large donation from Koc

potentially in the seven-figure rang

because Park Avenue was broadcast

New Yorkerrsquos Jane Mayer reported

PBS then preemptively pulled the

on Citizen Koch another film that exam

the Koch familyrsquos political influenc

apparently practicing self-censorship inattempt to placate a wealthy donor K

would eventually resign from the WNboard of trustees Since then a camp

has been launched demanding that K

also resign from the board of Bost

WGBH where he is still a trustee

High-powered executives likes David Koch overwhelm

dominate the boards of trustees at public TV stations

This documentary caused trouble when it aired on WNET

because of the money and power on the PBS affiliatersquos

board

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 916

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1016

10 983157 October 2014 Extra

pushing them as a way to tackle poverty

This in the eyes of many news outlets was a

welcome shift toward ldquobipartisanshiprdquo

ldquoRyanrsquos poverty plan mixes partiesrsquo

ideasrdquo trumpeted the Milwaukee Journal-

Sentinel (72414) saying its combination

of EITC hikes with block grants ldquoaspires to

find some common ground between right

and leftrdquo ldquoCreative ideas are rare in Wash-

ingtonrdquo asserted a Boston Herald editorial

(72814) adding that ldquoRyanrsquos approachdestroys the Democratic narrative that

Republicans want to permanently dismantle

the safety netrdquo

In fact Ryanrsquos plan was deemed so

ldquobipartisanrdquo that some worried aloud that it

could hurt his standing with Republicans

Washington Post columnist Melinda Henne-

berger (72414) citing Ryanrsquos statements

that he wanted to ldquotalk about how we can

repair the safety netrdquo and have the govern-

ment ldquoprovide resourcesrdquo to poor people

questioned whether it meant Ryan was giv-

ing up on seeking the 2016 Republican pres-idential nomination

And LA Times columnist Doyle

McManus (72714) under the headline

ldquoHas the GOP Gone Softrdquo singled out

Ryan for proposing policies that ldquomay face

their toughest audience inside the GOPrdquo

For the media to evaluate economic poli-

cies based on whether they please both

Democrats and Republicans is nothing

new as wersquove witnessed on battles over

everything from the stimulus plan (FAIR

Blog 2209) to the debt ceiling (FAIRBlog 71511) In fact during the battles

over welfare reform itself back in 1996

coverage largely focused on which bills

could win the support of both partiesrsquo lead-

ershipmdashwith the San Francisco Chronicleeditorial board (72796) writing approving-

ly that Congress had ldquowhipped itself into a

fair frenzy of bipartisanshiprdquo with welfare

reform and other bills

The problem with bipartisanship as a

moral touchstone should be obvious Not

only does it define sensible policies as beingwhatever the leadership of the Democrats and

Republicans can agree on but it allows one

party to shift the debate by moving its own

goalposts and thus what counts as bipartisan

While the Washington Post editorial

board (72414) singled out shifting money to

EITC as the ldquomost bipartisan part of Mr

Ryanrsquos planrdquo the Timesrsquo Irwin (72414)

acknowledged that it was hardly a new one

for conservatives ldquoWhat was once a conser-

vative idea created in the Gerald Ford admin-

istration and expanded by President Reagan

and both presidents Bush is now more con-

troversial on the rightrdquo since it would elimi-

nate income taxes for more poor Americans

making them what the Wall Street Journal(112002) once derided as ldquolucky duckiesrdquo

If the nationrsquos media were actually con-

cerned about finding programs that help

the poor itrsquos not hard For one therersquos the

food stamp program that Ryan wants toeliminate which has low overheadmdash95 per-

cent of spending goes directly to benefitsmdash

and which by itself lifts nearly 5 million

people out of poverty every year (NewRepublic 81613)

Or as the Center for Economic and

Policy Researchrsquos Shawn Fremstad (TheHill 72214) noted if Ryan truly wanted to

boost the earnings of the working poor

instead of work requirements and EITC

hikes he could accomplish the same t

by raising the federal minimum wage so

thing that is supported by 80 percen

Americans including a majority of Re

licans (Hart Research 72313)mdasha bip

san plan if ever there was one

But then helping the poor or even pu

ing poverty policies that most Americans

agree on isnrsquot really the point for Ry

supporters ldquoGiving people money re

does make them better-off Itrsquos better to more money to buy groceries and other b

necessities than lessrdquo admitted Salam

getting more money from the governm

doesnrsquot really make you less poorrdquo

In the world of punditry then itrsquos

about helping the poor afford groceries

about making sure that theyrsquove earned

right to deserve groceries That may be ldquob

tisanrdquomdashin the halls of Congress anywa

but that doesnrsquot make it smart policy 983150

Itrsquos not often that a media outletrsquos decision

to ldquorecalibrate its languagerdquo attracts much

attention But when itrsquos the New York

Times and the shift is about what to call

torture in the Newspaper of Record such

changes matter

In August 2014 10 years after the initial

revelations that made US torture an interna-

tional news story Times executive editor

Dean Baquet wrote a short piece for the

Times website (8714) stating that the word

ldquotorturerdquo would be used to describe ldquoinci-

dents in which we know for sure that inter-rogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an

effort to get informationrdquo

In other words the newspaper is now

accepting the reality that the term can be

accurately applied to some actions of the

United States Ten years ago when it was

revealed that the CIA was torturing ldquoWar on

Terrorrdquo prisoners criticsmdashincluding

FAIRmdashwere asking the Times to call US

torture by its name (FAIR Action Alert51404) The paper had officially or not

carved out an exception for the US gov

ment whereby torture would be descr

euphemistically as ldquoenhancedrdquo or ldquoha

interrogations

So this shift if it is to be considered a

significant comes a decade too late

thatrsquos the just the start Baquetrsquos reasonin

revealing He writes that the Times resi

the label for so long because ldquothe situa

was murkyrdquo and that the ldquoJustice Dep

ment insisted that the techniques did not

to the legal definition of lsquotorturersquordquo Su

most countries that practice torture wresist prosecuting themselves so itrsquos ha

a reasonable standard for a media outle

Perhaps most illuminating though

Baquetrsquos admission that the Jus

Departmentrsquos decision not to prosecute

torturers motivated the paperrsquos shift

government

has made clear that it will not prosecut

in connection with the interrogatio

program The result is that today th

Paper says it will call it what it ismdash when it reports on it at all

NYT Fails First Test of New Torture Policy

by Peter Hart

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1116

Extra October 2014 983157

debate is focused less on whether the

methods violated a statute or treaty

provision and more on whether they

worked

So the Times will call torture by its

name now that no one is likely to be prose-

cuted and because the debate eventually

became ldquofocusedrdquo on its practical benefits

Thus allegations of torture that are walled

off from legal accountability are safemdashassuming the paper even covers them at all

The first test of the New York Timesrsquo new

policy came with the release of an

August 11 Amnesty International report

on torture in Afghanistan Itrsquos a test the

Times failed

The report covered 10 discrete episodes

of torture and brutality that killed dozens of

Afghan civilians But the most explosive

stories concern the actions of a US Special

Operations unit that was linked to torture

killings and disappearances betweenNovember 2012 and February 2013 The

evidence gathered by Amnesty strongly

suggests that US personnel were intimately

involved In one especially harrowing

account an Afghan man named

Naimatullah talks about a raid on his fami-

lyrsquos home by US Special Forces

Naimatullah said that the Americans

brought two of his brothers

Esmatullah and Siddiqullah into two

separate rooms and started beating

them They also beat Hekmatullah in

the yard ldquoI could hear them beating the

othersrdquo Naimatullah said ldquoand when I

saw them they were in terrible shaperdquo

Hekmattullah told Amnesty

International that the Special Forces

operatives ldquodragged me from my room

by the back of my collar and then

threw me down the stairs While I fell

my shoulder and buttocks were frac-

tured Even now I have problem walk-

ing it is painful and I canrsquot stand

straightrdquo

According to Amnestyrsquos report US

forces then took Naimatullahrsquos three broth-

ers away Only Hekmattullah was ever seen

again

Amnesty reports that several of the fam-

ilies that were able to recover the remains of

the missing reported that the bodies showed

signs of torture from what appeared to be

acid burns on clothing to gruesome injuries

The report received attention from other

outlets like the LA Times and WashingtonPost but was not featured in the New York

Times A FAIR Action Alert (81814) noted

the disconnect between the Timesrsquo new tor-

ture policy and its silence on the Amnesty

report Times public editor MargaretSullivan (81914) seemed to agree with

FAIRrsquos take writing that Amnesty ldquopulled

together a great deal of informationmdashespe-

cially about the role of the American mili-

tarymdashin a comprehensive and forceful way

that would have benefited Times readersrdquo

But others at the Times didnrsquot see why

they should have bothered Foreign editor

Joseph Kahn told Sullivan that Amnestyrsquos

findings ldquoappeared to be recycledrdquo and ldquodid

not add much to what we have already on

many occasions reportedrdquo

Itrsquos true that the Times has reported on

the allegations of torture in Afghanistan

But therersquos one clear lesson one can draw

from that reporting As the evidence of US

culpability grew the paper got less interest-

ed

On February 25 2013 the New YorkTimes reported that the Afghan govern-

ment had ldquobarred elite American forces

from operating in a strategic province

adjoining Kabul on Sunday citing com-

plaints that Afghans working for AmericanSpecial Operations forces had tortured and

killed villagers in the areardquo

The Times emphasized the damage this

could do to the US mission The move

ldquowould effectively exclude the American

militaryrsquos main source of offensive firepow-

er from the areardquo

A month later the Times (32113)

reported that the Afghan government was

compromising on its exclusion of US

troops ldquobreaking an increasingly acrimo-

nious impasserdquo The paper reminded reade

that the source of the dispute was ldquocom

plaints related to abuses by American forc

and accompanying Afghan men durin

night raids in the province accusations th

coalition has deniedrdquo The paper added th

certain ldquoAfghan and Western official

blamed the deaths and torture on local insu

gents

Almost two months later (51313) cam

the headline ldquoAfghans Say an AmericTortured Civiliansrdquo But this was not abo

American military personnel the Americ

in question was identified as Zakar

Kandahari an Afghan-American who w

working as an interpreter for the Speci

Forces unit The Times included a comme

from a US officialmdashldquospeaking on the cond

tion of anonymity in line with official po

cyrdquomdashwho insisted the US had no role ldquoW

have done three investigations down ther

and all absolve ISAF [International Securi

Assistance Force] forces and Special Forc

of all wrongdoingrdquoSome might find such denials unpersu

sive as the Times reported (51313

Afghan officials had a video of at least o

torture session and the remains of the vi

tims were turning up just outside the U

base

The Times (52213) reminded reade

days later that ldquothere has been no tes

mony directly tying American soldiers

the abuse or killing of those detaineesrdquo T

paper added that ldquothe American military h

described Mr Kandahari as a freelan

interpreter who had volunteered to help t

American Special Forces who allowed hi

to live at their base in exchangerdquo

Weeks later the Times (6513) w

reporting the discovery of more bodies ju

outside the US basemdashand that Afghan an

US governments were ldquoin sharp disagre

ment about who is responsiblerdquo

The story made the paper once again o

July 8 with the news that Kandahari h

been arrested The paperrsquos account aga

reiterated US claims that it had nothing do with the torture but Heather Barr

Human Rights Watch offered a dissentin

view

The US said they investigated thoroughly

therersquos nothing there so everyone should

go away and accept their word that they

checked and did nothing wrong I donrsquot

think that ends the discussion Therersquos a

lot more explaining that needs to be done

that hasnrsquot happened yetrsquo

New York Timesrsquo Dean Baquet We can call it ldquotorturerdquo now

that itrsquos clear no one will be punished for it

Missing a Premium

983088

Please email fairfairorg

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1216

That explaining would have to happen

elsewhere though The New York Timesran just one more story that mentioned the

controversy a July 23 dispatch that once

again stated that US officials ldquohave cleared

their troops of responsibility in any torture

or killingrdquo

The paper added that government offi-

cials ldquohave refused to offer further explana-

tion of what might have happened to the

dead menrdquo One would think the arrest of the principal suspect might inspire new

reporting

And it didmdashjust not in the New YorkTimes A major investigation by RollingStonersquos Matthieu Aikins (11613) raised

serious doubts about the US denials about

Kandahari and the unit ldquoMany of the men

who disappeared in Nerkh were rounded up

by the Americans in broad daylight in front

of dozens of witnessesrdquo Aikins reported He

added that over five months

Rolling Stone has interviewed more

than two dozen eyewitnesses and vic-

timsrsquo families whorsquove provided consis-

tent and detailed allegations of the

involvement of American forces in the

disappearance of the 10 men and has

talked to Afghan and Western officials

who were familiar with confidential

Afghan-government UN and Red

Cross investigations that found the

allegations credible

Aikins even tracked down Kandahari for

a prison interview unsurprisingly he

denied responsibility for the killings The

US argument that a rogue interpreter carried

out an extensive campaign of torture is not

only far-fetched Aikins wrote that it is

in a certain sense irrelevant Under the

well-established legal principle of

command responsibility military offi-

cials who knowingly allow their subor-

dinates to commit war crimes are them-

selves criminally responsible

To Aikins these stories ldquowould amount

to some of the gravest war crimes perpetrat-

ed by American forces since 2001rdquo But

they remained obscure to readers of the

New York Times even after the Amnesty

report corroborated his charges

But the Times didnrsquot entirely ignore Rol-ling Stonesrsquo reporting on February 16 2014

