David Morrison, 13 March 2008

On 18 February 2008, the British Government was forced to release a draft dossier on Iraq’s so-called “weapons of mass destruction” under the Freedom of Information Act.  But it succeeded in persuading a Freedom of Information Tribunal to allow a handwritten reference to Israel in the margin of the document to be suppressed.

The Foreign Office sought this redaction because the person who wrote “Israel” in the margin of the document was implying that Israel was on a par with Iraq in its pursuit of “weapons of mass destruction”.  Since the author must have been a high ranking official in the Foreign Office in order to have access to the draft dossier, the Foreign Office argued that UK relations with Israel would be damaged if the document was published intact and, as a consequence, the Israeli government became aware of the existence of such an outlandish opinion in the senior ranks of the Foreign Office.

Michael Barker, 10 March 2008

A Critical Look at Pro Publica (Part 3 of 3)

Embedded Boardroom

Having introduced the key people who are managing the day to day affairs of Pro Publica, this section will now turn to examine the four members of their board of directors to see if this might suggest any further clues as to the values that Pro Publica cherishes and upholds. These directors are Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Alberto Ibargüen, James A. Leach, and Rebecca Rimel. In the same manner as before, rather than just uncritically listing their biographical details, the ensuing biographical sketches will critically examine each director’s links to various democracy manipulating organizations.

Andy Rowell, 10 March 2008 

After the nail-biting results in the American primaries last week, Barack Obama failed to land what had been expected to be the knockout blow on Hillary Clinton. With Clinton taking Ohio and Texas, the Democratic contest looks set to go all the way to the Party’s convention in August. For the Republicans John McCain has won the Republican race, and has turned his attention to his likely opponent. But we still don’t know if that will be Clinton or Obama.

We should not forget the other contender in the race to be President, either. At seventy four, consumer-advocate Ralph Nader is three years older than John McCain, the Republican nominee. Named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 Most Influential Americans in the Twentieth Century, Nader originally shot to fame in the sixties with his book about the inherent safety failures in American automobiles.

In the intervening four decades, Nader has help set up over 100 public interest groups in America that have been instrumental in enacting several laws as well as environmental and consumer protection agencies. As his website proudly boasts: “Because of Ralph Nader we drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breath better air, drink cleaner water, and work in safer environments.”

Not content with cleaning up the American environment, Nader is trying to clean up American politics. He ran limited races in 1992 and as the Green Party nominee in 1996. However his first real success came in 2000, when, again as the Green Party candidate, he won more than 2.8 million votes. He argued at the time that the two main candidates, George Bush and Al Gore, were nothing more than “Tweedledum and Tweedledee,” with essentially no differences between them.

Erik Wesselius, 7 March 2008

An estimated 15,000-20,000 people can reasonably be described as Brussels lobbyists, if non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other pressure groups (including my own) are taken into account.

All are actively engaged in the EU decision-making process. Who are they? On whose behalf are they lobbying? At what price? It is now three years since the European Commission embarked on its transparency initiative. With the imminent launch of a lobbying transparency register and a code of conduct, it is crunch- time for EU lobbying transparency. Or should be.

But the latest news on the register being developed by the Commission secretariat is far from reassuring. It may eventually not even contain lobbyists’ names, and only very general and limited information on how much money is spent trying to influence EU decisions. That would make the register virtually useless to anyone seriously investigating actual or potential conflicts of interest, for instance, or trying to identify the main actors in strategic alliances, or who is really behind the mask of front groups.

5 March 2008 

MEP Paul Van Buitenen has published an extensive summary of the audit report which a majority of MEPs in the Budget Control Committee wanted to keep secret. The findings of the audit report are serious with some MEPs apparently paying expenses meant for staff to their own bank accounts.

Paul van Buitenen was part of the parliamentary committee that reviewed the report so his summary cannot be easily dismissed by those seeking to prevent transparent oversight of the  European Parliament's spending.

Read the summary here...  

