article courtesy of the greatPortland Communique.
City Is First In The Nation To Do So
At the close of a Thursday evening session which lasted a mere ninety or so minutes, members of City Council cast the expected 4 to 1 vote in favor of a resolution to remove Portland police officers from the Joint Terrorism Task Force rather than let them continue to operate without proper oversight.
By way of starting off the public testimony, City Hall fixture Irwin Mandel expressed some gratitude that Commissioner Dan Saltzman had expressed his "advanced explanation" for his imminent vote against the resolution in the pages of The Oreognian, because it allowed Mandel to speak to Saltzman's opinion rather than having to wait until the end of the session to hear it.
In the main, Mandel, savaged Saltzman's op-ed piece in much the same ways we did earlier today, including taking the Commissioner to task for trying to invoke the spirit of 9/11 as some sort of trump card against demands for proper local oversight of the City's police officers.
Lilly Mandel, in turn, savaged today's Oregonian editorial, wondering how the paper could even know that in the weeks since the original March hearing "there has been no flood of civil rights abuses involving the JTTF". She quipped that if there has been, those abuses would just have been Top Secret anyway.
But mainly, she questioned why the City should have to wait until after a "flood" of abuses before it acted to ensure proper oversight of its police officers. And in response to the paper's bizarre assertion that withdrawal was tantamount to "giving up a large amount of oversight and ability to hold the JTTF accountable", Mandel asked, "How can you give up something you never had?"
She also challenged those critics who assert that the withdrawal is wrong because the Federal government might punish the City by refusing to provide funds for combatting terrorism -- critics she dubbed those "who are willing to sell our precious civil rights".
Beyond that, we're going to move quickly through the other public testimony, hitting somehighlights, so we can go on to the statements of the Council members prioer to the actual vote. Much of what was said during public testimony was essentially as expected, with little new. But there are a few items worth noting.
Andrea Meyer of the ACLU of Oregon revealed an additional tidbit about the nine clients on whom the FBI has said there are documents which are "responsive" to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act request regarding possibly-improper monitoring of local organizations and individuals: The responsive files related to one of those clients apparently are "missing" somewhere in the local FBI office.
Dan Handelman of Portland Copwatch said that the resolution amoutned to "pretty much what we've been asking for all along" but urged that there be an annual public review which included the number of times the Federal government requested the cooperation of the Portland Police Bureau on the "case-by-case" basis allowed under the new protocol.
He also wondered about the FBI's assertions about elected officials not serving on the JTTF Executive Committee, since it's possible that some elected sherrifs might be allowed to sit on that body. In addition, Handelman argued that it was important to do everything possible to prevent potential abuses of civil liberties now, rather than have to offer "reparations and apologies forty years done the line".
Cliff Goldman, one of the very few people to testify against the resolution, stated that while he has never really felt a fear of terrorism, "with this coming up I began to think of my own personal safety". He also conjured the old chestnut in response to protecting our civil liberties that the victims of terrorism lose all of that and more.
(The unstated and dangerous premise in that argument is that we therefore have some sort of responsibility to give up our civil liberties in their name.)
Robert King, head of the local police union, argued that the concerns with oversight "have caused us to lose out sight on this important matter altogether". He also raised the spectre not only of the victims of 9/11 but of all of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bonnie Tinker said to Commissioner Erik Sten: "I'm glad you have now got good leadersiph to follow." In the past, Sten has frustrated local civil liberties activists by expressing deep concerns and reserations about the JTTF but nonetheless voting to remain a participant. And to Saltzman, she said in response to his op-ed piece that it was not enough to have "concern" about matters such as the USA PATRIOT Act, but that there needed to be action as well. "I believe it is not possible to protect civil liberties," she said, "without insisting upon civilian oversight".
In the end, it came down to the much-postponed vote itself, and the closing comments on the issue by each member of City Council.
"This is a very serious issue, and one that I've spent a lot of tiem researching," said Commissioner Sam Adams, adding that he was convinced "that we can prevent terrorism" under the terms of the resolution. "And I think that we will and we can while protecting the basic rights of all people." He reiterated the litany of controversial provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act which he listed during the March hearing.
Saying that his view of his responsibility as an elected official is to not ignore such concerns, Adams said that "the additional very common sense accountability required by the Mayor and by the Commissioner I think is very reasonable".
Commissioner Randy Leonard placed his support for the resolution in the context of a demand for accountability in City government, which he said he's pressed consistently since first running for his office. "I think its unreasonable," he said, "to ask the Commissioner-in-Charge not to have full access and accountability of all the employees under that Commissioner's responsibility."
He called the proper civilian oversight of law enforcement officials a "timetested principles of governance" and a "cornerstone of our form of government" -- and one for which men and women have fought and died.
Leonard also reminded people that it was he who cast a vote against a resolution opposing the war in Iraq, largely on the basis of believing the government's stated rationales for that war. "As it turned out," he said, "my trust in what I was told was betrayed." As a result, he said he had adopted another guiding principle: "Trust, but verify."
And then came the moment for which some of us were waiting so eagerly: Saltzman's public defense of his solitary vote against the resolution.
"I respect very much the work of the Mayor, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney over the last three weeks," he said, "and I am disappointed that those talks did not succeed." He said that his ideal outcome would have been for the talks to continue (convenient, since endless talks would simply mean continued participation without oversight), and therefore he would not support the resolution.
"With all due respect to the Mayor and my colleagues on the City Council," Saltzman said, "I think the resolution is a step backwards." He argued that restricting Portland's participation to "imminent" threats "does not equal prevention".
(Again, Saltzman conveniently leaves out facts which are inconvenient to his position. In this case, the fact that Portland's cooperation is not limited only to "imminent" threats, but can also move forward on a "case-by-case" basis. It's one thing when ones newspaper of record omits critical facts in order to distort public impression of an issue, but it's really rather ugly when an elected official does it as well.)
He then re-raised his argument from last month, which is all of the bad publicity this will bring as it puts Portland in the national spotlight.
"Terrorism is real," Saltzman said, insinuating by even uttering the sentence that proponents of proper local oversight over Portland officers have somehow forgotten this fact. "We live in a place that is a haven for hatecrimes," he added. "We ought to recognize that."