the Times mentioned that Aikinsrsquo exposeacute

had received a George Polk Award 983150

New York Times investigative reporter

James Risen is taking a stand Despite

being hounded by both the Bush and

Obama administrations to reveal his

sources he has vowed to go to jail rather

than abandon his pledge of confidentiality

As fellow journalists and journalism

advocacy groups rush to his side many fear

that the US Department of Justice within the

self-proclaimed ldquomost transparent adminis-tration in historyrdquo is preparing to deliver a

body blow to the First Amendmentrsquos prom-

ise of press freedom

ldquoThis case is the closest wersquove come to

the edge of the precipice to reportersource

privilege being bannedrdquo said Jesselyn

Radack director of national security and

human rights for the Government Account-

ability Project in a phone interview

R

isen a Pulitzer Prizendashwinning reporter

has been ordered by the DoJ to testify in

the prosecution of former CIA employeeJeffrey Sterling who is accused of leaking

information about a botched Clinton-era

CIA mission to give Iran phony nuclear

informationmdashwhich ended up giving Iran

real information on how to build a bomb

Risen wrote about the failed operation in his

2006 book State of War

Risen was initially subpoenaed by the

Bush administration in 2008 but the order

expired as the reporter fought against it

through the courts To the surprise of many

the subpoena was renewed under PresidentObama in 2010mdashdespite repeated calls to

drop the pursuit

ldquoRisen informed the public about the

dangerous stupidity of a CIA operation and

seriously embarrassed the agency in the

processrdquo said Norman Solomon a longtime

FAIR associate and co-founder of

RootsActionorg an online advocacy group

in an email exchange ldquoEvidently a pair of

unforgivable sins in the eyes of both the

Bush and Obama administrationsrdquo

If the government does uphold its sub

na and Risen is punished for taking

stand journalists and free press advoc

say that this would set a dangerous pr

dent for the interpretation of press free

under the First Amendment

ldquoFunctionally a reporter will no lo

be able to promise source confidential

Radack explained ldquoThis will impact pe

who want to disclose wrongdoingrdquo said ldquoWhistleblowers disclosing fr

waste abuse and illegality will no longe

to the pressrdquo

Robust investigative journalism

already suffered from budget cuts and w

ing interest in long-form journalism

this ldquochilling effectrdquo on sources will pro

the ldquofinal nail in the coffin of the free p

as we know itrdquo Radack added

I

n 2011 a federal District Court ruled

Risen could not be compelled by the

ernment to reveal his sources ldquoA crimtrial subpoena is not a free pass for the

ernment to rifle through a reporterrsquos n

bookrdquo wrote District Court Judge Le

Brinkema adding that Risen was prote

by a limited ldquoreporterrsquos privilegerdquo unde

First Amendment

The government challenged that d

sion and in 2013 the US Court of App

for the Fourth Circuit in Richm

Virginia reinstated the subpoena arg

that the First Amendment did not pro

Risen from being forced to testify aghis source

In June 2014 Risenrsquos legal b

reached an insurmountable barrier when

US Supreme Court refused to take up

case affirming the lower court ruling N

Risen will have to testify or face conte

of court charges which can lead to e

imprisonment or up to $1000 a day in f

After the high court passed on the c

Risenrsquos attorney Joel Kurtzberg told

Committee to Protect Journalists (62

12 983157 October 2014 Extra

Risen case tests reportersrsquo power to revealgovernment wrongdoing

Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

by Lauren McCauley

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1316

Extra October 2014 983157

that he hopes the government wonrsquot hold

Risen in contempt ldquofor doing nothing other

than reporting the news and keeping his

promise to his sourcerdquo He noted that the

ldquoball is now in the governmentrsquos courtrdquo

On August 14 a coalition of journalists

media advocacy groups and independentmedia outlets delivered over 100000

signatures to the Department of Justice

calling on the Obama administration to drop

its subpoena

The petitionmdashorganized by Roots

Action along with FAIR the Center for

Media and Democracy Freedom of the

Press Foundation The Nation Institute and

The Progressivemdashargues that ldquowithout

confidentiality journalism would be

reduced to official storiesmdasha situation anti-

thetical to the First Amendmentrdquo

On the day the petition was turned in

Risen was joined by a number of free press

advocates including Radack and Solomon

at a press conference at the National Press

Club in Washington DC Speaking before

the roomful of reporters Risen said ldquoThe

real reason Irsquom doing this is for the future of

journalismrdquo

ldquoFreedom of the press is the most impor-

tant freedomrdquo agreed Delphine Halgand

director of Reporters Without Bordersrsquo Wash-

ington office who also spoke at the press

conference ldquoIt is the freedom that allows usto verify the existence of all other freedomsrdquo

When asked about the Risen case at a

closed-door meeting with a group of

journalists Attorney General Eric

Holder (New York Times 52814) report-

edly declared ldquoAs long as Irsquom attorney gen-

eral no reporter who is doing his job is

going to go to jailrdquo

Despite this pronouncement the prose-

cution of whistleblowers has become a

mainstay of Obamarsquos presidency

(Extra 911 FAIR Media

Advisory 82713) During his

time in office the DoJ has pur-

sued eight prosecutions of leakers

under the Espionage Act more

than double the total number of

such prosecutions since the law

was enacted

McClatchy News (62013)

also revealed the existence of agovernment employee ldquotattletalerdquo

program By having government

employees spying and reporting

on each other the Obama initia-

tive dubbed ldquoInsider Threatrdquo aims

to thwart future leakers

According to the Reporters Without Bor-

dersrsquo annual Press Freedom Index (21214)

the US dropped 13 positions from 2013 to

2014 and now ranks 46th worldwide The

report notes

In the US the hunt for leaks and

whistleblowers serves as a warning to

those thinking of satisfying a public

interest need for information about the

imperial prerogatives assumed by the

worldrsquos leading power

Advocates say to ensure the protectio

of journalists in this post-911 surveillan

state it is critical to pass a federal shie

law that will protect reporters from beinforced to disclose confidential informatio

or sources in court (Most states have som

sort of law or protection in place)

There is a shield bill currently makin

its way through CongressmdashS 987 know

as the Free Flow of Information Act

though there is concern that the legislatio

has too many loopholes that allow the go

ernment to claim broad ldquonational security

exceptions and leave some whistleblowe

without protection (Dissenter 51214)

The New York Timesrsquo James Risen at the Roots Action Press Conference

at the National Press Club in Washington DC ldquoThe real reason Irsquom doing

this is for the future of journalismrdquo

NYT Has Benefitted From Leakersmdashbut Not Vice Versa

A s the Department of Justice doggedly pursues Pulitzer Prizendashwinner James Risen the New York

Times has been forced to enter the fray of the governmentrsquos so-called ldquowar on informationrdquo

The Times like many mainstream publications has openly acknowledged its practice of seek-

ing government approval for sensitive stories (2613) and often serves as a government mouthpiece by

publishing sanctioned ldquoleaksrdquo of information

And although the Times has benefitted enormously from actual leaks of government secrets that

were vital for the public to know it has historically maintained a cautiousmdashif not skepticalmdashdistance

from those who risked their careers and liberty to reveal such truths

Despite publishing the invaluable Pentagon Papers which exposed government deceptions about the

Vietnam War the Times refused to provide leaker Daniel Ellsberg with any help in his criminal case

According to Ellsberg thenndashexecutive editor Abe Rosenthal told the whistleblower that the paper had no

policy for supporting a source who is being prosecuted for leaking information

ldquoThe Timesrdquo Ellsberg explained ldquothinks of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken the lawrdquo

The paper has given even less support to Chelsea Manning despite having partnered with Wikileaks

in July 2010 to release important revelations from the hun-

dreds of thousands of classified war logs and State

Department cables revealed by Manning

In addition to disparaging her character and questioning

her motives in a Bill Keller column (31113) the Times treat-

ed Manningrsquos trial as a noneventmdashnot sending a single

reporter and only running one AP wire story (123012) on it

Later New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan

(51212) wrote that the paper had ldquomissed the boatrdquo by not

covering Manningrsquos pretrial testimony

The paper did run an editorial (1114) supporting NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden however that was months

after an earlier editorial (8613) essentially calling for Snowden to be extradited for prosecution

In a January 2013 column about the prosecution of Chelsea Manning journalist Glenn Greenwald

warned corporate media that they ldquomight want to take a serious interestrdquo in the case and ldquomarshal oppo-

sition to what is being done to Bradley Manningrdquo

He continued ldquoIf not out of concern for the injustices to which he is being subjected then out of self-

interest to ensure that their reporters and their past and future whistleblowing sources cannot be simi-

larly persecutedrdquo

It seems that time has comemdashLMcC

Daniel Ellsberg The New York Times ldquothinks

of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken

the lawrdquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1416

In a recent interview with Times colleague

Maureen Dowd (81714) Risen refer-

enced Obamarsquos ldquomost transparent admin-

istrationrdquo claim

ldquoItrsquos hypocriticalrdquo Risen said ldquoA lot of

peopledonrsquot want to believe that Obama

wants to crack down on the press and

whistleblowers But he does Hersquos the great-

est enemy to press freedom in a generationrdquo

Among those who have come to Risenrsquos

defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prizendashwin-

ning reporters who each signed the Roots

Action petition and issued personal state-

ments on his behalf

Included in the testimonies is one from

Risenrsquos New York Times colleague Barry

Bearak who wrote that Risen ldquois carrying

the banner for every American journalistrdquo

ldquoIf he goes to jailrdquo Bearak continued

good bit of our nationrsquos freedom wil

locked away with himrdquo 983150

Lauren McCauley is an assistant edito

the website Common Dreams and a d

mentary producer her most recent fil

Mississippi Messiah about civil ri

leader James Meredith

14 983157 October 2014 Extra

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

Who Rules Public TV

by Aldo Guerrero

T

he corporate and financial sectors have

an overwhelming presence on the gov-

erning boards of major public televi-

sion stations a new FAIR study findsThe study looked at the occupations of

the current trustees of WNET (New York

CityNewark) WGBH (Boston) WETA

(Washington DC) WTTW (Chicago) and

KCET (Los Angeles)

Out of these boardsrsquo 182 total members

152mdashor 84 percentmdashhave corporate back-

grounds including 138 who are executives

at elite businesses Another 14 members

appear to be on the board because of their

familiesrsquo corporate-derived wealth often

with a primary affiliation as an officer of a

family charitable foundationMany board members are affiliated with

major corporations like Boeing Wells Fargo

and Citigroup Seventy-five board mem-

bers nearly half of all those with corporate

ties are financial industry executives

Another 24 are corporate lawyers

Public TV board members without corpo-

rate ties were few and far between Of

these nine are categorized as academics

while six are affiliated with nonprofit groups

(not counting family grant-making founda-

tions) There are three former government

officials two non-corporate lawyers two

journalists one religious educator and a for-

mer principal of a magnet school Six board

members are station insiders

WNET WGBH and WETA are consid-

ered to be the ldquobig threerdquo PBS affiliates

producing a large share of programming for

PBS nationally WTTW and KCET were

included because they serve two of the

largest US metropolitan areas Four of these

stations are affiliated with PBS KCET dis-

affiliated in 2010 but remains a prominent

regional public television station

The boards range in size from WTTWrsquos

63 members to KCETrsquos 20 WTTW and

WNET have the most corporate representa-

tion on their boards each at 92 percent

KCETrsquos board is 80 percent corporate-affil-

iated while DCrsquos WETA is at 73 percent

Corporate-tied board members were least

common at WGBH where they still made

up two-thirds of the board

One hundred sixteen members (64 per-

cent) are male It was not possible to do a

breakdown of board membersrsquo ethnicities

Last year the issue of corporate influence

over public television was thrust into the

spotlight when the film Park Avenue

Money Power and the American Dream was

broadcast by PBS affiliate WNET (NewYorker 52713 FAIR Blog 52113) The

film examined the concentration of wealth

and power in the United States by lookin

the super-rich residents of 740

Avenuemdashwho included then-WNET b

member and major station donor DKoch a billionaire industrialist well kn

for his donations to right-wing causes

WNET president Neil Shapiro was

to be ldquoconcernedrdquo about a film critica

one of his biggest funders WNET ende

not receiving a large donation from Koc

potentially in the seven-figure rang

because Park Avenue was broadcast

New Yorkerrsquos Jane Mayer reported

PBS then preemptively pulled the

on Citizen Koch another film that exam

the Koch familyrsquos political influenc

apparently practicing self-censorship inattempt to placate a wealthy donor K

would eventually resign from the WNboard of trustees Since then a camp

has been launched demanding that K

also resign from the board of Bost

WGBH where he is still a trustee

High-powered executives likes David Koch overwhelm

dominate the boards of trustees at public TV stations

This documentary caused trouble when it aired on WNET

because of the money and power on the PBS affiliatersquos

board

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1016

10 983157 October 2014 Extra

pushing them as a way to tackle poverty

This in the eyes of many news outlets was a

welcome shift toward ldquobipartisanshiprdquo

ldquoRyanrsquos poverty plan mixes partiesrsquo

ideasrdquo trumpeted the Milwaukee Journal-

Sentinel (72414) saying its combination

of EITC hikes with block grants ldquoaspires to

find some common ground between right

and leftrdquo ldquoCreative ideas are rare in Wash-

ingtonrdquo asserted a Boston Herald editorial

(72814) adding that ldquoRyanrsquos approachdestroys the Democratic narrative that

