*WILLIAM SAFIRE CARRIES THE WATER*

*MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT WELLSTONE’S DEATH*

*DAVID HOROWITZ RESPONDS, I RETORT*

You could almost see his finger wagging as William Safire, the Zeus of the New York Times Op Ed Page, warned the United Nations yesterday that its days may be numbered and that it is our way or the highway. This well-connected sage, writing from and on behalf of Washington, and not New York, issued an ultimatum that sounded like a threat, literally, on behalf of the Administration.

In a stunning example of how BIG JOURNALISM serves those in power, he explains:

“If the UN Security Council fails to adopt a resolution holding Iraq ‘on material breach’ of its many disarament resolutions [and this permitting the US to take unilateral action — DS] THAT REFUSAL WILL HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE UN AND SEVERAL OF ITS MEMBER NATIONS.”

While his piece was all lower case, the sentiments were not.

And on whose behalf did Safire threaten the UN and unnamed member nations? Read on:

“The State Department cannot say that of course because our diplomacy witth Council Members rests on persuasions not threats.”

OF COURSE! They can’t say it- — so guess who they get to say it for them?

“But should the UN deny the fact of Saddam’s repeated and sustained defiance of its irresolute resolutions, the world body will henceforth play only in a little league of nations. ”

Translation: The UN will itself be destroyed, rendered ineffective, possible defunded by a withdrawal of US funding. Who knows? While Safire carries the water, Bush piles on the pressure as reported in today’s Times:

“President Bush argued that Saddam Hussein had made theUnited Nations look “foolish” and questioned whether the Security Council has “the will or the courage” to enforce its own resolutions.”

IT IS “D-THING”

So it’s a D-Thing, Do you have the guts, are you a man, the kind of taunting one hears from school yard bullies not presidents. As it happens I was at the UN yesterday, at a lunch with an Ambassador on the Security Council who is privy to its deliberations. I told him about Bush’s threat via the Safire channel.

His response: ‘This is warmongering. I would rather see the UN go down with its charter and integrity intact.

Why have it if it can’t uphold its own process, there to make peace, not war. And so the confrontation builds. THE WEEK magazine suggests that with these delays any war will be delayed until March.

What sayeth the Iraqis? The BBC asked — -and their foreign minister said he believes–the UN will not be cowed by what he called the arrogance of the Bush Administration and Tony Blair.

At least on the BBC, there are still two sides of a story being reported.

*MORE FROM MOSCOW*

CNN this morning took a momentary pause from the latest breathless disclosures that the sniper suspects are being linked to more unsolved crimes — this time, a shooting in Washington State — to report from Moscow about the mysterious gas sprayed in that Moscow Theater that has already claimed more than l00 lives. Mathew Chance didn’t know what was in it — The Times calls it an “opiate” — and cited Russian secrecy because it was a military operation. He interviewed one person — who spoke English, natch — who said that she didn’t know what was happening but that the State had to act. This was one more report justifying the government’s intervention. No one I saw cited the fact that negotiations were underway, and that conflict was about to be resolved peacefully.

Adam McConnel has been following the story and the coverage closely from Turkey. Have you seen or read a report like this anywhere?

“As the dead were being counted after the abortive storming of the Moscow theater where a group of armed Chechens were keeping some 750 hostages, the congratulations to Pres. Putin‚s efforts began to flow in, from allies, from not-always friendly neighbor states (who have their own, domestic reasons for being ‘anti-terror’), and from the US.

“But was it a victory, or even something worth congratulating Mr. Putin over?

“Two days later the death toll of hostages has risen to 117 and the total death toll 167. Is that a victory?

“There is no question that progress was being made in the hours before the implosion of the entire affair. Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian journalist who had been involved in negotiations, said that the militants had agreed to release the hostages if Putin would at least begin withdrawing from one region of Chechnya as a goodwill gesture; they had even agreed upon a monitor. But the situation had ended almost before the reports of the possibility for a negotiated end had made their way into news reports.

“The end was triggered from several sources: the inexperience of the 25-year-old Barayev, who decided to begin executing hostages despite Aslan Maskadov‚s warning to Œnot do anything rash;‚ the panic of hostages who rightfully did not want to die because of a conflict that they have no role in; the military-strongman posturing of Vladimir Putin, who several years ago promised to “rub them [Chechens] out in the toilet.”

