*FIGHTING RESUMES IN AFGHANISTAN*

*RADIO WARS IN IRAQ AND CUBA*

*LAST BATTLE HERE: NARCO NEWS VS ALTERNET*

The war in Afghanistan, which most news organizations implied was over, seems to be just beginning, in that there is more than one side fighting now. As I write, an offensive is underway against what is being described as Al Qaeda and Taliban “remnants” in the mountains of Eastern Afghanistan. They are fighting back with one American dead that we know about so far, and unknown number of Afghan soldiers dead or wounded. The US is dropping the new hyperbaric bomb, a weapon of nuclear intensity, that sucks all the air out the caves it is designed to emulsify. It seems like a cousin to the neutron bomb that kills people, not property. Its legality of its use is not known, nor does there seem to be any US journalists on or near the scene. The Times reports that the 600 Afghan soldiers leading the charge are led by a handsomely rewarded warlord named Padsha Khan Zadran, one of Washington’s many close allies in the war on terror.

He is among those who receive “cash payments of as much as $200,000 that are reported to have been made to some warlords.”The newspaper of record also buries key information three paragraphs from the bottom of a long story that jumps from page one the bottom of page 18.

It discloses that Zadran “has a reputation for passing information that has subsequently proven to be “flawed.”

“Flawed” — I love that word. Don’t you? None of the TV news networks I watched this morning mention this rather revealing fact.

HUNGER STRIKE AT CAMP X-RAY CONTINUES

The hunger strike among the Afghan and other “detainees” at Camp X-Ray in Cuba continues– with more men who refuse food being force-fed. The uprising started when US guards forbid the wearing of turbans on grounds that weapons could be hidden inside them. The government has since retracted the turban ban, but the protests are still underway. Apparently very few of the men have been saying anything of value to interrogators. (Bear in mind that US military rules considers it treasonous for US troops held in confinement to offer anything more than name, rank and serial number.

Washington still doesn’t even know who most of them are — -and has starting collecting DNA samples from the prisoners, against their will.

The treatment of these prisoners is giving the US a black eye in the media around the world. Veteran UK journalist John Pilger is not atypical is his assessment which is as harsh as it is widely shared. Since he is based in London, he lambasts the British role:

“The conditions in which prisoners are being held brutally and illegally in an American concentration camp on Cuba go to the heart of the “war on terrorism,” and mark the Blair government for its betrayal of the basic rights of British citizens to the interests of a foreign power.

“Shafiq Rasul, from Tipton, near Birmingham, is one of five Britons being held without charge and in contravention of every international convention at Camp X-Ray.

“A man well over 6 ft in height, with a thin frame and a normal weight of less than 11 stone, he has lost 3 stone and is described by his brother as ’seriously emaciated.’ His family believes they glimpsed him on television, on February 21, shackled to a stretcher.

“In this state, he was interrogated by agents of the British security service, MI5 - which itself contravenes the Geneva Convention on prisoners-of-war. At the same time, the Foreign Office claims it does not know the circumstances of the five men’s arrests….”

“All 194 prisoners on Cuba, it is now becoming clear, have committed no crime. That is true of all but a handful of the 400 captured in Afghanistan many of whom do not belong to al-Qaeda….”

As we think about how frustrated Washington must be with all this, what with Senators Daschle and Byrd making tentative noises about not supporting a war on terror that seems vague in its mission and unsuccessful in its objectives, let me pass along this exchange as reported by AP earlier in the week. It took place between two former US government officials who were fighting a losing war. This exchange was just made public from some recently released historical record.

THINKING BIG

April 25, 1972

Mr. Kissinger had presented a variety of options for stepping up the war effort, among them attacking power plants and docks.

“I’d rather use the nuclear bomb,” Mr. Nixon responded.

“That, I think, would just be too much,” Mr. Kissinger replied.

“The nuclear bomb. Does that bother you?” Mr. Nixon asked. “I just want you to think big.”

RADIO WARS…IN IRAQ

BBC is reporting that the first weapon in the upcoming war against Iraq will be a radio war with a new media outlet to be used as a weapon.

“The United States is considering building a radio transmitter in Iran or rebel-held territory in northeast Iraq to broadcast anti-Saddam propaganda into Iraq.

“The State Department said it has agreed in principle to fund the project, which is backed by the opposition Iraqi National Congress(INC).”

