The CPJ, the RSF,
posted
to www.marxmail.org on
Most people have probably heard of the Committee to Protect
Journalists (CPJ), a
To give credit to the CPJ, they at least present the Cuban
government's case on their website, which is filled with testimony about the
buckets of payments made by both the
Let's try an intellectual exercise. Turn the clock back to
1941. The Japanese have attacked
The corporate press was happy to join
Of course, the CPJ is not solely the creature of the big
corporate funders who pay the rent, salaries and
other expenses. There are good "lefties" on the Board of Directors
like Victor Navasky of the Nation Magazine. But our
friends at the Nation have also exhibited a blind spot on such matters in the
past. Freda Kirchney, the editor of The Nation at
that time of
****
As has become obvious, the measures taken recently by the Cuban government to defend the revolution have become a 'cause celebre' for liberals worldwide. The other day I posted a response to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), a group that had taken up this cause despite the fact that its corporate funders (CNN, Bloomberg et al) are among the world's biggest enemies of freedom of the press. The CPJ's model only takes into account the kind of repression visited on reporters in third world dictatorships typically. If CNN and the Murdoch press can swamp the TV's and newsstands of that same country drowning out the local competition, it would hardly raise an eyebrow in these quarters.
You find the same exact mind-set at the Paris-based "Reporters
Without Borders" (Reporters Sans Frontières--RSF), a group that seems inspired by
"Doctors Without Borders", which also got started in
In keeping with a general softness on the world's biggest
threat to democracy, RSF includes a map of the world on their home page
with colors ranging from pure as the driven snow white to shocking and sinful
red, with various shadings of pink in the middle. White signifies a
"good" situation, while red stands for a "serious"
situation. It should come as no surprise that the
During the recent
strike organised by the oil industry, the stations
broadcast an average of 700 pro-strike advertisements every day. Chavez has
decided to go after the TV stations in earnest, with an investigation into
violations of broadcast standards and a new set of regulations. "Don't be
surprised if we start shutting down television stations," he said in
January.
The threat has sparked
condemnations from the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders. And there is reason for concern: the media
war in
Venezuela's media,
including state TV, needs controls to ensure balance. Some of Chavez's
proposals overstep these bounds. But it is absurd to treat Chavez as the
principal threat to a free press. That honour goes to
the media owners. This has been lost on groups entrusted to defend press freedom,
still stuck in a paradigm in which all journalists want to tell the truth and
all threats come from nasty politicians and angry mobs.
Every so often, the naked hostility of RSF to challenges against the "free" corporate media is bared. In their 2003 Annual Report, they fulminate against UN bids to address this problem:
A new example of the
spineless attitude of Western democracies towards authoritarian regimes are
preparations for the UN World Summit on the Information Society. . .In fact,
the idea of the information society summit quietly harks back to what was known
in the 1970s and the 1980s as the New World Information Order, when a rag-bag
alliance of communist regimes, African and Asian despots and Western Third-Worldist intellectuals used the presence of an African at
the head of UNESCO to try to bring the flow of international news under the
control of governments, officially (of course) for the benefit of the people. They said the world's news was dominated by
the corporate media of the capitalist West and aimed to rein them in, leaving
ordinary people in ignorance. It reeked of the old totalitarian notion of the
"supreme guide" who knows better than you what's good for you. The
whole repressive concept led the
Can't you see the bitter resentment against 3rd world
radicalism working itself into a proper lather here? A rag-bag of communists
and 3rd Worldist intellectuals under the
banner of UNESCO sought to challenge the "corporate media of the capitalist
West". What a totalitarian idea, that CNN and the Murdoch press are
inimical to the interests of people struggling to free themselves from the
domination of
It might be useful to revisit this controversy. The
Cultural industries
have both followed and fueled other corporate drives to dominate world markets.
Information industries circulate data and capital around the world, allowing
them to change the international division of labor and to shift production
sites worldwide. The cultural industries have also expanded internationally for
their own direct material gain. Television networks pressure autonomous
state-run broadcasting systems across
The
At stake was more than
a heavy import of Anglo-American media material by the rest of the world.
Fundamental economic data are also transferred internationally, ranging from
travel reservation information to banking and insurance transactions to
engineering and architectural design. These sorts of data transfers, combined
with cultural flows, have created a system dominated by multinational companies.
"The essential point is that an entire broadcast, information, and
cultural system, privately owned and managed, often helped by government policy
but mainly dependent on transnational advertising on behalf of corporate
sponsors (or corporate users in the case of electronic data flows), is being
set in place. When such a system is consolidated, the utility of analyzing the
effects of *one* program or medium is futile. The entire social mechanism has
been transformed into a corporate exhibit or channel."