HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The
Terrible Truth (Part MMCCXVILL): It's a Stacked Deck; That Rosenthal Decision;
Why Do Africans Get AIDS; Liberated NYTers Down Raines Statue
by
Alexander Cockburn
June
9, 2003
It's
hard to chose which deserves the coarser jeer: the excited baying in the press
about the non discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or the wailing
in the press about the 3-2 decision of the Federal Communications Commission
last week to allow corporate media giants to increase their domination of the
market.
Actually
they're all part of the same binding curve of nonsense, and if we meld the two,
we're left with the following ridiculous proposition, most keenly promoted by
Democrats eager to impart the impression that only greedy Republicans are serfs
of the corporate media titans, and that the Telecommunications
"Reform" Act of 1996 was actually a well-intended effort to return
the airwaves to Us The People.
The
ridiculous proposition: Until the FCC vote this week, We the people, surfing
through the tv channels, or across the AM/FM radio dial, were afforded
diversity of choice, the better to form those reasoned political judgments
essential in the functioning of this democratic republic.
The
ridiculous proposition continued: In the run-up to the US/UK attack on Iraq and
before the latest FCC ruling unleashed darkness upon the land, we were afforded
a multiplicity of analyses, not just from hole-in-the-wall operations like
Pacifica or satellite-based LINKS TV. Night after night the bulk of the
American people were able to enjoy well-informed reporting, suggesting that the
Bush administration's accusations that Saddam Hussein had WMDs ready to use in
as little as 45 minutes no factual foundation.
But
now, after the FCC decision, these voices will be stilled. We are entering the
era of Big Brother.
You
think I'm joking? Here's what one of the two Democratic FCC commissioners,
Michael J. Copps, said before the vote, with his grand words now approvingly
quoted by liberal editorial writers and pundits: "Today the Federal
Communications Commission empowers America's new media elite with unacceptable
levels of influence over the ideas and information upon which our society and
our democracy so heavily depend. The decision we five make today will recast
our entire media landscape for years to come. At issue is whether a few
corporations will be ceded enhanced gatekeeper control over the civil dialogue
of our country; more content control over our music, entertainment and
information; and veto power over the majority of what our families watch, hear
and read."
Now,
didn't this happen, oh, forty, fifty, maybe seventy years ago? Of course it
did. The damage was done long, long since, and all that happened on June 2 is
that it got slightly worse, but not to any degree instantly apparent to the
long suffering national audience. So, just as you suspected, we were getting
lousy info from the corporate press before the FCC vote this week.
The
press is now happily passing the buck to the intelligence services, and quoting
former analysts from CIA and DIA wailing that objectivity collapsed in the face
of political pressure. We're shocked, shocked! Anyone remember how the neo-cons
forced an outside posse of experts, known as Team B, into the CIA in the mid
1970s because Team A, the CIA regulars were turning in reports saying that the
Soviet Union was not quite the fearsome power the neocons supposed it to be.
Anyone remember all those accusations, by the late Sam Addams and others, that
the CIA fudged the numbers in the Vietnam war because of political pressure
from the White House.
Intelligence
services, or at least their chiefs, invariably succumb in the face of political
bullying. But it didn't matter that the CIA and DIA were cowed by the wild men
in Rumsfeld's DoD, who said Iraq was still bristling with WMDs. Any
enterprising news editor could have found (and some did) plenty of solid
evidence to support the claim that Saddam had destroyed his WMDs; that he had
no alliance with Al Qaeda.
In
the run-up to the attack on Iraq, the worst journalistic outrages came in two
publications at the supposed pinnacle of the profession: the New York Times,
which recycled the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi's agenda through its reporter,
Judith Miller; and the New Yorker, which printed Jeffrey Goldberg's nonsense
about the Saddam-Al Qaeda "connection". That was no consequence of
media concentration, or the perversion of intelligence analysis by political
priorities.
Simply
on the grounds of common sense about the prejudices of her source, Howell
Raines, the now ousted executive editor of the New York Times could have told
Miller to qualify her reports. David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker,
could have as easily punched holes in Goldberg's story. Instead, they
delightedly hyped shoddy journalism that played a far greater role in the White
House's propaganda blitz than the performance of the cowed CIA and DIA.
It's
easy to be right after the event. It takes fiber to stand out against the war
party when it was in full cry. The bulk of the mainstream press failed dismally
in its watchdog role, and a little more forthrightness about this failure would
be welcome indeed. But can we expect the hounds of war, like Tim Russert, to
apologize? Of course not. Some senator will probably, sometime soon, grill the
CIA's George Tenet and the other intelligence chiefs who failed in the our of
need,", but Russert, or Miller, or Raines, or Remnick or Punch Sulzberger?
Never.
Ed
Rosenthal: Further Thoughts on That One Day Sentence
As
noted here a couple of days ago, Ed Rosenthal got one day in prison and a $1000
fine from federal judge Charles Breyer for supplying medical marijuana under
the aegis of the city of Oakland. Of course we're delighted Ed didn't get the
prison time the prosecutor was calling for; also that Breyer had to acknowledge
the public outcry and the fury of the jury he misled.
But
there is a downside, and it's set forth well by Clay Conrad, chairman of the
Fully Informed Jury Association. Here are some notes Conrad sent us last week:
This result is good for Ed - it is great
for Ed. It is in itself a major news event.
However, we've got to deal with the fact
that FOR THE ISSUE, it sucks. A huge injustice is the best headline grabber for
motivating future juries to nullify.
Here are a few of the problems I see with
this:
1. The next jury says: hey, it's not like
these folks will do any serious jail time.
2. The focus of the media is no longer on
the Rosenthal jury. Breyer
stole their thunder.
3. Some activists preparing to work on
future cases figure it's a waste of energy because it's not like a MAJOR
injustice is being done.