“Now the questions are aimed at the Russian government since it has become known that the hostages who died, died from the poison gas used by the Russian special forces to immobilize the militants. Only two of the hostages died from gunshot wounds.

“The Russian military refuses to name the gas (but I guess that anyone knowledgeable in military operations probably knows what it is) and Putin has apologized to the relatives of the dead and to the nation for the deaths. But did it really have to end like that? Won‚t this specific ending only serve to make the situation worse?

*WHO WON, WHO LOST?*

Here’s what I mean: neither side gained or lost, except for the people who died. The Russian government, especially Mr. Putin, who has built his career on the Chechen conflict, will only clamp down harder on the Chechens; the Chechens, who gained nothing but notoriety (which is not necessarily good or bad) will be further steeled to resist a Russian government which has shown a repeated refusal to accept that the Chechen affair is ultimately doomed to only more and more death and destruction.

A victory in Chechnya for Russia is no more likely now than it was last Wednesday. Where can this lead?

“One fearful direction that it may lead is to the involvement of the US. Russia has been courting the US as a stable, potentially vital supplier of oil to the US market. Chechnya is situated on one of Russia‚s oil and gas transport corridors, so Russia sees the maintenance of their control over Chechnya as vital to their future economic security, especially as Russia‚s huge foreign debts become due in the next few years.

*THE OIL ANGLE*

“If the US decides that Russia will be a better supplier of oil than, some of the other current suppliers (for example the Gulf States, Venezuela), then the US‚ attentions may also be drawn more to the situation in Chechnya.

“Previously, the US had been one of the only voices able to keep the actions of the Russian military in Chechnya somewhat under control. But the US also has no real interest in what was happening in Chechnya. After 11 Sept, that voice of criticism was softened as Pres. Putin became one of Bush‚s quickest and most vocal supporters in his “War On Terror.” The State Dept. still criticized Russia’s behavior in Chechnya, but more delicately and quietly. This despite the worsening actions of the Russian military after 11 Sept., which evidently saw Putin‚s joining of the War On Terror‚ as a green light for more oppression.

*WHAT IS AHEAD?*

“In the weeks and months ahead, one must look at not only Russia’s actions in Chechnya, but also at whether or not the US becomes convinced that Russian oil is a viable and secure option to other sources. One can also expect the Chechen resistance forces to continue the escalation of operations that began during the summer. The precedents of this kind of interplay do not point to any sort of happy resolution in the near future.

One thing that I’ve been neglecting is the fact that the elected leader of Chechnya, Aslan Maskhadov, has repeatedly offered to unconditionally begin negotiations with Russia to end the war in Chechnya. The Russian governement, and especially Putin, have likewise repeatedly refused to accept such negiotiations. Today Putin is quoted by Reuters as saying that “Russia will make no deals with terrorists.”

*MINNESOTA’s GRASSY KNOLL*

“Here in the USA, there is more and more speculation rocketing around the internet about the death of Senator Paul Wellstone. Was he murdered? I haven’t seen anything like this since the Kennedy assassination. Tonight, Wellstone’s memory will be honored in a ceremony that CSPAN will televise at 7:30 PM (EST). But the disbelief is now leading to questions leading to speculation.

“Writing on the Progressive Sociologists Network, William Du Bois notes: I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think this terrible tragedy is suspicious. It is amazing how conspiracy theories are suspect when the most conspiratorial group in the history of politics is in power. If you look at the national news media, it is a closed case — bad weather, icy conditions. That is CNN, NY Times, LA Times, even San Francisco Chronicle. But if you look at the local media, a different story emerges. I have been tracking what the Minnesota papers are reporting ” He then cities a number of apparent contradictions that may be resolved by the crash investigation..

Michael Niman, commenting on Alternet added: “Wellstone now joins the ranks of other American politicians who died insmall plane crashes. Another recent victim was Missouri’s former Democratic governor, Mel Carnahan, who lost his life in 2000, three weeks before Election Day, during his Senatorial race against John Ashcroft.

Carnahan went on to become the first dead man to win a Senatorial race, humiliating and defeating the unpopular Ashcroft posthumously. Ashcroft, despite his unpopularity, went on to be appointed Attorney General by George W. Bush.

