*DID THE WSJ PUT DANNY PEARL AT RISK?*

*WACKY AT THE WHITE HOUSE*

*AT THE NATION EVENT*

The United States government has now posted a five million dollar reward for information leading to the capture of the killer or killers of Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl.

As everyone following the story knows, Pearl was a first rate investigative journalist writing for one of the world’s leading newspapers. The newspaper condemned his death as an ‘act of barbarism,’ and seems to be acting honorably and impressively since his capture was revealed and his death announced.

Was this the case before his death?

WE ARE INVESTIGATING

Mediachannel.org is investigating suggestions that Pearl and other US reporters overseas are not getting adequate support from news organizations that are increasingly bottom-line driven, run by accountants and lawyers, not editors and reporters.

And we are inviting you to help if you have any direct information. I am burying the lead here for a reason.

Here is the problem. Reporting in conflict zones is dangerous. US reporters on the one hand are often denied access to covering US military or covert operations. On the other, they are considered by those hostile to US policy as if they are combatants, or at least on the same side as the US military. In some cases they act that way, asserting very little independence or critical distance while reporting on military operations.

At the same time, many of their lives are at risk. Some years back, the BBC hired former military officers to put overeas correpondents through a survival course, to prepare them to avoid kidnapping situations and practice safety skills. I met some of the experts who run that course in England, and was impressed with their savvy and seriousness. BBC and other news organizations now pay for such training courses as part of preparing journalists for risky environments.

A DEEP THROAT

Now the blockuster. I am being told by a “deep throat,” a journalist of the highest integrity, and with deep expertise on media issues, that this problem directly intersects with what happened to Danny Pearl. Remember, weeks before his capture, The Independent newspaper’s passionate reporter Robert Fisk, known worldwide for journalism that has been more than fair to Palestinians and others in the Middle East fighting oppression of all kinds, was nearly beaten to death in Pakistan by people who saw him only as a western reporter. So you didn’t have to be an American or Jewish to be concerned about these hazards.

On to Mr. Pearl.

Questions are being raised about the Wall Street Journal’s responsiveness on this security problem BEFORE this fatal incident took place. Could it have been avoided?

Yesterday, I received an e-mall that I have to pass on, even though I have not yet checked it out fully. I tend to doubt that the I would get a straight answer anyway, unless others in the know come forward . To me, the suggestions below ring true, given all the conversations I have had with reporters over the years who have worked around the world. I am not interested in trashing the Journal in any way, but rather in raising a life and death media issue that I am sure other reporters know far more about than I. Please share your experiences or thoughts on this issue. Write: dissector@mediachannel.org

THE ALLEGATIONS

Here is what I had been told:

“*Pearl had requested permission (and funding) to attend a course on survival techniques in combat zones (I’m not sure which course, but probably one offered in England). Other reporters (at WSJ and elsewhere)have done this. The paper turned him down.

“*He had written a memo for the paper on survival issues in conflict zones;it went nowhere.

“*He was worried about the fact that he hadn’t been able to find a reliable “fixer” and the paper had no resources to offer. It’s now being said that the paper was asking its reporters to take great risks but not adequatelyequipping, funding, or preparing them. It is trying to play in the big leagues but is not prepared to do so on the ground, organizationally, abroad.”

This is all on deep background to me. The source was very close to Pearl.

Issues like this need to come out of that closet of “deep background.” We all have to talk about them. I will be sending this column to others at the Journal and the editor to seek comment. I would like this not to be true. Since this aspired to be an “interactive” weblog, let’s find out what other concerns might be lurking here, behind the scenes.

THE EXTRADITION ISSUE

As I and other reported yesterday, the government of Pakistan said they would turn over the chief suspect, fellow LSE alumnus Omar Sheik, to the US even though no extradition treaty exists beteen the US and Pakistan. This issue was argued over at a White House press briefing with verbal calisthenics than seems ready to be turned into an Olympic event. Chief Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer is a sure bet to win the Gold. Consider what passes for discourse in those hallowed halls that is home to the first family:

Q “The President said today he’s fully satisfied with the support, the help President Pervez Musharraf has been giving the U.S. government in the investigation of the kidnapping and the killing ofDanny Pearl. You said this morning that the U.S. government is pursuing the extradition. And the question is, if you do you know we don’t have an extraditiontreaty with Pakistan, how are you going to get him extradited?”

MR. FLEISCHER: “I said this morning that the United States would very much like to get our hands on Omar Sheik and the others who are responsible. And thereis a judicial system in Pakistan that has cooperated with the United States. And one further point on it, even without an extradition treaty the United States can work productively with other nations, as other nations make their decisions about justice, pursue things through their courts, often in cooperation with the United States.”

“But since the gaggle, I’ve talked with some of the lawyers inside the White House and there is some updated information on a treaty, because there is actually a treaty dealing with extradition with Pakistan that was signed in 1931. It went into effect in 1942, prior to Pakistan becoming a sovereign state–because that was at a time when Pakistan was underthe British Empire.”