Saltzman reminded everyone that it was he who sponsored the Council resolution expressing concerns over provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. But: "We can't juxapose our concerns over the PATRIOT Act on this debate here and now."
(See our earlier item on JTTF coverage in The Oregonian for how dishonest and deceptive that statement is in terms of whether or not it actually reflects what's been going on.)
In response to the several people (including, we suspect, ourselves) who chastized him for trying, in his op-ed piece, to call upon 9/11 for his own purposes, he said this: "I wont pretend to speak for all New Yotkers". He then, nonetheless, said: "We would be letting New Yorkers down."
"To somehow discount that and to say we are using cheap political theater to invoke the spirit of 9/11," he chided, "I totally object to that."
Sten tried to place the evening's vote -- and his own vote in favor of the resolution -- in the context of the longer history of the JTTF issues as its come before Council in the past. "It is a completely false argument running through the other side of this argument that Portland is unilaterally withdrawing from this Task Force," he said.
He explained that the first time the issue came before him on the Council, he had felt like the FBI was presenting the City with a "false choice", simply between participating or not participating, entirely on the grounds the FBI presented and none other. "I did not like that choice," Sten said, but he went along with it in part because in the near-immediate aftermath of 9/11 "we erred on the side of getting on the Task Force" at a moment "where we were all trying to figure out what is the best response to this situation".
Sten said that the resolution before Coucil was an "entirely different approach that the false choice" offered by the FBI over the years. "This is a totally different choice, and it's the right one."
Over the years, Sten insisted, the Feds had taken no real steps to try to solve "these pressing problems" of local oversight. "Portland did not pull out, we waited three years," he said. "There is a completely false notion that Portland is just pullingout of this," Sten said. "Portland has worked very, very hard to remain in this."
"It's been an interesting few weeks," said Potter. During that time, he said, he listened to the public, the police, lawyers, and "to my heart".
"in this country," he said, "there's an old-fashioned principle that the police or the military have to be answerable to civilian oversight." He argued that looking back on history, it's clear that some people, when blindly given power, "sometimes that power is misused".
He stressed that such abuses have happened "within our lifetimes" and that "we're not talking ancient history, we're tlaking about recent history". He also made clear that the resolution impugns neither Portland's police officers nor the Federal government.
"I don't thjink Portland is a strange city," Potter said. "I think, though, that we are concerned about ensuring that we have a proper balance between protecting people physical security, the property they own, and balancing that against their rights."
"This is going to be in the best interests of our community in the long run," he said. "We will see that this will work for us to ensure the safety of our people".
And so, after much delay, many votes over the years in the other direction, and a seemingly limitless supply of distortion of the issues by the other side, the City Council of Portland, Oregon, voted 4 to 1 in favor of a resolution which will withdraw local police officers from the Joint Terrorism Task Force within ninety days.
In doing so, on April 28, 2005, Portland becames the first city in the nation to withdraw from a JTTF.
TV TURNOFF WEEK begins April 25th and continues until May 1st.
Of course starting early and never stopping can be equally as rewarding.
In Portland, at Col. Summers Park at 20th and Belmont from 2- 5pm, a bookswap will be going on to help promote alternatives to the deathbox.
Please come and bring books to share with fellows like yourself.
There are plenty of other events and actions outside the comforts of the living room that are going on this week as well-
The fun starts this saturday:
april 23rd Outdoor beautiful music
-go into downtown
-go south to the marquam bridge (big freeway bridge)
-go to SW Caruthers (use mapquest)
-go towards the abandoned greyhound station
look for bands set up.
9pm.
Under Mountains, Pulse Emitter, Slam Dunk, Two Oboes ,Horns
On the same night at 7pm, for an indoor night of acoustic splendor, check out Dan Mills & Tre performing at Wired Coffee 2035 SE 39th Ave.
Don't forget to check out the calendar of events on Indymedia to see what things are happening near you during the week.
Thursday, April 28th -
CITY OF CHURCHES
THE GRATEFUL DEAD JAM BAND FULL OF POSITIVE ENERGY aka BUSINESS IS BUSINESS aka VAN HELSING
DEAD BY DAWN
@ LOVELAND 320 SE 2nd Ave
Also, last Thursday in the NE welcomes free street entertainment (with an appearance by jesus burger!).
And if all else fails, just leave the house and enjoy the weather, read a book or go for a walk. Try to live a little bit more without the glowbox of doom.
03/23/2005
20 Simple Steps to Undo Global Warming
Whenever you save energy -- or use it more efficiently -- you reduce the demand for gasoline, oil, coal and natural gas. Less consumption of these fossil fuels means lower emissions of carbon dioxide (C02), the major contributor to global warming. Right now the U.S. releases about 50,000 pounds of CO2 per person each year. If we can reduce energy use enough to lower these heat-trapping emissions by about 2% a year, in ten years we'll "lose" about 10,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per person.
Here are 20 simple steps that can help cut your annual heat-trapping emissions by thousands of pounds. The CO2 reduction shown for each action is an average saving.
