I had to unsubscribe him, for the third time in 6 months.
Can sombody let him know?
>Return-Path: <>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 17:22:13 -0500 (EST)
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mail Delivery System)
>Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Content-Description: Notification
>Content-Type: text/plain
>
>This is the Postfix program at host ns1.vrx.net.
>
>I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned
>below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.
>
>For further assistance, please contact <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
>delete your own text from the message returned below.
>
> The Postfix program
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host bow.rain.fr[194.51.3.49] said: 554 collect:
> Cannot write tfWAA28052
>
>Content-Description: Undelivered Message
>Content-Type: message/rfc822
>
>Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix)
> id DC431F150; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:55:50 -0500 (EST)
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix, from userid 1074)
> id 5131FF151; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:55:50 -0500 (EST)
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E31F150
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:55:43 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from b9y7u0 (user-38lcf2i.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.60.82])
> by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA28872;
> Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:55:16 -0500 (EST)
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
>Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 16:52:24 -0500
>To: Becky Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [IFWP] FW: [FAIR-L] Initial Reports from Seattle Gloss Over WTO Issues
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>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
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** The US has the best government money can buy **
