From: <peacethrujustice@aol.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:29 AM
Subject: [bangla-vision] THE MEDIA: and its "Bodyguard of Lies"
THE PEACE THRU JUSTICE FOUNDATION 11006 Veirs Mill Rd, STE L-15, PMB 298 Silver Spring, MD. 20902 June 3, 2010 Last night while driving to the masjid I was tuned in to C-Span Radio during its coverage (or re-air) of Britain's parliamentary debate on Israel's deadly act of piracy off the coast of Gaza. I was struck by how overwhelming the condemnation of Israel's actions was by the majority of speakers of the British Parliament. Following this broadcast, C-Span re-aired Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's attempt to defend the indefensible; and I thought it interesting that the program director(s) at C-Span decided to air the broadcasts in that particular order, instead of the other way around. (Was it a deliberate attempt to take some of the sting out of the strong and legitimate condemnation coming from the British Parliament? ALLAH knows best.) What is known, and comes as no surprise, is the decidedly pro-Israel posture that emanates from most mainstream media in the U.S, as well as from other parts of America's socio-political establishment. Like many of our readers, I've witnessed a number of establishment folk of varying stripes attempt to blur the lines while addressing the question of which side - Israel or the humanitarian relief activists - had "international law" on its side in this latest Zionist instigated controversy. Three memorable quotes come to mind when I reflect over the substance of each commentary. Walter Williams, the man widely regarded as the dean of American journalism, wrote in his "Journalist's Creed": I believe that the journalism which succeeds best – and best deserves success – fears God and honors man; is stoutly independent, unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power, constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled, patient, always respectful of it readers but always unafraid, is quickly indignant at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance, and, as far as law and honest wage and recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly patriotic, while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world comradeship; is a journalism of humanity, of and for today's world. Whenever I reflect over this quote I think to myself: if print, broadcast and online journalism operated with these principles, the world would be in a much better state! Next we have an ominous – and in light of present day history – a rather prescient warning made by America's first president, Gen. George Washington, in his Farewell Address to the Union: A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils… It gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) the facility to betray or sacrifice the interest of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity. There is no nation in the world today with whom America has a "relationship," that is more reflective of this state of affairs than America's relationship with the Apartheid State of Israel. Last but certainly not least, we have the statement made by [then] Secretary of State George Shultz, after the Reagan Administration was embarrassed (and thrown into a short-lived political crisis) by the exposure of its "disinformation campaign" against Libya in 1983: "At times of war," Shultz declared, "the truth is so precious it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies." On a final note, as is often stated, information is power…but only when acted upon. The international spotlight is once again on the ongoing genocide in Occupied Palestine (esp. Gaza). Once again we are witnessing global reactions to yet another in-your-face Zionism-instigated crisis. But once the emotion and global focus on Palestine fades back into the shadows, what will come of this renewed demand for justice in the Middle East? There has to be a sustained push (on all fronts) in order for Israel to be held to the same standards of international law as every other nation. Every concerned citizen within the global community, and every human rights/civil liberties organization worth its stripes, must be part of that sustained effort to hold Israel accountable. On this note, I can't help but notice the absence of statements of "CONDEMNATION" from Muslim organizations (large and small) in the U.S., who are quick to condemn whenever a Muslim is accused of committing a heinous crime. To those guilty of such embarrassing inconsistency, a simple note of nasiha (aka, sincere advice) is in order: We can do better! In the struggle for peace thru justice, El-Hajj Mauri' Saalakhan Director of Operations The Peace Thru Justice Foundation ------------------------------------ Br. Nashid Abdul-Khaliq writes: For those who are perplexed, shocked and traumatized at how supposed responsible media like CNN, FOX News, NBC, BBC, ABC, Wall Street Journal, NY Times, [The Washington Post, National Public Radio] etc., can so brazenly and boldly lie [or willfully facilitate lies] with impunity about the events surrounding the Israeli hijacking of the Flotilla humanitarian aid convoy in international waters, the following will help provide some answers. After reading the following it should be very clear that the responsibility for ascertaining the truth about any and all events rests with the individual. To that end we must do our own research rather than accept lies from a media that can legally