Simple Step; Earth savings (in carbon dioxide [CO2] reductions); $ savings
Dishwasher tips. Run your dishwasher only with a full load. Use the energy-saving setting to dry the dishes. Don't use heat when drying; 100 pounds CO2/year; $5/year
Washing machine settings. Wash clothes in warm or cold water, not hot; up to 350 pounds CO2/year (for two loads a week); $20/year
Water heater cap. Turn down your water heater thermostat- 120 degrees is usually hot enough; 200 pounds a year (for each 20- degree adjustment); $10/year
Thermostat adjustments. Don't overheat or overcool rooms. Adjust your thermostat (lower in winter, higher in summer); about 350 pounds CO2/year (for each 2-degree adjustment); $20/year
Air conditioner check. Clean or replace air filters as recommended. Cleaning a dirty air conditioner filter can save 5% of the energy used; 350 pounds CO2/year; $20/year
Best lightbulb choices. Buy energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs for your most-used lights; 500 pounds CO2/year; $30/year
Water heater tweak. Wrap your water heater in an insulating jacket (but only if the water heater is over 5 years old and has no internal insulation); 250 pounds CO2/year; $15/year
Shower head switch. Install low-flow shower heads to use less hot water; 350 pounds CO2/year; $20/year
Weatherstripping. Caulk and weatherstrip around doors and windows to plug air leaks; 650 pounds CO2/year; $35/year
Energy efficiency. Ask your utility company for a home energy audit to find out where your home is poorly insulated or energy-inefficient; 1,000 pounds CO2/year; savings vary
Driving less. Whenever possible, walk, bike, carpool or use mass transit; 28 pounds CO2 per gallon of gas saved; at least $2.00 per gallon of gas saved
MPG criteria. When you buy a car, choose one that gets good gas mileage; 3,000 pounds CO2/year (if your new car gets 3 mpg more than your old one); $150/year
Waste reduction. Buy minimally packaged goods; choose reusable products over disposable ones; recycle.; 1,200 pounds CO2/year (if you cut down your garbage by 10%) --
Clothes washing tip for spring and summer. Air dry your clothes instead of using the dryer whenever possible; 700 lbs C02/year (if you air dry your clothes for 6 months); $45/year
Home insulation. Insulate your walls and ceilings; this can save about 25% of home heating bills; 2,000 pounds CO2/year; savings vary
Good windows. If you need to replace your windows, install the best energy-saving models; 1,000 pounds CO2/year; $50/year
Neighborhood greening. Plant trees next to your home; 13 pounds CO2/year (for each tree); savings vary
New appliances. As you replace home appliances, select the most energy-efficient models; 600 pounds CO2/year (by replacing an old air conditioner with a new Energy Star air conditioner); $30/year
Reducing waste. Recycle your potentially recyclable material (paper, plastics and glass) and promote energy-efficient measures and recycling programs at your school or workplace; 2,400 pounds CO2/year (by recycling half of household generated waste) --
Staying on top of the issues. Sign the petition to reduce global warming nationwide. Keep track of candidates' voting records and write or call to express concerns; Billions of pounds of CO2/year
Information from www.undoit.org
"it did raise the ecological question, whatever that meant, of noise and air-pollution, the excessive consumption of metal and energy. Endless ramifications... 'No' the Doctor said. 'Forget all that, our duty is to destroy billboards." - The Monkey Wrench Gang by Edward Abbey
On a daily occurrence, we are constantly being swamped and assaulted by advertising, logos, brand loyalty, and promotions of unnecessary products. The roads are no longer a place for viewing natural landscapes; they can now be observed in selected areas designated by Eastman Kodak and Polaroid. Stopping to get a bite of healthy food seems almost impossible off of any freeway, as the options seem limited to the Golden Arches, the Burger King, or the Dairy Queen. Between these exits of excess, the driver is also granted a flurry of billboards designed to capture the eye of the traveler, and more importantly, capture their common sense and replace it with the notion of over-consumption. What can be done as Viacom and Clear Channel, as if they didn't own enough of our airwaves, decide to sell every visual inch made accessible to the roads? The natural response is direct action against these already aggressively existing eyesores. Manipulation of product, disruption of brand identity, anything and everything, that will alter the beasts which seem to swell as each moment passes.
As Dr. Sarvis' obsession with the destruction and demise of billboards in Edward Abbey's novel The Monkey Wrench Gang suggests, there are many ways towards taking action. The act of removing billboards altogether, via flame or saw, may seem drastic and highly destructive for some, so alternatives of visual manipulation are also highly accessible. The Billboard Liberation Front has been altering logos, catch phrases, and overall messages for years in attempts to jolt the hazy-dazed consumer out of their "brandwashed" states. These simple acts do not stop advertising, nor do they greatly affect the outcome of over-consumption and greed. What they do instead, is offer an alternative to passivity and laziness. These acts command a challenge to the mind, and the capitalist structure which rests as the foundation of our modern society. We do not have to sit back and accept this bombardment of values and norms delegated by major corporations. They may own the government, the military, and the airwaves, but they don't own our minds. When these images of heirarchy, of consumption, of beauty, of wealth become established and acceptable forms of landscape, we've lost the battle.
"We'll work it all out as we go along. Let our practice form our doctrine thus assuring precise theoretical coherence."
The work that needs to be done must be creative, it must challenge the viewer in ways they've never thought before. A simple ad for Coca-Cola can simply read "fuck coke" but what does that really do for the passerby? If you encounter a defaced Coke ad reading something along the lines of "Suppression, Exploitation, Bless this Sugary Madness!", it might make the spectator pause for a moment, having never associated their favorite carbonated beverage with exploitation. The seed has been planted.
This billboard, discovered in Portland, does similar things when first encountered. Although "Fuck the patriarchy" may come off as aggressive, it still brings to light the unspoken existence of the power system which controls our lives. "Good women clean" is a great cry for a feminist revival against the destructive patriarchy. These elements force those exposed to the altered ad to stop and consider what we're being sold. Is it something so innocent as a roll of paper towels, or is it a continued foundation which keeps the majority of the world's population under oppression? That can be left for the individual to decide, but at least now the question potentially exists.
The reason these actions are so valuable is more than just the forms of expression and outrage expressed in our oversaturated capitalist environment. Additionally, these actions allow people to come to the understanding that although illegal, perhaps it isn't such a bad thing to act out against these enormous ads, which we were never asked if we approved of. These acts call for a change from passivity and complacency to empowerment and action.
A more recent outburst of creative commentary styled similarly to billboards are highway or freeway blogs. These are the illegal acts of hanging signs on overpasses which hope to challenge or create some emotion stirring in the driver which is forced to deal with (hopefully) creative commentary on society and our actions. Also not approved by the spectator, these ads do lack one thing that standard billboards possess: the pursuit of profit.
What you can do: create, adjust, alter, design, skew, rearrange, take over. Advertising is no longer limited to corporate boardrooms and executives of manipulation for higher capital. Advertising can exist simply with a sheet and some paint, accompanied by some challenging ideas busting through social norms and standardized values. There seems to be no letting up of the assault of our environment with products and their ads. We can accept this and continue our paths of passivity or attempt to make a change, no matter how small. It is our choice to make.
Previous public advertisements Salvation Inc has created can be seen here and here.