Republicans want to permanently dismantle

the safety netrdquo

In fact Ryanrsquos plan was deemed so

ldquobipartisanrdquo that some worried aloud that it

could hurt his standing with Republicans

Washington Post columnist Melinda Henne-

berger (72414) citing Ryanrsquos statements

that he wanted to ldquotalk about how we can

repair the safety netrdquo and have the govern-

ment ldquoprovide resourcesrdquo to poor people

questioned whether it meant Ryan was giv-

ing up on seeking the 2016 Republican pres-idential nomination

And LA Times columnist Doyle

McManus (72714) under the headline

ldquoHas the GOP Gone Softrdquo singled out

Ryan for proposing policies that ldquomay face

their toughest audience inside the GOPrdquo

For the media to evaluate economic poli-

cies based on whether they please both

Democrats and Republicans is nothing

new as wersquove witnessed on battles over

everything from the stimulus plan (FAIR

Blog 2209) to the debt ceiling (FAIRBlog 71511) In fact during the battles

over welfare reform itself back in 1996

coverage largely focused on which bills

could win the support of both partiesrsquo lead-

ershipmdashwith the San Francisco Chronicleeditorial board (72796) writing approving-

ly that Congress had ldquowhipped itself into a

fair frenzy of bipartisanshiprdquo with welfare

reform and other bills

The problem with bipartisanship as a

moral touchstone should be obvious Not

only does it define sensible policies as beingwhatever the leadership of the Democrats and

Republicans can agree on but it allows one

party to shift the debate by moving its own

goalposts and thus what counts as bipartisan

While the Washington Post editorial

board (72414) singled out shifting money to

EITC as the ldquomost bipartisan part of Mr

Ryanrsquos planrdquo the Timesrsquo Irwin (72414)

acknowledged that it was hardly a new one

for conservatives ldquoWhat was once a conser-

vative idea created in the Gerald Ford admin-

istration and expanded by President Reagan

and both presidents Bush is now more con-

troversial on the rightrdquo since it would elimi-

nate income taxes for more poor Americans

making them what the Wall Street Journal(112002) once derided as ldquolucky duckiesrdquo

If the nationrsquos media were actually con-

cerned about finding programs that help

the poor itrsquos not hard For one therersquos the

food stamp program that Ryan wants toeliminate which has low overheadmdash95 per-

cent of spending goes directly to benefitsmdash

and which by itself lifts nearly 5 million

people out of poverty every year (NewRepublic 81613)

Or as the Center for Economic and

Policy Researchrsquos Shawn Fremstad (TheHill 72214) noted if Ryan truly wanted to

boost the earnings of the working poor

instead of work requirements and EITC

hikes he could accomplish the same t

by raising the federal minimum wage so

thing that is supported by 80 percen

Americans including a majority of Re

licans (Hart Research 72313)mdasha bip

san plan if ever there was one

But then helping the poor or even pu

ing poverty policies that most Americans

agree on isnrsquot really the point for Ry

supporters ldquoGiving people money re

does make them better-off Itrsquos better to more money to buy groceries and other b

necessities than lessrdquo admitted Salam

getting more money from the governm

doesnrsquot really make you less poorrdquo

In the world of punditry then itrsquos

about helping the poor afford groceries

about making sure that theyrsquove earned

right to deserve groceries That may be ldquob

tisanrdquomdashin the halls of Congress anywa

but that doesnrsquot make it smart policy 983150

Itrsquos not often that a media outletrsquos decision

to ldquorecalibrate its languagerdquo attracts much

attention But when itrsquos the New York

Times and the shift is about what to call

torture in the Newspaper of Record such

changes matter

In August 2014 10 years after the initial

revelations that made US torture an interna-

tional news story Times executive editor

Dean Baquet wrote a short piece for the

Times website (8714) stating that the word

ldquotorturerdquo would be used to describe ldquoinci-

dents in which we know for sure that inter-rogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an

effort to get informationrdquo

In other words the newspaper is now

accepting the reality that the term can be

accurately applied to some actions of the

United States Ten years ago when it was

revealed that the CIA was torturing ldquoWar on

Terrorrdquo prisoners criticsmdashincluding

FAIRmdashwere asking the Times to call US

torture by its name (FAIR Action Alert51404) The paper had officially or not

carved out an exception for the US gov

ment whereby torture would be descr

euphemistically as ldquoenhancedrdquo or ldquoha

interrogations

So this shift if it is to be considered a

significant comes a decade too late

thatrsquos the just the start Baquetrsquos reasonin

revealing He writes that the Times resi

the label for so long because ldquothe situa

was murkyrdquo and that the ldquoJustice Dep

ment insisted that the techniques did not

to the legal definition of lsquotorturersquordquo Su

most countries that practice torture wresist prosecuting themselves so itrsquos ha

a reasonable standard for a media outle

Perhaps most illuminating though

Baquetrsquos admission that the Jus

Departmentrsquos decision not to prosecute

torturers motivated the paperrsquos shift

government

has made clear that it will not prosecut

in connection with the interrogatio

program The result is that today th

Paper says it will call it what it ismdash when it reports on it at all

NYT Fails First Test of New Torture Policy

by Peter Hart

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1116

Extra October 2014 983157

debate is focused less on whether the

methods violated a statute or treaty

provision and more on whether they

worked

So the Times will call torture by its

name now that no one is likely to be prose-

cuted and because the debate eventually

became ldquofocusedrdquo on its practical benefits

Thus allegations of torture that are walled

off from legal accountability are safemdashassuming the paper even covers them at all

The first test of the New York Timesrsquo new

policy came with the release of an

August 11 Amnesty International report

on torture in Afghanistan Itrsquos a test the

Times failed

The report covered 10 discrete episodes

of torture and brutality that killed dozens of

Afghan civilians But the most explosive

stories concern the actions of a US Special

Operations unit that was linked to torture

killings and disappearances betweenNovember 2012 and February 2013 The

evidence gathered by Amnesty strongly

suggests that US personnel were intimately

involved In one especially harrowing

account an Afghan man named

Naimatullah talks about a raid on his fami-

lyrsquos home by US Special Forces

Naimatullah said that the Americans

brought two of his brothers

Esmatullah and Siddiqullah into two

separate rooms and started beating

them They also beat Hekmatullah in

the yard ldquoI could hear them beating the

othersrdquo Naimatullah said ldquoand when I

saw them they were in terrible shaperdquo

Hekmattullah told Amnesty

International that the Special Forces

operatives ldquodragged me from my room

by the back of my collar and then

threw me down the stairs While I fell

my shoulder and buttocks were frac-

tured Even now I have problem walk-

ing it is painful and I canrsquot stand

straightrdquo

According to Amnestyrsquos report US

forces then took Naimatullahrsquos three broth-

ers away Only Hekmattullah was ever seen

again

Amnesty reports that several of the fam-

ilies that were able to recover the remains of

the missing reported that the bodies showed

signs of torture from what appeared to be

acid burns on clothing to gruesome injuries

The report received attention from other

outlets like the LA Times and WashingtonPost but was not featured in the New York

Times A FAIR Action Alert (81814) noted

the disconnect between the Timesrsquo new tor-

ture policy and its silence on the Amnesty

report Times public editor MargaretSullivan (81914) seemed to agree with

FAIRrsquos take writing that Amnesty ldquopulled

together a great deal of informationmdashespe-

cially about the role of the American mili-

tarymdashin a comprehensive and forceful way

that would have benefited Times readersrdquo

But others at the Times didnrsquot see why

they should have bothered Foreign editor

Joseph Kahn told Sullivan that Amnestyrsquos

findings ldquoappeared to be recycledrdquo and ldquodid

not add much to what we have already on

many occasions reportedrdquo

Itrsquos true that the Times has reported on

the allegations of torture in Afghanistan

But therersquos one clear lesson one can draw

from that reporting As the evidence of US

culpability grew the paper got less interest-

ed

On February 25 2013 the New YorkTimes reported that the Afghan govern-

ment had ldquobarred elite American forces

from operating in a strategic province

adjoining Kabul on Sunday citing com-

plaints that Afghans working for AmericanSpecial Operations forces had tortured and

killed villagers in the areardquo

The Times emphasized the damage this

could do to the US mission The move

ldquowould effectively exclude the American

militaryrsquos main source of offensive firepow-

er from the areardquo

A month later the Times (32113)

reported that the Afghan government was

compromising on its exclusion of US

troops ldquobreaking an increasingly acrimo-

nious impasserdquo The paper reminded reade

that the source of the dispute was ldquocom

plaints related to abuses by American forc

and accompanying Afghan men durin

night raids in the province accusations th

coalition has deniedrdquo The paper added th

certain ldquoAfghan and Western official

blamed the deaths and torture on local insu

gents

Almost two months later (51313) cam

the headline ldquoAfghans Say an AmericTortured Civiliansrdquo But this was not abo

American military personnel the Americ

in question was identified as Zakar

Kandahari an Afghan-American who w

working as an interpreter for the Speci

Forces unit The Times included a comme

from a US officialmdashldquospeaking on the cond

tion of anonymity in line with official po

cyrdquomdashwho insisted the US had no role ldquoW

have done three investigations down ther

and all absolve ISAF [International Securi

Assistance Force] forces and Special Forc

of all wrongdoingrdquoSome might find such denials unpersu

sive as the Times reported (51313

Afghan officials had a video of at least o

torture session and the remains of the vi

tims were turning up just outside the U

base

The Times (52213) reminded reade

days later that ldquothere has been no tes

mony directly tying American soldiers

the abuse or killing of those detaineesrdquo T

paper added that ldquothe American military h

described Mr Kandahari as a freelan

interpreter who had volunteered to help t

American Special Forces who allowed hi

to live at their base in exchangerdquo

Weeks later the Times (6513) w

reporting the discovery of more bodies ju

outside the US basemdashand that Afghan an

US governments were ldquoin sharp disagre

ment about who is responsiblerdquo

The story made the paper once again o

July 8 with the news that Kandahari h

been arrested The paperrsquos account aga

reiterated US claims that it had nothing do with the torture but Heather Barr

Human Rights Watch offered a dissentin

view

The US said they investigated thoroughly

therersquos nothing there so everyone should

go away and accept their word that they

checked and did nothing wrong I donrsquot

think that ends the discussion Therersquos a

lot more explaining that needs to be done

that hasnrsquot happened yetrsquo

New York Timesrsquo Dean Baquet We can call it ldquotorturerdquo now

that itrsquos clear no one will be punished for it

Missing a Premium

983088

Please email fairfairorg

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1216

That explaining would have to happen

elsewhere though The New York Timesran just one more story that mentioned the

controversy a July 23 dispatch that once

again stated that US officials ldquohave cleared

their troops of responsibility in any torture

or killingrdquo

The paper added that government offi-

cials ldquohave refused to offer further explana-

tion of what might have happened to the

dead menrdquo One would think the arrest of the principal suspect might inspire new

reporting

And it didmdashjust not in the New YorkTimes A major investigation by RollingStonersquos Matthieu Aikins (11613) raised

serious doubts about the US denials about

Kandahari and the unit ldquoMany of the men

who disappeared in Nerkh were rounded up

by the Americans in broad daylight in front

of dozens of witnessesrdquo Aikins reported He

added that over five months

Rolling Stone has interviewed more

than two dozen eyewitnesses and vic-

timsrsquo families whorsquove provided consis-

tent and detailed allegations of the

involvement of American forces in the

disappearance of the 10 men and has

talked to Afghan and Western officials

who were familiar with confidential

Afghan-government UN and Red

Cross investigations that found the

allegations credible

Aikins even tracked down Kandahari for

a prison interview unsurprisingly he

denied responsibility for the killings The

US argument that a rogue interpreter carried

out an extensive campaign of torture is not

only far-fetched Aikins wrote that it is

in a certain sense irrelevant Under the

well-established legal principle of

command responsibility military offi-

cials who knowingly allow their subor-

dinates to commit war crimes are them-

selves criminally responsible

To Aikins these stories ldquowould amount

to some of the gravest war crimes perpetrat-

ed by American forces since 2001rdquo But

they remained obscure to readers of the

New York Times even after the Amnesty

report corroborated his charges

But the Times didnrsquot entirely ignore Rol-ling Stonesrsquo reporting on February 16 2014