do so with impunity. Sunday, 09 August 2009 18:08 | Written by Mike Gaddy In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox "Investigators" team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise. According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997) Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) "a false, distorted or slanted story" about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX. FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre's threat to report the station's actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida's whistle blower statute, because Florida's whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted "law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly. During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre's claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, "It's vindication for WTVT, and we're very pleased… It's the case we've been making for two years. She never had a legal claim." UPDATE BY LIANE CASTEN: If we needed any more proof that we now live in an upside down world, the saga of Jane Akre, along with her husband, Steve Wilson, could not be more compelling. Akre and Wilson won the first legal round. Akre was awarded $425,000 in a jury trial with well-crafted arguments for their wrongful termination as whistleblowers. And in the process, they also won the prestigious "Goldman Environmental" prize for their outstanding efforts. However, FOX turned around and appealed the verdict. This time, FOX won; the original verdict was overturned in the Appellate Court of Florida's Second District. The court implied there was no restriction against distorting the truth. Technically, there was no violation of the news distortion because the FCC's policy of news distortion does not have the weight of the law. Thus, said the court, Akre-Wilson never qualified as whistleblowers. What is more appalling are the five major media outlets that filed briefs of Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX – to support FOX's position: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. These are major media players! Their statement, "The station argued that it simply wanted to ensure that a news story about a scientific controversy regarding a commercial product was present with fairness and balance, and to ensure that it had a sound defense to any potential defamation claim." "Fairness and balance?" Monsanto hardly demonstrated "fairness and balance" when it threatened a lawsuit and demanded the elimination of important, verifiable information! The Amici position was "If upheld by this court, the decision would convert personnel actions arising from disagreements over editorial policy into litigation battles in which state courts would interpret and apply federal policies that raise significant and delicate constitutional and statutory issues." After all, Amici argued, 40 states now have Whistleblower laws, imagine what would happen if employees in those 40 states followed the same course of action? The position implies that First Amendment rights belong to the employers – in this case the five power media groups. And when convenient, the First Amendment becomes a broad shield to hide behind. Let's not forget, however; the airwaves belong to the people. Is there no public interest left—while these media giants make their private fortunes using the public airwaves? Can corporations have the power to influence the media reporting, even at the expense of the truth? Apparently so. In addition, the five "friends" referred to FCC policies. The five admit they are "vitally interested in the outcome of this appeal, which will determine the extent to which state whistleblower laws may incorporate federal policies that touch on sensitive questions of editorial judgment." Anyone concerned with media must hear the alarm bells. The Bush FCC, under Michael Powell's leadership, has shown repeatedly that greater media consolidation is encouraged, that liars like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are perfectly acceptable, that to refer to the FCC interpretation of "editorial judgment" is to potentially throw out any pretense at editorial accuracy if the "accuracy" harms a large corporation and its bottom line. This is our "Brave New Media", the corporate media that protects its friends and now lies, unchallenged if need be. The next assault: the Fox station then filed a series of motions in a Tampa Circuit Court seeking more than $1.7 million in trial fees and costs from both Akre and Wilson. The motions were filed on March 30 and April 16 by Fox attorney, William McDaniels—who bills his client at $525 to $550 an hour. The costs are to cover legal fees and trial costs incurred by FOX in defending itself at the first trial. The issue may be heard by the original trial judge, Ralph Steinberg—a logical step in the whole process. However, Judge Steinberg must come out of retirement if he is to hear this, so the hearing, set for June 1, may go to a new judge, Judge Maye. Akre and her husband feel the stress. "There is no justification for the five stations not to support us," she said. "Attaching legal fees to whistleblowers is unprecedented, absurd. The 'business' of broadcasting trumps it all. These news organizations must ensure they are worthy of the public trust while they use OUR airwaves, free of charge. Public trust is alarmingly absent here." Indeed. This is what our corporate media, led by such as Rupert Murdoch, have come to. How low we