| Number 210 | June 20, 2003 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, As you can see from the “Websites of the Week” in this edition, I don’t just make up the facts I cite in these pages. In fact, each issue carries with it a long list of sources and documents and analyses by all sorts of people. Let it be known that any reader can write to me and ask for those sources, or copies of documents, or general help in finding out more about whatever subject might be of interest to you. When it comes to sources, allow me to quote the great Jimmy Durante: “I got a million of ‘em!” As this issue of the Notes “goes to bed,” so to speak (and as the author literally goes to bed), the U.S. Congress is fooling around with the Medicare program. They’re up to no good, but it might be useful to understand exactly how they are up to no good, so I’ll try to do a little “backgrounder” on that program before I return to the foreign policies follies of the current administration later in the summer. OK, I really do have to go to bed. See you next week, Nygaard |
|
Here is the opening sentence in an article from the June 18th New York Times (“All The News That’s Fit To Print”), headlined “Democratic Candidates Assail Bush Across a Wide Spectrum:” “Senator John Edwards today denounced President Bush's tax-cut program as the ‘most radical and dangerous economic theory to hit our shores since Socialism.’ " And we all know how dangerous Socialism is. Don’t we? |
|
When I teach classes about media, I usually include a section on “Decoding the Media,” in which I suggest that it is wrong to “tune out” completely from the mainstream media. The reason, in a nutshell, is that there is much to learn about the world by reading that stuff. In order to learn these things, it is necessary to “decode” the media, using any number of concrete skills that anybody can learn. This week I want to focus on the “Key Fact” skill. Basically, this skill involves looking for the Key Fact in any news story you are reading. The Key Fact (there may be more than one) is the fact that, once you know it, changes everything. Finding something so crucial may sound simple enough, but it can be rather tricky, given the nature of the media. What is involved in doing it? First of all, you need to have enough knowledge of the subject of the news report to recognize the Key Fact when you see it. For a variety of reasons, the background and context necessary to do this will rarely be contained within the article, meaning you will have to get it on your own (if you don’t already know it). What makes it “key” is somewhat subjective, so you will have to be clear on what is important to you, which in turn will make all the difference in deciding what you are looking for when hunting for the Key Fact. Secondly, the Key Fact will not necessarily be stated or reported in the article at all. It may be implied, in which case you can fill it in on your own if you know it, thus enabling yourself to make sense of the rest of the article. Or, if you have time and it’s important enough, you can often go look it up elsewhere. (That brings into play another decoding skill: Where to Find out Important Things.) The final step in your process of decoding, of course, is to return to the article, in possession now of the Key Fact that you know or have looked up, and use it to interpret the news in this new light. You may find that some buried quotation becomes much more important, or a hidden premise of the reporter is revealed. You may notice the absence of other key information, or suddenly be able to see the “spin” placed on this news by the powerful sources quoted in the story, which in turn may give hints about future policy directions. An obvious question: If you don’t already have a lot of background in the subject, how can you recognize a Key Fact? There are at least three ways to get a clue on this:
Here’s a brief example of how a Key Fact can totally change your understanding of a major news story: In almost any article on Medicare in recent months, you will find some claim to the effect that the program is in “crisis.” The Key Fact? How about looking at the actual projections for the program, and comparing them with previous projections? After all, the program has survived for almost 4 decades, through all sorts of economic cycles. If you were to look at the numbers, as economist Dean Baker did a couple of weeks ago, you would discover what he has:
The fact that the Trustees of the system consider the program to be in better shape than they ever have before is a Key Fact, one that changes the argument for radical reform completely. The following piece is a longer illustration of Key Fact theory in action. |
|
In the New York Times (“All The News That’s Fit To Print”) of May 22nd was an article headlined “Bush Links Europe’s Ban on Bio-Crops With Hunger.” (A followup article on this report was the source for Nygaard Notes “Quote” of the Week #207.) The article reported on Mr. Bush’s comments in a speech at the United States Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut the day before. The lead sentence of the article said, “President Bush charged today that Europe’s ban on genetically modified food had discouraged third world countries from using that technology and thus undermined efforts to end hunger in Africa.” As you can see, the Times article painted Mr. Bush’s comments as primarily having to do with a dispute with Europe. The Times reporter, David Sanger, could see the possible unspoken agenda of the “President” in making his comments, noting that “Mr. Bush made no mention of the United States’ own strong economic interest in the outcome of the dispute with Europe. American corporations lead the world in biotechnology and are anxious to open the lucrative European market.” True enough: 68% of genetically modified crops are planted in the U.S. (99 percent of all genetically modified crops in the world are planted in just four countries, with China, Canada, and Argentina having the remainder at 1%, 7%, and 23%, respectively.) It’s a bit misleading to refer in this regard to the “economic interest” of all of the citizens of the “United States,” since a single U.S.