4. Some of the Rosenthal jurors may
"abandon ship," figuring Ed's liberty was not interrupted, so they
have achieved their major purpose and can go back to their non-activist lives.
A few of the things I think we need to
focus on:
1. Ed's sentence is in the news because
it is such a surprise. If he got a predictable 5 years, nobody would have
raised an eyebrow at the sentence itself. Just as this judge departed
downwards, the next may depart upwards. One reason why juries need to nullify
in these cases is because they CANNOT know what sentence the judge may impose -
a day, or a lifetime.
2. Breyer only gave a one-day sentence
because the JURY put the pressure on him. Again, this underlines the power and
importance of independent juries. Breyer was ashamed and chastised by the
jurors, who can take the real credit for the one-day sentence. Had the jury not
gone public, Breyer very likely would have given the far longer sentence the
Gov't was asking for.
3. The activists need to know that this
sentence means they are winning, at least some battles, and there is no excuse
for not redoubling our efforts.
4. The Rosenthal jurors should know that
this isn't a sprint - it's a marathon. The government took some lumps this time
on sentencing, but they might well get a life sentence in the next round. The
injustice isn't what was done to Rosenthal - it's what is being done to
defendants all across California.
5. We must also remember that the
government may well appeal Rosenthal's sentence, arguing that the judge abused
his discretion on the grounds for, or the extent of, the downward departure.
The government often WINS these types of appeals. And, reversals on appeals
rarely make headlines. Ed could end up doing 78 months after all - and nobody
in the public will even be aware of it.
Clay S. Conrad
Initially
we were much taken with an interesting piece in the latest issue of Discover,
Vol. 24 No. 6, dated June, 2003, containing an article, "Why Do So Many
Africans Get AIDS?" by Josie Glausiusz. (Note particularly the Malthusian
interest in population control in the minds of some researchers.)
"Every
major campaign against AIDS in Africa has been based on the premise that
heterosexual sex accounts for 90 percent of transmission in adults. Yet
safe-sex efforts have not stopped the spread of the epidemic, which now affects
30 million people. Economic anthropologist David Gisselquist therefore
suspected that HIV might be spreading primarily by another route.
"After
analyzing 20 years of epidemiological studies, he and his colleagues concluded
that unsafe injections, blood transfusions, and other medical procedures may
account for most AIDS transmission in African adults. Their analysis indicates
that no more than 35 percent of HIV in that population is spread through sex.
"Gisselquist's
interest in AIDS was stimulated by the guidance he received while traveling
through Africa as a World Bank consultant. 'They give you a syringe and say,
"Carry this with you, and avoid all the health care that you can."
We've been paying for third-world health care while advising ourselves to avoid
it,' he says.
"When
he examined hundreds of papers on AIDS in Africa, he found evidence to back up
those concerns. A study in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for instance,
found that 39 percent of HIV-positive, vaccinated infants had uninfected
mothers. In contrast, Gisselquist could not uncover any clear data proving that
sexual intercourse dominates the spread of African AIDS. In Zimbabwe, HIV
incidence rose by 12 percent per year during the 1990s, even as sexually
transmitted diseases sank by 25 percent overall and condom use rose among
high-risk groups.
"Gisselquist
recently reported his findings in four papers published in the International
Journal of STD & AIDS. Medical researchers may have overemphasized sexual
transmission of African AIDS in part because condom-use campaigns dovetail with
their concerns about overpopulation, Gisselquist says. They also fear that
people in Africa will lose faith in modern health care. Gisselquist urges new
efforts to halt the spread of AIDS: "Aid programs need to push infection
control in health care. And we need to give the public the advice and the tools
for protecting themselves in medical situations," such as new syringes and
single-dose vials."
We
liked Gisselquist's noting of Malthusian concerns about overpopulation but then
talked to our friend Cindra Feuer who worked on the AIDS oriented New York
magazine POZ and has also spent considerable time in Africa. Feuer points out
that the argument of noxious health care doesn't look so good if one recalls
that most poor Africans don't have access to health care.
The
core problem is that safer sex advisories and programs fare badly in poor
regions in large part because people don't have the safe sex option.
*
A woman can't negotiate a condom with her husband. Being married confers one of
the highest risks of getting HIV in Africa.
*A
sex worker gets more money from her trick if she doesn't use a condom.
*
No condoms are available.
*
They can't afford a condom.
Safer
sex tactics don't work when people are poor, and indeed safer sex interventions
are failing in industrialized nations.
Treatment,
a strategy that had to overcome furious opposition from the
keep-your-legs-together crowd), is the best course. If you have treatment,
people will then get AIDS drugs; they'll get tested; if they get tested they're
not as likely to have unprotected sex with their partners; if they test
positive, they're not as likely to go have unprotected sex. If they test
negative they have more incentive to stay that way.
So
treatment helps to boost prevention. If you don't have treatment, there's no
incentive to get tested and rates will remain high.
E-Bay
is already being flooded with the "Raines pack", cards of ousted NYT
editor Howell Raines and his inner circle, believed to have been issued by
Times dissidents. The downing of Raines' statue in midtown Manhattan was a
jovial affair, though wide-angle photos show that what seemed on the networks
to be large throngs were in fact relatively sparse, maybe 200 in all. According
to one participant, the statue toppled swiftly, lacking an adequate base.
Interim administrator Joe Lelyveld is promising "a new era", though
relief workers warn that supplies of credibility are "near zero."
Alexander Cockburn is the author The
Golden Age is In Us (Verso, 1995) and 5 Days That Shook the World:
Seattle and Beyond (Verso, 2000) with Jeffrey St. Clair. Cockburn and St.
Clair are the editors of CounterPunch,
the nation’s best political newsletter, where this article first appeared.