have fallen. -------------------------------------- June 2, 2010 http://www.counterpunch.com/ridley06022010.html By YVONNE RIDLEY I wonder how many of you remember the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship the Achille Lauro way back in October 1985? Four members of the Palestine Liberation Front took control of the liner off Egypt as she was sailing from Alexandria to Port Said. It was a bungled operation in which the hijackers killed disabled Jewish-American passenger Leon Klinghoffer and then threw his body overboard. The incident created headlines around the world and polarized people over the Palestinian cause. It also prompted the law makers to create new legislation making it an international crime for anyone to take a ship by force. And this is the reason for the brief history lesson – under article 3 of the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988, it is an international crime for any person to seize or exercise control over a ship by force, and also a crime to injure or kill any person in the process. The treaty necessarily adopts a strict approach. One cannot attack a ship and then claim self-defense if the people on board resist the unlawful use of violence. In other words, according to international law, the actions of the Israeli military were beyond the law and those involved should be treated no differently than, say, the Somali pirates who are also in the habit of boarding ships by force. Any rights to self defense in such dramatic circumstances rests purely with the passengers and crew on board. Under international maritime law you are legally entitled to resist unlawful capture, abduction and detention. What those on board the Freedom Flotilla did was perfectly legal. I believe they acted with great courage in the face of heavily armed IDF commandos, while others might have thought their actions reckless. Whatever your view, a number paid the ultimate price for their international right to resist. Israel now stands virtually alone having exposed itself as a pariah state. I wrote an article last year calling them the Pirates of the Mediterranean after they had illegally boarded other aid ships, kidnapping crew and passengers. Now I want you to ask yourself this question … if a group of Somali pirates had forced their way onto half a dozen humanitarian aid ships from the West, slaughtering around nine or 10 people and injuring scores more what do you think the international reaction would have been? Let me tell you. A NATO task force would by now be steaming towards the Horn of Africa accompanied by a couple of drones and various members of the press to record the occasion. (On a point of interest the Achille Lauro sank in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Somalia in 1994.) So why is Israel allowed to get away with murder? In a pre-meditated act the Zionist State showed once again its total disregard for human life – and international law.There were pensioners, women and children on board those ships which were carrying bags of cement, electric wheelchairs, toys, medicines and water purifiers for Gaza's people. Realizing Israel had shot itself in the foot, Isrsael's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu then started shooting from the lip. He asked us to believe that his troops were acting in self-defense. And then, 24 hours later, given time to come up with more lies he told the world that the soldiers were armed with paintballs and had not expected to use their weapons. Not content with insulting our intelligence he said his nice, cuddly IDF folk had only boarded the boats to carry out an inspection and inventory. Then backing him up was Mark Regev, Israel's political Pinocchio. He reckons these evil-doers on board the boats grabbed the IDF's real guns and used them to fire on the soldiers. These are the same soldiers that come from an elite, highly trained, crack squad … hmm Mr Regev, if that's the case why would you send in the A-Team if they were just going to do an inventory? And if they were such a hot squad how did a bunch of civilians manage to overpower them and give them a good slap? Either Israeli soldiers fight like a bunch of old women – which Hizb'Allah says they do – or they intended to massacre those on board to make sure that no other peace activists get involved in trying to help the Palestinian people of Gaza. Well if that was the aim then it has failed. As I write this some heroic friends of mine from the Free Gaza Movement including Malaysian lawyer Matthias Chang are bound for Gaza now onboard the appropriately named ship Rachel Corrie. Yvonne Ridley is a British Journalist and author of In The Hands of the Taliban which is due to be updated and republished later this year. She is also a presenter for The Agenda and co-presenter of the Rattansi & Ridley show, both of which are broadcast on Press TV. In addition she is a founding member of the Stop the War Coalition as well as the RESPECT political party. What follows are two thought-provoking commentaries relevant to the controversy at hand. The first, written last year, is by Mike Gaddy and titled: "The Media Can Legally Lie." The second, by British journalist, human rights activist, and committed Muslimah, Yvonne Ridley, is titled: From Klinghoffer to the Gaza Flotilla. (Both I consider required reads, and especially significant when read back-to-back.)
The Media Can Legally Lie
All at Sea
From Klinghoffer to the Gaza Flotilla
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment