25
Nov
Bush Ballast In Bucharest
*GOD SMILES ON BUSH
*INDECENCY IN MEDIA
*DEBATING PUBLIC BROADCASTING
It was the highlight of his trip to what was once considered the captive nations of Eastern Europe. You may have seen the Page One photo in the New York Times of President Bush waving to a cheering crowd of 220,000 Romanians in Bucharest. (Note how the New York Times has no problem with crowd estimates of PRO-Bush events overseas. Authorities “estimated” 220,000 is what the story today reports.) The President alluded to divine inspiration when “a rainbow appeared over the square, an image that until then existed only in the wildest dreams of White House event planners. Mr. Bush, not missing a beat said, “God is smiling on us today.” But in his speech, he was more preoccupied with Satan than the Good Lawd, telling the mesmerized masses: “You value freedom because you have lived without it; You know the difference between good and evil because you have seen the face of evil.”
EARLIER VISITORS TO BUCHAREST
Ah, that “face of evil.” My depleted brain cells flash back to another magic moment in Bucharest involving an earlier American president. The year was l969 and the evil-doer in my mind then was one Richard M Nixon, who was being greeted by cheering crowds organized by the late dictator Nicolae Ceauesescu, who twenty years later would be executed along with his wife.
Republicans loved Romania then, evil or not, as one historical account I found on the web confirmed: “President Nixon’s visit to Romania in 1969 and then President Ceausescu’s to the U.S. in 1970 clearly marked Romania’s success in the aftermath of Czechoslovakia, but more importantly highlighted a new level of bilateral relations between Romania and America. President Nixon’s visit to Romania was the first visit ever of an American president to Romania. Likewise, President Ceausescu’s visit to the U.S. was the first visit of a Romanian head of state to ever visit America. Their visits were huge breakthroughs in U.S.-Romanian relations, as America expressed respect for the Romanian leader, a communist leader of an insignificant country that bordered the Soviet Union.”
Writing in a book called The Return, Petru Popescu adds: “From then on, an unofficial ally of the West, he received lavish praise from U.S. presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Carter. Carter called him a freedom fighter.” And so, fashions and symbols of evil change — as fascists are reframed — as the news this morning triumphed the return of UN inspectors to Iraq, a country that the US once supplied with arms. CNN reports that “Iraq submitted a lengthy complaint to the United Nations that Washington is looking for an excuse to go to war.”
An excuse?
INSPECT THIS!
I hate to be the one to tell you but that war is already underway even if it is not yet called that. And one question: will the inspectors be looking for or take note of depleted nuranium in Iraq. I have been told that
“Marc Herold, at the web site listed below, describes the horrendous impact of US warfare as it has left 2-3 times more depleted uranium in Afghanistan than in the 1991 Gulf War. The heavy use of both bunker-busting bombs and missiles and the General Electric 30 mm cannon in the A-10 Warthog tactical aircraft have been responsible. Severe health and environmental effects will soon be registered: http://www.globalalternatives.org/911.html
THE MEDIA DISCOURSE (OFF-CAMERA)
On the media front, here are some of the topics discussed and debated at the News World conference which just took place in Dublin:
“Television journalism risks being ‘trivialized’ in the rush to bring viewers the latest news, rather than explain its significance. That was the warning given to News World delegates in Dublin by Bob Collins, director general of Ireland’s state broadcaster, RTE. ‘What is needed more than ever is understanding on the part of our audiences,’ said Collins. ‘We’re at risk of seeing news as populism; news as entertainment.’
“‘News organizations that lack resources to train journalists to work in hostile environments should quit the news business “and hand over to those that really care for their staff.’ That was the hard-hitting message from Chris Cramer, president of CNN International Networks, as he introduced the News World 2002 session on reporting in conflict zones. Cramer said 2002 had been ‘a terrible and tragic year for our profession.’
“‘The growing disconnect between media, politicians and voters was the subject of News World’s forum, introduced by Sir David Frost, presented on Tuesday with the News World Lifetime Achievement Award. As delegates were told earlier in the week, research has established that news programming, and political coverage in particular, is increasingly losing audiences, especially among younger viewers.’”
