Mainstream media rewrite history

Statement of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

July 25— Early coverage of the protests at the Republican and Democratic national conventions has followed a familiar pattern: Mainstream media have stoked fears about the potential for violence in Philadelphia and Los Angeles by rewriting the actual history of police brutality at last year’s anti-WTO demonstrations in Seattle. In its place, media are developing a mythology of dangerous protesters who, for unspecified reasons, violently overpowered police.

“It is widely agreed that the Seattle police got out-foxed by better organized protesters trying to shut down the World Trade Organization meeting last year,” reported NBC’s Fred Francis in a story about the conventions (Nightly News, 7/14/00). Francis went on to describe activists who attended the “violent” Seattle demonstrations as a “battle-tested” force “better trained than the LAPD for street violence.”

Widely agreed? Francis must have either missed or discounted the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)’s recent report on the Seattle protests. “Demonstrators [in Seattle] were overwhelmingly peaceful,” wrote the ACLU. “Not so the police.”

According to the ACLU’s 87-page report, “Out of Control: Seattle’s Flawed Response to Protests Against the World Trade Organization,” the City of Seattle’s response to the WTO protests was characterized by “unwarranted restrictions and outright assaults on citizens and on their basic American rights.” The “draconian” violations of civil liberties committed by Seattle police and officials included: widespread use of “chemical weapons, rubber bullets and clubs against peaceful protesters and bystanders alike”; numerous “individual acts of [police] brutality”; the suppression of free speech rights; hundreds of improper arrests; and intimidation and “brutal” abuse of arrestees. (See www.aclu.org)

NBC, ABC and CBS all ignored the release of the ACLU report, as did CNN. The Seattle Times is the only major American newspaper to have reported it (7/5/00).

Yet the media haven’t forgotten Seattle — mainstream reports on the upcoming convention protests consistently refer to them as follow-ups to Seattle, and frequently ask whether authorities in Philadelphia and Los Angeles will be able to avoid a similar scenario. But which scenario?

One ABC World News Tonight report (7/23/00) asked what lessons Philadelphia police have learned from Seattle, and how they will be applied to the convention. According to reporter Jim Sciutto, Philadelphia police observers in Seattle saw protesters “at times playing to the television cameras” by feigning injury. Sciutto’s report features, without rebuttal, a Philadelphia police lieutenant claiming that at the sight of a camera, activists are trained to “fall down and start screaming and yelling whether you hit them or not.” ABC’s report made no mention of any substantive allegations of police brutality in Seattle.

When riots erupted in Los Angeles on June 19 after the Lakers won the NBA Finals, several news outlets discussed the random acts of vandalism as though they were comparable to the protests planned for the Democratic convention. “Los Angeles officials hope that the convention crowd will exercise more self-restraint than the Lakers crowd,” reported the NBC Nightly News (6/20/00). The CBS Evening News (6/20/00) made the same comparison, reporting that officials promised “much less access for potential troublemakers” at the convention than there had been at the Lakers game.

What emerges from this coverage is an image of activists as a paramilitary mob preparing to take to the streets to frustrate and discredit the police. This distorted view has been helped along by the three major networks’ failure to discuss in any depth protesters’ critiques of the conventions. CBS mentioned that Los Angeles anarchists would protest in order to “shine the spotlight on economic injustice” (7/10/00); NBC (7/20/00) noted that the protesters’ message is “simply that the political parties have been taken over by big money interests.” Neither network featured any further examination of the activists’ political positions.

Demonizing activists and ignoring police brutality may imbue police departments with a sense that they can operate with impunity— or at least without fear of serious scrutiny from the press. This media whitewashing may heighten the risk that citizens assembling to speak out at the conventions will face police violence.

Source: FAIR: www.fair.org

Drug czar continues assault on First Amendment

Statement of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

July 31— Once again, White House Drug Czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey is using federal funding to bribe corporations to surreptitiously insert government-approved messages into media content.

Salon.com (1/13/00) first broke the story that McCaffrey was giving TV networks a financial incentive to put messages about drugs into entertainment programming. Congress authorized McCaffrey’s Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to place millions of dollars’ worth of anti-drug commercials, but with the condition that the TV industry donate time for similar public service announcements.

McCaffrey, however, has allowed the networks to avoid giving up valuable ad space to public service announcements by giving them “credits” for airing entertainment programming that dealt with the issue of drugs in ways that met with the drug czar’s approval. At one point, the White House drug office was even reviewing scripts in advance and suggesting revisions to make sure that they conformed to the official line on drugs. Affected shows ranged from “ER” to “Home Improvement” to “90210.”

Salon later revealed (3/31/00) that magazines from Seventeen to US News & World Report were accepting the same deal— publishing articles with government-approved anti-drug themes in order to avoid obligations to print free ads about drugs.

McCaffrey’s office responded to the Salon articles by accusing reporter Daniel Forbes of not being a “disinterested reporter” and asking Salon to disclose Forbes’ “bias.” The evidence: Forbes has written articles that have been reposted on the website of the Media Awareness Project, which promotes drug policy alternatives. ONDCP denies it is trying to discredit Forbes, just trying to get Salon to practice “honest journalism”; “I think the reader should know,” McCaffrey aide Robert Housman told the Boston Globe (4/10/00). This sudden fondness for full disclosure seems strange, given that that ONDCP has been very quiet about its role in the anti-drug propaganda it encourages.

Now the White House drug office is turning its attention to film: It will pay for trailers that urge youth not to take illegal drugs, and the theaters will agree to run other trailers about drugs, for free. If the theaters show films with messages on drugs that the government approves of, however, they will be free to run lucrative advertising trailers instead (Los Angeles Times, 7/11/00).

All of these arrangements do serious damage to the First Amendment: They give media corporations a financial incentive to transmit what is essentially government propaganda. Unsuspecting audiences have no way of knowing that the messages they are receiving are designed to conform to the official federal line on drugs.

Source: FAIR: http://www.fair.org

Fox news V-P pleads insanity in censorship trial

By Jane Akre

Jane Akre is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Fox TV. The suit charges that Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were fired because they refused to misrepresent the dangers of Monsanto’s artificial bovine growth hormone, rBGH.

Tampa, Florida, July 25— The defense made another U-turn in the Fox/BGH trial today by claiming four new reasons Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were fired. “I was looking for people who were chargers, not drainers,” Fox news V-P Philip Metlin told the jury.

The husband-and-wife reporting team is suing the station for violation of Florida’s Whistleblower law, claiming they were fired by Fox for refusing to broadcast false and distorted information about Monsanto’s artificial bovine growth hormone (rBGH).

When the two were fired, Fox notified them it was for “no cause” in accordance with a provision to do so during a window period. But when Wilson protested, a Fox lawyer wrote although the two could have been fired for no cause, they were actually fired because they put up such a fuss in the ethical defense over the BGH story.

On the stand Monday, Metlin repeatedly claimed the two were actually fired for the sole reason that “they walked away from the story” after they learned of the station’s intent to dismiss them. Today he changed his own story and said the journalists were fired because of a lack of productivity, they weren’t “team players,” and they wouldn’t come to work frequently enough during the nearly year-long struggle to get the investigative reports on the air.

Continuing to represent himself in the courtroom, Wilson fired question after question at Metlin, chipping away at his claims during the morning examination.

“Did you ever send a single memo we were not productive?” Wilson asked.
“No,” Metlin replied.
“Did you ever send a single memo telling us you didn’t think we were team players?” he continued.
“It’s quite conceivable that I did,” Metlin hedged.
Wilson persisted: “So where is the evidence? There is no evidence of that, is there Mr. Metlin.”
“No evidence,” Metlin admitted in a quiet voice.

Wilson was referring to WTVT’s system of “progressive discipline” shown to jurors earlier in the trial. It states unruly employees first receive a verbal warning followed by a written warning before being terminated. Metlin confessed that none of that had been done.

The reporters’ controversial story which WTVT never aired focused on the use and human health concerns surrounding BGH, which was approved by the FDA amidst a storm of protest and charges it has not been adequately tested for long-term human health effects. Some studies strongly suggest a link to cancer for milk drinkers in years to come.

The story sparked two angry letters from Monsanto to Fox News chief Roger Ailes. The biotech giant threatened “dire consequences” if the story were aired.

Although Metlin has insisted to the jury that the reporters walked away from the story October 16, 1997, he admitted on the stand that he received exactly what he asked the reporters to produce — and it was delivered that very day. The jury actually saw the scripts that Metlin received, along with a memo telling him the journalists respected his choice as to which script to air.

The news director admitted even though he got what he asked for 48 hours after his request, he said there was such insanity and madness at the time, he never read either of the scripts or the memo that accompanied them.

That memo reads, in part: “With all due respect, we are again informing you that in our professional judgment, the (mandated script) in this form is biased and distorted to the point it would significantly mislead the viewers if broadcast. We have thoroughly investigated the BGH issue for nearly a year now and, simply put, these versions do not faithfully represent the truth as we know it.”

The memo went on to say how the second script, requested by Metlin, represented a more honest and accurate story that would not mislead the public.

The reporters maintain that lawyers for Fox were firmly in charge of the editing of the BGH story after the Monsanto threat letters arrived. There has already been evidence that the president of Fox Television Stations ordered that the lawyers “take no risks” with the reports.

The basis of the suit is that federal law requires broadcast stations to operate in the public interest and slanting the news is not permitted under the law.

“A television station is not the corner hardware store,” Wilson says. “It is not just a good idea for broadcasters to serve the public interest, it’s the law.” Monday, journalism expert Forrest Carr testified that it is a reporter’s duty to protest and resist broadcasting a story the journalist believes is deliberately slanted.

Under intense questioning, Metlin maintained that when the reporters flagged what they believed were distortions in the story mandated by Fox lawyers, they “contaminated” the whole process to the point the story could not be aired. He said it “took away his choice” about broadcasting either of the stories the reporters submitted.

“Did you keep your promise to read both scripts?” Wilson asked, referring to the Meltin memo dated October 14.

“ I did not,” the news executive admitted.

“You turned your back on the story?”
“I think I read the first two paragraphs of your memo and decided it’s all part of your lawsuit.” The lawsuit was not filed until six months later. Metlin maintained that the reporters were simply laying “a paper trail” in preparation for the lawsuit, instead of making an honest effort to report the news.

“Was it all just part of some grand scheme?” Wilson asked.

“Well, here we are,” Metlin responded. “There was a lot of paper flying then. I don’t know what I was doing. I was out of my mind!” he said.

Wilson also forced another key admission when Metlin acknowledged that he never read the reporters’ version of the script until he was forced to do so at his deposition a year after the reporters were fired.

“And do you remember your conclusion?” Wilson demanded.

“You concluded ‘they read pretty well to me,’ didn’t you, Mr. Metlin?”

Metlin’s reply: “That sounds like something I said.”

Wilson then refreshed his recollection by reading those exact words from his deposition testimony.

The insanity defense

Asked to review a highly critical letter the reporters received from Fox attorney Carolyn Forrest who accused the reporters of reckless accusations and sloppy reporting, Meltin claimed he never saw the letter and never did anything to ascertain whether the charges had any validity.

“When you arrived at the station and heard these things, didn’t you not want to know if you really had this kind of reporter?”

“No,” said Metlin, “I was aware of your reputation, you came from a national shop, you are what you are.” Metlin also maintained that he intentionally did not even read the Monsanto theat letters, the reporters responses to them, or any memos that followed over for months before he arrived. “I wanted a clean slate,” he claimed.

Wilson then showed Metlin and the jury a Separation Agreement crafted by Fox lawyers in April and asked, “Isn’t it true Fox made the decision to kill the story before April 17?”

“Thats not even possible!” Metlin shot back. By September 23 when Metlin sat down to lunch with the reporters at a Tampa restaurant in trendy Hyde Park, Metlin says the reporters wanted to “start all over” with the story and again told him they felt the station had acquiesced to Monsanto’s muscle.

“Madness and shock is what I felt,” Metlin says. “I was so much in shock I even got lost going back to the office from lunch.”

Fox contends there is no law, rule or (FCC) regulation against slanting the news and therefore the plaintiffs’ case should not go forward. The defense is expected to make that argument again when the plaintiffs rest their case next week.

Source: Industrial Workers of the World News Service: Iww-news@iww.org

Fox TV to judge: “there is no law against lying on newscasts”

Steve Wilson is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Fox TV. The suit charges that Wilson and his wife, Jane Akre, were fired because they refused to misrepresent the dangers of Monsanto’s artificial bovine growth hormone, rBGH.

Tampa, Florida, July 25-- It is an issue that has bedeviled the case from the start — and one that may yet derail the plaintiffs before a jury ever gets to deliberate.

The defendant has argued almost from the start that they cannot ever lose the case as a matter of law. Jane Akre and I can never prevail, they have said, simply because there is no “law, rule, or regulation” that says a television station cannot deliberately slant the news.

It is an argument they’ve run up the flagpole at least twice before in efforts to have the case summarily dismissed without a trial. Two state court judges studied that argument and failed to salute. But now the trial court judge — the third to be assigned to the case since it was filed — has indicated he might not see it the same way as his predecessors.

What this means, the judge has explained out of earshot of the jury, is that after the plaintiffs finish presenting their case in chief, he might well grant a defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. End of trial. Beginning of appeal process.

What seems apparent is that either Judge Steinberg wasn’t listening carefully to Ralph Nader, or he didn’t believe him. Nader did a first-rate job explaining how broadcasters who use the public airwaves have a legal duty to serve the public interest.

Deliberately slanting and distorting the news, he explained, violates the law.

Specifically, Nader added, the Communications Act of 1934 requires broadcasters to serve the public interest, to be a good character, and not to broadcast a false signal. Fox wants the judge to believe that prohibitions on news distortion are merely FCC policy and not any formal law, rule, or regulation as specified in the Florida whistleblower law.

Of course, call it what you like, as Fox’s own station manager admitted on the stand Thursday, lying on the air and distorting the news is a sure way to lose a license to broadcast. It doesn’t happen frequently but it has happened before — and the FCC has made it clear it can happen again whenever anyone brings evidence that meets the commission’s criteria as stated in a decision involving the CBS News documentary Hunger In America.

The standards set by the FCC in that case fit the circumstances in this case like a glove. And haven’t we all seen enough real-life courtroom drama to believe that old saw “if it fits, he cannot acquit” — and certainly he can’t grant a directed verdict that would stop the case in its tracks and take it away from the jury.

Source: Industrial Workers of the World News Service:
Iww-news@iww.org