Athens Free Press

WOUB cited time/money issues in dissolving citizen panel

2010-01-13T11:07:00.000-08:00

About a year ago, a local media activism group was pressuring Ohio University’s WOUB public radio to start carrying “Democracy Now!”, a progressive news show hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez. [from the 1/11/10 edition of The Athens News; read article]

Media Reform and Democracy Now

2009-08-17T12:47:00.000-07:00

Bob Sheak

I am part of a media-reform group based in Athens, Meigs, and Belmont Counties called Athens Free Press. For us, media reform means increasing the range of options on important news and issues beyond the programming typically offered by the commercial media and what, with limited exceptions, we find on public radio and television.

For example, we want media that are independent of corporate funding. We want media that are willing to critically examine the policies of corporations that recklessly undermine the economy, dominate government with campaign contributions and lobbies, and advance their interests at the expense of the public and a sustainable environment. We want media that challenge government military adventures abroad. And we want media that give us an opportunity to hear from experts, activists from other countries as well as our own, and those from different walks of life who challenge the status quo. In the end, we hope for a media that will make us more informed and discerning citizens.

There is a profusion of alternative sources of in-depth analysis on the Internet, beyond the conventional media, but many residents of Southeast Ohio don’t have access to computers. They often do have a radio and/or television. With this in mind, our group has identified a program called Democracy Now that fits the bill. It is a daily, one-hour program, presently broadcast on nearly 800 community radio and public access TV stations, some PBS or NPR stations, as well as being beamed out over satellite television and accessible on its website, www.democracynow.org.

The program’s hosts, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, are award-winning journalists and have written best-selling books. One of their mottos is “going to where the silence is.” A vivid example of this was their coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq War, when they regularly found experts who were not convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. In recent months, among a plethora of featured stories, Democracy Now has had interviews with opponents of coal mining based on mountaintop removal, a roundtable on “no more nuclear war,” a debate on events in Honduras, interviews with GIs criticizing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, an exclusive report and interviews on CIA infiltration of peace groups in the state of Washington, and a number of guests arguing for single-payer or strong public-option health care policies.

We are holding a fund-raiser for Democracy Now at the Case Nueva Cantina/Restaurant in Athens on Saturday, August 22, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The Bob Stewart Band will play, and be joined by special guest Zeke Hutchison. You can get additional information on Democracy Now at this event. The point is to support a flourishing alternative source of information and analysis, so that someday citizens in Southeast Ohio will have this option.

Reminder: Amy Goodman to speak in Athens, air DN! from WOUB studio

2009-04-08T08:29:00.000-07:00

The award winning, independent journalist and co-host of Democracy Now! will speak in Athens this Thursday, April 9, at 5 p.m. Amy Goodman will be one of two keynote speakers of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism's inaugural Schuneman Symposium.

Goodman's talk will be in Templeton-Blackburn Memorial Auditorium, and is free and open to the public. Goodman is scheduled to televise the Friday, April 10 edition of Democracy Now! from WOUB studios. The program can be viewed locally on democracynow.org or on Link TV on the DIRECTV satellite service (Channel 375), 11-noon, or on Channel 9410 on DISH® NETWORK.

Goodman appeared on WOUB airwaves last night as a guest on Bill Moyers Journal. Watch a replay of the program on the PBS web site.

Goodman has received dozens of awards for her work, including the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award, the George Polk Award, and most recently the Right Livelihood Award -- often referred to as the "Alternative Nobel Prize," and the Izzy Award, in honor of muckraking journalist I.F. Stone. Goodman is a role model for independent, critical and courageous journalism. She stands for the idea of socially responsible and ethically oriented media.

Letter of Offer to WOUB

2009-02-19T05:21:00.001-08:00

[editor's note: the following letter was sent Feb. 15, 2009]

Hello Carolyn [Lewis], all of you WOUB Community Advisory Council [WOUB-CAC] members, and a few others with an interest in this matter,

I am sorry that this "forwarded email" to you is so lengthy, but I have much to share with you in the interest of enhancing the quality of our WOUB TV and Radio.

Thank you Carolyn for your reply to my December 28th email to you asking why you at WOUB have decided not to carry "Democracy Now" on WOUB. Thank you also for the copy of your letter to Bob Stewart dated July 27, 2007 -- in which you explain your rationale for denying "Democracy Now" a slot in WOUB's programming schedules. Your July 27th letter to Stewart also introduced me to him, and as a consequence, we have had a nice visit. Thank you for connecting us.

I am sorry that it has taken me so long to get back to you on this matter, Carolyn. Even though I am an emeritus professor, I somehow seem to find too much on my plate with not enough time in which to consume it in a timely manner. Thus my tardiness.

I recently spoke with one of the members of your WOUB -CAC, my friend and colleague, George Bain, about Ruth's and my December 22, 2008 $1,000 contribution offer to WOUB. George said that he had not seen our offer. I assume that perhaps because of the tight time constraints [2008 tax deductableness etc.] that my offer imposed on you -- you were not able to share it with your entire WOUB -CAC group. The offer is still open for the 2009 and 2010 calendar years, and now with no rush I take this opportunity to share Ruth's and my offer with you and the entire WOUB -CAC for your group's reconsideration of it. Furthermore, we might be interested in exploring with you-all the possibility of extending this offer or something related -- beyond the two years mentioned above and through to the ends of our lives -- and perhaps even beyond, via our three great daughters, Solveig, Kim and Heidi.

All three of our daughters are Phi Beta Kappa graduates of Ohio University [in the days before grade inflation] who earned post graduate degrees from -- Duke Law School, JD -- the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, MD -- and a Boston University graduate degree in counseling.

A SECOND TRY

Thus, Carolyn and you members of the WOUB -CAC, this email is a "second try" at getting WOUB to host some "Democracy Now" content as an expression of beautiful "diversity" on our local publicly owned "air waves" -- WOUB TV and Radio. Please see below for additional reflections on "diversity" in ideas and ideals -- my University of Wisconsin-Madison "Sifting and Winnowing" experience.

First let me say that Ruth and I find much with which to be happy about the materials presented on WOUB radio and TV -- and with the helpfulness of WOUB people when we need help. For example, the new digital format for our WOUB TV enables us to have much better reception. One of your people, Terry Douds, was thoughtfully very helpful to me in getting my "converter box" properly connected. In fact our connection with our roof-top antenna is so much better that we can now clearly receive the West Virginia PBS TV signal 33-1-2 and 3.

This is especially helpful to me in that the West Virginia PBS signal also carries the "captions" for those of us with hearing difficulties. I hope that you at WOUB can soon find a way to get those "captions" back on your TV digital signal. My hearing problem is related to my 83 years of being -- but also to my earlier years of military combat pilot service to this nation of ours [two wars WW-II and Korea] when I logged many hours of pilot time in noisy, 105 to 110 decibel, military flying machines.

Furthermore, now with digital TV upon us, we look forward to having WOUB revise its monthly "Centerpiece" brochure [print version] so as to provide all of its patrons with the new information as to what is available and when on which of the new channels for each day's 24 hours. I suspect that perhaps several of your patrons are insufficiently "Internet Wise" to ask them to seek this important information via the Internet.

Ruth and I appreciate and like much of the current content on WOUB TV such as -- The Masterpiece Classic series, Worldfocus, Bill Moyers Journal, the NOW program etc, and recent specific programs such as, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial" and the "Assassination of Lincoln" etc. etc.-- and on WOUB Radio -- the BBC, Morning Edition, Talk of the Nation; Fresh Air, The Diane Rehm Show etc. etc.

I do, however, find it a bit sadly tedious to have to endure, each year these days, two or three months of your "TV fund-raising stuff" that turns PBS into something like that "vast wasteland of nothingness" [commercial radio and TV] as noted by that great 1960s FCC chairperson Newton N. Minow.

Of course I realize that you are not completely in control of these 'fund-raising" matters. It is "we the people" who have allowed our government to behave in ways that destroy "community" with its lust for so-called "free markets" "deregulation" and "privatization" of everything. In my opinion "community" is that which we humans must do collectively in order to enable a humane, just, creative, and dignified life for all of us as sisters and brothers on our beautiful Planet Earth. It is "we the people" who need to restore that beautiful "diversity" to PBS across its spectrum without having to lose months each year to "content diluting" fund raising and to grasping for "corporate advertisers."

"We the people" are smart enough to understand that when PBS's Lehrer evening News Show is sponsored by a huge oil conglomerate -- we will most likely not see anything on Lehrer's news that might seriously offend their interests. My forty years of professional engineering "Green Technology by Design" activity [including time in the US Congress Office of Technology Assessment on these matters] enables me to understand how important it is that "oil conglomerate" and US automobile company interests and their "public relations" [PR] -- be challenged from time to time.

REGARDING YOUR JULY 27 LETTER TO STEWART, CAROLYN --

In reading your July 27, 2007 letter to Bob Stewart explaining why you refuse to host some "Democracy Now" on WOUB TV and Radio -- I find that I disagree with most of your "practical and philosophical" arguments, Carolyn.

In addition to the content of my December 22, 2008 email to you Carolyn -- here with this "forwarded email" to your entire WOUB-CAC and to several others who have had some involvement in this matter -- I burden you all with one additional "attachment" -- the University of Wisconsin's "Sifting and Winnowing" idea and ideal. I do this to help you understand a bit more of my reasons and passion for seeking more beautiful "diversity" for WOUB-TV and Radio by having "Democracy Now" appear on "our air waves." I am a great believer in the importance of "diversity" in all its wonderful dimensions ranging from racial to intellectual. "Democracy Now" on WOUB's programming schedule will enhance viewers' ability to "sift and winnow" in their search for truth -- something absolutely essential in a democracy. By adding some "Democracy Now," WOUB will be -- "ever encouraging that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.”

I look forward to a creative and positive response from you, Carolyn, and also from any of the rest of you who are receiving this email from me -- as you might see fit.

Peace,
Chuck Overby, Emeritus Engineering Professor

ORIGINAL LETTER OF OFFER FROM OVERBY [sent Dec. 22, 2008]

Hello Carolyn,

My wife and I would like to make a nice pledge in support of WOUB, AM and FM radio and TV -- before the end of December 2008. Because time is short for you to respond to my proposal [you may also not even be here at the moment] -- I send a copy of this proposal to Jeannie Jeffers, your Director of Development.

We would like to make a $500 tax deductible gift for the 2008 calendar year, and another of the same magnitude for the 2009 year, in December 2009. There is, however, a condition connected with this offer -- namely that you arrange to have the Amy Goodman "Democracy Now" programs [AM and FM radio and TV] available on a regular basis on WOUB, beginning as soon as possible in 2009.

Let me explain my rationale for this offer.

In my 83 years of being on Planet Earth, I have come to understand how very important it is in a democracy [one in which one might wish to live] -- for us as citizens of that democracy to be exposed to as wide a spectrum of views on the important matters that Impact our lives now and in the future. This is important so that we can do some "sifting and winnowing" from among this diversity of ideas and views -- and thus more rationally and intelligently come to our own unique understanding of matters and issues that impact our lives. It is only through such a "sifting and winnowing" process that we have any hope of approaching "truth."

Also in my 83 years that includes five years of active duty in two of America's wars [World War II and Korea (combat pilot in Korea)] -- I have come to the conclusion that, especially in these days of concentration of America's "private media" power in fewer and fewer hands -- it is most urgent that we use our wonderful "Public Radio and Television" gifts to enhance the "diversity" of information available to U.S. citizens -- and thus become a small blessed David in our battle with the Goliaths -- our poorly regulated "private media." Unless we do this, I fear that we will continue to lose that beautiful essence of democracy in America.

