clinton is getting ready to speak.
--
J. Baptista Planet Communications & Computing Facility
Voice/Fax (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
http://www.pccf.net/
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Jay Fenello wrote:
>
>
> This just in:
>
>
> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: FW: [FAIR-L] Initial Reports from Seattle Gloss Over WTO Issues
> >Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:26:34 -0500
> >
> >Wanted to make sure that you saw this.
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: FAIR-L[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 5:49 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: [FAIR-L] Initial Reports from Seattle Gloss Over WTO Issues
> > >
> > >
> > > FAIR-L
> > > Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
> > > Media analysis, critiques and news reports
> > >
> > >
> > > Media Advisory: Initial Reports from Seattle Gloss Over WTO Issues
> > >
> > > December 1, 1999
> > >
> > > As trade ministers from over 130 countries meet in Seattle this week for
> > > the
> > > World Trade Organization summit, tens of thousands of activists from all
> > > over the world have converged on the city to protest both the undemocratic
> > > structure of the group and its record on labor and environmental issues.
> > >
> > > But the news coverage anticipating the protests has shed little light on
> > > the
> > > specific charges being made against the WTO by most of the protesters. As
> > > the conference gets under way on November 30, a few trends in the coverage
> > > have already emerged.
> > >
> > > To begin, news stories preceding the conference demonstrated a fundamental
> > > lack of understanding of the issues involved. A November 1st article in US
> > > News & World Report was headlined "Hell No, We Won't Trade: How an obscure
> > > trade organization became a lightning rod for protest." While one can
> > > debate
> > > the merits of labeling a group with international jurisdiction over global
> > > trade an "obscure" organization, "We Won't Trade" is a grossly misleading
> > > characterization of the anti-WTO arguments.
> > >
> > > The article goes on to note that "For the moment, the movement against
> > > free
> > > trade seems to have little traction in the United States." This is a
> > > puzzling conclusion for an article that notes that "up to 50,000
> > > demonstrators" are planned to "attend mass rallies, a march, teach-ins and
> > > prayer services" to protest the Seattle trade meeting. Nonetheless, the
> > > assertion is backed up by this: "All major presidential candidates support
> > > free trade and the WTO."
> > >
> > > Reports prior to the summit, and many appearing this week, argue that the
> > > WTO stands to "open up" trade around the globe. That is inaccurate, as
> > > Dean
> > > Baker pointed out recently in FAIR's Economic Reporting Review
> > > (http://www.fair.org/err/991108.html ):
> > >
> > > "While its rules are designed to facilitate foreign investment, such as a
> > > U.S. auto manufacturer building a factory in Indonesia, in other areas the
> > > WTO has taken little action to facilitate trade, while in some areas its
> > > rules are intended to impede free trade. In the case of professional
> > > services, such as those provided by doctors, lawyers and other highly paid
> > > professionals, the WTO has done virtually nothing to facilitate
> > > international trade and competition. In the case of intellectual property
> > > claims, such as patents and copyrights, the WTO has worked to impose these
> > > protectionist barriers on developing nations, at an enormous cost to their
> > > consumers."
> > >
> > > Nor do many media accounts explain what the protesters are focusing on--in
> > > most cases, a specific set of concerns and issues that have been before
> > > the
> > > WTO in the past few years (summarized well at
> > > http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR112999.htm ). ABC's Peter
> > > Jennings
> > > commented that "it seems as though every group with every complaint from
> > > every corner of the world is represented in Seattle this week."
> > >
> > > CBS Evening News explained some of the background on the same night's
> > > newscast, but bungled one of the core criticisms of the WTO. Dan Rather
> > > reported that the WTO had ruled on many environmental issues, but declined
> > > to make the simple point that the WTO has ruled *against* environmental
> > > restrictions in every case that has come before it. Indeed, Rather's
> > > reference to the WTO's ruling on "fishing restrictions aimed at saving
> > > endangered species" might have mislead viewers into thinking that the WTO
> > > was intervening on behalf of threatened animals.
> > >
> > > Some reports, rather than dealing with the concerns of the protestors,
> > > instead focused on the hypothetical danger they pose. Tony Snow's first
> > > question to teamsters president James Hoffa, Jr. on Fox News Sunday
> > > (11/28/99) was: "Do you worry that there's going to be any violence
> > > there?"
> > > Likewise, NBC Nightly News (11/29/99) devoted their lead WTO segment to
> > > security concerns in Seattle ("The stakes are high, so is the security, so
> > > is the provocation"), highlighting local authorities' precautions against
> > > "a
> > > potential chemical or biological attack."