Check out RTMark for some beautiful work .
Seven Stories Press
New York
2004
a contribution by Art Goodtimes
Fluoride isn’t safe? But we put it in our water. We give it to our children to protect their teeth. And the government tells us we should, right?
Well, guess what? It looks like you, like so many others, have been sold a bill of goods, both by our government and their corporate overseers.
Checking Alternet’s Ten Worst Corporations of 2004, one begins to accept the fact that some corporations lie to their consumers, lie to their customers, lie to their workers. And that sometimes government regulators (thanks to the revolving doors between industry and federal agencies) conspire to allow well-connected industries, crucial to modern industrial society, to hide the scientific facts.
That is exactly the case Bryson makes in his well-documented treatise (112 pages of notes and citations – more than a third of the book). American industry lied to us. Government regulators lied to us. Scientists lied to us. And for the last 60 years we’ve been operating on the flimsiest of contested facts, adding a seriously toxic substance to our water supplies (voluntarily!) and have suffered the consequences.
Fluoride accumulates in the body, concentrates in the arteries, attracting calcium, and contributes directly to their hardening. We get fluoride in processed food, bottled water, and in the very air we breathe – with coal-fired power plants being one of the largest producers of organofluorines.
And hardening of the arteries and heart attacks are only one side effect. In 1992 it was Dr. Joseph Lyon of the University of Utah who co-authored a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association “which found that water fluoridation was associated with an increased risk of hip fracture.” Ever since, he’s had trouble getting funding for his continued research. And yet, interestingly, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of hip fractures in the world, and is witnessing an epidemic of arthritis in 21 million Americans.
Bryson details these and dozens of other harmful side effects for a substance we’ve been led to believe was good for us.
Read how fluoride was a critical element, like uranium, in the production of the first atom bomb, and how its production exposed thousands of war-time industrial workers to poisoning and death. Read how fluoride is an essential ingredient of CFCs and PFCs.
Read of the despicable work of Dr. Robert A. Kehoe of the Kettering Institute and Dr. Harold C. Hodge of the Forsyth Dental Center in their purposely failing to reveal studies showing widespread toxic damage from fluorides, so as to keep worker lawsuits from cutting into corporate profits for the big fluoride-polluting industries like Alcoa, Reynolds Aluminum, Dupont, Monsanto and literally hundreds of others.
Read about the use of non-informed human experiments in studies regarding fluoride toxicity, particularly African-Americans.
Read of the real cause of the Donora (Pennsylvania) air pollution tragedy in October of 1948 – where 20 folks were killed and hundreds injured by a smog of industrial pollutants from the nearby U.S. Steel plant. Read how the early Newburgh and Grand Rapids fluoride studies were manipulated to achieve industry’s desired results by less than honest researchers. Read how even those experiments used “pure sodium fluoride while 90% of the fluoridated public water supplies in the United State use not pharmaceutical-grade fluoride but industrial-grade silicofluoride ‘scrubbed’ from the smokestacks of the Florida phosphate industry”.
Bryson’s is a damning tale.
It was the 1956 “Final Newburgh Report” that found that young women in Newburgh reached puberty at an earlier age than did girls in neighboring non-fluoridated Kingston, suggesting the kind of endocrine disruption seen in other toxic chemicals. And it was five years after fluoridation in Grand Rapids that heart disease doubled, while Newburgh had reportedly the highest heart disease rate in the nation.
While researchers may be divided on fluoride (as the industry keeps saying about global warming), listen to Nobel Prize winning pharmacologist Dr. Arvid Carlsson in an afterword to this book when he says unequivocally, “The addition of fluoride to water supplies violates modern pharmacological principles,” and he continues, “In addition, this measure is ethically questionable.” Or consider what dental researcher Dr. Hardy Limeback of the University of Toronto has to say when he surmises that, given the dangers of fluorosis, fluoride toothpaste should be a prescription drug.
Reading The Fluoride Deception is a complete education in why some segments of our population don’t trust the government, are skeptical even of government scientists, and have conspiracies theories for almost everything.
After reading this book, my family has thrown out all toothpaste with fluoride added. And we’ve made certain that we drink water that isn’t fluorinated. As Thomas Pynchon demonstrated so capably in Z, a good dose of paranoia is probably not only justified in modern American society but necessary for our health and well-being.
Certain things in life you learn about are hard to believe. When the information reaches your brain, you may have a strong resistance to accepting it as truth or “fact”. Learning that the mainstream media (nationally televised news, radio, and newspapers) do not care about full coverage and accurate reporting as much as they do about profit, has caused some unsettling feelings among viewers and journalists. As a result of these feelings with such media, a large backlash occurs as independent media has started to take form across the globe. The goal of independent media is to report, without being restricted by corporate pressure, corporate advertising, or governmental editing or limiting of material.
The typical television viewer trusts Dan Rather, they’d have Peter Jennings over for dinner, Tom Brokaw could be their quirky neighbor, and Ted Kopel would be a Godfather to their children! How could one say these talking heads don’t provide truth to the viewing audience? How could you claim the stations they work for misinform the public for their own gain? If this is true, why don’t we know about any of this? Why are they still reporting every night and why are they the sources of most information concerning daily news?
To answer these questions, we cannot ask Peter Jennings and Ted Kopel for the answers, because they are just employees. The real men in charge are Michael Eisner and Robert A. Iger, who are both the heads of Disney, the parent company of ABC which broadcasts both World News Tonight and Nightline. Disney’s empire includes three publishing companies, five magazine subsidiaries, sixty-six radio stations, twelve cable stations, nine motion picture distribution groups, multiple international ventures, music companies and two sport franchises. CBS, which is owned by Viacom, is headed by CEO Sumner M. Redstone and President & COO Mel Karmazin. General Electric, who owns NBC, is headed by Jefferey R. Immelt. These are the real men behind the news we watch, read, or hear every day of our lives. Currently there are six major corporations which control and own the major media sources in America. These men and hundreds of others are the shareholders of the transnational-corporations which provide us with our daily news.