MEDIA DEBATES SEXUALIZED IMAGES
I missed commenting on the debate over indecency on TV in the aftermath of CBS’s Fredericks of Hollywood special. (For a more telling story of indecency at CBS, check out the front page of the NY Times today, for the account of the networks’ failure to speak up in the debate over the exclusion of women golfers at the Masters tournament in Augusta, Ga.
No one from the eye network would even comment. The story is a strong one and rare in the sense that attacks on network practices rarely make page one. As for the other indecency argument, here’s a comment from the always excellent Media Unspun.” The day’s news is filled with righteous outrage over media displays of underdressed women. And, my oh my, would the critics be surprised to find themselves in each other’s company. In Nigeria, angry protesters went on a deadly rampage, set off by a newspaper’s claim that Muhammad would have so approved of the upcoming Miss World contest as to choose a bride from among the contestants. In the U.S., an FCC commissioner used the occasion of the Victoria’s Secret fashion show to call for a clampdown on lewd programming. Meanwhile U.S. media critics shook their heads in disgust as millions of viewers — mainly women — tuned in to see which desperate darling would land “The Bachelor.”
“Aren’t women fortunate to have so many defenders? Color Unspun unsurprised to find all sorts of agendas hitched to the appeals for media modesty. For instance, FCC Commissioner Copps speculated that indecent broadcasts might be increasing because of consolidation in the media industry (a pet complaint of his). Over in Nigeria, says the BBC, impoverished Muslims are looking for ways to agitate their pageant-proud president, who has cozied up to the West.
“Ironically, another group protesting this year’s Miss World pageant includes five women who had been entered in the competition. Misses Costa Rica,Denmark, Switzerland, South Africa, and Panama dropped out to protest Nigerian rulings sentencing women to death by stoning for giving birth outside of marriage. Don’t worry, though. That global kidder, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, insists the death sentences won’t really be carried out. Besides, as the Independent and Financial Times point out, the U.S. government is using its mighty international sway to send Nigeria a clear message: Crack down on money-laundering and sell us more oil. Who says chivalry is dead?”
PROTOCOLS STILL AIR IN EGYPT
More in the indecency news, we return to Cairo where a TV series continues to air during Ramadan and is aimed at hundreds of millions of viewers. It is sent out as truth, but is based on a discredited antisemitic tract: Writes Middle East Media Watch: “This weekend’s episodes bring the Arab viewers the first readings from the ‘actual texts’ of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. These readings from the Protocols present the Jews as scheming to destabilize the world, by promoting ethnic, religious and national conflict, throughout the world, both internally within groups and vis a vis their neighbor states. These worldwide conflicts the Jews initiate will distract the non- Jewish world from trying to take action against the Jews.”It is important to note that this depiction of Jews as scheming to cause unrest in the world is a frequent component of Palestinian and Arab antisemitism, and this Hitlerian propaganda, best used in Streicher’s Der Stumer to incite Jew Hatred across Europe, was created by European civilization to demonize the Jews. It is currently used in Arab education, including Early Childhood classes, to describe the character traits of the Jews.
As I have noted some Arabs intellectuals and journalists are speaking out against this crude antisemitism See Quais Saleh in Counterpunch.org:, but they are a tiny group among millions.
“The main reason why we as Arabs should reject this program and the text it uses, is that it is an imported piece of anti-Semitic bigotry that was forged in one of the darkest chapters in European history, it has nothing to do with historical facts and more importantly with Arab world’s tolerant past where Jews were an integrated minority living in harmony with Muslims, Christians and other religious minorities. As a Palestinian currently living under a new Apartheid, I cannot but reject any ethnic stereotyping…Putting aside for a moment the amount of damage this program is causing to the image of the Arab world, it is morally and educationally wrong to introduce such intolerant stereotyping programs, instead of furthering universal values of tolerance and equality …”
PBS: PRO AND CON
I have, as readers know, been expressing my concerns about PBS’s timidity and I have had quite a few Amens from readers. But Phillip Kennicott of the Washington Post is less worried about PBS than worried for it. One station manager sent me this article from Sunday’s paper with a tongue in cheek note saying: “see, everything is not so bad.”