Let me now relate my broad concerns to a very specific personal experience that I recently had in the Minneapolis St. Paul area. This experience helped to motivate me to write this proposal to you at WOUB. I presented a paper at our Veterans for Peace [VFP] Annual Convention the end of August 2008 in Minneapolis. My paper dealt with one of my long term professional engineering themes and passions -- "Green Technology by Design As Means To Help Prevent Oil And Other Kinds of Resource Wars, And To Help Prevent Global Warming."

The Republican National Convention took place in St. Paul immediately following our VFP Convention. The evening of Friday, August 29th our VFP Convention was introduced to Ms. Amy Goodman who was in the Minneapolis-St Paul area with her independent media group "Democracy Now" -- to cover the Republican Convention.

Ms. Goodman and other "independent" television and media people tried to report on some "pre-emptive" police strikes and in general were accosted by droves of St. Paul and Minneapolis police, and perhaps also by some Federal governmental security persons -- who sought to drive them away from the public streets around the Republican National Convention. Aside from a small bit of local reporting on these matters, most of America was not allowed to know that these kinds of things were happening outside the Republican National Convention Hall. These events constitute a concrete and specific illustration of my above general commentary on the failure of the "private media" giants to inform the people of America on matters related to this political convention. These "private media" giants failed America in this instance -- and unfortunately so did PBS.

Ms. Goodman, an independent journalist and TV program producer, and other independent media people who were simply non-violently trying to video the activities outside the convention hall, were harassed. I believe that she and possibly some of the other independents were arrested -- believe it or not, for trying to share these matters with American citizens.

Because of a leg and back physical disability I was unable to join the multitudes of street demonstrators. Thus, I watched the convention on TV -- mostly the PBS Lehrer group's coverage -- but with some switching from time to time to the "private media" giants' channels. I was appalled at the coverage of the Convention -- including that by Lehrer's group. From what we were shown by the media, including PBS -- one would have thought that there were no protests what-so-ever connected with the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul Minnesota. The American people were denied the opportunity to see what was actually happening -- thus limiting their ability to do their own "sifting and winnowing" in search for the truth and reality in St. Paul.

In all of this "controlled media" convention coverage there was one brief moment of excitement when a courageous PBS video camera person turned the PBS camera on a creative protester who somehow managed to sneak into the convention hall with some large poster signs that he briefly unfurled before burly men dragged him out of TV's eye. This protestor unfurled two banners -- one said, referring to the Iraq war, "You cannot win an invasion" -- and the other said "McCain votes against veterans." As a veteran of two of America's wars I know the truth of both of these statements.

I hope that that courageous PBS video camera person did not get fired for violating Lehrer's control by showing an infinitesimal few seconds of courageous protest inside the convention hall. PBS's TV convention coverage mimicked that of the "private media" giants in failing to inform American citizens about what was happening outside the Republican Convention hall.

Thus, Carolyn and Jeannie -- I conclude that we in the Southern Ohio WOUB viewing area much need to see and hear on a regular basis the "Democracy Now" material on WOUB TV and radio [AM and FM].-- so that we might better do our own "sifting and winnowing," and thus insure that we continue to have democracy in American .

I look forward to your thoughtful and prompt acceptance of our proposal. Of course I will need to learn of the specific details as to when and how often we will have this opportunity to view and hear Democracy Now -- before I write my checks to WOUB. I understand that the "Democracy Now" materials come to WOUB with minimal, if any, costs.

For Peace, Justice, and Media Diversity in America --
Chuck Overby, Emeritus Engineering Professor

The University of Wisconsin’s Sifting and Winnowing Statement on Academic Freedom

“Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great State University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.”

The above words were taken from a late 19th century University of Wisconsin Board of Trustees meeting in support of the right of economics professor Richard Ely to explore controversial ideas with his students. One of his most controversial ideas was simply his view that ordinary workers perhaps ought to have the right to collectively form unions in order to achieve some minimum semblance of “balance of power” in relation to the corporate giants who unabashedly ruled the state at that time. This corporate (robber baron) power-structure strongly sought to have professor Ely fired for polluting the minds of youth. The Wisconsin Board of Trustees courageously resisted this pressure and refused to remove Ely.

As a tribute to academic freedom, these 36 words of wisdom are displayed as a large bronze plaque, called the “Sifting and Winnowing” plaque and mounted on the wall of Bascom Hall, one of the oldest buildings on campus standing on the top of the highest hill on the campus, housing the university’s president and administration.

--- on having my brain washed and polluted by these wonderful ideas and ideals, as a graduate student and instructor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1957-1965

chuck overby
a two US war veteran [WW-II and Korea]
combat pilot in Korea

WOUB Community Advisory Council meeting recording

2008-10-28T10:55:00.000-07:00

This recording of the Oct. 28, 2008 meeting of the WOUB Community Advisory Council is of particular interest in that the public was not allowed to make comment during the meeting.* [for a copy of the meeting agenda click on

This unedited recording is provided by the AFP.

Guess who’s attacking the media reform movement?

2008-06-17T10:37:00.000-07:00

Why does Bill O’Reilly say that the fourth annual National Conference for Media Reform, which was held June 6–8, 2008, in Minneapolis, was an anti-American conference of the “lunatic left,” “fascists,” and “unstable people” who want to take over this country and use the government to suppress Fox News? The conference, which spearheads the media reform movement in this country, is sponsored by Free Press and included among its speakers FCC Commissioners Michael Coop and Jonathan Adelstein, as well as U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan and U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison. NCMR2008 featured more than 200 presenters and speakers and attracted almost 4,500 attendees over the June weekend.

O’Reilly’s ~~analysis~~ deceptive bloviating, which focused on selective editing of footage shot at the conference and identified George Soros as the financier of the far-out left, was no more illuminating about the purpose of the conference than the audio and video clips that were all the MSM rage on Barack Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. No, the substance of the NCMR2008 was much, much more than O’Reilly and his two pundits would acknowledge in their less-than-eight-minute segment. Bill Moyers’s address succinctly covered the spirit of the media reform movement in this country. This quote from Moyers’s address highlights one of the central problems with mainstream news media and the pundits that inhabit them:

The stars of the dominant media now tell us they did indeed ask tough questions of government during the run-up to the war. But you will go through the transcripts of that period before the war and you will find very few tough questions, and if you come across them, you will discover they are asked of the wrong people. ... Sadly, the Fourth Estate became the Fifth Column of democracy, colluding with the powers-that-be in a “culture of deception,” to quote Scott McClellan, that subverts the thing most necessary to freedom — the truth. Danny Schechter reminds us on Huffington Post that after the media’s “all the war, all the time” coverage of this contrived and manufactured war, Vice President Cheney dropped into a post-invasion media dinner to thank journalists for their service.

I. F. Stone would have had something to say about that “service.”

The June 15 show of Reform Radio featured a conversation with two of those left-wing loons—Alex Thompson, an Ohio University graduating senior majoring in video production, and Elizabeth Goussetis, a 2006 graduate of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism and reporter for the Athens Messenger—who attended the conference. A podcast of that conversation is available here.

Here’s two—among other—reasons that O’Reilly smears the media reform movement in this country: it would minimize the power, if not presence, of Fox News and increase public awareness and outrage at the actions of those that control the medium as well as the message, as shown in the Free Press video below. Take a look.

2008 Big Media Hall of Shame

The Efforts to Have WOUB Carry Democracy Now!

2008-05-20T07:10:00.001-07:00

ATHENS FREE PRESS - Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Our group, Athens Free Press, was formed a year ago in May of 2007, and includes, so far, members from Athens, Meigs, and Belmont Counties.

The principal goal of AFP is to persuade WOUB officials to add the program Democracy Now to its radio or television schedule. We have thus far been unsuccessful. Democracy Now is an award-winning program that is carried by over 700 radio or television stations and has been adding one or two stations a week. One can also get the program via the Internet at www.democracynow.org; however, many people in SE Ohio do not have Internet services or only have dial-up service. We are convinced that the addition of DN to WOUB’s weekly radio or television programming schedule would increase access to this outstanding program. Such access would also enhance and add diversity to WOUB’s coverage and analysis of events and issues that are important to the citizens of Southeast Ohio.

Over the past year, members of Athens Free Press met twice with WOUB officials and separately with the Dean of the College of Communications. We wrote letters to explain our position to members of the local community. We held an open forum at the Athens Public Library. We presented our case at Advisory Council meetings. We e-mailed information directly to members of the Advisory Council. One of our members obtained relevant information from WOUB via “information requests.”

From the responses and information we have received, the opposition to our proposal stems from WOUB officials and staff, some members of the WOUB Community Advisory Council, and one person in Athens who has registered her/his opposition directly to WOUB. WOUB officials reject our proposal because, for example, they contend that DN does not measure up to their professional standards, that it is partisan, and that AFP is not representative of their audiences. We have responded in detail to all of their objections.

On our side, there are a considerable number of people who support our proposal, including 306 persons who have signed our petition in the Athens area in recent months, and 143 persons who signed the petition at events in or near Belmont County, for a total of 449 signatures. We have 30 persons on our AFP e-mail list. WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT AS WELL. PLEASE SIGN OUR PETITION.

Further information about Democracy Now and and Athens Free Press can be obtained by requesting information from Bob Sheak at www.sheak@ohio.edu or by visiting our website/blog at http://athensfreepress.blogspot.com.

Today, we plan to give Carolyn Bailey Lewis, Director and General Manager of WOUB, copies of the signatures we have collected on our petition.

Response to letter: "Demand for 'Democracy Now'..."

2008-05-20T06:28:00.000-07:00

Dear Folks,

The following letter from Don Canterbury (Stone Castle Road, Athens) appears in the Athens News. His arguments are not new - or easily rebuttable - because they are based on impressions or assertions that lack evidence. See our responses in bold type in the body of the letter.

Bob Sheak

"Demand for ‘Democracy Now’ not as great as its local supporters pretend" (May 19, 2008)

To the Editor:

In response to Michael Barr’s letter on May 12 regarding the hypocrisy of WOUB officials:

I volunteer regularly for WOUB. I’ve read the letters to the editor about WOUB and “Democracy Now.”

The letters make it seem like a huge number of people want the show to air. I can tell you that the number of people I’ve encountered (both people that I know and people I have encountered during pledge drives and other events at WOUB) wanting that show to run is very small. - He is saying that not many people he encounters in these situations say the "want the show."

My reaction is that not many - or any - people in these situations know about DN even think to discuss it. This says nothing about the substance of DN's programs, an award-winning show that is now carried by over 700 stations. The signatures we have collected on our petition represent a few hundred people who have signed on specifically in favor of having WOUB include DN in their radio or television programming. That may not be many, but its not insignificant either.

The biggest thing that is hard for me to understand is that the show is available at democracynow.org at any time. Why is it so important for WOUB to air the show when it is available for anyone who is interested in listening to it?

He misses the point here. Many people in this area have no internet service, or only dial-up service, making web access to audio and video impractical, and who is he to decide that DN should be relegated to second class delivery options? (but thanks for the plug for the democracynow.org Web site)

I believe that it is a small group of people that want their political opinions to be showcased to make others believe the same way they do. I think that is wrong. I listen to a lot of news programs and make my own decisions. I don’t need any certain program to tell me how to think.