Now just because our televised, and printed media news sources are owned by multibillion dollar corporations, does that mean their programs practice bad journalism? No, they very well could be some of the best journalists we have, as many are award-winning reporters. They just are severely limited in their reporting. For instance, GE (General Electric) in 1989, made $2 billion dollars in military contracts involved in the first Gulf War. This amount of money will keep the voice of dissent towards any military action out of the news broadcasts. What often ends up happening is the news becomes a commercial for war toys and technology. In 1991, Tom Brokaw discussed the GE partially-produced Patriot Missile, calling it “the missile that put the Iraq scud in its place” (INFACT, 1991. link).
The conflict between the corporations and the reporting of the news programs from which they own them can occur on many levels. OPEC reported that in the 1980’s, the government of Kuwait owned 2.1 percent of GE’s stock. The first Gulf War directly involved Kuwait and led to “hundreds of millions of dollars” in contracts for GE to rebuild the country (FAIR, 1991. link). This has led to networks influencing a program’s reporting in order to keep the shareholders happy. It is done by not showing the effects of the war, or by not covering those voices which oppose the war.
Where does all of this lead to? What happens when a half-dozen mega-corporations own both the airwaves, and the newspapers from which we get all our information? The outcome is independent media, created, edited, and run by the individuals who want true coverage, not embedded journalism and military perspectives only. Those who crave uncensored information in order to educate themselves about national and global affairs. The growth of independent media has been overwhelming since the invention and proliferation of the Internet. Although there has been a recent surge in independent media sources, the origins of public-supported media that provides voices of resistance started much earlier.
Lew Hill was a broadcaster and peace activist who, in 1949, began the Pacifica Radio Broadcast on KPFA in Berkley, CA. This was twenty five years prior to the birth of NPR, what we now refer to as “public radio.” Hill was a conscientious objector to the Second World War, and he wanted to create a place where pacifists could voice their opposition to such actions and bring together people with similar interests. The mission statement of The Pacifica Radio Foundation includes two sections which would be difficult to find in corporate run radio or televised reporting:
(a) To establish a Foundation organized and operated exclusively for educational purposes no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any member of the Foundation.
(e) [...] to promote the full distribution of public information; to obtain access to sources of news not commonly brought together in the same medium; and to employ such varied sources in the public presentation of accurate, objective, comprehensive news on all matters vitally affecting the community. (Mission Statement)
By creating this voice, Hill opened the airwaves for a variety of voices which would never be considered appropriate or “newsworthy” for mainstream journalism. Democracy Now! hosted by Amy Goodman is the most successful example of this type of broadcasting. Goodman worked for Pacifica Radio for 11 years, reporting from places like media-barren East Timor. East Timor was without a global voice for over 15 years due to Indonesian oppression. Goodman, with her colleague Allan Nairn, helped get the voices of the near-genocidal conditions out with their documentary, "Massacre: The Story of East Timor," an award-winning piece which subsequently led to the two journalists being banned from the country. Even years after their original reports, Goodman and Nairn were able to go back to a newly Democratic Republic of East Timor, freed from oppressive rule. Stories like this are not reported on nationally televised news. Although for years both Goodman and Noam Chomsky spent much of their time reporting of the travesties, little coverage was given outside of their own works.
The power of context has a lot to do with the recent upsurge in internet homegrown media. The “Battle in Seattle”, the 1999 protest against the World Trade Organization, caused the tipping point leading to the creation of Independent Media Center, a.k.a. Indymedia. The center was used as a distribution point of information for journalists, and provided up-to-the-minute reports, photos, audio and video footage through its website. This kept the world up-to-date on the occurrences on the streets, and allowed people to see what was really happening in real time. While the corporate media reported it as an event of chaotic anarchists looking to destroy the city, focusing mostly on a few acts of vandalism, people down on the streets gave their accounts of police brutality, restrictions of the right to free speech, and the organized efforts to voice protest. For once, the people had the power to get their own side of the story out. Indymedia has thus grown into a global epidemic, with a network which now spans the planet. Users simply go to the website to read or post either personal accounts and opinions, or published articles found elsewhere on the web. This collective action leads to a more informed public, with coverage of a much more diverse range of topics than you will see on the 10 o’clock news. The mission statement of The Independent Media Center summarizes this; “[A] network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth. We work out of a love and inspiration for people who continue to work for a better world, despite corporate media's distortions and unwillingness to cover the efforts to free humanity”
As long as big money regulates the information that reporters give through mainstream journalism, independent media sources will thrive. A growing resistance against the FCC and their corporate and military influence has lead to the recalling of the airwaves for public use. Michael Powell, Chairman of the FCC and son of Secretary of State Colin Powell, said, reflecting on his job becoming official, “The night after I was sworn in, I waited for a visit from the angel of the public interest. I waited all night, but she did not come.” Talk like that has led to a public outcry for a systematic change of control over the airwaves. A “Two Minute Revolution” is being promoted which simply requests that for every hour of broadcasting, two minutes be set aside for public use. Attempting to create a more democratic media is quite possibly the only way to really address the many other problems that face our society (sexism, racism, consumerism, war propaganda, war profiteering, neocolonialism, and corporate crime to name a few.) Although this resistance is still developing, it is almost certain you won’t hear about it on televised news, not even from Godfather Kopel.
Goodman, Amy & David. 2004 Exception to the Rulers. New York, NY. Hyperion Books
Gladwell, Malcolm. 2000. The Tipping Point. New York, NY. Time Warner Book Group
http://www.indymedia.org/en/static/about.shtml
http://www.warprofiteers.com
http://www.lasarletter.com/lewhill.shtml
http://www.pacifica.org/about/mission.html
http://www.mediacarta.org/
The Portland Town Hall on The Future of the Media June 24, 2004
5:30 pm Oregon Convention Center
On Thursday, June 24, the two democratic FCC Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps opened their ears to the people of Portland, giving them a unique opportunity to directly address the creators of America's media policy. The Town Hall consisted of two panels: the media consolidation panel was composed of David Leiken, Owner of Double Tee Concerts; Mary Lou Gunn, the VP/Market Manager at Clear Channel; Michael Powell, the owner of Powell's City of Books; Andrea Cano, from the United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries; and Madelyn Elder, the President of the Communications of Workers of America Local 7901. Each panelist was allotted five minutes to present to the commissioners, after which twenty minutes were allowed for questions and comments from the Commissioners, followed by an hour of Public Comments and Testimony. Any member of the public was welcome to sign up to speak.