the Times mentioned that Aikinsrsquo exposeacute

had received a George Polk Award 983150

New York Times investigative reporter

James Risen is taking a stand Despite

being hounded by both the Bush and

Obama administrations to reveal his

sources he has vowed to go to jail rather

than abandon his pledge of confidentiality

As fellow journalists and journalism

advocacy groups rush to his side many fear

that the US Department of Justice within the

self-proclaimed ldquomost transparent adminis-tration in historyrdquo is preparing to deliver a

body blow to the First Amendmentrsquos prom-

ise of press freedom

ldquoThis case is the closest wersquove come to

the edge of the precipice to reportersource

privilege being bannedrdquo said Jesselyn

Radack director of national security and

human rights for the Government Account-

ability Project in a phone interview

R

isen a Pulitzer Prizendashwinning reporter

has been ordered by the DoJ to testify in

the prosecution of former CIA employeeJeffrey Sterling who is accused of leaking

information about a botched Clinton-era

CIA mission to give Iran phony nuclear

informationmdashwhich ended up giving Iran

real information on how to build a bomb

Risen wrote about the failed operation in his

2006 book State of War

Risen was initially subpoenaed by the

Bush administration in 2008 but the order

expired as the reporter fought against it

through the courts To the surprise of many

the subpoena was renewed under PresidentObama in 2010mdashdespite repeated calls to

drop the pursuit

ldquoRisen informed the public about the

dangerous stupidity of a CIA operation and

seriously embarrassed the agency in the

processrdquo said Norman Solomon a longtime

FAIR associate and co-founder of

RootsActionorg an online advocacy group

in an email exchange ldquoEvidently a pair of

unforgivable sins in the eyes of both the

Bush and Obama administrationsrdquo

If the government does uphold its sub

na and Risen is punished for taking

stand journalists and free press advoc

say that this would set a dangerous pr

dent for the interpretation of press free

under the First Amendment

ldquoFunctionally a reporter will no lo

be able to promise source confidential

Radack explained ldquoThis will impact pe

who want to disclose wrongdoingrdquo said ldquoWhistleblowers disclosing fr

waste abuse and illegality will no longe

to the pressrdquo

Robust investigative journalism

already suffered from budget cuts and w

ing interest in long-form journalism

this ldquochilling effectrdquo on sources will pro

the ldquofinal nail in the coffin of the free p

as we know itrdquo Radack added

I

n 2011 a federal District Court ruled

Risen could not be compelled by the

ernment to reveal his sources ldquoA crimtrial subpoena is not a free pass for the

ernment to rifle through a reporterrsquos n

bookrdquo wrote District Court Judge Le

Brinkema adding that Risen was prote

by a limited ldquoreporterrsquos privilegerdquo unde

First Amendment

The government challenged that d

sion and in 2013 the US Court of App

for the Fourth Circuit in Richm

Virginia reinstated the subpoena arg

that the First Amendment did not pro

Risen from being forced to testify aghis source

In June 2014 Risenrsquos legal b

reached an insurmountable barrier when

US Supreme Court refused to take up

case affirming the lower court ruling N

Risen will have to testify or face conte

of court charges which can lead to e

imprisonment or up to $1000 a day in f

After the high court passed on the c

Risenrsquos attorney Joel Kurtzberg told

Committee to Protect Journalists (62

12 983157 October 2014 Extra

Risen case tests reportersrsquo power to revealgovernment wrongdoing

Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

by Lauren McCauley

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1316

Extra October 2014 983157

that he hopes the government wonrsquot hold

Risen in contempt ldquofor doing nothing other

than reporting the news and keeping his

promise to his sourcerdquo He noted that the

ldquoball is now in the governmentrsquos courtrdquo

On August 14 a coalition of journalists

media advocacy groups and independentmedia outlets delivered over 100000

signatures to the Department of Justice

calling on the Obama administration to drop

its subpoena

The petitionmdashorganized by Roots

Action along with FAIR the Center for

Media and Democracy Freedom of the

Press Foundation The Nation Institute and

The Progressivemdashargues that ldquowithout

confidentiality journalism would be

reduced to official storiesmdasha situation anti-

thetical to the First Amendmentrdquo

On the day the petition was turned in

Risen was joined by a number of free press

advocates including Radack and Solomon

at a press conference at the National Press

Club in Washington DC Speaking before

the roomful of reporters Risen said ldquoThe

real reason Irsquom doing this is for the future of

journalismrdquo

ldquoFreedom of the press is the most impor-

tant freedomrdquo agreed Delphine Halgand

director of Reporters Without Bordersrsquo Wash-

ington office who also spoke at the press

conference ldquoIt is the freedom that allows usto verify the existence of all other freedomsrdquo

When asked about the Risen case at a

closed-door meeting with a group of

journalists Attorney General Eric

Holder (New York Times 52814) report-

edly declared ldquoAs long as Irsquom attorney gen-

eral no reporter who is doing his job is

going to go to jailrdquo

Despite this pronouncement the prose-

cution of whistleblowers has become a

mainstay of Obamarsquos presidency

(Extra 911 FAIR Media

Advisory 82713) During his

time in office the DoJ has pur-

sued eight prosecutions of leakers

under the Espionage Act more

than double the total number of

such prosecutions since the law

was enacted

McClatchy News (62013)

also revealed the existence of agovernment employee ldquotattletalerdquo

program By having government

employees spying and reporting

on each other the Obama initia-

tive dubbed ldquoInsider Threatrdquo aims

to thwart future leakers

According to the Reporters Without Bor-

dersrsquo annual Press Freedom Index (21214)

the US dropped 13 positions from 2013 to

2014 and now ranks 46th worldwide The

report notes

In the US the hunt for leaks and

whistleblowers serves as a warning to

those thinking of satisfying a public

interest need for information about the

imperial prerogatives assumed by the

worldrsquos leading power

Advocates say to ensure the protectio

of journalists in this post-911 surveillan

state it is critical to pass a federal shie

law that will protect reporters from beinforced to disclose confidential informatio

or sources in court (Most states have som

sort of law or protection in place)

There is a shield bill currently makin

its way through CongressmdashS 987 know

as the Free Flow of Information Act

though there is concern that the legislatio

has too many loopholes that allow the go

ernment to claim broad ldquonational security

exceptions and leave some whistleblowe

without protection (Dissenter 51214)

The New York Timesrsquo James Risen at the Roots Action Press Conference

at the National Press Club in Washington DC ldquoThe real reason Irsquom doing

this is for the future of journalismrdquo

NYT Has Benefitted From Leakersmdashbut Not Vice Versa

A s the Department of Justice doggedly pursues Pulitzer Prizendashwinner James Risen the New York

Times has been forced to enter the fray of the governmentrsquos so-called ldquowar on informationrdquo

The Times like many mainstream publications has openly acknowledged its practice of seek-

ing government approval for sensitive stories (2613) and often serves as a government mouthpiece by

publishing sanctioned ldquoleaksrdquo of information

And although the Times has benefitted enormously from actual leaks of government secrets that

were vital for the public to know it has historically maintained a cautiousmdashif not skepticalmdashdistance

from those who risked their careers and liberty to reveal such truths

Despite publishing the invaluable Pentagon Papers which exposed government deceptions about the

Vietnam War the Times refused to provide leaker Daniel Ellsberg with any help in his criminal case

According to Ellsberg thenndashexecutive editor Abe Rosenthal told the whistleblower that the paper had no

policy for supporting a source who is being prosecuted for leaking information

ldquoThe Timesrdquo Ellsberg explained ldquothinks of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken the lawrdquo

The paper has given even less support to Chelsea Manning despite having partnered with Wikileaks

in July 2010 to release important revelations from the hun-

dreds of thousands of classified war logs and State

Department cables revealed by Manning

In addition to disparaging her character and questioning

her motives in a Bill Keller column (31113) the Times treat-

ed Manningrsquos trial as a noneventmdashnot sending a single

reporter and only running one AP wire story (123012) on it

Later New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan

(51212) wrote that the paper had ldquomissed the boatrdquo by not

covering Manningrsquos pretrial testimony

The paper did run an editorial (1114) supporting NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden however that was months

after an earlier editorial (8613) essentially calling for Snowden to be extradited for prosecution

In a January 2013 column about the prosecution of Chelsea Manning journalist Glenn Greenwald

warned corporate media that they ldquomight want to take a serious interestrdquo in the case and ldquomarshal oppo-

sition to what is being done to Bradley Manningrdquo

He continued ldquoIf not out of concern for the injustices to which he is being subjected then out of self-

interest to ensure that their reporters and their past and future whistleblowing sources cannot be simi-

larly persecutedrdquo

It seems that time has comemdashLMcC

Daniel Ellsberg The New York Times ldquothinks

of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken

the lawrdquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1416

In a recent interview with Times colleague

Maureen Dowd (81714) Risen refer-

enced Obamarsquos ldquomost transparent admin-

istrationrdquo claim

ldquoItrsquos hypocriticalrdquo Risen said ldquoA lot of

peopledonrsquot want to believe that Obama

wants to crack down on the press and

whistleblowers But he does Hersquos the great-

est enemy to press freedom in a generationrdquo

Among those who have come to Risenrsquos

defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prizendashwin-

ning reporters who each signed the Roots

Action petition and issued personal state-

ments on his behalf

Included in the testimonies is one from

Risenrsquos New York Times colleague Barry

Bearak who wrote that Risen ldquois carrying

the banner for every American journalistrdquo

ldquoIf he goes to jailrdquo Bearak continued

good bit of our nationrsquos freedom wil

locked away with himrdquo 983150

Lauren McCauley is an assistant edito

the website Common Dreams and a d

mentary producer her most recent fil

Mississippi Messiah about civil ri

leader James Meredith

14 983157 October 2014 Extra

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

Who Rules Public TV

by Aldo Guerrero

T

he corporate and financial sectors have

an overwhelming presence on the gov-

erning boards of major public televi-

sion stations a new FAIR study findsThe study looked at the occupations of

the current trustees of WNET (New York

CityNewark) WGBH (Boston) WETA

(Washington DC) WTTW (Chicago) and

KCET (Los Angeles)

Out of these boardsrsquo 182 total members

152mdashor 84 percentmdashhave corporate back-

grounds including 138 who are executives

at elite businesses Another 14 members

appear to be on the board because of their

familiesrsquo corporate-derived wealth often

with a primary affiliation as an officer of a

family charitable foundationMany board members are affiliated with

major corporations like Boeing Wells Fargo

and Citigroup Seventy-five board mem-

bers nearly half of all those with corporate

ties are financial industry executives

Another 24 are corporate lawyers

Public TV board members without corpo-

rate ties were few and far between Of

these nine are categorized as academics

while six are affiliated with nonprofit groups

(not counting family grant-making founda-

tions) There are three former government

officials two non-corporate lawyers two

journalists one religious educator and a for-

mer principal of a magnet school Six board

members are station insiders

WNET WGBH and WETA are consid-

ered to be the ldquobig threerdquo PBS affiliates

producing a large share of programming for

PBS nationally WTTW and KCET were

included because they serve two of the

largest US metropolitan areas Four of these

stations are affiliated with PBS KCET dis-

affiliated in 2010 but remains a prominent

regional public television station

The boards range in size from WTTWrsquos

63 members to KCETrsquos 20 WTTW and

WNET have the most corporate representa-

tion on their boards each at 92 percent

KCETrsquos board is 80 percent corporate-affil-

iated while DCrsquos WETA is at 73 percent

Corporate-tied board members were least

common at WGBH where they still made

up two-thirds of the board

One hundred sixteen members (64 per-

cent) are male It was not possible to do a

breakdown of board membersrsquo ethnicities

Last year the issue of corporate influence

over public television was thrust into the

spotlight when the film Park Avenue

Money Power and the American Dream was

broadcast by PBS affiliate WNET (NewYorker 52713 FAIR Blog 52113) The

film examined the concentration of wealth

and power in the United States by lookin

the super-rich residents of 740

Avenuemdashwho included then-WNET b

member and major station donor DKoch a billionaire industrialist well kn

for his donations to right-wing causes

WNET president Neil Shapiro was

to be ldquoconcernedrdquo about a film critica

one of his biggest funders WNET ende

not receiving a large donation from Koc

potentially in the seven-figure rang

because Park Avenue was broadcast

New Yorkerrsquos Jane Mayer reported

PBS then preemptively pulled the

on Citizen Koch another film that exam

the Koch familyrsquos political influenc

apparently practicing self-censorship inattempt to placate a wealthy donor K

would eventually resign from the WNboard of trustees Since then a camp

has been launched demanding that K

also resign from the board of Bost

WGBH where he is still a trustee

High-powered executives likes David Koch overwhelm

dominate the boards of trustees at public TV stations

This documentary caused trouble when it aired on WNET

because of the money and power on the PBS affiliatersquos

board

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1116

Extra October 2014 983157

debate is focused less on whether the

methods violated a statute or treaty

provision and more on whether they

worked

So the Times will call torture by its

name now that no one is likely to be prose-

cuted and because the debate eventually

became ldquofocusedrdquo on its practical benefits

Thus allegations of torture that are walled

off from legal accountability are safemdashassuming the paper even covers them at all