His statements here are based on impressions and assertions without evidence. He asserts that we are a small group. He asserts that we want others to believe the same way we do. Our position has been that DN would enhance and diversify the programming available on WOUB. At present, many of the perspectives on the news that DN offers are essentially censored from the broadcast news options in this area. We are not asking to censor other perspectives, or tell anyone how to think. What we are asking is to end the censorship and give the public access to more diversity from which to form opinions. DN would broaden the information on the issues for the writer and others, not tell him how to think. By the way, just this weekend on "Bob Edwards Weekend," which is distributed on NPR by Public Radio International, Edwards spent a half hour talking to Amy Goodman, the host of DN. Edwards is well known in public media circles and apparently thinks highly enough of Amy and DN to invite her for an extended discussion of DN and Amy's recent book, which builds on interviews from DN. By the way, Bill Moyers, another major media figure, is also a big booster of DN. Moyers hosts his own program on PBS every Friday Night. He was a guest on DN on the May 7th program.

WOUB is carried through a huge part of southeastern Ohio and parts of West Virginia and Kentucky.

I think they have a great mix of programs that show the different sides of every story. I don’t want anything to be taken off the air to make room for Democracy Now.

This is his opinion with no supporting evidence. We have documented that guests and hosts of NPR and PBS were wrong in their support of Colin Powell's Iraq address to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003 promoting the invasion of Iraq. The coverage of Haiti, Israel-Palestine, and a host of other issues that are covered by NPR and PBS reflect a narrow range of viewpoints. To advance the issue raised by he writer of the letter would require a close examination of how DN covers specific issues or topics compared to NPR and/or PBS.

As far as all the fuss about the naming of the newsroom, the guy (Roger Ailes) went to OU and worked for WOUB as a student.

Would it be right to not take money from someone because he has political beliefs that you don’t agree with? I don’t think so. I think he’s been successful in the business and wants to provide money to help out students.

Roger Ailes gave WOUB a $500,000 gift for a newsroom in the RTV building which has been named after him. Ailes is the principal force behind Fox News, a station that is renown for a donor notorious for news right-wing, pro-Bush and pro-Republican stances. Accepting a gift is one thing.

Naming a the newsroom after the a donor notorious for right-wing biased news donor raises serious questions about what influence this may have on WOUB's independence. is something that is worrisome. It doesn't reflect What does it mean for an educational program a desire to build a program for students that is in the tradition of journalists who pursue the facts of stories from diverse sources, even when the facts conflict with positions of held by government officials or by the interests of large economic interests.

I find it hard to believe that anybody would have a problem with that. I think if you do, then you’re biased in your beliefs. Anyone who thinks that money for the newsroom is tied in with the decision to not run “Democracy Now” is wrong. When I work pledge drives, we don’t ask someone’s political affiliations. The money raised has nothing to do with politics; it has to do with supporting a good radio station.

WOUB officials have expressed the opinion, with no supporting evidence, that carrying Democracy Now would hurt fundraising. We have offered evidence to the contrary, that in fact carrying DN may well enhance fundraising among listeners. Inevitably, this raises the question as to whether the fundraising that WOUB is concerned about is not from ordinary listeners, but from the likes of Roger Ailes. Our position is that WOUB's programming would be enhanced and diversified in good ways by the inclusion of DN. And citizens in Southeast Ohio would then be in a better, more informed, position to judge the truthfulness of what those in power tell us.

Interview with Marshall Thompson (video)

2008-05-19T12:07:00.000-07:00

Thompson recently completed "A Soldier's Peace," a documentary about his 500-mile walk to protest the Iraq war.

Amy Goodman, on Bob Edwards Show, 5/16/08

2008-05-17T13:59:00.000-07:00

Bob Edwards Show interviews Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!

"Amy Goodman anchors the foremost progressive daily news program in the country, 'Democracy Now!' Goodman along with her brother, investigative reporter David Goodman, recently wrote a new book which tells the stories of courageous citizens who have challenged government policies. It's called 'Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times.'"

download/listen: podcast

Speaking up at WOUB's public advisory meeting, 2/19/08

2008-05-13T09:02:00.000-07:00

The following videos are from the Feb. 19, 2008 WOUB Public Advisory Council meeting are used with permission of Ohio University, and were produced by WOUB. The first set of videos were taken during the 10 minute period set aside for "public comment" near the end of the meeting.

Bob Sheak, member of Athens Free Press, speaking on behalf of Democracy Now

Jack Wright, member of Athens Free Press, speaking on behalf of Democracy Now

Jan Griesinger, member of the Athens, Ohio community, speaking on behalf of Democracy Now

Chuck Overby, member of the Athens, Ohio community, speaking on behalf of Democracy Now

John Morgan, member of Athens Free Press, speaking on behalf of Democracy Now

Bob Stewart, member of Athens Free Press, speaking on behalf of Democracy Now

These videos are of the responses by the attending members of WOUB's Public Advisory Council:

George Bain, member of WOUB's Public Advisory Council

Kathy Devecka, member of WOUB's Public Advisory Council

Bob Gallagher, member of WOUB's Public Advisory Council

Milena Miller, member of WOUB's Public Advisory Council

Jeff Wilson, member of WOUB's Public Advisory Council

Sandra Sleight-Brennan, member of WOUB's Public Advisory Council

Jim Fuller, member of WOUB's Public Advisory Council

Fred Harner, chair of WOUB's Public Advisory Council, adjourning the meeting and then asking the public to leave the premises

According to several members of the council, the discussion about our request continued after we were dismissed from the meeting, effectively eliminating our opportunity to respond to WOUB managers' statements about our efforts.

Membership of the WOUB Public Advisory Council:

Mr. Fred Charles Harner, Chair, Athens
Ms. Milena Miller, Vice Chair, Athens
Ms. Kathy Devecka, Secretary, Athens
Dr. George Bain, Legislative Affairs Chair, Athens
Ms. Brandi Baker (student), Athens
Mr. Matthew Barnes (student), Athens
Mr. Tom Brennaman (alumnus), Cincinnati
Ms. Maggi Channell, Athens
Dr. Bill Dingus, South Point
Mr. James Fuller, Nominating Chair, Athens
Mr. Robert Gallagher, Chillicothe
Mr. Robert Guentter, Jr., Zanesville
Ms. Monica Sue Jones, Zanesville
Mr. Brooks Jarosz (student), Athens
Mr. Gary Little, Athens
Ms. Diane McVey, Development Chair, Athens
Mrs. Caroline Putnam, Marietta
Ms. Nicole Salem (student) Athens
Mr. David Scheffler, Columbus
Ms. Sandra Sleight-Brennan, Athens
Mr. Aaron Thomas, Athens
Ms. Janice Tucker-McCloud, New Concord
Mr. Jeff Wilson, Athens

Ex-officio: Dr. Gregory J. Shepherd, Dean, Scripps College of Communication; Dr. Carolyn Bailey Lewis, Director and General Manager

WOUB Council Liaison: Ms. Sue Damron, Administrative Coordinator, WOUB 740-593-4952 or damronw@ohio.edu

The next meeting is May 21, 2008 in Ironton [read more]

Plunkett cartoon captured the hypocrisy of WOUB officials

2008-05-12T07:48:00.000-07:00

To the Editor [of the Athens News]:

Kudos to Sandy Plunkett for a terrific political cartoon in the May 1 Athens NEWS distilling the hypocrisy of WOUB’s refusal to carry “Democracy Now” while OU shamelessly gushes over Fox News President Roger Ailes’ gift of media equipment to his alma mater.

In dismissing the outpouring of regional requests for WOUB to carry DN, officials have publicly said very little except (as the cartoon depicts) suggesting that the requested show is “biased.”

Yet OU has fawningly kowtowed to what journalists generally acknowledge is the most slanted large news organization in the nation. Incredibly, they’ve actually christened the upgraded studio in the name of the right-wing FOX honcho.

Internal documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that communications among OU and WOUB officials cited a total of one WOUB viewer threatening to withhold support if “Democracy Now” hits the local airwaves. The show in question does play on PBS/NPR affiliates elsewhere and reportedly results in more, not fewer, contributions to these public stations.

With the recent opening of several digital channels broadcast by WOUB, there’s plenty of airtime available for the inclusion of the award-winning “Democracy Now” program.

Yes, there is bias contained in this continuing controversy. And it’s clearly on the side of WOUB/OU management. It’s past time that changes.

Michael Barr
Gilham Road
Athens

Moyers, on Democracy Now! ... Again

2008-05-08T15:26:00.000-07:00

The following is an excerpt from a May 7, 2008 interview with Bill Moyers on Democracy Now! [full program]

AMY GOODMAN: On the issue of broadcasting and media, you’re broadcasting on PBS. Do you think it has become, well, let’s say, to put it mildly, risk-averse? Go back forty years to the Carnegie Commission and the founding of public broadcasting. You were there in the White House. You were the press secretary for Lyndon Johnson. You came in in ’63, when he came in after Kennedy’s assassination?

BILL MOYERS: Yes. The first two years, I was his general assistant and the fellow who was coordinating his domestic policy. I actually helped put together the task force that led to the creation of public broadcasting in—Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. I had left in January of ’67. But my first job, before he insisted—after three times I had said no—he insisted I become the press secretary, was dealing with issues like the environment, civil rights, public broadcasting and all of that. So, yes, I was present at the creation.

And I have to say that public broadcasting today is not the adventuresome, the risk-taking exercise in diversity and pluralism and democracy that we had hoped it would be. It lacks the financial independence to take the risks that you can only take when you have nothing to lose, because 70 percent of public broadcasting’s funding comes from Congress. That makes it political in the eyes of many people, even though that influence is marginal. You know, I’ve advocated for years publicly that Democracy Now! should be on public broadcasting.

AMY GOODMAN: And it is on a number of PBS stations.

BILL MOYERS: A number of stations, but it’s not fed through the system. It’s not a system-wide—it should be. And there should be other reasonable voices with different philosophies than yours and mine on the air. But it is hamstrung by financial penury, and it’s embedded in a system that is altogether too political, and so it doesn’t take the risks that we ought to be taking. We ought to be the forum for the country.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of Kenneth Tomlinson, the man who made you his target, possibly drove you off PBS for a while, giving $5 million to the Wall Street Journal Report that aired on PBS, $5 million? Now it goes to FOX, so PBS becomes the incubator for programs in the commercial media.

BILL MOYERS: Well, I address that story in two of the speeches I delivered that are published in Moyers on Democracy. They didn’t drive me off the air. PBS took—stood behind me. Pat Mitchell, the then-president of PBS, was under enormous pressure. I wasn’t even aware of how much pressure until I left.

The main reason I left—I had been doing this weekly broadcast, I was seventy years old, I was tired, I needed a rest. But the main reason I left is that I could not oppose—I knew what Kenneth Tomlinson and the—who was Karl Rove’s man at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—I knew what they were doing. I had friends still working at CPB. One of them called me and said, you know, Tomlinson has said his job is to get rid of Moyers. Well, I wasn’t going to let that happen, but I finally realized that the only way I could deal with Kenneth Tomlinson and the rightwing effort to intimidate public broadcasting was to leave the air for awhile, because I couldn’t use my broadcast, I couldn’t use the camera to oppose him, because it would appear to be self-serving. So I left.