Unfortunately I arrived just in time to hear the moderator call for the break before the beginning of the second session. This gave me ample time to peruse the various pamphlets and informative offerings from the local groups tabling in the lobby. I was particularly grateful for the fact sheet provided by freepress, which outlined the roles of the various media policy makers. If, like me, you are a little unclear on the exact role of the FCC, or of the influence it has over the who, what, where, when, and how of national media, here's a quick low-down: according to the freepress fact sheet: "The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is an independent U.S. government agency directly responsible to Congress. There are five FCC Commissioners, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Traditionally, three of the Commissioners come from the President's Party, and one these acts as Chairman. The two other Commissioners come from the minority party. The current Chairman is Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"The FCC does not pass laws. Instead, they issue techical regulations, enforce these regulations, and enforce laws enacted by Congress. Congress can override any FCC regulation through law, but rarely does so.
"The FCC's main duty is to manage the public airwaves. Their regulations affect all varieties of broadcasting, telephone, cable, cell phone, and satellite companies. The FCC is supposed to ensure that broadcasters who use the airwaves, free of charge, are serving the 'public interest' in return."
Although various topics were addressed during the forum, most of the exchange centered around the effects of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which effectively de-regulated media ownership, making it easier for large media conglomerates to dominate various local and national media markets nationwide. On Thursday, people from all over the Portland Metro Area gatherered to have an opportunity to voice their opinions on FCC media policy. The turnout was surprisingly low; the Hall, which appeared capable of holding well over five hundred people, only about half full when I arrived. Still, various panelists as well as the Commissioners themselves commented that the turnout was fairly large, given the ironic fact that few of the media sources that were under discussions bothered to publicize the meeting.
Localism was the topic of the second panel, which consisted of L.C. Hansen, a KBOO Board Member; Michael Brown, the President of Brown Broadcast Services, Curt Henninger, the Senior VP and General Manager for Oregon and SW Washington, Comcast; David Olson, the Director of the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission, the Nigel Ballard, the Wireless Director for Matrix Networks, and a Member of the Portland Telecommunications Steering Committee.
Hansen kicked off the panel with a humorous endorsement of the type of journalism provided by KBOO, proffering KBOO's programming charter as a model for media business practices. Hansen also suggested that journalism that fosters the creation of "masterpieces of American culture" ought to be enforced through various means: the ratings that dictate media licensing ought to include measurements for diversity and PSAs; there ought to be an Open Annual meeting, and fines for violations (such as for allowing profanity) ought to be set in relation to the percentage of revenues for per station, thereby ensuring that smaller stations such as KBOO will not be threatened with bankruptcy if one particularly offensive song should make it on the air.
Brown spoke next, focusing primarily on issues related to the establishment and regulation of LPFMs (Low-Power FM radio stations), which are threatened under the current regulations. He maintained that the FCC ought to prioritize localism by supporting LPFM stations, which according to a recent study (in contrast to the reasons cited by ClearChannel for putting limitations on LPFM stations) do not in fact interfere with other technology, such as cell phones and aviation equipment, that utilize similar parts of the bandwith.
The representative from Comcast (who, for those of you who don't know, currently holds a virtual monopoly in many areas of the country as the sole cable television and internet provider in various areas, and will soon be among the largest and most wealthy companies in the nation, and is looking to purchase Disney) read what seemed to come straight from the belly of the PR department: a line of humorless rhetoric designed to make the company seem customer- and locally-oriented. Henninger went so far as to contend that market "competition is robust," citing as evidence the number of cds he receives in the mail regularly from companies like AOL that offer hourly rates for internet service. Further evidence of Comcast's supposed committment to localism was the fact that cable service had recently been made available to 100% of the area, providing services such as on-demand cable. He cited the company's recent addition of 15,000 employees as evidence of their committment to customer service (a claim which lost some its shine when Margaret Butler, a rep for Jobs with Justice pointed out that Comcast routinely undermines the rights of workers, opposes unions and is notorious for destroying workplace freedoms).
Olson's was the most humorous speech, providing much-needed relief from Henninger's cheery PR fusillage. Referring to Oregon's notorious quirkiness, Olson pointed out that was unique in being "the only state where you can take your own life but you can't pump your own gas." He went on to outline Oregon's historic committment to serving the public interest through the co-operation of communities and government, aptly quipping "The angel of public interest does not descend on couch potatoes...who sit in front of their TEVO." (Michael Powell, in partial explanation for his policy of media de-regulation, said he "had not been visited by the angel of public interest.") He went on to point out that signing with Comcast had removed 40% of the public's right to open access, and closed with the eloquent statement that "Monopolies are so much easier to prevent than to undo."
Olson was followed by Nigel Bower, a representative and advocate for wireless technology, who boasted of the city's 130 open Internet access points, which are provided at no cost, free of restrictions or tracking. He advocated for more free access to the net.
Commissioners Adelstein and Copps thanked the panel for their comments, expressing a desire to take something back for the community from the companies that profit from the (public) spectrum. Copps expressed concern that most news sources are owned by the same people, which creates a dangerous monopoly on the information that is available to the public. "The Internet wants to be free," he said, "but that freedom is not guaranteed," pointing out that it takes the kind of properly motivated community of which Portland is an example to maintain media freedom.
It was then the public's chance to address the Commissioners. The overall tone expressed by the majority of the speakers was simple: media de-regulation doesn't serve anyone but large profit-driven companies, who have little incentive to offer diversity, support local arts, or to create venues for un-biased or balanced coverage of issues that affect the everyday lives of Americans. The wide variety of complaints against de-regulated media were voiced by various representatives of local advocacy groups. A rep from the local 99 for musicians pointed out that ClearChannel virtually dictates the production and distribution of music, having the power to threaten artists with no airplay and having no interest in exploring new, local talent. A rep from the Money and Politics Research Project cited that, while spending on political advertising on the public airwaves has increased five-fold, impartial coverage of political issues continues to decline.