“Since taking over as CEO of the network in March 2000, (Pat) Mitchell has been herding cats, struggling to bring unity and stability to the nation’s loose affiliation of 349 noncommercial television stations. With varying success, she has shifted some of the network’s ‘icon’ series from their hallowed time slots in an effort to bring a new thematic consistency to the weekly offerings: history on Mondays, science on Tuesdays, culture on Wednesdays. Old series, like Mystery!, are being revamped; new series, like Frontier House (which borrows a page from the commercial networks’ passion for reality TV), have been introduced. Even PBS’s promotional spots and tag lines are being remade. ‘Be more . . .’ has replaced ‘Stay curious’ as the network’s motto.
“None of these changes, even ones that seem superficial, have been easy. The major hurdles are, and always have been, financial. Under an FCC mandate, PBS must begin digital broadcasting by May 1. The new technology, which the network estimates will cost $1.7 billion, will allow it to broadcast in high-definition, and potentially offer more channels and more interactive programming. Those costs are hitting stations at the same time that the economy is in a slump and political leaders at the local, state and federal levels are looking for ways to economize. Many of the large corporations that have been increasingly important to the network since new guidelines allowing “enhanced” underwriting (more time to sell their message on air) aren’t feeling flush, either.
“On her desk, Mitchell keeps a picture of a cat walking nervously in front of a phalanx of German shepherds. She offers it as a metaphor for her job…”
PROBLEMS IN PUBLIC RADIO
Public radio is having problems to finding corporate support and underwriting in these tough times, according to the most recent issue of CURRENT, the public broadcasting paper. One particularly disturbing article explains that volunteers, once the mainstay of stations during their pledge periods are being phased out in favor of corporate call centers. This one more sign of public broadcasting’s turn away from the public it is there to serve. Pete Simon writes:
“Upon reading about your ordeal with PBS in last week’s pages, I can affirm that what you’ve experienced is part of a larger pattern that has infected public broadcasting in general. It is a mindset affecting PBS, NPR, individual public stations, and those of us who work/ worked within the system. Not to dwell on my personal experience, but for seven years I worked as Western Colorado Reporter for Colorado Public Radio (CPR) …the circumstances surrounding my employment and how CPR gained control of its Western Colorado affiliate in Grand Junction are filled with stories of deception and crafty manipulation on the part of Max Wycisk, CPR’s CEO. But THAT story is best left for another time.
“More to the point, Wycisk is part of a dominant culture within public radio today, best typified by Minnesota Public Radio’s CEO Bill Kling. Kling is the original big time reactionary in the public radio community, who 25 to 30 years ago began attacking NPR for being too liberal. In the 1980’s, Kling and others of like mind (Wally Smith at KUSC, Los Angeles being one of them) formed Public Radio International (PRI). This culture’s vision for public radio is fueled by research group’s such as David Giovannoni’s Audience Research Analysis (
“In attempting to have PBS carry your program, you have entered a culture in which the biases of the bosses can lead to them designing HOW audience research is conducted to derive a desired result. The results provide nothing more than window dressing. Another way audience research methods are skewed comes when stations ignore the general public and focus exclusively on people with deep pockets. That is what CPR has done, with special research grant money provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to boot.
“More than a dozen years ago CPR first received public money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to start sophisticated audience research deemed “The Denver Project”. Initial focus groups were made up of people living in metro Denver’s most affluent households; the mantra heard around CPR was that those “other people” did not matter. Even if they were “sophisticated” enough to listen to Mozart they didn’t have the deep pockets needed to “seriously” fund a classical music “service”.
“The use of public funds to set up the type of research CPR conducted is enough of an outrage, but it doesn’t stop there. Anyone trying to obtain the public-funded information about the research methodology has been told it is “privileged information”, only available to other public radio stations for a fee. In this kind of climate limiting the access to taxpayer-funded information, it’s up to CPR to tell us if their current research methods have been altered to include a more diverse group of people around metro.