The first test of the New York Timesrsquo new

policy came with the release of an

August 11 Amnesty International report

on torture in Afghanistan Itrsquos a test the

Times failed

The report covered 10 discrete episodes

of torture and brutality that killed dozens of

Afghan civilians But the most explosive

stories concern the actions of a US Special

Operations unit that was linked to torture

killings and disappearances betweenNovember 2012 and February 2013 The

evidence gathered by Amnesty strongly

suggests that US personnel were intimately

involved In one especially harrowing

account an Afghan man named

Naimatullah talks about a raid on his fami-

lyrsquos home by US Special Forces

Naimatullah said that the Americans

brought two of his brothers

Esmatullah and Siddiqullah into two

separate rooms and started beating

them They also beat Hekmatullah in

the yard ldquoI could hear them beating the

othersrdquo Naimatullah said ldquoand when I

saw them they were in terrible shaperdquo

Hekmattullah told Amnesty

International that the Special Forces

operatives ldquodragged me from my room

by the back of my collar and then

threw me down the stairs While I fell

my shoulder and buttocks were frac-

tured Even now I have problem walk-

ing it is painful and I canrsquot stand

straightrdquo

According to Amnestyrsquos report US

forces then took Naimatullahrsquos three broth-

ers away Only Hekmattullah was ever seen

again

Amnesty reports that several of the fam-

ilies that were able to recover the remains of

the missing reported that the bodies showed

signs of torture from what appeared to be

acid burns on clothing to gruesome injuries

The report received attention from other

outlets like the LA Times and WashingtonPost but was not featured in the New York

Times A FAIR Action Alert (81814) noted

the disconnect between the Timesrsquo new tor-

ture policy and its silence on the Amnesty

report Times public editor MargaretSullivan (81914) seemed to agree with

FAIRrsquos take writing that Amnesty ldquopulled

together a great deal of informationmdashespe-

cially about the role of the American mili-

tarymdashin a comprehensive and forceful way

that would have benefited Times readersrdquo

But others at the Times didnrsquot see why

they should have bothered Foreign editor

Joseph Kahn told Sullivan that Amnestyrsquos

findings ldquoappeared to be recycledrdquo and ldquodid

not add much to what we have already on

many occasions reportedrdquo

Itrsquos true that the Times has reported on

the allegations of torture in Afghanistan

But therersquos one clear lesson one can draw

from that reporting As the evidence of US

culpability grew the paper got less interest-

ed

On February 25 2013 the New YorkTimes reported that the Afghan govern-

ment had ldquobarred elite American forces

from operating in a strategic province

adjoining Kabul on Sunday citing com-

plaints that Afghans working for AmericanSpecial Operations forces had tortured and

killed villagers in the areardquo

The Times emphasized the damage this

could do to the US mission The move

ldquowould effectively exclude the American

militaryrsquos main source of offensive firepow-

er from the areardquo

A month later the Times (32113)

reported that the Afghan government was

compromising on its exclusion of US

troops ldquobreaking an increasingly acrimo-

nious impasserdquo The paper reminded reade

that the source of the dispute was ldquocom

plaints related to abuses by American forc

and accompanying Afghan men durin

night raids in the province accusations th

coalition has deniedrdquo The paper added th

certain ldquoAfghan and Western official

blamed the deaths and torture on local insu

gents

Almost two months later (51313) cam

the headline ldquoAfghans Say an AmericTortured Civiliansrdquo But this was not abo

American military personnel the Americ

in question was identified as Zakar

Kandahari an Afghan-American who w

working as an interpreter for the Speci

Forces unit The Times included a comme

from a US officialmdashldquospeaking on the cond

tion of anonymity in line with official po

cyrdquomdashwho insisted the US had no role ldquoW

have done three investigations down ther

and all absolve ISAF [International Securi

Assistance Force] forces and Special Forc

of all wrongdoingrdquoSome might find such denials unpersu

sive as the Times reported (51313

Afghan officials had a video of at least o

torture session and the remains of the vi

tims were turning up just outside the U

base

The Times (52213) reminded reade

days later that ldquothere has been no tes

mony directly tying American soldiers

the abuse or killing of those detaineesrdquo T

paper added that ldquothe American military h

described Mr Kandahari as a freelan

interpreter who had volunteered to help t

American Special Forces who allowed hi

to live at their base in exchangerdquo

Weeks later the Times (6513) w

reporting the discovery of more bodies ju

outside the US basemdashand that Afghan an

US governments were ldquoin sharp disagre

ment about who is responsiblerdquo

The story made the paper once again o

July 8 with the news that Kandahari h

been arrested The paperrsquos account aga

reiterated US claims that it had nothing do with the torture but Heather Barr

Human Rights Watch offered a dissentin

view

The US said they investigated thoroughly

therersquos nothing there so everyone should

go away and accept their word that they

checked and did nothing wrong I donrsquot

think that ends the discussion Therersquos a

lot more explaining that needs to be done

that hasnrsquot happened yetrsquo

New York Timesrsquo Dean Baquet We can call it ldquotorturerdquo now

that itrsquos clear no one will be punished for it

Missing a Premium

983088

Please email fairfairorg

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1216

That explaining would have to happen

elsewhere though The New York Timesran just one more story that mentioned the

controversy a July 23 dispatch that once

again stated that US officials ldquohave cleared

their troops of responsibility in any torture

or killingrdquo

The paper added that government offi-

cials ldquohave refused to offer further explana-

tion of what might have happened to the

dead menrdquo One would think the arrest of the principal suspect might inspire new

reporting

And it didmdashjust not in the New YorkTimes A major investigation by RollingStonersquos Matthieu Aikins (11613) raised

serious doubts about the US denials about

Kandahari and the unit ldquoMany of the men

who disappeared in Nerkh were rounded up

by the Americans in broad daylight in front

of dozens of witnessesrdquo Aikins reported He

added that over five months

Rolling Stone has interviewed more

than two dozen eyewitnesses and vic-

timsrsquo families whorsquove provided consis-

tent and detailed allegations of the

involvement of American forces in the

disappearance of the 10 men and has

talked to Afghan and Western officials

who were familiar with confidential

Afghan-government UN and Red

Cross investigations that found the

allegations credible

Aikins even tracked down Kandahari for

a prison interview unsurprisingly he

denied responsibility for the killings The

US argument that a rogue interpreter carried

out an extensive campaign of torture is not

only far-fetched Aikins wrote that it is

in a certain sense irrelevant Under the

well-established legal principle of

command responsibility military offi-

cials who knowingly allow their subor-

dinates to commit war crimes are them-

selves criminally responsible

To Aikins these stories ldquowould amount

to some of the gravest war crimes perpetrat-

ed by American forces since 2001rdquo But

they remained obscure to readers of the

New York Times even after the Amnesty

report corroborated his charges

But the Times didnrsquot entirely ignore Rol-ling Stonesrsquo reporting on February 16 2014

the Times mentioned that Aikinsrsquo exposeacute

had received a George Polk Award 983150

New York Times investigative reporter

James Risen is taking a stand Despite

being hounded by both the Bush and

Obama administrations to reveal his

sources he has vowed to go to jail rather

than abandon his pledge of confidentiality

As fellow journalists and journalism

advocacy groups rush to his side many fear

that the US Department of Justice within the

self-proclaimed ldquomost transparent adminis-tration in historyrdquo is preparing to deliver a

body blow to the First Amendmentrsquos prom-

ise of press freedom

ldquoThis case is the closest wersquove come to

the edge of the precipice to reportersource

privilege being bannedrdquo said Jesselyn

Radack director of national security and

human rights for the Government Account-

ability Project in a phone interview

R

isen a Pulitzer Prizendashwinning reporter

has been ordered by the DoJ to testify in

the prosecution of former CIA employeeJeffrey Sterling who is accused of leaking

information about a botched Clinton-era

CIA mission to give Iran phony nuclear

informationmdashwhich ended up giving Iran

real information on how to build a bomb

Risen wrote about the failed operation in his

2006 book State of War

Risen was initially subpoenaed by the

Bush administration in 2008 but the order

expired as the reporter fought against it

through the courts To the surprise of many

the subpoena was renewed under PresidentObama in 2010mdashdespite repeated calls to

drop the pursuit

ldquoRisen informed the public about the

dangerous stupidity of a CIA operation and

seriously embarrassed the agency in the

processrdquo said Norman Solomon a longtime

FAIR associate and co-founder of

RootsActionorg an online advocacy group

in an email exchange ldquoEvidently a pair of

unforgivable sins in the eyes of both the

Bush and Obama administrationsrdquo

If the government does uphold its sub

na and Risen is punished for taking

stand journalists and free press advoc

say that this would set a dangerous pr

dent for the interpretation of press free

under the First Amendment

ldquoFunctionally a reporter will no lo

be able to promise source confidential

Radack explained ldquoThis will impact pe

who want to disclose wrongdoingrdquo said ldquoWhistleblowers disclosing fr

waste abuse and illegality will no longe

to the pressrdquo

Robust investigative journalism

already suffered from budget cuts and w

ing interest in long-form journalism

this ldquochilling effectrdquo on sources will pro

the ldquofinal nail in the coffin of the free p

as we know itrdquo Radack added

I

n 2011 a federal District Court ruled

Risen could not be compelled by the

ernment to reveal his sources ldquoA crimtrial subpoena is not a free pass for the

ernment to rifle through a reporterrsquos n

bookrdquo wrote District Court Judge Le

Brinkema adding that Risen was prote

by a limited ldquoreporterrsquos privilegerdquo unde

First Amendment

The government challenged that d

sion and in 2013 the US Court of App

for the Fourth Circuit in Richm

Virginia reinstated the subpoena arg

that the First Amendment did not pro

Risen from being forced to testify aghis source

In June 2014 Risenrsquos legal b

reached an insurmountable barrier when

US Supreme Court refused to take up

case affirming the lower court ruling N

Risen will have to testify or face conte

of court charges which can lead to e

imprisonment or up to $1000 a day in f

After the high court passed on the c

Risenrsquos attorney Joel Kurtzberg told

Committee to Protect Journalists (62

12 983157 October 2014 Extra

Risen case tests reportersrsquo power to revealgovernment wrongdoing

Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

by Lauren McCauley

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1316

Extra October 2014 983157

that he hopes the government wonrsquot hold

Risen in contempt ldquofor doing nothing other

than reporting the news and keeping his

promise to his sourcerdquo He noted that the

ldquoball is now in the governmentrsquos courtrdquo

On August 14 a coalition of journalists

media advocacy groups and independentmedia outlets delivered over 100000

signatures to the Department of Justice

calling on the Obama administration to drop

its subpoena

The petitionmdashorganized by Roots

Action along with FAIR the Center for

Media and Democracy Freedom of the

Press Foundation The Nation Institute and

The Progressivemdashargues that ldquowithout

confidentiality journalism would be

reduced to official storiesmdasha situation anti-

thetical to the First Amendmentrdquo

On the day the petition was turned in

Risen was joined by a number of free press

advocates including Radack and Solomon

at a press conference at the National Press

Club in Washington DC Speaking before

the roomful of reporters Risen said ldquoThe

real reason Irsquom doing this is for the future of

journalismrdquo

ldquoFreedom of the press is the most impor-

tant freedomrdquo agreed Delphine Halgand

director of Reporters Without Bordersrsquo Wash-

ington office who also spoke at the press

conference ldquoIt is the freedom that allows usto verify the existence of all other freedomsrdquo

When asked about the Risen case at a

closed-door meeting with a group of

journalists Attorney General Eric

Holder (New York Times 52814) report-

edly declared ldquoAs long as Irsquom attorney gen-

eral no reporter who is doing his job is

going to go to jailrdquo

Despite this pronouncement the prose-

cution of whistleblowers has become a

mainstay of Obamarsquos presidency

(Extra 911 FAIR Media

Advisory 82713) During his

time in office the DoJ has pur-

sued eight prosecutions of leakers

under the Espionage Act more

than double the total number of

such prosecutions since the law

was enacted

McClatchy News (62013)

also revealed the existence of agovernment employee ldquotattletalerdquo

program By having government

employees spying and reporting

on each other the Obama initia-

tive dubbed ldquoInsider Threatrdquo aims

to thwart future leakers

According to the Reporters Without Bor-

dersrsquo annual Press Freedom Index (21214)

the US dropped 13 positions from 2013 to

2014 and now ranks 46th worldwide The

report notes

In the US the hunt for leaks and

whistleblowers serves as a warning to

those thinking of satisfying a public

interest need for information about the

imperial prerogatives assumed by the

worldrsquos leading power

Advocates say to ensure the protectio

of journalists in this post-911 surveillan

state it is critical to pass a federal shie

law that will protect reporters from beinforced to disclose confidential informatio

or sources in court (Most states have som

sort of law or protection in place)

There is a shield bill currently makin

its way through CongressmdashS 987 know

as the Free Flow of Information Act

though there is concern that the legislatio

has too many loopholes that allow the go

ernment to claim broad ldquonational security

exceptions and leave some whistleblowe

without protection (Dissenter 51214)

The New York Timesrsquo James Risen at the Roots Action Press Conference

at the National Press Club in Washington DC ldquoThe real reason Irsquom doing

this is for the future of journalismrdquo

NYT Has Benefitted From Leakersmdashbut Not Vice Versa

A s the Department of Justice doggedly pursues Pulitzer Prizendashwinner James Risen the New York