The following are some of the suggestions for reform advocated by speakers:
-Broadcasters should be taxed based on a percentage of their revenues for their use of the bandwith
-Broadcasters should be required to provide venues/services for the public interest, such as PSAs and airtime allotted to local media outlets
-Fines for failing to comply with regulations should be based on a percentage of the broadcaster's revenues
-Resources should be provided in communities for training and information regarding the use of broadcast mediums
-Local television programs, such as NCTV, should air on non-cable channels
-the FCC should regulate the broadcasting of PSAs that advocate for tolerance of ethnic and religious diversity
-Efforts should be made to provide quality, non-violent, informative programming
-Non-commercial radio stations (such as KMIH, which is a high-school run station that broadcasts out of Washington) should be supported and protected from the encroachment of media conglomerates
-Efforts should be made to protect low-fi technology such as LPFMs, HAM radios, and CBs
-News networks should be required to provide information on local issues, rather than operating under the profit-driven "if it bleeds, it leads" mindset.
-Concessions should be made that allow metro murals to be painted without allowing ClearChannel to overtake and monopolize billboard space.
Responding to the public comments, the Commissioners confirmed the need for media reform, and expressed a committment to bringing the thoughts and attitudes expressed by the public back to Washington D.C. They affirmed that media consolidation should be stopped, the license renewal process should be examined, that LPFMs should be protected, and that efforts should be made to require broadcasters to better serve the public interest. While it was heartening to hear such a response from the Commissioners, and the forum provided evidence that there is hope for media reform, the Commissioners emphasized that we as a public need to keep up the pressure and continue to advocate for our right to the national airwaves.
See also -
Media ownership chart
Federal Court Overturns FCC Decision On Media Ownership
Yes, my precious. Time to make some televisions disappear ... click here.
With this brilliant new invention convention is at your attention. For just $79.99 this reality shifting remote can be all yours and all your troubles will be easily avoidable. You thought television made you numb??? Give this baby a chance to really alter your states. You'll never remember to complain again.
The television is not your friend, it is not a warm body to come home to after a hard day's work. It is a distraction from the fact that our society is failing us. It directly contributes to the complacency and decline of rational & critical thinking human beings. The television is nothing more than a corporate mouthpiece designed to keep the sheep in order. This is unacceptable. No longer can we allow a corporate ameri©a to exist while we barely have enough to show after a lifetime of labor. It is time to awake from the dream that if you work hard enough, you'll be wealthy, happy and free. They've got you. The television is the starting point. By investing your money into it, you're no longer human, you are what they want you to be. Wake up, unplug, and live.
This wonderful information has been made available by Mediachannel.org
Over 98% of American’s have at least one television in their home. The average amount of time per day that the television is on is 7 hours and 12 minutes per household. These numbers are extremely frightening, yet not too surprising. Television has become the true opiate of the masses in these modern times. By means of reaching an initial socialist state, as proposed by Marx and Engels, the total institution of the media, but more specifically, television, is one of the largest obstacles to overcome.
In a truly socialized state, the public replaces the private. Gone are the acres of property personally owned by the wealthy. The factories and businesses used by exploiting the poor and helpless are filled with all classes, equally working together, earning true living wages, with better working conditions. The idea of community and equality, for both genders and all races is the goal of a socialized state. Everything that is involved with television stands in direct opposition to those ideas.
The bourgeoisie, which are the wealthy and powerful, as labeled by Marx, own the airwaves. Although they are said to be public, the amount of time dedicated to public service announcements and the sort is less than 1%. There are now six major corporations which own most of the televised media, newspapers, and radio. Six corporations make up what is seen, heard, and learned on the television. Each corporation of course, does not base their investments in media outlets only. What happens more frequently is that these empires have tentacles which stretch over a vast array of businesses. For example, NBC, which broadcasts NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, is owned by General Electric (GE). 
Now GE not only makes blenders, refrigerators, and other various home appliances, but also aircraft engines, medical equipment, and nuclear reactors. In 2002, General Electric made over $131 billion and is ranked fifth in the Fortune 500. This is a corporation spread out over 100 countries, not a small startup mom and pop business. From 1990 to 2002, GE had more post war contracts than any other corporation, raking in over $43 billion from the federal government. 
When a corporation like this owns the airwaves, especially the news broadcasts which keep the public informed about national and global issues (MSNBC - a cable news channel owned by NBC and Microsoft), a conflict will naturally occur. The public interests are lost as shareholders become the focus of attention. Money first, people last. Only when people threaten to “hit them in their wallets” and boycott purchasing certain items, does that awaken the rich.
Since money fuels capitalism, this means greed fuels capitalism. When greed becomes commonplace, ethics are usually placed upon the back burner. The marketing strategy used in commercials for television use various tactics to persuade the viewing public in a certain direction. By the age of sixty-five, the average American has seen over two million commercials. Yearly, the advertising industry spends about $40 billion. These numbers mean something monumental. 
Using images of beautiful women and men, objectifying both sexes to show how bad you may look in comparison, is a very effective way to sell products. The beauty supply business is a billion dollar industry, which feeds off the insecurities and doubts of the advertisement recipients. Focusing more on women, sexism runs rampant in our patriarchal society. Television does nothing to alleviate this problem. From beer commercials, to diet ads, to television shows themselves, showing beautiful women in minimal clothing or in submissive positions, only perpetuates the existing roles set in our society. To overcome sexism and inequality we must no longer give in to the ideas of “beauty” as sold to us by the glow box. By refusing to invest in companies which either use sexist ads, or base their existence on the vulnerability of the self-concept, you weaken their empire. As Engels discusses in his writings on feminism, there is a deep seeded interest in keeping women as the property of men. When this is addressed and destroyed only then will equality among the sexes begin.
Using physicality as a manipulative device for selling products is just one aspect of the terrors of advertising. Marketing to children not only wasteful plastic toys but also sugar soaked foods is another towering empire. Billions of dollars alone are spent advertising directly towards children, with startling results. The “Nag Factor” is the degree at which parents buy something based upon being nagged by their child. Reports show that over $10 billion was spent in food and drinks alone in 2003 due to the nagging of children. Marketers realize this and now have started addressing the youngest children to new products. This leads to a world where even infants can consume. A bright end is not in sight when the children are practically given credit lines for purchasing. Advertising in the schools reaches beyond the cafeteria’s fast food brand name buffet, Channel One advertises to children as they watch televisions in the classrooms. All this does is reinforce the ideas of working your life away for worthless material possessions, possessions that eventually, end up owning the purchaser.