Investigators determined that Carnahan’s plane went down due to “poor visibility.”….

“While an article in the New York Times on Saturday pointed out the danger politicians face due to their heavy air travel schedules, the death of a senator or member of Congress is still relatively rare, with only one other sitting U.S. Senator, liberal Republican John Heinz, dying in a plane crashsince World 2.”

“THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE’

And then there are the speculations of individuals that need to be heard and looked into. Example:

“Irene Stuber” speaks of “more in the wild talk category - but these things are being talked about and MAY have a grain of truth in them … or may be all truth: - “I heard a very disturbing report on NBC news lastnight. The Wellstone plane was engulfed in flame from the inside the cabin moments before itcrashed.

“This does not make sense. I am very familiar withthis aircraft, having flown hundreds of hours on a King Air. It was the plane of choice to get around AR during campaigns. It is very safe, and does not make sense to me how the plane could havecaught fire from inside the cabin, and the pilot not even have time to send a distress call. If aplane is going to catch fire, it is usually from the engine–not the cabin. Both engines wereworking properly, according to witnesses and inspectors at the site.. It is as if an incendiary device was set off inside theplane–that is the only thing I know of that would instantly ingulf the inside of the cabin, and not give the pilot time to send a message to air traffic control. The cabin was totally destroyed by fire, but the engines and wings (where fuel is stored) were intact.

“Something is very wrong here.”

*VOICES FRPM OTHER COUNTRIES DECRY US STYLE MEDIA*CNN coverage was challenged at two events I attended yesterday. Indonesia’s Minister of Trade and Industry, Rini Soewandi, was complaining that her country is being pictured as terrorist even though there may only be a few terrorists there. She says the focus on one issue with no other coverage paints a false picture and hurts the country’s economic development.

This complaint was echoed over lunch by Iden Wetherell, editor of the Harare-based Zimbabwe Independent who was receiving World Press Review’s award as Editor of the Year at the UN. Wetherell gave a brilliant assessment of the threat to press freedom by the Mugabe government. He lashed out at Zimbabwe’s neighbors, including South Africa for not saying and doing more, and then lit into the western press for its excessive “balance” with reports that suggest that Mugabe is still popular in Zimbabwe while focusing on his abuses. This is very miseading he says.

He explained the origins of the White Farmer issue and noted that the real victims are black farm workers. His briefing showed everyone in the room how little they knew and how poorly we have been served by media reports from the region. Incidentally, Mediachannel will soon be the place to go for stories about African media. Editor Murad Ryani expects to launch our Africa Media Channel this week. Check it out and tell Africans you know about it.

*FAIR QUESTIONS NPR REPORTING*

There was more critiquing of the media coverage of Saturday’s anti-war marches. The media watchdog FAIR.org issued an action alert challenging the way the number of protesters were downplayed: “The Times account on October 27 was vague, reporting that “thousands ofprotesters marched through Washington’s streets,” adding that “fewerpeople attended than organizers had said they hoped for.” The report,which was under 500 words, appeared on page 8 of the paper.

“On the October 26 broadcast of Weekend Edition, NPR’s Nancy Marshall wenteven further to disparage the turnout by offering an estimate on thecrowd’s size: “It was not as large as the organizers of the protest hadpredicted. They had said there would be 100,000 people here. I’d say thereare fewer than 10,000.”

MICHAEL MOORE, KING OF ALL MEDIA

Step aside Howard Stern. Michael Moore is now King of All media with a best selling book and hot new movie. Cap on head, he is all over television. CNN’s People Magazine report did a fine profile of him with a right wing talking head edited in for “balance.” The format did not allow Moore to rebut. He was on Donahue yesterday. His film Bowling for Columbine takes in even more timeliness in the aftermath of the sniper story and yesterday’s killing of three teachers at an Arizona Nursing School by a student who then offed himself.

Writes Moore: “A sniper suspect is now in custody — but yes, our children are still not safe. They have not been safe for some time. Every single day in America, at least eight children (19 years old and younger) are killed by gun violence in the United States. Every single day in America between 30 and 40 people are murdered by someone using a gun. Every single day in America another 40 to 50 people use a gun to kill themselves. None of this has created a panic. These 80+ deaths a day by gunfire do not lead off the evening news. We have, sitting in our homes, a quarter-billion guns. And, yet, not one of those guns would have saved anyone shot by the sniper. The sniper knows — “Your children are not safe.”