Times has been forced to enter the fray of the governmentrsquos so-called ldquowar on informationrdquo

The Times like many mainstream publications has openly acknowledged its practice of seek-

ing government approval for sensitive stories (2613) and often serves as a government mouthpiece by

publishing sanctioned ldquoleaksrdquo of information

And although the Times has benefitted enormously from actual leaks of government secrets that

were vital for the public to know it has historically maintained a cautiousmdashif not skepticalmdashdistance

from those who risked their careers and liberty to reveal such truths

Despite publishing the invaluable Pentagon Papers which exposed government deceptions about the

Vietnam War the Times refused to provide leaker Daniel Ellsberg with any help in his criminal case

According to Ellsberg thenndashexecutive editor Abe Rosenthal told the whistleblower that the paper had no

policy for supporting a source who is being prosecuted for leaking information

ldquoThe Timesrdquo Ellsberg explained ldquothinks of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken the lawrdquo

The paper has given even less support to Chelsea Manning despite having partnered with Wikileaks

in July 2010 to release important revelations from the hun-

dreds of thousands of classified war logs and State

Department cables revealed by Manning

In addition to disparaging her character and questioning

her motives in a Bill Keller column (31113) the Times treat-

ed Manningrsquos trial as a noneventmdashnot sending a single

reporter and only running one AP wire story (123012) on it

Later New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan

(51212) wrote that the paper had ldquomissed the boatrdquo by not

covering Manningrsquos pretrial testimony

The paper did run an editorial (1114) supporting NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden however that was months

after an earlier editorial (8613) essentially calling for Snowden to be extradited for prosecution

In a January 2013 column about the prosecution of Chelsea Manning journalist Glenn Greenwald

warned corporate media that they ldquomight want to take a serious interestrdquo in the case and ldquomarshal oppo-

sition to what is being done to Bradley Manningrdquo

He continued ldquoIf not out of concern for the injustices to which he is being subjected then out of self-

interest to ensure that their reporters and their past and future whistleblowing sources cannot be simi-

larly persecutedrdquo

It seems that time has comemdashLMcC

Daniel Ellsberg The New York Times ldquothinks

of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken

the lawrdquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1416

In a recent interview with Times colleague

Maureen Dowd (81714) Risen refer-

enced Obamarsquos ldquomost transparent admin-

istrationrdquo claim

ldquoItrsquos hypocriticalrdquo Risen said ldquoA lot of

peopledonrsquot want to believe that Obama

wants to crack down on the press and

whistleblowers But he does Hersquos the great-

est enemy to press freedom in a generationrdquo

Among those who have come to Risenrsquos

defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prizendashwin-

ning reporters who each signed the Roots

Action petition and issued personal state-

ments on his behalf

Included in the testimonies is one from

Risenrsquos New York Times colleague Barry

Bearak who wrote that Risen ldquois carrying

the banner for every American journalistrdquo

ldquoIf he goes to jailrdquo Bearak continued

good bit of our nationrsquos freedom wil

locked away with himrdquo 983150

Lauren McCauley is an assistant edito

the website Common Dreams and a d

mentary producer her most recent fil

Mississippi Messiah about civil ri

leader James Meredith

14 983157 October 2014 Extra

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

Who Rules Public TV

by Aldo Guerrero

T

he corporate and financial sectors have

an overwhelming presence on the gov-

erning boards of major public televi-

sion stations a new FAIR study findsThe study looked at the occupations of

the current trustees of WNET (New York

CityNewark) WGBH (Boston) WETA

(Washington DC) WTTW (Chicago) and

KCET (Los Angeles)

Out of these boardsrsquo 182 total members

152mdashor 84 percentmdashhave corporate back-

grounds including 138 who are executives

at elite businesses Another 14 members

appear to be on the board because of their

familiesrsquo corporate-derived wealth often

with a primary affiliation as an officer of a

family charitable foundationMany board members are affiliated with

major corporations like Boeing Wells Fargo

and Citigroup Seventy-five board mem-

bers nearly half of all those with corporate

ties are financial industry executives

Another 24 are corporate lawyers

Public TV board members without corpo-

rate ties were few and far between Of

these nine are categorized as academics

while six are affiliated with nonprofit groups

(not counting family grant-making founda-

tions) There are three former government

officials two non-corporate lawyers two

journalists one religious educator and a for-

mer principal of a magnet school Six board

members are station insiders

WNET WGBH and WETA are consid-

ered to be the ldquobig threerdquo PBS affiliates

producing a large share of programming for

PBS nationally WTTW and KCET were

included because they serve two of the

largest US metropolitan areas Four of these

stations are affiliated with PBS KCET dis-

affiliated in 2010 but remains a prominent

regional public television station

The boards range in size from WTTWrsquos

63 members to KCETrsquos 20 WTTW and

WNET have the most corporate representa-

tion on their boards each at 92 percent

KCETrsquos board is 80 percent corporate-affil-

iated while DCrsquos WETA is at 73 percent

Corporate-tied board members were least

common at WGBH where they still made

up two-thirds of the board

One hundred sixteen members (64 per-

cent) are male It was not possible to do a

breakdown of board membersrsquo ethnicities

Last year the issue of corporate influence

over public television was thrust into the

spotlight when the film Park Avenue

Money Power and the American Dream was

broadcast by PBS affiliate WNET (NewYorker 52713 FAIR Blog 52113) The

film examined the concentration of wealth

and power in the United States by lookin

the super-rich residents of 740

Avenuemdashwho included then-WNET b

member and major station donor DKoch a billionaire industrialist well kn

for his donations to right-wing causes

WNET president Neil Shapiro was

to be ldquoconcernedrdquo about a film critica

one of his biggest funders WNET ende

not receiving a large donation from Koc

potentially in the seven-figure rang

because Park Avenue was broadcast

New Yorkerrsquos Jane Mayer reported

PBS then preemptively pulled the

on Citizen Koch another film that exam

the Koch familyrsquos political influenc

apparently practicing self-censorship inattempt to placate a wealthy donor K

would eventually resign from the WNboard of trustees Since then a camp

has been launched demanding that K

also resign from the board of Bost

WGBH where he is still a trustee

High-powered executives likes David Koch overwhelm

dominate the boards of trustees at public TV stations

This documentary caused trouble when it aired on WNET

because of the money and power on the PBS affiliatersquos

board

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1216

That explaining would have to happen

elsewhere though The New York Timesran just one more story that mentioned the

controversy a July 23 dispatch that once

again stated that US officials ldquohave cleared

their troops of responsibility in any torture

or killingrdquo

The paper added that government offi-

cials ldquohave refused to offer further explana-

tion of what might have happened to the

dead menrdquo One would think the arrest of the principal suspect might inspire new

reporting

And it didmdashjust not in the New YorkTimes A major investigation by RollingStonersquos Matthieu Aikins (11613) raised

serious doubts about the US denials about

Kandahari and the unit ldquoMany of the men

who disappeared in Nerkh were rounded up

by the Americans in broad daylight in front

of dozens of witnessesrdquo Aikins reported He

added that over five months

Rolling Stone has interviewed more

than two dozen eyewitnesses and vic-

timsrsquo families whorsquove provided consis-

tent and detailed allegations of the

involvement of American forces in the

disappearance of the 10 men and has

talked to Afghan and Western officials

who were familiar with confidential

Afghan-government UN and Red

Cross investigations that found the

allegations credible

Aikins even tracked down Kandahari for

a prison interview unsurprisingly he

denied responsibility for the killings The

US argument that a rogue interpreter carried

out an extensive campaign of torture is not

only far-fetched Aikins wrote that it is

in a certain sense irrelevant Under the

well-established legal principle of

command responsibility military offi-

cials who knowingly allow their subor-

dinates to commit war crimes are them-

selves criminally responsible

To Aikins these stories ldquowould amount

to some of the gravest war crimes perpetrat-

ed by American forces since 2001rdquo But

they remained obscure to readers of the

New York Times even after the Amnesty

report corroborated his charges

But the Times didnrsquot entirely ignore Rol-ling Stonesrsquo reporting on February 16 2014

the Times mentioned that Aikinsrsquo exposeacute

had received a George Polk Award 983150

New York Times investigative reporter

James Risen is taking a stand Despite

being hounded by both the Bush and

Obama administrations to reveal his

sources he has vowed to go to jail rather

than abandon his pledge of confidentiality

As fellow journalists and journalism

advocacy groups rush to his side many fear

that the US Department of Justice within the

self-proclaimed ldquomost transparent adminis-tration in historyrdquo is preparing to deliver a

body blow to the First Amendmentrsquos prom-

ise of press freedom

ldquoThis case is the closest wersquove come to

the edge of the precipice to reportersource

privilege being bannedrdquo said Jesselyn

Radack director of national security and

human rights for the Government Account-

ability Project in a phone interview

R

isen a Pulitzer Prizendashwinning reporter

has been ordered by the DoJ to testify in

the prosecution of former CIA employeeJeffrey Sterling who is accused of leaking

information about a botched Clinton-era

CIA mission to give Iran phony nuclear

informationmdashwhich ended up giving Iran

real information on how to build a bomb

Risen wrote about the failed operation in his

2006 book State of War

Risen was initially subpoenaed by the

Bush administration in 2008 but the order

expired as the reporter fought against it

through the courts To the surprise of many

the subpoena was renewed under PresidentObama in 2010mdashdespite repeated calls to

drop the pursuit

ldquoRisen informed the public about the

dangerous stupidity of a CIA operation and

seriously embarrassed the agency in the

processrdquo said Norman Solomon a longtime

FAIR associate and co-founder of

RootsActionorg an online advocacy group

in an email exchange ldquoEvidently a pair of

unforgivable sins in the eyes of both the

Bush and Obama administrationsrdquo

If the government does uphold its sub

na and Risen is punished for taking

stand journalists and free press advoc

say that this would set a dangerous pr

dent for the interpretation of press free

under the First Amendment

ldquoFunctionally a reporter will no lo

be able to promise source confidential

Radack explained ldquoThis will impact pe

who want to disclose wrongdoingrdquo said ldquoWhistleblowers disclosing fr

waste abuse and illegality will no longe

to the pressrdquo

Robust investigative journalism

already suffered from budget cuts and w

ing interest in long-form journalism

this ldquochilling effectrdquo on sources will pro

the ldquofinal nail in the coffin of the free p

as we know itrdquo Radack added

I

n 2011 a federal District Court ruled

Risen could not be compelled by the

ernment to reveal his sources ldquoA crimtrial subpoena is not a free pass for the

ernment to rifle through a reporterrsquos n

bookrdquo wrote District Court Judge Le

Brinkema adding that Risen was prote

by a limited ldquoreporterrsquos privilegerdquo unde

First Amendment

The government challenged that d

sion and in 2013 the US Court of App

for the Fourth Circuit in Richm

Virginia reinstated the subpoena arg

that the First Amendment did not pro

Risen from being forced to testify aghis source

In June 2014 Risenrsquos legal b

reached an insurmountable barrier when

US Supreme Court refused to take up

case affirming the lower court ruling N

Risen will have to testify or face conte

of court charges which can lead to e

imprisonment or up to $1000 a day in f

After the high court passed on the c

Risenrsquos attorney Joel Kurtzberg told

Committee to Protect Journalists (62

12 983157 October 2014 Extra

Risen case tests reportersrsquo power to revealgovernment wrongdoing

Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

by Lauren McCauley

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1316

Extra October 2014 983157

that he hopes the government wonrsquot hold

Risen in contempt ldquofor doing nothing other

than reporting the news and keeping his

promise to his sourcerdquo He noted that the

ldquoball is now in the governmentrsquos courtrdquo

On August 14 a coalition of journalists

media advocacy groups and independentmedia outlets delivered over 100000

signatures to the Department of Justice

calling on the Obama administration to drop

its subpoena

The petitionmdashorganized by Roots

Action along with FAIR the Center for

Media and Democracy Freedom of the

Press Foundation The Nation Institute and

The Progressivemdashargues that ldquowithout

confidentiality journalism would be

reduced to official storiesmdasha situation anti-

thetical to the First Amendmentrdquo

On the day the petition was turned in

Risen was joined by a number of free press

advocates including Radack and Solomon

at a press conference at the National Press

Club in Washington DC Speaking before

the roomful of reporters Risen said ldquoThe

real reason Irsquom doing this is for the future of

journalismrdquo

ldquoFreedom of the press is the most impor-

tant freedomrdquo agreed Delphine Halgand

director of Reporters Without Bordersrsquo Wash-

ington office who also spoke at the press

conference ldquoIt is the freedom that allows usto verify the existence of all other freedomsrdquo