Consumption of any product can lead to debt, which can force one towards more labor, which can lead to a need for a break. Often truly rejuvenating breaks are few and far between in this modern work age, so while unwinding after a hard day’s work, the television is there, ready to assist, ready to keep your doubts alive, and your pockets empty.
When not selling actual products, people are then put on the selling block on television.
This year is a perfect example of the way television distorts, deceives, and takes advantage of the lack of public knowledge in regards to politics. “Approved messages” are flying all over the airwaves for both corporately owned puppets, as the viewers are never given any real information about policies or plans. The amount of money put into this election year is disgusting, and it’s proving to be the way to go, as John Kerry was reluctant to take the Democratic bid for presidency in order to raise even more money. It becomes no longer about politics, but who can buy the most votes.
Democracy is thrown out the window and is replaced with a pseudo government fueled not by the public interest but by invested interests from the money wielding elite. For information, the people, are given the Fox News Channel (FNC), which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s mega-empire, the News Corporation. Murdoch readily admits to being an ultra conservative man. His company reaches into sixty-three channels on the television, along with three major motion picture studios. Although most TV channels aren’t political, the cable based FNC is. What has occurred is that the FNC has become the mouthpiece for the White House, the Pentagon, and the Republican party, while attempting to sell itself as “fair and balanced.” Viewers are ratings, ratings are votes, nowhere are the regular citizens recognized as needing information. While reporting controversial (a.k.a. dangerous for conservatives) material, critical analysis is often missing, while debates are for the same side of an argument. This type of reporting isn’t exclusive to Fox, it’s just much more obvious on Fox. The public’s lack of knowledge over certain issues is a direct result of corporate owned media giants battling it out with others for the most ratings, which leads to the most money. Infotainment replaces information and once again, capitalism, with the great aid of television, keeps the people either subdued, ignorant, or bored with the goings on in the nation’s capital and overseas.
What must be done in order to develop public interest in politics, which will lead to change all throughout the globe, is to abolish privately owned news stations. Marx wanted the abolition of private property, thus the televised news must also fit into this category for change to occur. As long as people are using the television for a source of information, there must be accountability for reporting. When a private company owns the airwaves and has no one to answer to, truth and information become neglected.
Looking beyond the actual content on the television, one must also examine the act of watching the screen. The time consuming act itself, is a “mediated quasi-interaction” as coined by John Thompson, meaning that it is a one-way monologue from the tube to the viewer. The act of watching TV is an act consumption in its own right, never giving anything back. Binge watching of the television not only leads to an unquestioning mind, as conversations themselves tend to be eliminated, but also to a widespread culture of similar minds. By sitting inside the house, even with friends, gathered around a television, a loss of community exists. Walk down a street right after dusk and observe the blue lights illuminating an otherwise dark home. People aren’t motivated to organize, discuss, or even consider social change or pressing topics. There is a lot more information beyond the sixty minutes of news (including commercials, sports, weather and offbeat) you are given every day, but without real communication, it is lost.
The current state of television directly obstructs social gatherings and the momentum needed for a revolution to occur. Marx believed that eventually people would rise up and no longer stand for the inequalities present in a capitalist system. He felt that religion was the opiate which kept the people in line, ignoring the real world’s injustices in return for a pleasant afterlife. I believe television has replaced religion as the opiate of the people. Never seeing the big picture of society and all that is wrong with the world, where it’s going and who it’s affecting, people are instead being given new stories everyday with little or no follow ups. Emotional sagas may drag out a bit longer only until the made-for-TV show emerges. By not seeing how bad things have become, and focusing the televised attention upon the season finale of Survivor All-Stars , the masses become blinded, complicit, sheep, perfect for an unjust society.
Whether it is the commercials promoting insecurities and consumption, to nightly broadcasts filtering and spinning information, to the half dozen mega-media corporations owning most outlets of news, the content alone is enough to keep a population distracted. Taking a step back even further and examining the act of watching television, it is clear that changes need to occur in order to awaken and put life back into the people themselves.
Capitalism's biggest threat is loss of profit. By removing yourself from the economy where television is concerned as the first step, you will start to become more free. When advertising executives realize that insecurity and meaningless possessions aren’t selling, they will be forced to look elsewhere. When they learn that public related issues without commercial interruption is what is desired, they will lose their minds, their jobs, and their power. As a national movement occurs to eliminate the corporate run airwaves, one must wonder how such a story would be covered by the reporters themselves. Publicly run television is a healthier solution for direct information, a truer democracy, and equality amongst a diverse population. By not limiting access to the airwaves to just those with the resources, wealth, and power, the information and progression towards a socialized state would start to gain momentum.
On the road to a socialized and equal state, which would eventually lead to a community style of living, as Marx proposed, there will be many obstacles. If television as it exists today is eliminated, it would have to be replaced with a publicly run medium. The settings for this refreshed medium would be too difficult to envision at this time. One could also question what other news sources should be held accountable in reporting, as radio and newsprint have yet to be addressed. Ideas for such questions would lead to an interesting discussion, one which have to be had far away from the television set.
TV Turnoff Week is once a year in April
TV Turnoff Life can start right now.
-Related tv articles and artwork
Dying for some violence
The drug of television
The last supper
Questions?
--------------------------
Sources
Center for Public Integrity Retreived June 5, 2004
http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=23
TV Turnoff Retreived June 5, 2004 http://www.tvturnoff.org/images/facts&figs/factsheets/FactsFigs.pdf
Rachel Hauser (August 2003) The ‘Nag Factor’ Nets $10b in Sales http://www.newhope.com/nfm-online/nfm_backs/aug_03/nag.cfm
Columbia Journalist Review Retreived June 5, 2004 http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/newscorp.asp
Giddens et al. 2003. Introduction to Sociology. New York, NY. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Karl Marx Karl Marx - Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosohpy McGraw-Hill Paperbacks. 1956.