“But it’s interesting to note that the lawyers say that treaty does remain in effect, even though it was signed with the predecessor of the Pakistani government.”

Q “How can that be? There was no Pakistan in 1942.”

MR. FLEISCHER:”It’s an interesting question, Bill,but that’s the lawyers’ point, they do believe it remains in effect even though it was–”

Q “The treaty was with the British?”

MR. FLEISCHER: “The treaty was with Pakistan, which was under British rule.”

Q “But there wasn’t any Pakistan, as such.”

MR. FLEISCHER: “It was with the Pakistani authorities under British rule. So I think probably –”

Q “There were no Pakistani authorities.”

MR. FLEISCHER: “–that time. Of course there were Pakistani authorities; it was under British rule, but you still had Pakistani authorities.”

Q “Nineteen forty-nine.”

Q “It was part of India.”

MR. FLEISCHER: “You can argue it with the lawyers if you choose, but I can tell you–”Q “Bring them on….” (Laughter.)

THEY ARE MOURNING AT STANFORD

Finally on Pearl, Larry Bensky, whose radio fans at KPFA are pleased to have him back in the saddle at Pacifica’s KPFA, sends along a request by Pearl’s friends and fellow almuni at Stanford University for a memorial fund honor his memory.

Slain journalist Daniel Pearl was remembered Monday by friends, colleagues and teachers as a cherished member of the Stanford family who tried to build bridges through his reporting.

“The death of Daniel Pearl was an attack on freedom, on tolerance and on pursuing the truth,” President John Hennessy said at an emotional service at Memorial Church that attracted about 500 mourners from the campus community and beyond. “Although we are deeply saddened by his death, I can think of no better way to honor him than to live our lives in a way that would make him proud of his alma mater.”

“Hennessy announced that an anonymous alumnus has established an endowed fund in Pearl’s name. The fund, which will benefit undergraduates in the Department of Communication, has been established with an initial gift from the alumnus.

“Communication Professor Emerita Marion Lewenstein, one of Pearl’s former teachers,remembered him as gentle, compassionate and humorous, with an eye for the unconventional. Even in a group of high-achieving students, she said, Pearl stood out. Referring to a statement Pearl wrote in his freshman year, Lewenstein said, “He liked to explore untraditional areas and avoid well-worn paths.”

Knight Fellow James Areddy, a reporter for Dow Jones Newswires in Hong Kong, said the militants in Pakistan treated Pearl like an enemy when he was actually an unrecognized ally. “What disgusts me is that the ones who killed Danny Pearl essentially cut out their own tongues, unplugged their own amplifier,” he said. “They killed the very person who could give them a voice. Instead of allowing Danny to humanize them, they have villainized themselves.”

“Friends from Pearl’s years at Stanford remembered a gentle man who loved music, Kurt Vonnegut and soccer. Ty Kim, managing editor of KPIX Channel 5 News and a 1986 graduate, said he and Pearl shared a love of music. “Danny was a magnificent violin player,” he said, finding a connection between Pearl’s music and writing. “The music that came from him, the words that flowed from him–it makes perfect sense: the precision, intensity, the soulfulness, the gentleness, the compassion from within.”

“Classmate Karen Edwards said Pearl had a generous spirit… “When I think of Danny’s family, it makes me want to be a better mother. When I think of Danny’s life, it makes me want to be a better person. When I think of Danny’s death, it makes me want to work for peace.”

Gifts for the Daniel Pearl Memorial Fund may be sent to Memorial Gifts, 326 Galvez St., Stanford, CA 94305-6105.

THE NATION GATHERS THE FAITHFUL AND THEN SOME

The mediachanel.org was pleased to be a co-sponsor of the Nation Institute’s public forum last night on civil liberties since 9/11. C-SPAN was in the house — and one of their producers came over to tell me how much they like what we are doing which was a great way to start an evening. The Ethical Culture Society was packed- — a clear sign that there is a large audience for critical ideas that they are not reading, hearing or seeing in mainstream media outlets.

Hamilton Fish, who heads the Institute, told me afterwards that The Nation’s circulation is up by thirty thousand since 9/11. Those readers and some of our own flocked to the meeting. Earlier that morning, organizer Janine Jaquet had worried that the sudden appearance of snow in the skies over New York would dampen the turn out. She had no such luck. The joint was jumping. Many were turned away. I had to intervene to drag Nation editor Katrina van den Heuval into the fray when an intern did not recognize her. I only managed to squeeze into half a seat in a packed pew.

The evening started with Publisher Victor Navasky noting that Arthur Schlesinger Jr, one of America’s top historians, who was on the panel for many years, refused to take part in NATION events. He was there along with that irrepressible story-telling- Texas-trash-talking journalist Molly Ivins, ACLU President Nadine Strossen, a quite brilliant Hussein Ibish of The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the outspoken, Eliane Jones,President, NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

All may have been preaching to the choir about the erosion of civil liberties. Still, it was important to hear it all in detail. Frightening.

