extra! october 2014
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