I retired at the age of seventy, went out and made a series of speeches. Most of them are in that book. Two of them dealt directly with Tomlinson. And I worked with friends of public broadcasting in Washington to tell the story of what was happening.

As a result of that and other things, the integrity of—the inspector general at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting looked into Tomlinson’s activities and decided they were violating the rules and the regulations. He had to leave the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He was not reappointed. And then he had to also leave the Board of Governors of the overseas broadcasting, the United States overseas broadcasting, because he had engaged in many of the same questionable activities there that he had done at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. When that was over and I had felt that I had had my say without abusing my position at public broadcasting, I came back with a weekly series.

But this is not the first time, Amy. You know that starting with Richard Nixon and Patrick Buchanan, when Buchanan was Nixon’s director of communications, they tried to undo public broadcasting. Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole tried to undo public broadcasting. George W. Bush wants to defund even the modest amount of money we get from Congress. There’s been a consistent fight, because the conservatives don’t want an alternative view of reality. We’re not going to propagate their propaganda. They don’t like it when there’s any kind of opposition or any—someone who doesn’t cooperate with them, they don’t like. So they have been consistently, from 1970 forward, trying to undo public broadcasting. And that’s one of the reasons public broadcasting hasn’t soared as the independent source of journalism, analysis and debate that it should be.

Democracy Now...

2008-05-01T17:59:00.001-07:00

by Sandy Plunkett [published in the Athens News, May 1, 2008]

"A Soldier's Peace" film screening (podcasts added)

2008-05-01T07:18:00.001-07:00

OU grad student Marshall Thompson's award winning film, "A Soldier's Peace," was shown Friday, May 9 at 7:30 p.m. in Scripps Hall 111. Thompson was on hand for the showing, as well as a discussion about the film following the showing.

Introduction to film, with Bill Reader (JSchool) >> mp3 podcast

Discussion following film with Tanya Paperny (Campus Progress) and Marshall Thompson (film producer/director) >> mp3 podcast

"We STILL Want Better Media" Conference (podcasts added)

2008-04-25T14:28:00.000-07:00

Friday, May 9

7:30 p.m. - Film Screening - A Soldier's Peace (Scripps Hall 111)

Introduction to film, with Bill Reader (JSchool) >> mp3 podcast

Discussion following film with Tanya Paperny (Campus Progress) and Marshall Thompson (film producer/director) >> mp3 podcast

Saturday, May 10

9:30 a.m. - Registration (Scripps Hall 107). NOTE: This is a free conference; registration is optional.

10:00 a.m. - Welcome (Scripps Hall 111)
Thomas Hodson, Director E.W. Scripps School of Journalism, Bob Stewart, Athens Free Press, Chelsea Toy, Student Committee and Campus Progress Advisory Board Member, and Thomas Coen from Campus Progress

10:30 a.m. - Media and Politics (Scripps Hall 111)
- Terry Smith, editor (Athens News)
- Algis Mickunas, retired professor (Philosophy)
- Bernhard Debatin, professor (E.W. Scripps School of Journalism)
- MODERATOR: Sandra Haggerty, professor (E.W. Scripps School of Journalism)

11:45 a.m. - Breakout Sessions
- Blogging - Bob Stewart, professor (E.W. Scripps School of Journalism)
- Media Bootcamp - Tanya Paperny (Campus Progress)

12:45 p.m. - Lunch on your own

1:45 p.m. - "Work in Progress"
- Kelsey McCoy (Rural Action)
- Chelsea Toy (Ohio University)
- Marshall Thompson (Ohio University)
- MODERATOR: Thomas Coen

3:00 p.m. - Refreshment Break

3:30 p.m. - Why Media Reform is Important to Us All - Multi-Issue Panel (Scripps Hall 111).

MODERATOR: Cara Theart (Honors degree in journalism from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa)

Susanne Dietzel -- Media portrayal of women's issues (mp3). Dr. Dietzel is director of the OU Women’s Center. She earned her Ph.D. in American Studies and Feminist Studies at the University of Minnesota in 1996. Before coming to Ohio, Dr. Dietzel was an Assistant Professor of women's studies at Tulane University and directed the Women's Resource Center at Loyola University in New Orleans. Her research interests include interdisciplinary women’s studies, feminist theory and activism, and the role of women's centers in institutions of higher learning. She is also a co-founder of Katrina Warriors, a feminist network committed to ending violence against women and girls in New Orleans.

Ruhi Khan -- Media effects on muslim youth in India (mp3). Ruhi is a fourth-year Ph.D. student in telecommunications. She grew up in Kuwait, completed her bachelor’s degree in India, and earned her masters at Syracuse University with a concentration in media management and programming. Ruhi spent six years in India working with STAR TV Networks and National Geographic Channels International, and is now completing her dissertation research on how the media impacts the collective identities of Muslim youth in India.

Geoff Buckley -- Media coverage of social and environmental justice in Appalachia (mp3). Buckley is an associate geography professor. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Maryland in 1997 by studying the effects of coal mining on the forests and water of western Maryland. Here at Ohio University, Dr. Buckley teaches a number of relevant courses, including “Appalachia: Land and People.” His research interests include historical geography, environmental justice, and coal mining in Appalachia. He is the author of Extracting Appalachia: Images of the Consolidation Coal Company, 1910-1945 and is currently co-editing a book about environmental justice in Appalachia.

Speaker bios:

Thomas Coen (Associate Publications Manager for Campus Progress) -- Thomas graduated in 2007 from Wesleyan University with a BA in Government and Economics and a Certificate in International Relations. While at Wesleyan, Thomas co-hosted a weekly political talk radio show, was a research assistant focusing on U.S. counterterrorism policy, and co-founded a publication, Incite Magazine, that combines news analysis and political commentary with action and activism. He has interned at People for the American Way and in the United States Senate.

Bernhard Debatin teaches courses in online journalism, media ethics and theoretical/conceptual topics. Since Summer 2005, he has been serving as the Director of Studies in the Journalism HTC program. His research areas include new media and online journalism, media ethics, international media, mass media theory, theory of the public sphere, communication theory, and metaphor theory.

Algis Mickunas is professor emeritus of philosophy at Ohio University and a preeminent American scholar of contemporary European philosophy, Marxism, hermeneutics, semiotics, phenomenology, and existentialism as well as theories of democracy and politics. He has published and/or presented hundreds of scholarly papers and articles at numerous conferences in America, Latin America, Japan, Europe, India, and the Middle East and authored more than a dozen books, including Technocracy vs Democracy. He founded or co-founded several scholarly bodies, including the International Circle of Husserl Scholars, the International Circle of Merleau-Ponty Scholars, The Current State of Marxian Theory, the International Gebser Society, and the Center for the Study of Globalization in Guatemala. Although Professor Mickunas has retired from teaching at Ohio University where he taught for 30 years, receiving several university professor awards and an outstanding graduate faculty award, he maintains an active schedule of lecturing in Europe and the Middle East and continues writing. His latest book is Democracy Today. His most recent honors include being appointed to the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences and named the outstanding foreign contributor to humanities and social sciences in Luthuania.

Tanya Paperny (Outreach and Organizing Associate Manager for Campus Progress) -- Tanya recently graduated from the University of California, Santa Barbara, where she studied Women’s Studies and History and was a leader in the Queer Student Union, Women’s Commission, and Solidarity Against War. She tends to think that mainstream media in this country is pretty screwy, so to try to change that, she’s interned at KCSB and WAMU-FM, and written, edited, and designed for UCSB’s DisOrientation Guide, HerStory Feminist Magazine, and The Bottom Line, an alternative student newspaper. She recently completed an internship at Women Work! and a cross-country road trip in an old-school car.

Terry Smith has worked for 27 years in newspapers, including 21 years as editor of The Athens News. He's worked at small and mid-sized papers in Ohio (2), Arizona, Idaho, Colorado and West Virginia, both as an editor and a news reporter. He has been teaching courses (usually news-writing) at the Scripps School of Journalism on a contract/adjunct basis. He's also conducted workshops and seminars, and participated in panels at the annual Scripps High School Journalism Workshop at Ohio University. He has moderated and sat on panels at the Association of Alternative Newsweeklie' annual conference.

Marshall Thompson is completing an MSJ from the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism. He served in Iraq as a military journalist. When he returned from Iraq he and his wife created the organization "A Soldier's Peace," and produced a documentary about his walk across the state of Utah to call for an end to the war.

Chelsea Toy is a sophomore majoring in journalism and specializing in international studies at Ohio University. Born outside of Pittsburgh, PA, she grew up competing in professional rodeos as a barrel racer. She has traveled to Washington, DC, to report on the United for Peace and Justice march in January 2007, as well as to Selma, AL, to report on the 42nd Anniversary of the Selma-Montgomery Voting Rights’ march. Chelsea is also involved in organizing direct action campaigns for CODEPINK: Women for Peace in Athens, OH. Earlier this year, Chelsea interned in Cape Town, South Africa.

co-sponsored by: Athens Free Press & Campus Progress

Journalistic Standards: A reasonable interpretation

2008-02-19T04:14:00.000-08:00

A response to WOUB’s contention that Democracy Now does not measure up to the journalistic standards of objectivity, balance, and fairness (November 21, 2007).

by Bob Sheak

I am participating with a local group of citizens from Athens and other areas of Ohio in a group called Athens Free Press. We have been having a dialogue with the managers of the local public radio/television station, WOUB, asking them to include the award-winning program Democracy Now in their programming. We have met with them twice and they have rejected our proposal. What stands out in their rejection is the contention that Democracy Now does not measure up to the journalistic standards that guides their programming decisions. These standards, they maintain, come from the policies of NPR, PBS, and OU. In their rejection of Democracy Now, WOUB managers focused on the standards of objectivity, fairness and balance.

In the following document, I try to tease out the meaning of these standards from the three sources WOUB provided us and from other relevant sources as well. My first purpose is to consider the meaning and implications of these and other related standards. I also have a second related purpose. My analysis of journalistic standards will provide a framework for considering a series of comparisons of how NPR and PBS, as opposed to Democracy Now, cover and analyze certain important issues. In another report, I have focused on the example of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s address to the United Nations’ Security Council on February 5, 2003.

My principal argument is that by adding Democracy Now to their programming, WOUB would reflect a greater and more diversified range of coverage and analysis of important issues and events than they now do. My argument can be summarized in three contentions.

One, Democracy Now covers some important issues not covered by NPR/PBS/WOUB.

Two, Democracy Now covers some of the same stories that are covered by public radio and television. In some cases, they overlap in coverage, though their respective coverage has a different thrust. This is to be welcomed, as it would illuminate more aspects of a story than otherwise, a reflection of different sources of information, differing perspectives of guests, and differences in the amount of coverage.

Three, in other cases, the coverage of Democracy Now and public radio/television is quite different and sometimes antithetical, reflecting differences in basic political philosophy and attitudes towards events and policies as well as different sources, guests, and coverage.

As I’ve noted, the focus of another article is on the third contention and examines the disparate coverage of NPR/PBS as opposed to Democracy Now on Colin Powell’s address to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003. Powell’s address was touted by the Bush administration, and then by the majority of media, as one that brought together the best evidence to document that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. While all major aspects of Powell’s presentation were later found to be false, Powell’s address, at the time, added legitimacy to the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq on March 20, 2003. While the major commercial and public media rallied around the administration’s policy, uncritically going along with Powell’s misleading and mistaken “evidence,” there were many in the “alternative” or “independent” media that were not swayed by the government’s propaganda. These media had opposed such a war long before Powell’s UN address, remained skeptical of the evidence he presented to the UN Security council, and continued to voice their criticisms afterwards. They were right, and the major public and commercial media were wrong. One of the independent media that got it right was Democracy Now.