Moderator and practiced talk show moderator Phil Donahue, who lives up the street, was in fine form, if a bit too nice by not pushing the participants a bit more assertively. That became apparent when he turned to the floor to actor Danny Glover who raised a number of issues about issues and a larger context that were missing from the discussion including the role of oil, and a broader international framework about people elsewhere who don’t have any civil liberties, in part because of US foreign policy. This actor seemed to be more plugged in than many of the activists one thought would add those issues.

I got a question in on the role of the media in all of this, asking why some of these issues have received such scant coverage. The question got a big hand and was followed by others about our media. The answers are ones we all know, about the takeover of news organizations by giant companies, the infotainiment values etc. etc. Donahue spoke about how everyone on TV (and he should know since he was on for 29 years) has to try to be popular, which means staying away from news and opinions thought unpopular.

What troubled me is that the media framework–a key element in what the Administration is doing and getting away with–was an afterthought that had to be raised from the floor, and not by folks on the panel.

FOR MANY IN AFGHANISTAN, THE WAR IS NOT OVER

Canada. Com carries a story this morning following up folks still livng with the effects of US bombing; Stephene Thorne writes yesterday:

“HAJI MOHAMMAD KHAN, Afghanistan (CP) - It was the 15th day of Ramadan - about mid-November - when American aircraft rained seeds of despair on this tiny agricultural village south of Kandahar.

“They came at night like dandelion seeds blowing in the wind, yellow cluster bombs the size of pop cans drifting down beneath little parachutes onto the clay buildings, the fields surrounding them, the orchard beside them. The villagers ran from their homes, but the high clay walls that keep out the dry desert winds couldn’t stop the blasts, intended for a Taliban compound about half a kilometre up the narrow dirt road in an area speckled with destroyed tanks and equipment.

“Nine villagers were killed, including the entire family of three-year-old Saif Ullah, who now wanders the village shoeless, grimy from the constant dust, fearful of the horrors that now haunt him. Five other villagers were injured.

“The village took it from both sides in the seige that beset the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar. The Taliban for whom the bombs were intended looted the villagers’ abandoned homes.

“That was harvest season.

Now it’s planting time…”

As you plant, so shall you sow. And as you bomb, so shall you destroy. Interesting isn’t it that the New York Times today carries an op-ed arguing that Afghanistan’s only hope for rebuilding may be next door in a country dubbed part of the “axis of evil:

“To Rebuild Afghanistan, Look Next Door

By OLGA M. DAVIDSON and MOHAMMAD J. MAHALLATI

Iran, with a ready work force and strong ties to the Afghanpeople, is one of the best hopes for building a prosperousAfghanistan.”

HOW THE RIGHT ORGANIZES TO BULLY THE NETWORKS

A right wing website, Free Republic, is mobilizing its readers against the producer/writer of NBC’s West Wing. An e-mail advises about their well-organized campaign which, natch, I heard discussed yesterday morning on the Faux News Network.

“Please note the utter hypocrisy of these people. They ask their members to contact NBC to complain about Aaron Sorkin exercising his First Amendment right to criticize not George Bush, but the media for the way they’re COVERING George Bush. And on the same posting they put a link to the so-called First Amendment Action Network.

“Republic Network announces an INSTANT ACTION FREEP (IAF) aimed at Jeff Zucker, President of NBC Entertainment, over the comments of WEST WING Producer Aaron Sorkin about Bush!

Talking points:

1. Shocked at the unpatriotic comments of WW Producer Aaron Sorkin during this time of war/hostilities/terrorists/nationaltension, etc.

2. At a time when we should be pulling together to support our President and our troops, Mr. Sorkin engages in petty partisan attacks to score political points and increase divisiveness.

3. I am contacting NBC sponsors of this show and telling them I will not purchase their products until they pull ALL advertising from this show.

4. I will reduce or eliminate my tuning in NBC until Mr. Sorkin is removed as producer of West Wing.

5. I will be telling all my friends and relatives to do the same.

They then give emails and addresses to target I have yet to see any progressive groups do anything similar. Maybe they should.

IN THE EMAIL.. FROM MONTREAL AND CYBERSPACE

“My name is Marc Couroux and I am a media-artist living and working in Montréal. I have been an avid reader of your work for the past few years and have found it to be an invaluable resource. Information is the first steptowards activism and your work has consistently provided me with some of the essential first steps allowing me to better understand the media and how it shapes our view of the world. I admire your work with MediaChannel and am delighted that it is gaining in notoriety.” And then someone tagged bohaire515 had less time to write, but, did so. Anyway with this shot comment: “Subject: good writing. Thanks” I try.

Thanks back. Good luck to ALTERNET.org as they launch their new book AFTER 9/11 tonight with a book party at the Nathan Cummings Foundation. I plan to be there since I have a piece in the book and get a word or two in. What do you expect? I will also be keynoting the Global Entertainment Summit at the Hammerstein Ballroom (New Yorker Hotel at 34th and 8th Avenue) this Saturday at ll AM, Be there or be square. Awaiting your comments — and feedback. Write dissector@mediachanel.org