| Number 429 | June 3, 2009 |
|
This Week: Reversing the Roles, and... Read the Business Section!
|
|
Greetings, This issue is a little o' this, a little o' that. I have a bit of a backlog of short pieces that I don't want to totally forget, so I will spend an issue or two or three catching up on some of these things before I recycle the roughly 700 pounds of newspapers that I've saved over the past few months. Nygaard Notes World Headquarters is a crowded place. Thanks to all of you who have commented on my recent series "On Freedom." That piece must have hit a nerve, as I am still hearing about it, even though it ran back in March. Thanks for all the feedback! Some of you have asked how the Nygaard Notes book is coming along. After a short period of semi-neglect in April (due to a heavy workload in the other parts of my life) the project is back on track. I am doing a lot of re-writing, especially of the second section on how Propaganda works. Summer is usually a somewhat slow time for me, so I hope to get the manuscript ready to submit to publishers before the State Fair in August. The other parts of my life (the earning-a-living parts, that is) keep intruding in rude and time-consuming ways. But it shouldn't be long now, thanks to the support of so many of you, financial and otherwise! See you next week, Nygaard |
|
The theme of the June 2009 issue of U.S. News and World Report is a "Progress Report" on the Obama presidency, and the article on his foreign policy begins with these words: "The few ‘Yankee Go Home' signs that greet him abroad seem almost an afterthought, and when he enters a room of world leaders, he is the most sought-after man for a photo op and a handshake." Really, now. How a reporter for a U.S. newsweekly would determine what is a "thought" and what is an "afterthought" in the minds of protesters around the world is a complete mystery to me. But what this "Quote" illustrates is that journalists often see what they want to see, like the rest of us. Apparently what this reporter wants to see is a U.S. president who is loved around the world. The article, after all, appeared in a section called "A New Era," with this headline: "A Bright Star on the World Stage: Obama Aims to Reset the Global Image of America." |
|
In the last issue of Nygaard Notes I wrote extensively about "The UN Conference at the Highest Level on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development." Here are a couple of important follow-up points on that conference. POINT #1: A few days after the last issue of the Notes it was announced that the conference—for reasons that are not entirely clear to me—has been postponed until June 24-26. No doubt it has something to do with the reality reported by the Global Policy Forum on May 14: "In the dire conditions of last December, the richest and most powerful countries actually agreed to the [Global Conference]. But now the big guys are having second thoughts and trying mightily to scuttle the process—either by preventing it from taking place at all, or by blocking any serious outcome. There is clearly a hope, strongest in Washington and London, that the pre-crisis economic order can be revived with minimal changes, so that everything can go on as before, with smiles again on Wall Street and in the City of London." And, sure enough, on May 26th the London Independent reported that "UN officials have told Reuters on condition of anonymity that no heads of state from developed countries were planning to attend..." I'm guessing that the Conference has been delayed in order to allow for frantic negotiations to allow the voices of the poor to be heard in the centers of power that, so far, have turned their backs on the process. The world IS changing, and to observe the politics of this Conference is to get a glimpse of how much and how fast. Too bad the U.S. media isn't helping people to observe it. POINT #2: In relation to Point #1, I encourage readers to sign a petition entitled "An Urgent Call to G-20 Countries: Treat the UN G-192 Economic Crisis Summit Seriously." The petition will put you on record as saying, in part, that "I join in calling upon all countries and especially the richest and most powerful countries that are members of G-20, to lend their full support to it and wherever possible to send their heads of government to attend" the UN Conference. The petition was put together by the International Action Center. No matter what you think of the IAC, this petition is a good one, and you can edit the message as you like. (The text of the petition still refers to the original dates of the Conference, but I think it will still be meaningful." You can find the petition here. I wish I had more resources to offer, but since virtually nobody (except Nygaard Notes readers!) has heard of this conference it doesn't surprise me that so few appear to be organizing to support it. |
|
One of the tricks to media empowerment that I have talked about over the years is what I call the "Reversing the Headline Trick." It goes beyond headlines, actually, but the idea is simple: Take a news report that involves two actors (individuals, countries, parties to a conflict, whatever) and simply reverse the roles of the two and see if the story still makes any sense. It sounds simple—and it IS simple—but it's surprising how often it yields important insights into the propaganda of the day. A clear example appeared in the January 31st edition of the New York Times. The report began, "An Israeli leftist advocacy group said Friday that it was starting a campaign to help Palestinians sue the state of Israel for its use of their privately owned lands for Jewish settlement in the West Bank." The truly remarkable paragraph in this story was the eighth one, which gave "both sides" of an important controversy, and read like this: "Much of the world views all Israeli construction in the territories that were conquered in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war as a violation of international law. Israel argues that the settlement enterprise does not violate the law against transferring populations into occupied territories, but that it represents a voluntary return of individuals to places where they or their ancestors used to live." I discussed that idea of "much of the world" in Nygaard Notes #293 ("Legal or Illegal? Who Says?"), but it's that other part, the part about the right of people to return "to places where they or their ancestors used to live" that caught my attention here. The Times claims that "Israel argues" that, if people return voluntarily "to places where they or their ancestors used to live," then it is not illegal, no matter what the world says. OK. What happens if we reverse the roles in this case? The Times statement refers to Israelis returning to such places that are located on "privately owned lands" belonging to Palestinians. Switching it around, we come up with the idea of Palestinians returning to "places where they