> > >
> > > The report was followed by a segment by NBC financial correspondent Mike
> > > Jensen extolling the benefits of free trade. Jensen concluded that "most
> > > experts say getting rid of trade barriers on both sides is a good thing
> > > for
> > > American workers and consumers. But no matter what comes out of this
> > > four-day meeting--and a lot of analysts don't think it will be much--world
> > > trade has such momentum, almost nothing can get in its way."
> > >
> > > Yet, as Dean Baker points out in a recent ERR, there is "near consensus
> > > among economists that trade has been one of the factors that has increased
> > > wage inequality in the United States over the last two decades." But that
> > > "consensus" is decidedly harder to find in mainstream press accounts.
> > >
> > > The theme of free trade "momentum" is also present in a story on MSNBC's
> > > website (http://www.msnbc.com/news/340513.asp ), which includes a link to
> > > a
> > > special section encouraging readers to "find out more about the hurdles on
> > > the way to free trade."
> > >
> > > Similarly, a recent Associated Press report called protesters' concerns
> > > "far-fetched," and continued by noting that "for every campaigner lying
> > > down on a sidewalk this week to protest the WTO's efforts to reduce trade
> > > barriers, there is a happily employed Seattleite whose job depends on free
> > > commerce."
> > >
> > > A disturbing indication of mainstream media attitudes toward coverage of
> > > the
> > > WTO meeting came when ABC's Seattle affiliate announced that it would "not
> > > devote coverage to irresponsible or illegal activities of disruptive
> > > groups," adding that "KOMO 4 News is taking a stand on not giving some
> > > protest groups the publicity they want.... So if you see us doing a story
> > > on
> > > a disruption, but we don't name the group or the cause, you'll know why."
> > > In
> > > a revealing choice of words, news director Joe Barnes described civil
> > > disobedience as "illegally disrupting the commerce of the city." (KOMO has
> > > requested comments on its policy at [EMAIL PROTECTED] .)
> > >
> > > This decision by a corporate-owned news outlet to explicitly ignore the
> > > messages of groups practicing civil disobedience underscores the
> > > importance
> > > of independent journalism. Organizers in Seattle have made a priority of
> > > setting up an independent media center (http://www.indymedia.org ), and
> > > much
> > > is planned for the coming week, including a daily newspaper, a daily radio
> > > broadcast (World Trade Watch Radio, http://www.radioproject.org ) and
> > > from-the-scene video documentaries that will be available via satellite to
> > > many public television stations.
> > >
> > > For more information, see FAIR's Resources on Trade at
> > > http://www.fair.org/issues-news/trade.html .
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------
> > >
> > >
> > > Feel free to respond to FAIR ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ). We can't reply to
> > > everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
> > > documented example of media bias or censorship. All messages to the
> > > 'FAIR-L' list will be forwarded to the editor of the list.
> > >
> > > Also, please send copies of email correspondence, including any
> > > responses, to us at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
> > >
> > > Feel free to spread this message around. Put it on conferences
> > > where it is appropriate. We depend on word of mouth to get our message
> > > out, so please let others know about FAIR and this mailing list.
> > >
> > > Don't miss a single e-mail from FAIR-L.
> > >
> > > You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site:
> > > http://www.fair.org/emaillist.html
> > > Or, you can send a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name"
> > > command to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > The subscriber list is kept confidential, so no need to worry about
> > > spammers.
> > >
> > >
> > > You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF FAIR-L"
> > > command to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Please support FAIR by becoming a member.
> > > You will receive FAIR's magazine, EXTRA! and its newsletter, EXTRA!
> > > Update. You can become a member by calling 1-800-847-3993 from 9 to
> > > 5 Eastern Time (be sure to tell them you got the information
> > > on-line) or by sending $19 with your name and address to:
> > >
> > > FAIR/EXTRA! Subscription Service
> > > P.O. Box 170
> > > Congers, NY 10920-9930
> > >
> > >
> > > FAIR
> > > (212) 633-6700
> > > http://www.fair.org/
> > > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > list administrators: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Fenello,
> New Media Relations
> ------------------------------------
> http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480
>
> "We are creating the most significant new jurisdiction
> we've known since the Louisiana purchase, yet we are
> building it just outside the constitution's review."
> -- Larry Lessig, Harvard Law School, on ICANN
>
>
