FW: [FAIR-L] Initial Reports from Seattle Gloss Over WTO Issues

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Fenello.com>]

This just in:


>To: "'Jay@Fenello.com'" <Jay@Fenello.com>
>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:FAIR-L@FAIR.ORG]
> > Sent:         Tuesday, November 30, 1999 5:49 PM
> > To:   FAIR-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
> > 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 tips@komo4news.com .)
> >
> > 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 ( fair@fair.org ). 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: fair@fair.org .
> >
> > 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 LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU.
> >
> > 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 LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU.
> >
> > 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: fair@fair.org
> >
> > list administrators: FAIR-L-request@american.edu
> >
> >
> >

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