 Michael Barker, 4 March 2008

A Critical Look at Pro Publica (Part 2 of 3)

Democracy Manipulators Running the Show

The editor-in-chief of Pro Publica is Paul Steiger, the former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal and a vice president at Dow Jones & Company (which is now owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation). Steiger is a trustee of the liberal John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and serves as the chair of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) – a group whose “propaganda service” to elite interests has been recently examined by Edward Herman. Moreover the CPJ can be linked to other key democracy manipulating organizations through their board of directors: thus Charles L. Overby is also the president of Freedom Forum, Gene Roberts was a former director of the World Press Freedom Committee, and David Laventhol is a former chair of the International Press Institute (for further details of these ‘democratic’ groups’ see here). Interesting funders of CPJ’s work includes various corporations (e.g. CNN, and Time Warner), liberal foundations (e.g. the Ford Foundation and the Knight Foundation), private liberal philanthropic funds (e.g. George Soros’ Open Society Institute), and various individuals (e.g. Norman Pearlstine, who is a CPJ director, an advisor to the infamous Carlyle Group, a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation, a director of the NED-funded  International Center for Journalists, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations). Finally, considering that Steinberg is a cutting edge supporter of investigative journalism (not press release journalism), it is noteworthy that his biography failed to report on his attendance at the most recent secretive annual meeting of the group known as The Seminar, a four-day event that has been described as an “annual gathering of heads of blue chip corporate PR depts. and about a dozen CEOs of major PR firms”.[1]

Michael Barker, 29 February 2008

A Critical Look at Pro Publica (Part 1 of 3)

“[M]any news organizations have increasingly come to see investigative journalism as a luxury that can be put aside in tough economic times.  Thus, a 2005 survey by Arizona State University of the 100 largest U.S. daily newspapers showed that 37% had no full-time investigative reporters, a majority had two or fewer such reporters, and only 10% had four or more.  Television networks and national magazines have similarly been shedding or shrinking investigative units.” (Pro Publica, 2008)

With a budget of $10 million a year, and stable of some 24 journalists, all dedicated to investigative reporting, the recently launched Pro Publica is one of the largest investigative journalism units of its sort in the United States (if not the world). Billing itself as a “non-partisan and non-ideological” nonprofit organization,[1] the Manhattan-based group plans to make up for the lack of investigative reporting in the mainstream media by supplying free stories to “partner publisher[s]… with an eye to whose publication of a story would give it the most impact”. Pro Publica’s website observes that they aim to: 

“… look hard at the critical functions of business and of government, the two biggest centers of power... But… will also focus on such institutions as unions, universities, hospitals, foundations and on the media when they constitute the strong exploiting or oppressing the weak, or when they are abusing the public trust.”  (my emphasis)

 Andy Rowell, 25 February 2008

Sometimes words do matter. Earlier this month the new Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, opened the country’s Parliament by issuing an apology to the country’s indigenous peoples, the Aborigines for their suffering. For over sixty years, an estimated 100,000 Aboriginal children were forcibly removed from their parents, becoming known as the “Stolen Generations.” 

After years of campaigning by Aborigines, Rudd issued a three hundred and sixty one word apology that included saying: “For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants, we say sorry. To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families, we say sorry. And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people, we say sorry.”

While Rudd has to be congratulated for making the apology, it carried few political risks for a new Prime Minster eager to show a break from his predecessor, John Howard. However, his statement is in danger of being seen as sweet words that should be swallowed with a bitter pill. For without compensation, and a radical rethink of some of Australia’s laws, Rudd will not heal the wounds of the Aboriginal people. For once, words will not be enough. Rudd now has to put his money where his mouth is and pay up.

David Morrison, 13 February 2008

Since 23 January 2008, we have witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of a mass breakout by Palestinians from their Gaza prison, a breakout made possible by Hamas blowing up stretches of the Israeli-built border wall between Gaza and Egypt, near Rafah, and bulldozing other stretches of it. 

The breakout was a reaction to Israel’s strangulation of Gaza, which had intensified in the preceding weeks with Israel’s closure of the crossings between Israel and Gaza to the passage of people and goods, on a more or less permanent basis.

But how can Israel strangle Gaza when there is supposed to be an international crossing between Gaza and Egypt, a crossing which is not controlled by Israelis?

Andy Rowell, 13 February 2008 

After yesterday’s three victories for Barak Obama in the Potomac Primaries, the political momentum for the Democratic nomination finally seems to be swinging his way.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign seems to be faltering at a crucial moment, but victories in the crucial states of Texas and Ohio, which vote on 4^th March, could mean that she steals the nomination from Obama’s grasp.

Central to Hillary and Barak’s success over the next month will be their advisors and pollsters. Clinton’s campaign has suffered over the last week from the demotion of her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, and resignation of her deputy campaign manager, Mike Henry. So who are the main “hidden persuaders” left behind each person and what can they tell us about each candidate?

Barak Obama’s chief advisor is David Axelrod, one of the most pre-eminent political consultants in the United States, whose career was made assisting black candidates become Mayors across America. In 2004, Axelrod also helped Obama score a landslide win in his US Senate campaign. Two years later, he worked for Deval Patrick, the former head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, who was elected the first ever African American governor of Massachusetts in November 2006.