-based multinational, Monsanto, accounts for about 90% of the total world area devoted to commercial GM crops. But, that’s how the “President” is, I guess. Sanger brings up an interesting fact, but not the Key Fact. So, what is the Key Fact that is not found in the story, the fact that changes everything? The Key Fact is that food “technology” has nothing to do with hunger. How does this change everything? Well, if it is true that biotechnology has nothing to do with hunger, then the claim by the “President” that Europe’s ban on bioengineered foods has “undermined efforts to end hunger” is nonsense. Which it is. Now, how can I say that technology has nothing to do with hunger? Wouldn’t growing more food help to address the needs of people who don’t have enough to eat? The answer is “No,” and to explain why, we need a little context, a little history. The ABC’s of World Hunger First of all, there is enough food right now to feed everyone in the world. If that seems like a “radical” statement, consider that Mr. Bush even acknowledged this in the speech in question. He told the Coast Guard, “Our world produces more than enough food to feed its 6 billion people.” He’s right, but his response to the problem is completely wrong. In his words: “We can...greatly reduce the long-term problem of hunger in Africa by applying the latest developments of science... By widening the use of new high-yield bio-crops and unleashing the power of markets, we can dramatically increase agricultural productivity and feed more people across the continent.” This puts me in mind of a very similar argument that was commonly made about 30 years ago, in the heyday of something called the “Green Revolution.” That was the term used to describe the so-called “miracle seeds” that were being developed at that time and that were dramatically increasing yields of all sorts of major staple crops around the world. Like our president today, many of the proponents of the “miracle seeds” got excited by what seemed almost a truism: More food = less hunger. It didn’t work out that way, however, as the following succinct argument makes clear:
That’s the short version of the argument compellingly made by Frances Moore Lappé, Joseph Collins, and Peter Rosset in their book “World Hunger: 12 Myths.” The above is their response to Myth #5, “The Green Revolution is the Answer.” So much for the “science” part of Mr. Bush’s argument. How about the other main point, the one about “unleashing the power of markets?” Lappé et al address that issue (Myth #7: The Free Market Can End Hunger”) succinctly:
The President as Biotech Adman Mr. Bush’s speech included this warning: “[O]ur partners in Europe are impeding this effort [to end hunger in Africa]. They have blocked all new bio-crops because of unfounded, unscientific fears. This has caused many African nations to avoid investing in biotechnologies, for fear their products will be shut out of European markets.” This crude attempt to portray the European and African people as irrationally fearful of biotechnology is eerily reminiscent of the sentiments expressed in a 2000 advertising campaign run by the biotech industry. That campaign is described by John Robbins, author of The Food Revolution, as follows:
The companies then, like the “President” now, cynically summoned up heart-rending scenes of starving Africans in order to manipulate U.S. public opinion in favor of their efforts to consolidate their already considerable control over commercial agricultural activity. Typically, the Times only bothered to quote U.S. and European sources on the subject of African hunger. However, the subject has actually been addressed by African people (of course), most eloquently in a “Statement from all the African delegates—except South Africa—to FAO negotiations on the International Undertaking for Plant Genetic Resources in June 1998” (The FAO is the Food And Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.) The Africans were responding to earlier biotech advertising, and they stated:
In addition to neglecting the voices of African people on the subject of biotechnology, the Times report on Mr. Bush’s speech to the graduates at the Coast Guard Academy also failed in several other important respects. They included not a word on two major, formal initiatives that his administration is pursuing—his “Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief” and his “Initiative to End Hunger in Africa.” And the Times mentioned only in passing another major initiative known as “Millennium Challenge Accounts,” which the “President” claims represents “an entirely new approach to development aid.” Each of these initiatives is targeted, in whole or in part, at Africa. And each of them is likely to make life worse for the majority of African people. I’ll look at each of these initiatives in a future edition of Nygaard Notes. |
|
I reference several very interesting documents and websites in this week’s Notes, so I thought it would be a good idea to tell those who might be interested where you can find the originals. I’m surprised I haven’t already, in the long history of Nygaard Notes, mentioned the website of the Institute for Food and Development Policy, better known as Food First. They describe themselves, quite accurately I think, as “A member-supported, nonprofit peoples think tank and education-for-action center,” and add that “Our work highlights root causes and value-based solutions to hunger and poverty around the world, with a commitment to establishing food as a fundamental human right.” Find them at http://www.foodfirst.org/. For a specific look at the online summary of their book “World Hunger: 12 Myths,” go to http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html. Another good book (I have only read parts of it, but I’m pretty sure the whole thing is good!), is the book “The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and the World” by John Robbins. He also wrote the noteworthy 1987 book “Diet for a New America—How Your Food Choices Affect Your Health, Happiness, and the Future of Life on Earth.” Learn more about this book at http://www.foodrevolution.org/. The African statement at the FAO rejecting genetically modified foods was called “Let Nature’s Harvest Continue!” It’s well worth a look, and can be found on the internet at several different places. If your computer can read Adobe Acrobat (PDF) files, go to www.strategy.gov.uk/2002/GM/sub2/GaiaFoundation2.pdf. The “HTML” version is most easily read at http://home.intekom.com/tm_info/rw80810.htm#02. Scroll down the page, or click on “African Scientists Condemn Monsanto's Latest Tactics and Call for European Support” |
|
Here is a comment from an “Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms.” Signed by 633 scientists from 74 different countries, the letter was written and distributed to many governments and international forums:
The letter was written in 2000, so the exact numbers have changed a bit, but it’s still substantially true. You can read the entire letter on the ‘net on the website of the Institute of Science in Society at www.i-sis.org/list.php. This one is from Food First:
Find the document at: www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/ge/goldenriceblind.html. |