I found this story especially interesting because of another one from another continent about the use of media to encourage war. I recommend it to you. It is by Marlise Simons in the New York Times (available online if you register and it is about Rwanda: “Can journalism kill?”

According to prosecutors of theUnited Nations war crimes tribunal for Rwanda, the answer is a forceful yes.”

AND IN CUBA…RADIO MARTI SPURS INCIDENT IN HAVANA

Radio outlets like this can and do get the US in trouble, as happened earlier in the week in Cuba, when a busload of people, inspired by radio broadcasts from the US-funded RADIO MARTI in Miami, crashed into the Mexican Embassy–believing that it would issue visas to get them out of Cuba.

Karen Wald, who lived in Cuba for 20 years, has been following this story and the media coverage of it. Karen dissects a March 1, New York Times account by Miami- based David Gonzales.

Here are some select quotes from the story and her comments. (Incidentally, Mexico’s Ambassador to Cuba has since issued a statement approving of the Cuban government’s decision to arrest the people who crashed their way into the Embassy.)

NEW YORK TIMES: “The group commandeered a bus and crashed it through the embassy gates on Wednesday night, apparently acting on a rumor that the Mexican government was issuing visas.”

KAREN WALD: “Right. Most people hijack buses and crash them through the walls of an embassy, recklessly endangering lives in the act of committing a serious crime, when they hear that a country is ‘issuing visas.’”Come on–even the NY Times knows better. The appearance of large crowds of people outside the embassy, hoping for the chance to apply for visas, was a logical outcome of Miami Radio Marti’s repeated announcement of Castaneda’s “open doors” statement.

Ramming a hijacked bus through the walls and occupying the embassy obviously demonstrates that the perpetrators did NOT think the embassy was issuing visas to anyone who asked. The men who planned and carried out that criminal action clearly had another agenda.

NEW YORK TIMES:. “Others have suggested that the Cuban government staged the incident in order to get back at Mexican officials after President Vicente Fox met with human rights advocates when he visited Cuba last month. Also, some said, Mr. Castañeda had angered Cuban officials in the past when he rallied Latin American support for a resolution urging Cuba to move toward democratic reforms and human rights.”

KAREN: “Here we go again with the anonymous citations. It would have been at least a little more honest for the NYT to acknowledge that the ‘others’ who threw out this red herring just happened to be the arch-foes of the Cuban Revolution, not some neutral observers or academic analysts. It is not be accident, either, that these two unattributed and completely unfounded allegations appear at the end of the article.

Every writer and journalist knows you conclude your article with the point you want your readers to remember. By placing this spin of what happened at the end, the NYT (in a “news” article, not an editorial or column!) is essentially giving its seal of approval to this distorted version of the events.”

AT THE GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT AND MEDIA SUMMIT

I wasn’t sure how my concerns about what is happening to our media system would go over at the Global Entertainment and Media Summit at the New Yorker Hotel at 34th and 8th Avenue yesterday.(The event continues all day Sunday.) The trade show was put together by Steve Zuckerman who opened with a furious call for a revolt against the entertainment industry.

He received a standing ovation after explaining how the music business was failing musicans and the public. I was amazed by his passion and the response. He seemed to be putting his life and life’s savings on the line to organize these two days of panels, performances and an industry expo. He was very kind in introducing my keynote address while praising the work we do at Globalvision and the Media Channel. I spoke about some deeper trends in the business, and what is happening with Nightline. The response was immediate and supportive suggesting that there is a vast constituency for these issues in every community. Steve is launching a new internet site to keep everyone who came in touch.

www.musicandfilmnetwork.com is the URL.

AFFILIATES CLASH: NARCONEWS CHALLENGES ALTERNET

I hope Al Giordano approves of this subhead because the relentless editor of NarcoNews Network, and a along time friend, has now turned on me for allegedly personalizing his dispute with Alternet, and its director Don Hazen, who he accuses of unethical media practices. While I consider his approach overheated and often overly polemical, I do agree that independent media has to uphold ethical standards just like the mainstream. I know this dispute is going to seem somewhat arcane and “inside baseball,” as Americans say, and have little relevance to international readers who may see it as a sectarian spat.