When asked about the Risen case at a

closed-door meeting with a group of

journalists Attorney General Eric

Holder (New York Times 52814) report-

edly declared ldquoAs long as Irsquom attorney gen-

eral no reporter who is doing his job is

going to go to jailrdquo

Despite this pronouncement the prose-

cution of whistleblowers has become a

mainstay of Obamarsquos presidency

(Extra 911 FAIR Media

Advisory 82713) During his

time in office the DoJ has pur-

sued eight prosecutions of leakers

under the Espionage Act more

than double the total number of

such prosecutions since the law

was enacted

McClatchy News (62013)

also revealed the existence of agovernment employee ldquotattletalerdquo

program By having government

employees spying and reporting

on each other the Obama initia-

tive dubbed ldquoInsider Threatrdquo aims

to thwart future leakers

According to the Reporters Without Bor-

dersrsquo annual Press Freedom Index (21214)

the US dropped 13 positions from 2013 to

2014 and now ranks 46th worldwide The

report notes

In the US the hunt for leaks and

whistleblowers serves as a warning to

those thinking of satisfying a public

interest need for information about the

imperial prerogatives assumed by the

worldrsquos leading power

Advocates say to ensure the protectio

of journalists in this post-911 surveillan

state it is critical to pass a federal shie

law that will protect reporters from beinforced to disclose confidential informatio

or sources in court (Most states have som

sort of law or protection in place)

There is a shield bill currently makin

its way through CongressmdashS 987 know

as the Free Flow of Information Act

though there is concern that the legislatio

has too many loopholes that allow the go

ernment to claim broad ldquonational security

exceptions and leave some whistleblowe

without protection (Dissenter 51214)

The New York Timesrsquo James Risen at the Roots Action Press Conference

at the National Press Club in Washington DC ldquoThe real reason Irsquom doing

this is for the future of journalismrdquo

NYT Has Benefitted From Leakersmdashbut Not Vice Versa

A s the Department of Justice doggedly pursues Pulitzer Prizendashwinner James Risen the New York

Times has been forced to enter the fray of the governmentrsquos so-called ldquowar on informationrdquo

The Times like many mainstream publications has openly acknowledged its practice of seek-

ing government approval for sensitive stories (2613) and often serves as a government mouthpiece by

publishing sanctioned ldquoleaksrdquo of information

And although the Times has benefitted enormously from actual leaks of government secrets that

were vital for the public to know it has historically maintained a cautiousmdashif not skepticalmdashdistance

from those who risked their careers and liberty to reveal such truths

Despite publishing the invaluable Pentagon Papers which exposed government deceptions about the

Vietnam War the Times refused to provide leaker Daniel Ellsberg with any help in his criminal case

According to Ellsberg thenndashexecutive editor Abe Rosenthal told the whistleblower that the paper had no

policy for supporting a source who is being prosecuted for leaking information

ldquoThe Timesrdquo Ellsberg explained ldquothinks of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken the lawrdquo

The paper has given even less support to Chelsea Manning despite having partnered with Wikileaks

in July 2010 to release important revelations from the hun-

dreds of thousands of classified war logs and State

Department cables revealed by Manning

In addition to disparaging her character and questioning

her motives in a Bill Keller column (31113) the Times treat-

ed Manningrsquos trial as a noneventmdashnot sending a single

reporter and only running one AP wire story (123012) on it

Later New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan

(51212) wrote that the paper had ldquomissed the boatrdquo by not

covering Manningrsquos pretrial testimony

The paper did run an editorial (1114) supporting NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden however that was months

after an earlier editorial (8613) essentially calling for Snowden to be extradited for prosecution

In a January 2013 column about the prosecution of Chelsea Manning journalist Glenn Greenwald

warned corporate media that they ldquomight want to take a serious interestrdquo in the case and ldquomarshal oppo-

sition to what is being done to Bradley Manningrdquo

He continued ldquoIf not out of concern for the injustices to which he is being subjected then out of self-

interest to ensure that their reporters and their past and future whistleblowing sources cannot be simi-

larly persecutedrdquo

It seems that time has comemdashLMcC

Daniel Ellsberg The New York Times ldquothinks

of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken

the lawrdquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1416

In a recent interview with Times colleague

Maureen Dowd (81714) Risen refer-

enced Obamarsquos ldquomost transparent admin-

istrationrdquo claim

ldquoItrsquos hypocriticalrdquo Risen said ldquoA lot of

peopledonrsquot want to believe that Obama

wants to crack down on the press and

whistleblowers But he does Hersquos the great-

est enemy to press freedom in a generationrdquo

Among those who have come to Risenrsquos

defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prizendashwin-

ning reporters who each signed the Roots

Action petition and issued personal state-

ments on his behalf

Included in the testimonies is one from

Risenrsquos New York Times colleague Barry

Bearak who wrote that Risen ldquois carrying

the banner for every American journalistrdquo

ldquoIf he goes to jailrdquo Bearak continued

good bit of our nationrsquos freedom wil

locked away with himrdquo 983150

Lauren McCauley is an assistant edito

the website Common Dreams and a d

mentary producer her most recent fil

Mississippi Messiah about civil ri

leader James Meredith

14 983157 October 2014 Extra

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

Who Rules Public TV

by Aldo Guerrero

T

he corporate and financial sectors have

an overwhelming presence on the gov-

erning boards of major public televi-

sion stations a new FAIR study findsThe study looked at the occupations of

the current trustees of WNET (New York

CityNewark) WGBH (Boston) WETA

(Washington DC) WTTW (Chicago) and

KCET (Los Angeles)

Out of these boardsrsquo 182 total members

152mdashor 84 percentmdashhave corporate back-

grounds including 138 who are executives

at elite businesses Another 14 members

appear to be on the board because of their

familiesrsquo corporate-derived wealth often

with a primary affiliation as an officer of a

family charitable foundationMany board members are affiliated with

major corporations like Boeing Wells Fargo

and Citigroup Seventy-five board mem-

bers nearly half of all those with corporate

ties are financial industry executives

Another 24 are corporate lawyers

Public TV board members without corpo-

rate ties were few and far between Of

these nine are categorized as academics

while six are affiliated with nonprofit groups

(not counting family grant-making founda-

tions) There are three former government

officials two non-corporate lawyers two

journalists one religious educator and a for-

mer principal of a magnet school Six board

members are station insiders

WNET WGBH and WETA are consid-

ered to be the ldquobig threerdquo PBS affiliates

producing a large share of programming for

PBS nationally WTTW and KCET were

included because they serve two of the

largest US metropolitan areas Four of these

stations are affiliated with PBS KCET dis-

affiliated in 2010 but remains a prominent

regional public television station

The boards range in size from WTTWrsquos

63 members to KCETrsquos 20 WTTW and

WNET have the most corporate representa-

tion on their boards each at 92 percent

KCETrsquos board is 80 percent corporate-affil-

iated while DCrsquos WETA is at 73 percent

Corporate-tied board members were least

common at WGBH where they still made

up two-thirds of the board

One hundred sixteen members (64 per-

cent) are male It was not possible to do a

breakdown of board membersrsquo ethnicities

Last year the issue of corporate influence

over public television was thrust into the

spotlight when the film Park Avenue

Money Power and the American Dream was

broadcast by PBS affiliate WNET (NewYorker 52713 FAIR Blog 52113) The

film examined the concentration of wealth

and power in the United States by lookin

the super-rich residents of 740

Avenuemdashwho included then-WNET b

member and major station donor DKoch a billionaire industrialist well kn

for his donations to right-wing causes

WNET president Neil Shapiro was

to be ldquoconcernedrdquo about a film critica

one of his biggest funders WNET ende

not receiving a large donation from Koc

potentially in the seven-figure rang

because Park Avenue was broadcast

New Yorkerrsquos Jane Mayer reported

PBS then preemptively pulled the

on Citizen Koch another film that exam

the Koch familyrsquos political influenc

apparently practicing self-censorship inattempt to placate a wealthy donor K

would eventually resign from the WNboard of trustees Since then a camp

has been launched demanding that K

also resign from the board of Bost

WGBH where he is still a trustee

High-powered executives likes David Koch overwhelm

dominate the boards of trustees at public TV stations

This documentary caused trouble when it aired on WNET

because of the money and power on the PBS affiliatersquos

board

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1316

Extra October 2014 983157

that he hopes the government wonrsquot hold

Risen in contempt ldquofor doing nothing other

than reporting the news and keeping his

promise to his sourcerdquo He noted that the

ldquoball is now in the governmentrsquos courtrdquo

On August 14 a coalition of journalists

media advocacy groups and independentmedia outlets delivered over 100000

signatures to the Department of Justice

calling on the Obama administration to drop

its subpoena

The petitionmdashorganized by Roots

Action along with FAIR the Center for

Media and Democracy Freedom of the

Press Foundation The Nation Institute and

The Progressivemdashargues that ldquowithout

confidentiality journalism would be

reduced to official storiesmdasha situation anti-

thetical to the First Amendmentrdquo

On the day the petition was turned in

Risen was joined by a number of free press

advocates including Radack and Solomon

at a press conference at the National Press

Club in Washington DC Speaking before

the roomful of reporters Risen said ldquoThe

real reason Irsquom doing this is for the future of

journalismrdquo

ldquoFreedom of the press is the most impor-

tant freedomrdquo agreed Delphine Halgand

director of Reporters Without Bordersrsquo Wash-

ington office who also spoke at the press

conference ldquoIt is the freedom that allows usto verify the existence of all other freedomsrdquo

When asked about the Risen case at a

closed-door meeting with a group of

journalists Attorney General Eric

Holder (New York Times 52814) report-

edly declared ldquoAs long as Irsquom attorney gen-

eral no reporter who is doing his job is

going to go to jailrdquo

Despite this pronouncement the prose-

cution of whistleblowers has become a

mainstay of Obamarsquos presidency

(Extra 911 FAIR Media

Advisory 82713) During his

time in office the DoJ has pur-

sued eight prosecutions of leakers

under the Espionage Act more

than double the total number of

such prosecutions since the law

was enacted

McClatchy News (62013)

also revealed the existence of agovernment employee ldquotattletalerdquo

program By having government

employees spying and reporting

on each other the Obama initia-

tive dubbed ldquoInsider Threatrdquo aims

to thwart future leakers

According to the Reporters Without Bor-

dersrsquo annual Press Freedom Index (21214)

the US dropped 13 positions from 2013 to

2014 and now ranks 46th worldwide The

report notes

In the US the hunt for leaks and

whistleblowers serves as a warning to

those thinking of satisfying a public

interest need for information about the

imperial prerogatives assumed by the

worldrsquos leading power

Advocates say to ensure the protectio

of journalists in this post-911 surveillan

state it is critical to pass a federal shie

law that will protect reporters from beinforced to disclose confidential informatio

or sources in court (Most states have som

sort of law or protection in place)

There is a shield bill currently makin

its way through CongressmdashS 987 know

as the Free Flow of Information Act

though there is concern that the legislatio

has too many loopholes that allow the go

ernment to claim broad ldquonational security

exceptions and leave some whistleblowe

without protection (Dissenter 51214)

The New York Timesrsquo James Risen at the Roots Action Press Conference

at the National Press Club in Washington DC ldquoThe real reason Irsquom doing

this is for the future of journalismrdquo

NYT Has Benefitted From Leakersmdashbut Not Vice Versa

A s the Department of Justice doggedly pursues Pulitzer Prizendashwinner James Risen the New York

Times has been forced to enter the fray of the governmentrsquos so-called ldquowar on informationrdquo

The Times like many mainstream publications has openly acknowledged its practice of seek-

ing government approval for sensitive stories (2613) and often serves as a government mouthpiece by

publishing sanctioned ldquoleaksrdquo of information

And although the Times has benefitted enormously from actual leaks of government secrets that

were vital for the public to know it has historically maintained a cautiousmdashif not skepticalmdashdistance

from those who risked their careers and liberty to reveal such truths

Despite publishing the invaluable Pentagon Papers which exposed government deceptions about the

Vietnam War the Times refused to provide leaker Daniel Ellsberg with any help in his criminal case

According to Ellsberg thenndashexecutive editor Abe Rosenthal told the whistleblower that the paper had no

policy for supporting a source who is being prosecuted for leaking information

ldquoThe Timesrdquo Ellsberg explained ldquothinks of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken the lawrdquo

The paper has given even less support to Chelsea Manning despite having partnered with Wikileaks

in July 2010 to release important revelations from the hun-

dreds of thousands of classified war logs and State

Department cables revealed by Manning

In addition to disparaging her character and questioning

her motives in a Bill Keller column (31113) the Times treat-

ed Manningrsquos trial as a noneventmdashnot sending a single

reporter and only running one AP wire story (123012) on it

Later New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan

(51212) wrote that the paper had ldquomissed the boatrdquo by not

covering Manningrsquos pretrial testimony

The paper did run an editorial (1114) supporting NSA

whistleblower Edward Snowden however that was months

after an earlier editorial (8613) essentially calling for Snowden to be extradited for prosecution