I'll now turn to an analysis of the journalistic standards invoked by WOUB managers in their rejection of our proposal to include Democracy Now in their programming. I try to support an argument that the journalistic standards that they used to reject Democracy Now are open to interpretation and are not always consistently applied. I suggest, therefore, that the interpretation and application of journalistic standards must recognize this reality, take into account standards beyond objectivity, balance, and fairness while including them as a flexible part of the mix, and while additionally taking into account records of a program’s performance.

The example of Powell’s UN speech demonstrates the need for nuanced and practically applied standards and also for the inclusion of a greater range of perspectives in public broadcasting. It is through diversity in programming that NPR, PBS, and WOUB can increase the chances that their audiences will have a chance to assess and weigh more than one viewpoint, or variations on it, when it comes to an important policy-influencing event like Powell’s UN speech. Diversity of views also is more consistent with the heterogeneity of the citizenry and the touted pluralistic political system of the United States.

Journalistic Standards: The Limits of “Objectivity”

WOUB managers provided our group with documents on journalistic standards from OU, NPR, and PBS. Objectivity from these sources means that news and related information and analysis should be acquired and presented in a “neutral way” (PBS).

(1) Over-simplifies the journalistic process and pretends to expunge subjectivity from this process.

I think that this definition of objectivity oversimplifies the dynamic, multidimensional, and disputed aspects of virtually all important human and social events and issues. It is unreasonable to believe that a producer or journalist of news and analysis can sift through the relevant information and achieve a computer-like neutrality that is true to the issues at hand. A “neutral” conception of objectivity ignores or underplays how there are always subjective judgments on which events and issues are selected for coverage, how stories are written and edited, how they are contextualized, and how much space or time is devoted to them.

(2) The simplistic conception of objectivity pays little attention to how evidence is collected or verified.

Objectivity-as-neutral fails to address the question of how facts are identified in the first place, and then by what method they are verified. As the Committee of Concerned Journalists maintain, the conceptualization of objectivity as “bias” confuses the method of journalistic work with the journalist. The committee’s statement on “the lost meaning of objectivity” goes on to elaborate “some important implications” of this distinction, as follows. (Committee of Concerned Journalists, “The Lost Meaning of Objectivity,” www.concernedjournalists.org/lost-meaning-objectivity August 27, 2007)

“One is that the impartial voice employed by many news organizations, that familiar, supposedly neutral style of newswriting, is not a fundamental principle of journalism. Rather, it is an often helpful device news organizations use to highlight that they are trying to produce something obtained by objective methods. The second implication is that this neutral voice, without a discipline of verification, creates a veneer covering something hollow. Journalists who select sources to express what is really their own point of view, and then use the neutral voice to make it seem objective, are engaged in a form of deception. This damages the credibility of the whole profession by making it seem unprincipled, dishonest, and biased. This is an important caution in an age when the standards of the press are so in doubt.”

The committee also points out that “There is nothing approaching standard rules of evidence, as in the law, or an agreed-upon method of observation, as in the conduct of scientific experiments.” Journalists have developed “various techniques and conventions for determining facts.” But this is typically based on the judgment of journalists themselves, through “word of mouth from reporter to reporter, through “trial and error,” and on the basis of such rules as information gathered by journalists should be verified by at least one other source. The committee notes that the group Investigative Reporters and Editors “has tried to develop a methodology for how to use public records, read documents, and produce Freedom of Information Act requests,” but “these [still] informal strategies have not been pulled together into the widely understood discipline that [Walter] Lippmann and others imagined,” that is [as Lippmann once wrote] a “common intellectual method and a common area of valid fact.”

(3) PBS acknowledges the subjective – and creative – element in journalism in some of its statements on journalistic standards:

According to PBS’ statement on standards: “PBS recognizes that the producer of informational content deals neither in absolute truth nor in absolute objectivity. Information is by nature fragmentary; the honesty of a program, Web site, or other content can never be measured by a precise, scientifically verifiable formula. Therefore, content quality must depend, at bottom, on the producer’s professionalism, independence, honesty, integrity, sound judgment, common sense, open mindedness, and intention to inform, not to propagandize.”

On this point, Brent Cunnigham has an article in Columbian Journalism Review (issue 4, July-August 2003) titled “Re-thinking Objectivity,” in which the principle of objectivity can make journalists “passive recipients of news, rather than aggressive analyzers and explainers of it.” Cunningham also notes there is little agreement among journalists on the meaning of objectivity and that the narrow and ambiguous conception of objectivity “makes reporters hesitant to inject issues into the news that aren’t already out there. He also argues that “objectivity excuses lazy reporting,” and tends to lead journalists to rely on a limited number of sources. He refers to a study by media analyst Andrew Tyndall of “414 stories on Iraq broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS from last September [2202] to February [2003]” that found “all but thirty-four originated at the White House, Pentagon, and State Department.” One of the implicit problems is that the media are hesitant to force elected officials to address important issues that are not among the stories of concern to “official” government. After discussing these and other problems that stifle the journalists quest for a truthful documentation and reporting on important issue, Cunningham refers to a report on a symposium on objectivity in which “a good reporter who is well-steeped in his subject matter and who isn’t out to prove his cleverness, but rather is sweating out a detailed understanding of a topic worth exploring, will probably develop intelligent opinions that will inform and perhaps be expressed in his journalism.” Cunningham later adds: “Letting them write what they know and encouraging them to dig toward some deeper understanding of things is not bias, it is essential.”

(4) Journalists should seek sources on controversial issues and also pay attention to sources among dissident voices of the society that are outside of the media mainstream. The PBS statement on journalistic standards maintains that “content that provides courageous and responsible treatment of issues, and that reports and comments, with honesty and candor, on social, political, and economic tensions, disagreements, and divisions. The surest road to intellectual stagnation and social isolation is to stifle the expression of uncommon ideas; today’s dissent may be tomorrow’s orthodoxy. The ultimate task of weighing and judging information and viewpoints is, in a free and open society, the task of the audience. Therefore, PBS seeks to assure that its overall content offerings contains a broad range of opinions and points of view, including those from outside society’s existing consensus, presented in a responsible manner and consistent with the standards set forth in these Standards and Policies.”

(5) Professional Integrity

Similarly, the Society of Professional Journalists views the role of the journalist as active and creative, not passive and neutral, and as based on professional integrity. The Society puts it this way:

“Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.”

(6) Other considerations in the quest for accurate and valid renditions of important issues and events: The example of Democracy Now

There are many ways to judge a program’s quality and its relatively “objective” coverage and analysis of important issues and events. Consider the following examples of a record of “excellence” with respect to Democracy Now.

A record of excellent performance - One may take into account the record of performance of a program, its hosts, and staff, as well as, other indicators of its achievements (e.g., how it has been assessed by other media organizations, professional awards, reputation). Consider some of indicators of Democracy Now’s excellence that are implicitly a testament to the program’s growing popularity.

· Awards: Amy Goodman and 'Democracy Now!' have won numerous awards for their journalistic and broadcasting excellence, including the George Polk Award, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Prize, Alfred I. DuPont-Columbia Award, Edwin H. "Major" Armstrong Award, National Federation of Community Broadcasters, Golden Reels, Project Censored Award, Social Society of Professional Journalists, and awards from AP, UPI and CPB.

· Amy Goodman, host and executive producer, is the author, with her brother David Goodman, of two best-selling books (The Exception to the Rulers, chosen as one of the top 50 nonfiction books of 2004 by the editors of Publishers Weekly, and Static, presently on the NYT and LA Times best-seller lists). Networks including CNN, CSPAN, MSNBC, as well as NPR programs, regard Amy as a credible journalist and regularly invite her to speak.

· An outstanding host/interviewer – Amy is an outstanding interviewer, invariably well prepared for interviews, adept at drawing out the views of her guests, and able when appropriate to contextualize the issue being discussed. She does not typically or explicitly interject her own views. She does not harangue her guests but asks tough, well informed questions.

· Juan Gonzales – a columnist at the New York Daily News since 1988 – “has won numerous awards for his investigative reporting including the George Polk Aware in 1988 and was recently elected President of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. He is also the author of two books: Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America and Fallout: The Environmental Consequences of the World Trade Center Collapse.

· A diversity of notable guests: Tariq Ali, Christopher Hitchens, Hugo Chavez, Noam Chomsky, Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Fisk, Bill Moyers Greg Palast, Scott Ritter, Aroundahti Roy, Edward Said, Howard Zinn….

· Fund raising – Democracy Now! outperforms all other programs during radio station fundraising drives, including NPR’s Morning Edition and All Things Considered.

· Independence – As a news show that is funded entirely through contributions from listeners, viewers, broadcasting stations and non-corporate foundations, Democracy Now! maintains its editorial independence, providing a counterweight to media consolidation. DN! “does not accept advertisers, donations from corporations, or donations from governments.” This is not true of “public” media outlets, which “accept funding from major corporations, as well as from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Every Corporation for Public Broadcasting board member is appointed by the White House and confirmed by the Senate” (source: Democracy Now!)

(7) One danger of being guided by narrow conceptions of “objectivity” is to become, in effect, a channel for powerful interests in the society.

There is the danger that journalists in the public, as well as the private, media are not able, perhaps sometimes unwilling, to bring an active and creative practice to their coverage and discussions of important events and issues. Critics of the mainstream media have asserted as much and offered explanations for why this is too often the case, including for example: concentrated corporate ownership, conservative influences in the federal government, inadequate funding, bureaucratic constraints, and so forth. John Pilger, a well-known film documentarian, journalist and author suggests what some of the unfortunate outcomes are (www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pilger_John/Pilger_interview.html (Nov. 2002),

“Many journalists now are no more than channelers and echoers of what Orwell called the official truth. They simply cipher and transmit lies. It really grieves me that so many of my fellow journalists can be so manipulated that they become really what the French describe as functionaries, functionaries, not journalists.”

“Many journalists become very defensive when you suggest to them that they are anything but impartial and objective. The problem with those words ‘impartiality’ and ‘objectivity’ is that they have lost their dictionary meaning. They’ve been taken over. ‘Impartiality’ and ‘objectivity’ now mean the establishment point of view. Whenever a journalist says to me, ‘Oh, you don’t understand, I’m impartial, I’m objective,’ I know what he’s saying. I can decode it immediately. It means he channels the official truth. Almost always. That protestation means he speaks for a consensual view of the establishment. This is internalized. Journalists don’t sit down think, ‘I’m now going to speak for the establishment.’ Of course not.

“But they internalize a whole set of assumptions, and one of the most potent assumptions is that the world should be seen in terms of its usefulness to the West, not humanity. This leads journalists to make a distinction between people who matter and people who don’t matter. The people who died in the Twin Towers in that terrible crime mattered. The people who were bombed to death in dusty villages in Afghanistan don’t matter, even though it now seems that their numbers were greater. The people who will die in Iraq don’t matter. Iraq has been successfully demonized as if everybody who lives there is Saddam Hussein. In the build-up to this attack on Iraq, journalists have almost universally excluded the prospect of civilian deaths, the numbers of people who would die, because those people don’t matter.

“It’s only when journalists understand the role they play in this propaganda. It’s only when they realize they can’t be both independent, honest journalists and agents of power, that things begin to change.”