I try to avoid this in this column because there is so much happening in the mainstream media world that goes uncoverd. But Al is relentless, denouncing ME earlier this morning before I even had a chance to publish his latest blast at Don Hazen. It took the form of “questions” that just recycle the arguments he makes in 4000 word plus polemic on Narconews.com, which you can read for yourself in all its detail and anger.

Al is right in one respect. These issues deserve discussion. I am not sure they demand discussion here, but since they are on my table, I will serve them up. I asked Boston-based media reporter Dan Kennedy about his questions. (I quoted Dan’s own third-party report on this matter, admittedly a one-sided one, because a response had not yet been offered).

Dan told me today “I just got an e-mail from him asking that I post his “response” to Hazen. All it was was a repeat of his 10 questions. I politely told him no. Still, I think he’s got a point– more than a point. What do you think?”

I am not as polite as Dan, and have told Al what I thought of his imtimidating letter this morning, but I will deal with these issues this last time. Incidentally, it is not my job to “think,” as someone once said, about all of this, because I don’t know the facts, or what is really lurking behind this dispute.

For the record, here are Al’s “questions:

“10 Questions for Alternet/IMI

“1. What is the nature of the “drug reporter” deal for “bounty” fees?

“2. Why has it not been disclosed to the writers, readers and client newspapers?

“3. When will the writers be paid their 50% of this reprint fee?

” 4. Isn’t the other 50% charged by Alternet for story placement unreasonably high?

“5. Are there any other “bounty” fees paid on other issue areas?

“6. Why does Alternet maintain a blacklist against certain writers?

“7. Who else is on the Alternet blacklist, and why?

” 8. Does Alternet’s board endorse Hazen’s dishonesty in response to Narco News’legitimate questions last October about the theft of our articles?

” 9. Why does Alternet urge its staff members to engage in fraudulent sales techniques for Alternet products?

” 10. In sum, when and how will the Alternet/IMI board of directors regain control over the reckless and harmful activities of Don Hazen?”

Al was predictably unhappy with Hazen’s response to his “expose,” calling it vague and PRish. I was unhappy by what I see as an overly personalized attack here, and an underlying tone that SEEMS more interested in scoring points than getting answers–which he could have attempted without a big public hoohah. But such is not his style. Nevertheless, I went back to Don raising Al’s issues.

AlterNet’s Hazen agreed to answer my questions-–and his. (This ends this matter for me but not, I am sure for Al, who may add me to his enemy’s list. I hope not.)

D.S.: So what’s going on here with you and Giordano?

DH: I’ve tried to be zen about this gonzo attack on me by Al Giordano. The vast majority of readers have zero interst in this self-appointed, self-rightous journalism. I feel sorry for your readers who stumble upon this. There are far more important issues to address.

Nevertheless, as an admirer of the Media Channel, I’m happy to respond to your questions to put this distraction to rest. But this response needs to be the end. Al spent 4,000 plus words attacking me on his website. I responded.

He wasn’t happy and whined that I didn’t answer his questions. So I’m answering.

D.S.: What can you tell me about the drug bounty issue that Giordano keeps referring to?

DH: The funny thing is that this project was brought to AlterNet by two friends of Al’s who had the so called “bounty idea.” They helped raise a modest amount of money, then bolted out of San Francisco when they couldn’t control the project. It’s pretty obvious they were Al’s source on this.

There is nothing untoward about the concept however. The funder simply wanted to see articles written about the drug war placed in papers and would pay a bonus when our marketing efforts payed off with results.

However, because of 9/11 and other things, we never really implemented the project. We collected a measley couple of thousand dollars. Of course, whatever money was earned by writers for content that is not owned by Alternet, will be paid. Our contracts call for 50% payment to writers and we always adhere to that.

D.S.: Are you black-listing writers?

DH: Totally not. We’ve published many thousands of writers. But based on his total inaccuracy on many things, I would not publish Giordano’s writings on AlterNet because they are not trustworthy. There is one other writer who recently had an article in In These Times ( not Mother Jones as Al alleged) who’s writing veracity I can’t trust either. But those are editorial judgements, not black-lists.

No editor in their [sic] right mind would publish material they [sic] can’t trust. So not publishing Al has nothing to do with idelogy, which is what black- lists are about.

D.S.: Did you steal Al’s stories?