*THE ELECTION IS COMING*

As the election approaches, with more of them too close to call in a divided nation, where eligible voters will not cast ballots, political coverage has been downplayed and programs about voting are mostly conspicuous by their absence. That is why we at Globalvision are trying to get our film COUNTING ON DEMOCRACY out to the public despite PBS’s refusal to distribute it. Readers of this blog and other outlets have read my account of this controversy.

In it I cite the way PBS and CPB poured money on a project headed by conservative David Horrorwitz while refusing to support human rights programming. Now Horowitz has responded to the Boston Phoenix’s website that carried the piece. Here is his comment and my response:

HOROWITZ V SCHECHTER, ROUND TWO

Horowitz: “For the record. I criticized Danny Schechter’s PBS propaganda show, “South Africa Now,” not because it was anti-apartheid (which I was as well) but because it defended Winnie Mandela after her thugs had murdered a 14-year old ANC activist. I had nothing to do with the cancellation of the show by KCET and WGBH. Schechter is congenitally incapable of being accurate about anything, which is probably why his new “documentary” has been rejected by the Democrats who run PBS and who otherwise would certainly agree with its conclusions.”

Your News Dissector’s response:

“As for congenital problems, I assume they include David Horowitz’s own memory loss and personal vendetta against me and all of his old colleagues. Its origins are more psychological than political and seem to be rooted in his well-self-promoted personal sojourn from far left to far right.

As for his “record:”

l. Horowitz did not just “criticize” our award winning SOUTH AFRICA NOW series. He went to KCET, the public TV station in LA, as reported prominently in the LA Times and lobbied for the series to be dropped. The LA Times reporter confirmed this to us when she sought our comment. The station reconsiderd after calls for its reinstatement by its own employees, viewers and members of KCET’s community advisory board. They put it back on the air.

2. He called the temporary cancellation of the South Africa Now series his COMINT group’s “defining moment.”

3. He badrapped, distorted and denigrated our South Africa series to all who would listen and cited it in his campaign against alleged “liberal” bias in PBS. What a joke!

4. His criticism was not just with our coverage or Winnie Mandela. Our series, covered the issue fully and fairly, and, yes, included some supporters of hers as one would expect from journalists covering South Africa. We offered a range of South African views. We did not support Mandela’s complicity in this disgusting episode. The person later found guilty of the murder was a former Apartheid-era policeman. She was convicted in connection with the case later, years after our show went off the air.

From what I was told with disgust by ANC leaders who met David at the ANC offices in South Africa, he had much deeper problems with the progressive orientation of the ANC itself. To my knowledge,opposing Apartheid was not high on his agenda. He was a Reagan republican and Dick Cheney, an ulitmate Republican, had just voted against a resolution supporting Mandela’s release from prison.

5. WGBH never cancelled our series. It was considering doing so–but didn’t.

6.Our documentary on the election in Florida was researched and written by a one-time Black Republican leader and attorney who served in the Bush Administration, not me. I directed it. It was offered to PBS by ITVS which vetted its content. It was supported by the Carnegie Corporation as well. It was rejected by insecure liberals who appear to have been intimidated by the fear of stirring pressure from the likes of Horowitz and the President he supported.

Ironic isn’t it that someone who spent years bashing public television publicly, now, by his own admission, was secretly meeting with PBS officials to get large amounts of money to produce what CURRENT, the public television trade paper calls “idologically corrective” programs. But even he got screwed in the end, and by a fellow conservative– ccording to his own account and is pissed off about it and is suing.

I cited Horowitz’s recent disclosure about that lawsuit to make a larger point about the political timidity within PBS and CPB–which shower money on a rabid conservative with no TV experience but at the same time refuse to distribute human rights programming like our SOUTH AFRICA NOW, RIGHTS & WRONGS: Human Rights Television and our current film “COUNTING ON DEMOCRACY” which is about voting rights, not Bush or Gore.

Your readers can see it for themselves by getting a copy through globalvision.org

So there you go. Tit for Tat. I am off to speak at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. Please share your thoughts on the issues I raise. Write: dissector@mediachannel.org