or their ancestors used to live" that are owned or controlled by Israelis. If "Israel argues" that such returns are legal, then it would seem that Israel would have to also argue that it would be legal for Palestinians to voluntarily return to their ancestral homes in Israel. There are a lot of such "ancestral homes," since an estimated 700,000 Palestinians were displaced from what is now Israeli territory when the Israeli state was founded in 1948. (It's a little misleading to call them "ancestral homes," since a number of people who were displaced are still living, so they would return to their own homes, if still standing.) If we add in the descendants of the original 700,000 displaced Palestinians, the number of people with places in Israel "where they or their ancestors used to live" now are estimated to number perhaps five million. The population of Israel is currently about 7.4 million, of which about 1.5 million are non-Jewish. If the Times is right that Israeli authorities believe in the right to a "voluntary return of individuals to places where they or their ancestors used to live," that has serious implications for the future of the Jewish state. So serious, in fact, that it is extremely doubtful that any authority in Israel really argues such a point. Or, if they do argue it, it's doubtful that they are sincere. If the Times had applied the "Reversing the Headline Trick" to this page-10 article, something would have been different about this story. If some authoritative Israeli source actually made the argument that the Times reporter says they did, then the story might have become a Front Page story. If no such source could be found, it may have led the Times editors to do their jobs and keep such propaganda out of the newspaper. |
|
I never tire of telling my non-corporate friends to be sure to read the Business pages of the newspaper, as so many important things are reported there that may or may not have anything to do with "business." By consigning them to the section that many people think is just for the investor and managerial classes, lots of important news fails to reach into the non-Business world where most of us live. Here are three recent stories that make the point. Story #1: Corporate Corruption of the Environment "Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research" That was the headline of a lengthy article on Page 3 of the Business section of the New York Times on February 20th. The article reported on "an unusual complaint" filed with the Environmental Protection Agency by a group of 26 corn-insect specialists, charging that "biotechnology companies are keeping university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of the industry's genetically modified crops." "The problem, the scientists say, is that farmers and other buyers of genetically engineered seeds have to sign an agreement meant to ensure that growers honor company patent rights and environmental regulations. But the agreements also prohibit growing the crops for research purposes. So while university scientists can freely buy pesticides or conventional seeds for their research, they cannot do that with genetically engineered seeds. Instead, they must seek permission from the seed companies. And sometimes that permission is denied or the company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be published, they say." One scientist noted that "financing for agricultural research had gradually shifted from the public sector to the private sector. That makes many scientists at universities dependent on financing or technical cooperation from the big seed companies." So dependent, in fact, that the scientists "withheld their names because they feared being cut off from research by the companies." As one scientist put it, "People are afraid of being blacklisted." Why was this important story relegated to Page 3 of the Business section? Story #2: Doctors on Health Care USAmericans tell opinion pollsters that the top domestic policy concern they have (after the economy) is health care. That's why I am a bit puzzled as to why the following story appeared on the front page of the Business Section in the Star Trib of May 20. (At least it was the front page of the section.) The headline read: "Health Care Skimping; Patients Trying to Save Money Are Getting Sicker Before They Seek Care, Family Doctors Say." The story is that a national survey of family doctors was released on May 19th by the American Academy of Family Physicians. According to the AAFP press release, "The national poll of AAFP members shows that nearly 90 percent of the family physicians surveyed reported their ‘patients have expressed concerns recently over their ability to pay for their health care needs.' 58 percent said they had ‘seen an increase in appointment cancellations.' Furthermore, 60 percent reported they had ‘seen more health problems caused by their patients forgoing needed preventive care.'" The Star Trib didn't report most of the results of the survey in its article, for some reason. For instance, the AAFP says that "nearly 90 percent (87 percent) reported they had seen a significant increase in patients with major stress symptoms since the beginning of the recession." Still, kudos to my local paper for at least covering this report; it wasn't covered anywhere else, as far as I can see. Story #3: Bailing Out Tax Evaders Back on January 16th the federal Government Accountability Office released a report about corporations and taxes. Here are three paragraphs from the Washington Post Business Section: "Most of America's largest publicly traded corporations—including several that are receiving billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to finance their recovery—have set up offshore operations that could help them avoid paying U.S. taxes on their profits, a government study released yesterday found. "Of the 100 largest public companies, 83 do business in tax-haven hotspots like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands, where they can move their income into tax-free accounts. "It is all legal, but it could come to an end, given the dire condition of the U.S. economy and President-elect Barack Obama's campaign pledge to close this popular business tax loophole. The Treasury estimates that it loses $100 billion a year in tax revenue as a result of companies shipping their income off shore, and congressional leaders are vowing to introduce legislation forcing big companies to pay full freight." In this case I can understand why both the Washington Post and the New York Times put this in the Business section (pages 1 and 2, respectively) since it had to do with corporate behavior. Still, this story was of interest to the general public—especially in a time of huge budget deficits that might be expected to put tax evasion in the spotlight—and should have been more prominently placed in the main section of the paper. I, myself, would have placed it on the front page. |