In summary, the equation of objectivity as “neutral” reporting and analysis of important issues and events leads to the following:

· over-simplification and thus missing the dynamic complexity of what’s going on;

· the false assumption that there is no selectivity, let alone bias, in how evidence is collected

· a limited method of verification, often based on seeking a confirmation of a source’s information, while ignoring the problem of redundancy or multiple sources that hold the same or similar views;

· the implicit, if not explicit, assumption that producers and journalists are blank-slate recorders of important issues and events, or alternatively, stenographers who simply aggregate or filter true facts from untrue facts;

· the assumption that valid and reputable sources of evidence are routinely identified amidst controversy and distinguished from invalid and disreputable sources;

· a conception of professional integrity, if it is considered at all, that is said to be about collecting facts, often disputed facts, accurately and from sources considered to be authoritative – a self-supporting circular claim;

· the assumption that excellence is not identified by recognition by even highly reputable organizations;

· the belief that journalists, in the passive mode, are immune from being influenced by their powerful sources.

What does “balance” mean to the public media?

Some argue that “balance” is achieved when there are guests on a program with two different, if not opposing, views, or when guests with different views are given comparable amounts of time on subsequent programs, or when guests representing different constituencies, interests, or demographic groups are included in programs. However, the statements on “fairness” in the journalistic standards by PBS, NPR, and OU are not so clear cut.

According to OU standards for broadcasters and journalists (Section 396 (g) (1)), there is no simple formula for achieving balance in the sense of giving different viewpoints “equal time.” The goal should be to incorporate a range of viewpoints in a program over time.

“Balance cannot be guaranteed by a simple, precise formula such as ‘equal time,’ since the result may be a distorting of complex relationships and the undermining of the role of intelligent journalism, which is to make sense out of confused and complicated issues. Most serious issues pose many “sides,’ not just two starkly opposed views that can be accommodated by a neat, even treatment. Balance requires the honest, unceasing effort to recognize that represent this full range of views.”

In the “Editorial Standard s” of PBS, the goal is “to present, over time, content that addresses a broad range of subjects from a variety of viewpoints. PBS may, however, choose to consider not only the extent to which the content contributes to balance overall, but also the extent to which specific content is fairly presented in light of available evidence.” Thus, balance for PBS is about diversity of viewpoints and, additionally, about taking into account the credibility of potential sources. In some cases, PBS may provide links to help expand or correct limited or misleading information. In other words, editorial judgment may be employed. On this point, the PBS statement is as follows:

“Where appropriate, PBS may condition acceptance of content on the producer’s willingness to further the goal of balance by deleting designated footage or by including other points of view on the issues presented or material from which the public might draw a conclusion different from that suggested by the content. Material to be added may range from a few words, to a complete content segment, to an added episode in a series of programs, to the production of an entirely separate, new program. Where PBS deems it appropriate, PBS may arrange for the production of additional content by a producer other the producer of the original content material. For Online Content, links to credible, high-quality, related resources may be used to provide access to additional information or viewpoints.”

NPR’s News Code of Ethics and Practices also emphasizes that it is important to have a range of diverse views. It states: “This range of views may be encompassed in a single story on a controversial topic, or it may play out over a body of coverage or series of commentaries.” The statement elaborates this point as follows: “at all times the commitment to presenting all important views must be conscious and affirmative, and it must be timely if it is being accomplished over the course of more than one story.”

On implication of the discussion of “balance” is that a radio and/or television station’s programming can be enriched when there is a diversity of credible source. No one program need encompass all relevant perspectives. Thus, the addition of the program Democracy Now to WOUB’s schedule of programs would make WOUB more “balanced” than it now is, because Democracy Now’s guests and sources are typically different from those of PBS and NPR. The outcome would help to expand and enrich the information that is offered audiences and enable WOUB to better fulfill its responsibility to the public interest.
Fairness?

The conceptualization of “fairness” seems to overlap in PBS’s editorial standards with that of “balance.” The issue of valid or accurate information comes up in statements on both of them. At the same time, the thrust of their meaning differs to some extent. Balance refers to both the need for diversity of guests and diversity of viewpoints. Fairness focuses more on the content of what is being reported or analyzed. In regards to the standard of fairness, PBS wants to capture for audiences the full meaning of what is being reported. They put it this way:

“Producers must neither oversimplify complex situations nor camouflage straightforward facts. PBS may reject a program or other content if PBS believes that it contains any unfair or misleading presentation of facts, including inaccurate statements of material fact, undocumented statements of fact that appear questionable on their face, misleading juxtapositions, misrepresentations, or distortions.”

In addition. PBS wants the information and evidence being broadcast to be transparent. Transparency is achieved when supplemental information is thought to be required to clarify information and when sources are identified.

“…producers should also adhere to the principles of transparency and honesty by providing appropriate labels, disclaimers, updates, or other information so that the public plainly understands what it is seeing. For example, content that includes commentary, points of view, or opinion should be appropriately identified, as should all sources of funding. Transparency also suggests producers maximize attribution of information and limit the use of anonymous sourcing to those cases when there is no alternative and the information is essential. Content that contains adult themes or other sensitive material should contain an appropriate disclosure.”

Furthermore, PBS links fairness to how guests on programs are treated, and how the subjects and their views on which reports are based are presented.

“Producers should treat the people who are the subjects of, who appear in, or who are referenced in the content they produce with fairness and respect. PBS will reject content if, in PBS’s judgment, it unfairly treats the people or misrepresents their views. Fair treatment of individuals generally requires that a producer represent the words and action of the people portrayed or identified in a way that present their strongest case, and gives individuals or organizations that are the subject of attack or criticism an opportunity to respond. Fairness also requires that a producer be willing to consider all relevant information and points of view.”

NPR’s statements on “respect” complement PBS’s statements on as aspect of balance, namely, that “Treating the people we cover and our listeners with respect means we recognize the diversity of the country and world on which we report and the diversity of interests, attitudes and experiences of our audience. We approach subjects in an open-minded, sensitive, and civil way.”

With respect to fairness, Democracy Now has guests from all walks of life, from different countries, from different genders and ethnic categories, experts, activists, and people just caught up in important events.

Excerpt from Bill Moyers' speech at the National Media Reform conference (Memphis, 1/07)

2008-02-04T13:40:00.000-08:00

"It means reclaiming public broadcasting and restoring it to its original feisty, robust, fearless mission as an alternative to the dominant media, offering journalism you can afford and can trust, public affairs of which you are a part, and a wide range of civic and cultural discourse that leaves no one out."

watch video

"You can have an impact here. For one thing, we need to remind people that the federal commitment to public broadcasting in this country is about $1.50 per capita, compared to $28 to $85 per capita in other democracies...

"In moments of revelry, I imagine all of you returning home to organize a campaign to persuade your local public television station to start airing Democracy Now! I can’t think of a single act more likely to remind people of what public broadcasting should be.... We’ve got to get alternative content out there to people, or this country is going to die of too many lies.

"The opening rundown of news on Amy’s daily show is like nothing else on any television, corporate or public. It’s as if you opened the window in the morning and a fresh breeze rolls over you from the ocean. Amy doesn’t practice trickle-down journalism. She goes where the silence is, and she breaks the sound barrier. She doesn’t buy the Washington protocol that says the truth lies somewhere in the spectrum of opinion between the Democrats and the Republicans.

"On Democracy Now! the truth lies where the facts are hidden, and Amy digs for them. And above all, she believes the media should be a sanctuary for dissent, the Underground Railroad tunneling beneath the plantation. So go home and think about it. After all, you are the public in public broadcasting and not just during pledge breaks. You live there, and you can get the boss man at the big house to pay attention." [read full speech]

Coverage of Colin Powell's address to UN Security Council in Sept. 2003: Democracy Now versus NPR/PBS

2008-01-29T16:06:00.000-08:00

The major media generally, and NPR and PBS specifically, failed the American citizenry in their reporting on the pre-war Iraq news and commentary generally and on the specific coverage of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s address to the United Nations Security Council on September 5, 2003. The reporting may have satisfied media managers, producers, and many journalists, but it rigidly and uncritically applied their paramount standards. The reporting may have been objective in a narrow sense, in that public radio and television reporters sought valid information, but they typically did so uncritically and without adequate verification of the information they received from their sources. It may have been balanced, in consulting or interviewing two or more sources who were thought to have somewhat different views on an issue, but often the views were not very different. It may have been fair, in accurately reporting what their sources said, but their sources were unreliable and deceptive. And, with respect to the looming Iraq war in 2002 and early 2003, the sources all sang variations of the same tune. Ultimately, it was a tune that sang, more or less loudly and patriotically, a lets-go-to-war song.

One very significant story that both NPR and PBS got terribly wrong, and Democracy Now got right, had to do with the coverage of then Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation on February 5, 2003, to the U.N Security Council. This is not the only example that could easily be culled from the archival and contemporary records of these broadcasters and programs. The public was told that Secretary Powell has assembled the “best” information from the CIA and government intelligence sources with respect to Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. Powell made assertions about other issues in his U.N. presentation (e.g., connections between al Qaeda and the Iraq regime), but those concerning WMDs were the most important when it came to the Bush administration’s determination to launch an invasion of Iraq. Powell’s presentation was a pattern-reinforcing event of great significant, in that it helped to continue the momentum behind the Bush administration’s push to war with Iraq. The reactions to Powell’s presentation by guests and interviewers on NPR and PBS were by and large uncritical, in some cases fawning, in their praise. On the basic issue of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the view was unanimous that Powell had presented a powerful and compelling case that Iraq did possess such weapons. This was the key contention and justification of the Bush administration for launching an attack on Iraq.

At the same time, Democracy Now hosted guests who were critical of Powell’s evidence and forthrightly opposed to an invasion of Iraq. There is a very important implication here. If Democracy Now had been included in WOUB’s programming in February 2003, many members of their audiences might not have been as likely to succumb to the Bush’s administration’s propaganda in favor of the invasion. Communities in the WOUB broadcast area would have at least had the opportunity to consider alternative perspectives on the merits of Secretary of State Powell’s assertions. As it turned out, the major media, including the public media, echoed the Bush administration’s deceptions and lies. This was not just another routine daily news item, as the terrible consequences of this war attest. We are reminded daily of these consequences, the lost lives and maimed US soldiers and Iraqi civilians, the 4.2-plus million Iraqi refugees (as of October 2007), the devastated infrastructure, education and health care systems, the heart-rending traumatized children, the ongoing violence that permeates the society and affects surrounding countries, and the fruitless and ongoing expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money.

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

If you go to the transcripts or audio versions of the coverage of Secretary of State Powell’s presentation, here’s what you’ll find. On PBS on the evening of February 5, 2003, there were two segments on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer devoted to Powell’s speech.

In one segment, Margaret Warner interviewed three guests, including Rolf Ekeus, former executive chairman of UNSCOM, “which ran the chemical and biological inspections in Iraq from 1991 to 1997, David Albright, “a former analyst and inspector who monitored Iraq’s nuclear program from 1992 to 1997,” and Daniel Benjamin, formerly a director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.”