“Commercial radio keeps such methodology and research results “in-house” to protect the station from competitors. In Denver, CPR, a public radio entity is playing by the same rules; a public-funded station that over the last 15 years has done its legal and lobbying best to keep two other public radio stations from serving all of metro (KGNU, Boulder and KUNC, Greeley). If those listening alternatives existed, it might be palatable for CPR to be so discriminating and guarded with the research it has developed with taxpayer money. Unfortunately, the selection of public radio stations in Denver is limited to CPR and one independent community station, KUVO. As for PBS, the choices appear to be even more restrictive, and for that we all lose.” This just in: KRMA, the main PBS station in Denver, the #18 market, will now be airing Counting on Democracy n the larger of the two Denver station, but alas not in prime time. It will be on Sun, Jan 12 at noon.
“EXCELLENT!”
“Readers are writing in about the TV side too: Here is Kurt Mische. “I want to commend you for the excellent article you wrote in the Nov.18 edition of “Current. (Scroll down to read the piece in the weblog as it is not on line at Current’s site yet)
“You have made many points that I, in my own way, have considered and suggested relative to PBS for some time.
“I have spent 28 years in the broadcast business–22 on the commercial side as a sales manager, general manager and consultant for radio stations. The past 6 years have been spent at the Development Director for KLVX-TV, the public TV station in Las Vegas.
“All throughout my career, I have volunteered in public television. As a regular watcher and broadcaster, I have long thought that PBS needs to “get over it,” loosen up and get more in step with the times. Your comment about the PBS audience being under age 5 and over age 50 is right on the money–you are exactly right–and the proof is in almost any station’s Nielsen ratings (if they are paying attention). Yet, all of the fussing seems to be about whether pledge is good or bad, what the next national brand-imaging campaign will be, or how much PBS will whine before Congress about too little funding. We need to invest our time, energy and resources into developing innovative, exciting programming that will compel people to watch and then support. Catchy branding slogans are not enough, there has to be substance behind them.
“It’s really quite simple–put on excellent programs, which we have the potential to do, and the audience and the dollars will be there. Innovation is the key, as all of our “exclusive” categories are gone–all co-opted by commercial tv and cable.
“Thank you for a well-written, well-thought out article. I hope we hear more from you–and that the PBS decision-makers will listen and act.”
And this last one from Kim Spencer of World Links TV: “Great piece in Current. Thanks for telling it the way it is!”
HELEN THOMAS: “WHO DO I HATE TODAY?”
Speaking of telling it like it is, a tip of the dissector’s keyboard this morning to Helen Thomas, the former UPI dean of the White House correspondents who is now a columnist and feels freed up to tell it the way she really sees it. MIT’s press office tells us about her talk there last week:
“I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter,” said Thomas, who is now a columnist for Hearst News Service. “Now I wake up and ask myself, ‘Who do I hate today?’ Her short list of answers seems not to vary from war, President Bush, timid office-holders, a muffled press and cowed citizens, pretty much in that order.
“Angered by what she views as the Bush administration’s ‘bullying drumbeat,’ Thomas referred early and often to her own hatred of war, quoting from poets and politicians to bear down on President Bush and his colleagues….
“‘Where is the outrage?’ she demanded. ‘Where is Congress? They’re supine! Bush has held only six press conferences, the only forum in our society where a president can be questioned. I’m on the phone to [press secretary] Ari Fleischer every day, asking will he ever hold another one? The international world is wondering what happened to America’s great heart and soul.’”….
AND INDYPENDENT IT IS….
I was pleased that the Indypendent newspaper is now in its second year in New York and packed Walker Stage Saturday night for screening of Counting on Democracy and a talk by investigative journalist Greg Palast. I was on hand to answer some questions. The new issue of the Indypendent has a long take out on media issues as well. (www.nyc.indymedia org.)
…I hope to cover the Committee to Protect Journalists dinner tomorrow night, always a schizoid event. I called it “Human Rights for A Night” in my book The More You Watch The Less You Know. The whole media establishment turns out to honor gutsy journalists IN OTHER COUNTRIES but rarely covers their travails. More to come.
Have a good week. I welcome your comments and input. Share them with me my writing dissector@ mediachannel.org. If you like what we do, tell your friends and help us promote this network of more than one thousand media issues organizations.