DH: I have to laugh at Al’s audacity. His hero Abbie Hoffman’s Steal this Book is being reissued, and Al is trying to say I stole his content. Al, what happened to that old Abbie spirit? Information yearns to be free, right? Why mediate it? I know one thing for sure, Abbie would never be wasting everyone’s time with this bullshit.

AlterNet has never “stolen” content from NarcoWatch, doesn’t want Al’s content, and doesn’t need it. Aside from one momentary mistake months ago, that was rectified immediately, there is nothing. Al did complain about one other writer, but we have an e-mail from her giving us permission to use the article. But to be safe, we’ve removed that as well.

As best we can tell, a former employee may have hacked into the AlterNet e- mail system, using an old password. Giordano complains about ethics, but has no qualms accepting or acquiring stolen e-mail messages from the computer of a 20-year-old AlterNet employee. I find that a little contradictory.

D.S.: What about the even split with writers on AlterNet? Is that out of whack?

DH: Hardly. Fifty percent has been the AlterNet policy for 15 years. Until Al, no one has ever complained. Since we do all the work in searching, reviewing, securing, formatting, marketing and collecting the money for the the content, writers consider 50% a fair deal. Some of the big syndication and aggregation companies groups like Screaming Media, Lexis, etc. take 80 and 90%.

D.S:What about fake reviews for Amazon.com?

DH: That was a joke. Since the info. came from a stolen e-mail, there was no way for the recipient to grasp its tongue and cheek quality. Nobody from AlterNet sent reviews to Amazon for our book.

But nevertheless, AFTER 9/11: SOLUTIONS FOR A SANER SOCIETY is a great book and people can order it from WWW. ALTERNET.ORG

D.S: Any final thoughts?

DH: Just that my board of directors knows full well the source and motivation for this attack, having seen more than five years of similar senseless efforts by Bay Guardian owner Bruce Brugmann, Giordano’s supporter in this escapade. The same day Giordano’s article appeared, Brugmann’s staff called AlterNet demanding information. I can guarantee you that there will be a hit piece in the Bay Guardian in the next week or two. This is coordinated, like the right-wing does it. Fortunately for all of us, Brugmann isn’t taken seriously. He has cried wolf too many times. And now Al is heading down the same slippery slope.

PARANOIDS REJOICE: T*H*E*Y CAN BEAM IN TO YOUR BRAIN

From “The Voices In Your Head May Be Real”

By John Gartner (Wired.com 2-21-2)

“Researchers have developed technology that can project a beam of sound so narrow that only one person can hear it. “Directed” audio sounds like it’s coming from right in front of you even when transmitted from a few hundred meters away.

“Inventors of the new ‘ventriloquist’ technology say it could provide an added dimension to entertainment. The military, however, is investigating using it to confuse opponents or even inflict pain.

“The Audio Spotlight is one of two competing audio transmission systems that emit a one-foot square column of sound that can only be heard by people in its direct path. Joseph Pompei, a PhD student at the MIT Media Lab, decided to develop it while working at audio company Bose, which he joined at 16 as its youngest-ever engineer. (snip)

THE LOVE SPONGE VS THE BIG BOAR

And finally, a media story that can’t be ignored from the European Journalism Center. It is about BUBBA THE LOVE SPONGE…a name that ups my own news dissector title:

“A controversial Florida radio announcer known as ‘Bubba the Love Sponge’ testified on Wednesday he was not trying to be cruel when a wild boar was castrated and killed on his program last year. Bubba, whose real name is Todd Clem, is on trial in Tampa for animal cruelty over the killing of the boar during a broadcast last February.

“The live boar was brought to the station’s parking lot after Mr Clem urged listeners to bring in dead animals for a ‘road kill barbecue’ promotion.As the boar, named Andy, was being killed in the parking lot, Mr Clem played recorded sounds of a pig squealing over the air, which some listeners thought were from the boar. In testimony on Wednesday, Mr Clem, 35, said he did nothing illegal in taking part in the killing of the boar.

‘Andy was not inhumanely slaughtered,’ Mr Clem said. “Andy was slaughtered by a professional hunter who has done this hundreds and hundreds of times in a way that is recognized by the state of Florida.’

“Mr Clem is on trial along with his producer, the listener who brought in the boar, and another listener who helped in the killing. If convicted, they could get up to five years in jail. The case could go to the jury on Thursday.”

That’s it from here. Share your comments by writing: dissector@mediachannel.org