Warner asked them “How compelling was Sec. Powell’s case?” Ekeus and Albright agreed that there were materials related to weapons of mass destruction unaccounted for, and the Iraqis were not cooperating with the U.N. inspectors. Still, Ekeus found Powell’s presentation on these matters “quite convincing.” Ekeus also found the satellite photos of a Iraqi chemical plant “compelling and very clear” as evidence of chemical weapons production. Albright thought Powell’s reference to “radio intercepts were quite compelling” and that it was likely that the Iraqi’s were hiding chemical warheads.” Benjamin responded that “much of the really important information we have gotten about Iraq’s arms programs has come from defectors. So that’s an important source. We need to analyze it closely.” He did not reject this information, later proven to be false, but wanted it more thoroughly scrutinized. On other issues, Albright wanted more information on whether the aluminum tubes were really for nuclear enrichment activities, and Ekeus and Benjamin were curious about Powell’s evidence on the connections between high officials in the Iraq government and al Qaeda. Overall, they gave Powell high marks.

Later on the NewsHour program on February 5, 2003, Jim Lehrer interviewed Zbigniew Brzezinski, “professor of American foreign policy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University,” and former national security advisor in the Carter administration, and two U.S. Senators, including Richard Lugar, republican of Indiana and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Carl Levin, democrat from Michigan and ranking Democrat on this committee.

Lehrer asked his informants whether Powell had made a “strong case.” Brzezinski responded: “I thought he made a very impressive presentation. I felt it was quite compelling.” Lugar said: “I thought Sec. Powell was compelling and persuasive.” He thought that, if anything, Powell had understated the case against Iraq. Levin said, “There was a strong case that Sec. Powell made. And it’s clear that there is a threat there just the way there is a significant threat of North Korea, which has weapons of mass destruction by its own proclamation and has thrown out the inspectors.” They agreed that Iraq was not cooperating with the U.N. inspectors. Brzezinski wanted to use the Powell presentation as a basis for uniting “international pressure on Iraq to comply or for coercion [war] if it does not.” Levin agreed with this point, saying “it is vital that we deal with this threat as a world community and that we not go at it unilaterally.” However, both Brzezinski and Levin did not take the use of military force off the table. Levin later said: “If we catch them and get them with the goods, then it seems to me we’ll clearly united the world in military action, if necessary, to disarm Iraq.” Lugar was skeptical that inspections would ever work and was inclined to use force sooner rather than later.

Later that week, on Friday, February 7, 2003, Terence Smith took over for Jim Lehrer in interviewing syndicated columnist Mark Shields and David Brooks of then of the Weekly Standard about reactions to Powell’s speech at the U.N. Mark Shields was ecstatic, saying: “…Colin Powell is a gift to the country, and a treasure to this administration. I mean if there has ever been anybody who had cabinet tenure like a professor at an Ivy League school, I mean it is Colin Powell. He is absolutely fire proof.” And Brooks said: “I think we’ve crossed another phase in this whole Iraq debate. The cards are on the table. This is all the administration is going to release. Some people are not persuaded, but a lot of people are. Enough Americans are persuaded for the U.S. to go ahead, enough countries are persuaded for the U.S. to go ahead. The U.S. will go ahead with a number of countries. That is inevitable unless Saddam converts to Methodism or something next week.”

The thrust of the NewsHour interviews was to laud Sec. Powell’s presentation. None of the guests questioned the underlying premise of the presentation, namely, that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. There was some division about whether force should be used before more solid information on WMDs was found, but all agreed (when they commented directly on the question) that force would be appropriate and necessary if evidence of WMDs were found.

There are four other points worth noting with respect to the dubious PBS coverage of Sec. Powell’s presentation and related issues.

First, the framework for these interviews was stacked in favor of experts and former government officials. Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), www.fair.org/index.php?page+3158, “examined the 393 on-camera sources who appeared in nightly news stories about Iraq on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The study began one week before and ended one week after Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 5 presentation at the U.N, a time that saw particularly intense debate about the idea of a war against Iraq on the national and international level.” The findings of FAIR’s study finds:

“…two-thirds (267 out of 393) of the guests featured were from the United States. Of the U.S. guests, a striking 75 percent (199) were either current or former government or military officials. Only one of the official U.S. sources – Sen. Edward Kennedy (D.-Mass) – expressed skepticism or opposition to the war.” The FAIR report continued: “…when both U.S. and non-U.S. guests were included 76 percent (297 out of 393) were either current or retired officials. Such a predominance of official sources virtually assures that independent and grassroots perspectives will be underrepresented. Of all official sources, 75 percent (222 of 297) were associated with either the U.S. or with governments that support the Bush administration’s position on Iraq; only four out of those 222, or 2 percent, of those sources were skeptics or opponents of the war.”

Of the 96 guests without a current or former government connection, the views were “slightly more balanced”, with “26 percent” taking a “skeptical or critical position on the war.” However, of all 393 sources, “only three (less than 1 percent) were identified with organized protests or anti-war groups.”

Second, the media tended to overstate the administration’s case alleging that Iraq had WMDs. On February 4, 2003, “Fair released a media advisory, “Iraq’s Hidden Weapons: From Allegation to Fact,” www.fair.org/index.php?page-3062, “which points out that the media’s intensive coverage of the U.N. inspections has repeatedly glided from reporting the allegation that Iraq is hiding banned weapons materials to repeating it as a statement of fact.”

Third, over the ensuing years, a great deal of research and congressional testimonies have examined the claims made by Colin Powell. The essence of what has been learned is reflected in the quotes that follow from two best-selling books. Thomas E. Ricks reports on Powell’s U.N. presentation on page 90 of his best-selling book Fiasco, as follows:

“Powell didn’t know it, but his bravura performance [at the U.N.] was a huge house of cards. It is now known that almost all of what he said wasn’t solid, the much of it was deemed doubtful even at the time inside the intelligence community, and that some of it was flatly false. The official, bipartisan conclusion of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s review of the prewar handling of intelligence was, ‘Much of the information provided or cleared by the Central Intelligence Agency for Inclusion in Secretary Powell’s speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect.

Michael Isikoff and David Corn, the authors of the best-selling book Hubris, note on p. 189 of the book, “Virtually all of the allegations Powell presented would turn out to be wrong. But, at the time, few in the media bothered poking at the details of Powell’s address.”

Fourth, reporting on www.salon.com on May 4, 2006, Eric Boehlert notes that many big-name journalists apologized for their poor coverage of the pre-war stories leading up to the invasion of Iraq, some admitted the poor and misleading coverage but, like Jim Lehrer, offered excuses. Here are some relevant excerpts from Boehlert’s article.

“Looking back, bigfoot journalists conceded they failed to do their jobs during the run-up to war. ABC's Ted Koppel admitted, "If anything, what we've been criticized for, and probably more justifiably, is that we were too timid before the war." Dan Rather agreed: "We did not do our job of pressing and asking enough questions often enough." They weren't the only ones disappointed. A majority of Americans thought the news media could have done a better job informing the public about Iraq and the stakes involved in going to war, according to an August 2005 survey conducted by the McCormick Tribune Foundation in Chicago.

“While some journalists admitted their mistakes, most refused to admit it was political pressure from the right and a fear of being labeled unpatriotic that fueled the timidity. Instead, journalists offered up head-scratching explanations for their timorous prewar performance. PBS's Jim Lehrer suggested journalists just weren't smart enough to have foreseen all the troubles that would plague Iraq following the invasion. Appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball," Lehrer was asked by host Matthews about the press's wartime performance. Matthews noted, "During [the] course of the war, there was a lot of snap-to-it coverage. We' re at war. We have to root for the country to some extent. You' re not supposed to be too aggressively critical of a country at combat, especially when it's your own." Matthews asked Lehrer if he thought the press had failed to provide "critical analysis" in the months before the war.
Lehrer: I do. The word "occupation," keep in mind, Chris, was never mentioned in the run-up to the war. It was "liberation." So as a consequence, those of us in journalism never even looked at the issue of occupation.

Matthews: Because?

Lehrer: Because it just didn't occur to us. We weren't smart enough to do it. I agree. I think it was a dereliction of our -- in retrospective.

It never occurred to journalists that the United States might have to effectively occupy Iraq in the wake of the invasion? That's just not believable. It's far more likely journalists were too anxious to express their doubts during the drum-beating of early 2003. Lehrer later returned to the topic, suggesting even if journalists had been smart enough to figure out the occupation angle, it still would have been hard to report it out:

Lehrer: It would have been difficult to have had debates about that going in, when the president and the government of the -- it's not talking about "occupation." They're talking about -- it would have been -- it would have taken some -- you'd have had to have gone against the grain.

"Could 'courage' be the word Lehrer sought?" asked the Daily Howler. "Did he want to say: 'It would have taken some courage' " for the nation's press to have gone against the grain.

Reports on Powell’s speech from NPR

NPR’s Michelle Keleman reported on Sec. Powell’s comments before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the substance of his UN on the day after the speech, February 6, 2003. The transcript of Keleman’s report is available at www.npr/programs/atc/transcripts/2003/feb/030206.kelemen.html According to Keleman, Powell told the Committee that he had “made some headway in bilateral talks with [UN Security] [C]ouncil members after his presentation yesterday. Keleman reported that “Both Democrats and Republicans lavished praise on Powell, describing his performance yesterday as splendid and compelling.” She also noted that “several senators did question whether the U.S. is really leaving any options open for a peaceful solution.” Russell Feingold (Democratic, Wisconsin) worried that a U.S. invasion “could help destabilize some of our key allies in the Muslim world,” and “that a new Persian Golf war could provoke more terrorism.” But there is nothing reported that the senators has any reservations about Powell’s basic claims regarding WMDs. Keleman also reports that Powell was optimistic about the consequences of a “successful’ invasion of Iraq, and is quoted, “when we win this and when the Iraqi people are liberated, and when it is no longer necessary to have that many US forces stationed in the region and we don’t have to worry about weapons of mass destruction floating out of Iraq, the oil of Iraq is being used for constructive purposes and not the destructive purposes.” In all of this, NPR’s Keleman reports uncritically on Powell’s statements. What were audiences to believe?

In another transcript of “news special” on NPR’s website, www.npr.org/news/specials/cpowell/, there is another report of some of Powell’s activities on the day after his U.N. speech. The transcript of the program records that Powell is “the Bush administration’s lead advocate for military intervention against Iraq,” and that “Saddam Hussein and his regime will stop at nothing until something stops him.” The report also refers to the types of evidence included in Powell’s address with no analysis. Powell is also reported as saying that “Iraq has not give sufficient proof that it destroyed any of the biological or chemical weapons that it has been known to possess since the 1990s,” and that Iraq “has two of the three necessary components to build a nuclear bomb: nuclear scientists and a working design.” He added that Hussein is “desperately” trying to acquire the third component, namely, enriched uranium. There is more in this report, but the gist of it is an uncritical description of what Powell is asserting, falsely as it turns out.

Democracy Now had guests with very different and skeptical views of Powell’s presentation

One of the two featured stories on Democracy Now, February 6, 2003, dealt with Sec. Powell’s address to the U.N Security Council “to argue for a first-strike attack on Iraq.” The host, Amy Goodman, spoke to three guests, including: Phyllis Bennis, “fellow at the [progressive] Institute for Policy Studies in Washington Dc, specializing in Middle East and United Nations issues.” The second guest was James Paul, “Executive Director of the Global Policy Forum,” who has “also worked as a writer and consultant with projects for Human Rights, and many others.” Paul “was awarded the World Hunger Media Award in 1987 and he received a ‘Peacemaker’ award from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 1996. He is the editor of the World and his most recent book is Humanity Comes of Age. The third guest was As’ad AbuKhalil, “author of Bin Laden, Islam, and America’s New ‘War” on Terrorism,’ and the forthcoming The House of Bush and the House of Saud. He is professor of political science at California State University at Stanislaus.”