In a January 2013 column about the prosecution of Chelsea Manning journalist Glenn Greenwald

warned corporate media that they ldquomight want to take a serious interestrdquo in the case and ldquomarshal oppo-

sition to what is being done to Bradley Manningrdquo

He continued ldquoIf not out of concern for the injustices to which he is being subjected then out of self-

interest to ensure that their reporters and their past and future whistleblowing sources cannot be simi-

larly persecutedrdquo

It seems that time has comemdashLMcC

Daniel Ellsberg The New York Times ldquothinks

of leakers wrongly as having clearly broken

the lawrdquo

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1416

In a recent interview with Times colleague

Maureen Dowd (81714) Risen refer-

enced Obamarsquos ldquomost transparent admin-

istrationrdquo claim

ldquoItrsquos hypocriticalrdquo Risen said ldquoA lot of

peopledonrsquot want to believe that Obama

wants to crack down on the press and

whistleblowers But he does Hersquos the great-

est enemy to press freedom in a generationrdquo

Among those who have come to Risenrsquos

defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prizendashwin-

ning reporters who each signed the Roots

Action petition and issued personal state-

ments on his behalf

Included in the testimonies is one from

Risenrsquos New York Times colleague Barry

Bearak who wrote that Risen ldquois carrying

the banner for every American journalistrdquo

ldquoIf he goes to jailrdquo Bearak continued

good bit of our nationrsquos freedom wil

locked away with himrdquo 983150

Lauren McCauley is an assistant edito

the website Common Dreams and a d

mentary producer her most recent fil

Mississippi Messiah about civil ri

leader James Meredith

14 983157 October 2014 Extra

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

Who Rules Public TV

by Aldo Guerrero

T

he corporate and financial sectors have

an overwhelming presence on the gov-

erning boards of major public televi-

sion stations a new FAIR study findsThe study looked at the occupations of

the current trustees of WNET (New York

CityNewark) WGBH (Boston) WETA

(Washington DC) WTTW (Chicago) and

KCET (Los Angeles)

Out of these boardsrsquo 182 total members

152mdashor 84 percentmdashhave corporate back-

grounds including 138 who are executives

at elite businesses Another 14 members

appear to be on the board because of their

familiesrsquo corporate-derived wealth often

with a primary affiliation as an officer of a

family charitable foundationMany board members are affiliated with

major corporations like Boeing Wells Fargo

and Citigroup Seventy-five board mem-

bers nearly half of all those with corporate

ties are financial industry executives

Another 24 are corporate lawyers

Public TV board members without corpo-

rate ties were few and far between Of

these nine are categorized as academics

while six are affiliated with nonprofit groups

(not counting family grant-making founda-

tions) There are three former government

officials two non-corporate lawyers two

journalists one religious educator and a for-

mer principal of a magnet school Six board

members are station insiders

WNET WGBH and WETA are consid-

ered to be the ldquobig threerdquo PBS affiliates

producing a large share of programming for

PBS nationally WTTW and KCET were

included because they serve two of the

largest US metropolitan areas Four of these

stations are affiliated with PBS KCET dis-

affiliated in 2010 but remains a prominent

regional public television station

The boards range in size from WTTWrsquos

63 members to KCETrsquos 20 WTTW and

WNET have the most corporate representa-

tion on their boards each at 92 percent

KCETrsquos board is 80 percent corporate-affil-

iated while DCrsquos WETA is at 73 percent

Corporate-tied board members were least

common at WGBH where they still made

up two-thirds of the board

One hundred sixteen members (64 per-

cent) are male It was not possible to do a

breakdown of board membersrsquo ethnicities

Last year the issue of corporate influence

over public television was thrust into the

spotlight when the film Park Avenue

Money Power and the American Dream was

broadcast by PBS affiliate WNET (NewYorker 52713 FAIR Blog 52113) The

film examined the concentration of wealth

and power in the United States by lookin

the super-rich residents of 740

Avenuemdashwho included then-WNET b

member and major station donor DKoch a billionaire industrialist well kn

for his donations to right-wing causes

WNET president Neil Shapiro was

to be ldquoconcernedrdquo about a film critica

one of his biggest funders WNET ende

not receiving a large donation from Koc

potentially in the seven-figure rang

because Park Avenue was broadcast

New Yorkerrsquos Jane Mayer reported

PBS then preemptively pulled the

on Citizen Koch another film that exam

the Koch familyrsquos political influenc

apparently practicing self-censorship inattempt to placate a wealthy donor K

would eventually resign from the WNboard of trustees Since then a camp

has been launched demanding that K

also resign from the board of Bost

WGBH where he is still a trustee

High-powered executives likes David Koch overwhelm

dominate the boards of trustees at public TV stations

This documentary caused trouble when it aired on WNET

because of the money and power on the PBS affiliatersquos

board

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1416

In a recent interview with Times colleague

Maureen Dowd (81714) Risen refer-

enced Obamarsquos ldquomost transparent admin-

istrationrdquo claim

ldquoItrsquos hypocriticalrdquo Risen said ldquoA lot of

peopledonrsquot want to believe that Obama

wants to crack down on the press and

whistleblowers But he does Hersquos the great-

est enemy to press freedom in a generationrdquo

Among those who have come to Risenrsquos

defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prizendashwin-

ning reporters who each signed the Roots

Action petition and issued personal state-

ments on his behalf

Included in the testimonies is one from

Risenrsquos New York Times colleague Barry

Bearak who wrote that Risen ldquois carrying

the banner for every American journalistrdquo

ldquoIf he goes to jailrdquo Bearak continued

good bit of our nationrsquos freedom wil

locked away with himrdquo 983150

Lauren McCauley is an assistant edito

the website Common Dreams and a d

mentary producer her most recent fil

Mississippi Messiah about civil ri

leader James Meredith

14 983157 October 2014 Extra

Corporate sector overwhelmingly dominates public TV governing boards

Who Rules Public TV

by Aldo Guerrero

T

he corporate and financial sectors have

an overwhelming presence on the gov-

erning boards of major public televi-

sion stations a new FAIR study findsThe study looked at the occupations of

the current trustees of WNET (New York

CityNewark) WGBH (Boston) WETA

(Washington DC) WTTW (Chicago) and

KCET (Los Angeles)

Out of these boardsrsquo 182 total members

152mdashor 84 percentmdashhave corporate back-

grounds including 138 who are executives

at elite businesses Another 14 members

appear to be on the board because of their

familiesrsquo corporate-derived wealth often

with a primary affiliation as an officer of a

family charitable foundationMany board members are affiliated with

major corporations like Boeing Wells Fargo

and Citigroup Seventy-five board mem-

bers nearly half of all those with corporate

ties are financial industry executives

Another 24 are corporate lawyers

Public TV board members without corpo-

rate ties were few and far between Of

these nine are categorized as academics

while six are affiliated with nonprofit groups

(not counting family grant-making founda-

tions) There are three former government

officials two non-corporate lawyers two

journalists one religious educator and a for-

mer principal of a magnet school Six board

members are station insiders

WNET WGBH and WETA are consid-

ered to be the ldquobig threerdquo PBS affiliates

producing a large share of programming for

PBS nationally WTTW and KCET were

included because they serve two of the

largest US metropolitan areas Four of these

stations are affiliated with PBS KCET dis-

affiliated in 2010 but remains a prominent

regional public television station

The boards range in size from WTTWrsquos

63 members to KCETrsquos 20 WTTW and

WNET have the most corporate representa-

tion on their boards each at 92 percent

KCETrsquos board is 80 percent corporate-affil-

iated while DCrsquos WETA is at 73 percent

Corporate-tied board members were least

common at WGBH where they still made

up two-thirds of the board

One hundred sixteen members (64 per-

cent) are male It was not possible to do a

breakdown of board membersrsquo ethnicities

Last year the issue of corporate influence

over public television was thrust into the

spotlight when the film Park Avenue

Money Power and the American Dream was

broadcast by PBS affiliate WNET (NewYorker 52713 FAIR Blog 52113) The

film examined the concentration of wealth

and power in the United States by lookin

the super-rich residents of 740

Avenuemdashwho included then-WNET b

member and major station donor DKoch a billionaire industrialist well kn

for his donations to right-wing causes

WNET president Neil Shapiro was

to be ldquoconcernedrdquo about a film critica

one of his biggest funders WNET ende

not receiving a large donation from Koc

potentially in the seven-figure rang

because Park Avenue was broadcast

New Yorkerrsquos Jane Mayer reported

PBS then preemptively pulled the

on Citizen Koch another film that exam

the Koch familyrsquos political influenc

apparently practicing self-censorship inattempt to placate a wealthy donor K

would eventually resign from the WNboard of trustees Since then a camp

has been launched demanding that K

also resign from the board of Bost

WGBH where he is still a trustee

High-powered executives likes David Koch overwhelm

dominate the boards of trustees at public TV stations

This documentary caused trouble when it aired on WNET

because of the money and power on the PBS affiliatersquos

board

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1516

Extra October 2014 983157

Public television stations depend on

underwriting from the corporate sector

which is undoubtedly why executives

and their families so dominate public TVrsquos

boards Over the years FAIR has found

public TV displaying bias and favoritism

towards corporations (Press Release

101910 Action Alert 42312)

Some individuals within public TV

acknowledge the problem of such influence

In a leaked farewell address former PBS

producer Sam Topperoff (Gawker 52410)

was scathing about the state of New York

public television including WNET

I see our general programming for the

wider public as elitist and offensive in

the extreme But of course when

stations run on very rich peoplersquos and

corporate money how could it be oth-

erwise And when the corporation is

directed by those very clever and very

ambitious fellows whose careers will

float them to good places no matter

what what else could we reasonably

expect

Controlling the board means wielding

ultimate power over the direction and char-

acter of a public television station Boards

have the power to elect top executives(presidents CEOs CFOs etc) manage the

stationrsquos finances and of course oversee

the programming that their stations produce

To join a public television board an

individual must be elected by existing

board members What sort of people are

these business-dominated boards likely to

select They will likely perpetuate the cor-

porate culture rendering the ldquopublicrdquo in

Public Broadcasting Service an ironic

anachronism 983150

CounterSpin is FAIRrsquos weekly

radio show hosted by Janine

Jackson Steve Rendall

and Peter Hart Itrsquos heard on

more than 135 noncommercial

stations across the United

States and Canada

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of

the major stories every week and exposes wha

the mainstream media might have missed in

their own coverage

Recent Shows

bull Antonia Juhasz on BP Spill

Greg Grandin on the Economist and Slavery

bull David Kotz on Ukraine

Anya Schiffrin on Global Muckraking

bull Brian Jones on Teacher Tenure

Nikole Hannah-Jones on School

Segregation

bull Malkia Cyril on Ferguson

Jeff Cohen on James Risen

bull Vijay Prashad on IS and Iraq

Emira Woods on Africa Summit

Listen online

visit our archives

or find a station near youmdash

fairorg

CounterSpinThe NewsBehind the Headlines

Occupations of Public Television Boards

FAIR TV Weekly video report at fairorg

Recent Episodes

bull The March to War Henry Kissinger and

Foxrsquos Ray Rice Non-Apology

bull Media War lsquoDebatersquo USA Todayrsquos

Pro-War Public Chris Christiersquos Accurate Gaffe

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201

8102019 Extra October 2014

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullextra-october-2014 1616

E x t r a m a g a z i n e o f F A I R

n e s s amp A c c u r a c y I n R e p o r t i n g

W e s t 3 0 t h S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 1

Y o r k N Y 1 0 0 0 1 - 6 2 1 0

C L A S S

P O S T A G E

P A I D

L E B A N O N

J U N C T I O N K Y

What Noam ChomskyTeaches Us

Dear FAIR friend

If you are a critic of the corporate mediayou owe a lot to Noam Chomsky

The path-breaking activist writer and

academic has taught millions of people

how to think critically about the

propaganda function of the news media

His work documents how elite

institutions manufacture consent for policies and

political outcomes that are fundamentally at odds

with what the public wants

In short Big media undermine democracy

FAIR works every day to illuminate the problems

with mass media But we canrsquot do it without your

support Donate $30 or more to FAIR today and

wersquoll send you a brand-new collection of Chomsky

essays and lectures as a thank-you gift

Masters of Mankind gives readers

Chomskyrsquos spot-on analysis of

everything from the responsibilities

of intellectuals to the climate crisis

He challenges decades of US

rhetoric about the threat of

terrorism and demonstrates that

when elites in the press and politics

talk of ldquomoral truismsrdquo what they

mean is that the rules apply to

everyone but Washington

Itrsquos a bracing collection that touches

on history politics and propaganda

We know you will appreciate it

More importantly FAIR will deeply appreciate your

support for our work We canrsquot do it without you

If you want FAIR to keep doing this vital workmdash

inspired in so many ways by the work of Noam

Chomskymdashthen please make your donation today

From all of us at FAIR

FAIR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization so your donation to FAIRis tax-deductible

Here is my donation to help FAIR Please

send me my gift of Chomskyrsquos 168-page

paperback book Masters of Mankind

983151 $30 983151 $50 983151 $100 983151 $250 983151 $_______

983151 Here is a donation of $_______ to make

this work possible No need to send a gift

Name_____________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City______________________________________________

StateZip__________________________________________

Includes shipping no international orders please

983151MasterCard

983151VISA

983151 Discover 983151 American Express

No ______________________________________________

Exp Date____________________________

Signature__________________________________________

To order fill out and mail in coupon

visit fairorgstore

or send a check payable to FAIR

FAIR124 West 30th Street Suite 201