Democracy Now’s summary of this discussion captures the very different and very skeptical story line than one gets from PBS or NPR. The summary states:

“Powell’s 70-plus minute presentation can be boiled down to a few main points. Powell says Iraq possesses extremely dangerous weapons of mass destruction; Iraq is systematically trying to deceive UN inspectors and hide prohibited weapons; and Iraq is harboring terrorists, including Al Qaeda.” The reaction to these claims by the three guests is described, at best, as skeptical, as the summary states: “But much of Powell’s presentation is impossible to verify. Powell’s speech was peppered with assertions like: ‘Our sources tell us,’ or ‘we know that….’” It continues: “Powell also resorted to drama at times. At one point, he held up a vial filled with white powder and said less than a teaspoon of dry anthrax shut down the US Senate in the fall of 2001.”

Phyllis Bennis, one of the three guests, said: “the main problem he [Powell] faced is that the evidence – so-called – cannot be verified. It was based on claims of what, for example, a photograph of a big truck with thins on it really was. He says it’s a mobile biological laboratory, something that Hans Blix has said they never found evidence even existed.” Bennis later emphasized: “Under these circumstances [of Powell’s claims] where they [members on the UN Security Council] were asked to accept assertions that we know this, this come from good sources, is simply not an acceptable means of diplomatic persuasion.”

As’Ad Abukhalil characterized Powell’s address as “an anthology of generalizations, inaccuracies, and redundancies.” Regarding the recording of a telephone conversation presented by Powell, Abukhalil commented: “…I listened to the original Arabic recording and I say that what was played to us…the phone intercepts, first of all, I mean, we can very much be very suspicious about anything coming out of either Iraq or the United States at these highly propaganda times….I am personally not impressed with the Arabic translation….For example, when the two people are referring to the committee coming, there is no reference to the committee in the Arabic original. They talk about the folks are coming.”

James Paul commented as follows: “I mean, United States and the United Kingdom had both made all sorts of charges about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and programs and those charges have been examined by the inspectors. There’d been inspections in all of the sites that had been mentioned in the CIA and Tony Blair reports and so forth. Nothing had been found. They’d mentioned things about tubes and one thing and another. The inspectors had examined those issues and had come up with nothing.”

Speaking from Iraq, Democracy Now correspondent in Iraq, Jeremy Scahill, comments on what he had learned from the UN weapons’ inspectors in Iraq: “they [weapons inspectors] said that much of what Colin Powell said about the Iraqi deceptions, the current Iraqi deception, was just flat out untrue.” For example, Scahill said: “it was just not true that the Iraqis were able to move anything from any facility within twenty-four hours.”

One can get a further idea of the views of Phyllis Bennis on Powell’s presentation from an article she wrote in reaction to Powell’s UN speech that appeared the same day as the speech on www.alternet.org/story/15108. She writes that “CIA and FBI officials still believe the Bush administration is ‘exaggerating’ information to make their political case for war.” She also stresses that “’Even if’ everything Powell said was true, there is simply not enough evidence for war. There is no evidence of Iraq posing an imminent threat, no evidence of containment not working.” Bennis appears regularly on Democracy Now.
Democracy Now had been devoting programs to the views of war skeptics for months. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) produced on March 19, 2007, “Iraq and the Media: A Critical Timeline,” which can be found on” www.fair.org/index.php?page=3062. According to this timeline, on October 27, 2002, “Democracy Now! features an interview with former Iraqi nuclear scientist Imad Khadduri, who tells listeners the program has long been dormant.” And on February 9, 2003, “Democracy Now interviews Cambridge University lecturer Glen Rangwala, who first discovered that a key British intelligence report was in fact plagiarized from an American student’s doctoral thesis. The report had been cited by Colin Powell in his speech to the UN as proof that the Iraqis had weapons.”

Glen Rangwala, professor at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, and a guest on Democracy Now on February 9, wrote a detailed critique of Secretary of State Powell’s “Remarks to the United Nations Security Council.” It was originally posted on the Traprock Peace Center website on March 18, 2003, and then included on a long list of articles dealing with “intelligence failure” from any different sources on the Iraq Archives of the War Report webside (www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/Rangwala.pdf. In the article, Rangwala offers a comprehensive outline of the flaws in Powell’s speech. For example, Rangwala writes that Powell’s “strong claims about Iraq’s retention and development of conventional weapons” are not supported by credible evidence. Rangwala writes: “instead of providing proof of any of those claims, Powell instead produced photos of al Taji ammunition storage facilities that shows a small shed and a truck adjacent to the bunker. Powell claimed that these are ‘a signature item’ for chemical bunkers. This seems on the fact of it to be a wholly implausible claim: a picture of a truck and a shed by themselves reveal nothing about the contents of the adjacent bunker.”

Concluding points

I have two concluding points. One, Secretary of State Powell’s presentation and the WMD story is only one of many examples of how Democracy Now differs in its coverage of important issues and events from public radio and television. Two, NPR and PBS generally do a reasonable job in covering the news and in its commentary on and analysis of important issues and events. I am not arguing that public radio and television should be transformed. Rather, my point is simply that the programming on WOUB, which draws much of its national and international news and related information from NPR and PBS, would be enhanced by the addition of Democracy Now, and, with Democracy Now added to its schedule, WOUB would better fulfill its obligation to the citizens of its coverage area. And, as my example of Colin Powell’s UN address indicates, the inclusion of Democracy Now in WOUB’s programming schedule would increase the chance that the overall programming of WOUB would be closer to achieving true journalistic standards and the truth than without Democracy Now.

Local group lobbies WOUB to carry progressive news show

2008-01-24T13:58:00.000-08:00

By Jim Phillips

A local group of media activists is stepping up the pressure in its campaign to persuade WOUB, the public TV/radio station at Ohio University, to pick up a hard-hitting progressive news show.

Station officials say that while they consider "Democracy Now!" (DN) a quality program, they think it carries a left-wing bias, and isn't better than the news programming they carry now.

They also argue that while supporters of the program are passionate, they probably represent a small activist minority in WOUB's broadcast area.

Members of the Athens Free Press group say they believe DN could attract a wide audience on WOUB TV and/or radio if it got a chance, and would help open the airwaves to a wider range of views.

"Basically, our position is that WOUB and NPR is great, but it's not adequate," explained Robert Stewart, a member of Athens Free Press and associate director of OU's E.W. Scripps School of Journalism. "We don't want it to go away - we want more."

Last summer the group met with WOUB decision-makers and made its case for picking up DN, which is hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez. Station officials politely declined to add the show, citing a variety of reasons in a letter to Athens Free Press.

"In radio, it's pretty simple," Tim Myers, WOUB's director of radio and online services, explained Friday.

He noted that Athens Free Press asked to have DN added to the FM schedule. But to make a slot for it in the 5 a.m.-7 p.m. weekday schedule would require bumping something from the current lineup, which already includes such news and commentary programs as "Morning Edition," "BBC Newshour," "The Diane Rehm Show," "Talk of the Nation" and "All Things Considered" - any of which, Myers suggested, is at least as good as "Democracy Now."

"We just don't think the program compares in quality to what we already have," he explained. "At this point, content-wise, (our news programming) is better than what's coming out of 'Democracy Now.'"

Though WOUB TV's evening schedule is less heavy with newsy shows, the other objections still hold, according to WOUB staffers: DN is slanted, and might not appeal to a wide enough swath of the WOUB audience, which includes people as far afield as Portsmouth and Ironton. This is important to a public broadcaster that relies on donations, they say.

On its Web site, DN boasts that it "provides our audience with access to people and perspectives rarely heard in the U.S. corporate-sponsored media, including independent and international journalists, ordinary people from around the world who are directly affected by U.S. foreign policy, grassroots leaders and peace activists, artists, academics and independent analysts."

Stewart argues that DN offers not so much a left-wing as an anti-authoritarian slant.

"I think it could come off as seeming anti-right, but the reality is, it's anti-power," he suggested.

Athens Free Press member Robert Sheak, an emeritus sociology professor at OU, recalled that the group first approached WOUB as a result of a conference on media reform held at the university.

"They said (DN) didn't measure up to journalistic standards of objectivity, balance and fairness," he recalled.

After the first meeting with WOUB officials, Athens Free Press members contacted Scripps College Dean Gregory J. Shepherd to enlist his help.

Shepherd sent an e-mail Oct. 12 to Carolyn Bailey Lewis, director of the WOUB Center for Public Media, in which he stressed that it's not his job to make programming decisions for the station.

He also, however, asked Lewis to consider putting an Athens Free Press member on the WOUB advisory board, and to set up a time frame for reconsidering the DN proposal.

"Perhaps we can... have WOUB consider a new request in six months time, or so," he suggested, adding that it would probably be good for Athens Free Press to come up with some new material by then, such as more information on what stations now carry "Democracy Now," and how those stations' fundraising has gone after picking up the program.

Lewis said Friday that this is where she thought the process was at - both sides gathering more information to prepare for reviewing a new request. "We continue to do our research," she said, and the latest push by Athens Free Press - which has included letters to the editor and opinion pieces in local newspapers - came as something of a surprise.

Myers said he understands the motives of Athens Free Press members, who want to reform media they see as dominated by corporate viewpoints. However, he said, WOUB may not be the best place to start attacking that problem.

"We feel kind of caught in the middle of this stuff," he said. He also warned that "if we appear to carry the show because of some pressure from a particular group," this sets a precedent that could be exploited by groups with right-wing political agendas.

WOUB officials also suggested that Athens Free Press might do better trying to get the show onto a local public-access TV or low-power radio station. These types of outlets host the show in many localities, they said.

Stewart said he finds it hard to put much stock in the political-bias argument, considering that the Scripps College last year accepted a large donation from OU alum Roger Ailes, CEO of FOX News, which is on the conservative side of the political spectrum.

"One of the first things we heard from WOUB on this matter was, they were worried that 'Democracy Now' was kind of a left-wing version of FOX News, and we couldn't have that," he noted ironically.

Stewart also noted that WOUB could try out "Democracy Now" for a year free of charge, and argued that the station can't know how the program plays with its audiences unless it's given a try. While WOUB staffers suggest much of their audience won't like it, Stewart maintained, that claim is largely based on an impressionistic idea of what that audience is like.

In a written response to some of WOUB's objections, Athens Free Press has cited the testimony of a supporter of the show from conservative northeast Tennessee, where "Democracy Now" reportedly does quite well on WETS radio. Stewart said some stations that carry DN report that "this is the show that produces the largest number of pledges...While (WOUB) might lose some people, they would gain many, many more," he predicted.

Currently in Ohio, DN is carried by five TV stations, most or all of which appear to be public-access cable shows, and six radio stations, in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Delaware, Gambier, Kent and Kingsville.

Both sides in the debate stressed that they respect the other and want to keep the debate civilized.

"We're really not trying to back them into a corner," Stewart said, but want to make sure that WOUB truly takes public input into account in its programming decisions.

Meyers noted that many of the Athens Free Press members are friends and supporters of WOUB. "This is not enemy group," he said.

The next meeting of the WOUB advisory council is scheduled for Feb. 19.

New web site, same message

2008-01-24T11:12:00.001-08:00

Welcome to athensfreepress.blogspot.com, carrying on the work we began with wewantbettermedia.blogspot.com.