Gannett is the company which publishes USA Today, the #2 newspaper in the United States, with a daily circulation of nearly 2 million readers. The only paper which is read by more people than USA Today is the Wall Street Journal (owned by Ruppert Murdoch's News Corp.). Gannett is, in fact, the number one news publisher in the nation, with 84 daily newspapers and 850 non-daily publications. Of the nation's 100 biggest papers, Gannett publishes 13.
It also broadcasts from 23 American TV stations, with a total of 20 million viewers. In addition, 27 million people (16% of American internet users) browse Gannett sites. Furthermore, Gannett has installed TV sets in office buildings (waiting rooms, elevators, lobbies) which broadcast news and entertainment to around 3 million viewers.* This means that someone reading USA Today, then surfing the internet, then watching TV, after coming home from an office building, may have seen the same "news" from 4 apparently different sources.
If media inform you four times a day "There are terrorists out there," you will begin to believe. If these media tell you that the president is doing a good job on climate change, you may rest assured that it is so. Many viewers and readers do not have time or interest enough to pursue the matter further, so their "reality" is defined by Gannett and similar mainstream news sources.
The company's British arm publishes 17 daily papers and 200 weekly papers, reaching 13 million people a week. In addition, its web presence "informs" 6 million web users. Most of its papers are distributed free, for the purpose of selling advertising mixed with feel-good local news. But it also publishes the Glasgow Herald and the Lancashire Telegraph.*
* (These data come from the company's website, accessed this month.)
Because USA Today is known for shallow reporting and a conservative outlook, I formed a hypothesis (use your dictionary - that's an important word) that all of its papers would react to the Copenhagen Conference with empty "feel-good" reporting that left readers unaware of the tragic failure of that summit meeting. Mostly, I was right.
USA Today had this headline on December 19th:
U.N. chief says 'we have a deal' on climate change
(While the first two paragraphs extolled the Conference, the third paragraph introduced some "balanced reporting".)
"Obama's successful 11th-hour bargaining Friday with China, India, Brazil and South Africa— the world's key developing nations — sets the stage for future cooperation between developed and developing nations. But the resulting "Copenhagen Accord" was protested by several nations that demanded deeper emissions cuts by the industrialized world and felt excluded from the major-nation bargaining process."
Some of the objections to the "deal" were mentioned, but the general approval of world leaders was noted and the supposed advantages of the treaty were enumerated. The fairly long article ended by noting that:
"The $100-billion-a-year climate aid goal set for 2020 falls below estimates made in some expert studies, including by the World Bank, which foresee a need for hundreds of billions of dollars each year to combat global warming as seas rise, species go extinct, farmlands go dry and storms become more severe."
In other words, the climate comes down to politicians talking and money moving around. The article, significantly, was not generated by Gannett, but by Associated Press (AP), which (along with UPI, Reuters and AFP) generate quite a bit of news content around the English-speaking world. While covering various objections to the Copenhagen Summit, this article left the reader assuming that everything will be all right, as long as we spend enough money. (This financialization of the environment allows rich investors to manipulate "carbon credits" and make fortunes, but may not be counted on to solve the climate crisis, in my humble opinion.)
Now, USA Today is a national newspaper, and uses AP news. What about the local papers Gannett runs? The Honolulu Advertiser's most up-to-date story was filed Dec. 17 (before an agreement was reached) and had little to report. The Indianapolis Star had not even covered the Summit, but ran this (Dec. 12) story:
The new socialism
"The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.
"One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World..."
The Des Moines Register's latest story, when I checked on the 20th, was a Dec. 17 commentary that relations with China could be improved at the Climate Summit. It urged new respect for China. Des Moines, located in America's farming Midwest, is a large exporter of American food products. The previous day's article had noted that Tom Vilsack, Obama's Agriculture Secretary (former governor of Iowa) had given a speech in Copenhagen. The environmental issues of the Conference were not discussed in either article.
I checked several smaller Gannett papers across the US and they had generally ignored Copenhagen. Fine. I went to the British (Newsquest) papers that Gannett owns. Predictably, the smaller ones failed to mention any significant international news. But Lancashire is a large industrial town in Britain, source of quite a lot of carbon emissions. The Lancashire Telegraph had completely ignored the Summit, too.
So I was quite surprised to see not one but a series of scathing critiques in the Glasgow Herald. It's Dec. 19 article was titled:
Copenhagen: The deal explained
(After detailing the failures of the deal, the article noted that some politicians held out hope, but concluded:)
"But if this is, as leaders said, the first step, then it is the first step on what seems likely to be a long and difficult road."
The next day, one of the paper's editors printed an even more strongly worded editorial:
Copenhagen climate deal ‘a disaster for the planet’
Since this conforms to my own bias (yes, of course I have one), I was interested to find out how a Gannett paper had completely contradicted the overwhelming tendency to minimize objections to Copenhagen. I wrote to the paper, which was purchased by Gannett six years ago. When I get a reply, I will share it with the class.
2009年12月26日 星期六
2009年12月10日 星期四
Looking at the news-makers
I sent out 29 pages of articles about the environment. While looking up articles I found some news sources that should be added to the list I offered 12/1. These two offer a non-American point of view on the news:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/ and http://news.xinhuanet.com/english Xinhua News Agency is, of course, an organ of the P.R.C. government. Its news and views are those deliberately published by the Chinese state. While this is not a very reliable source of general news, Xinhua makes an interesting comparison to the news and views of the American press. Its carefully chosen language on Copenhagen may be worth reading.
http://www.spiegel.de/international Der Spiegel is a famous German newspaper, and the international edition is published online in English. Because it is "out of step" with the American government and media, one occassionally finds a different sort of news here. Spiegel may be critical of the Afghan war, for instance, or look at trade issues quite differently than the New York Times.
A third source is:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
The Times is part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which also owns quite a large number of other famous media:
The Wall Street Journal
The Sun (a London tabloid)
Fox News
Sky Satellite Network
Star TV
National Geographic Channel Worldwide
20th Century Fox (movie and TV studios)
HarperCollins (huge book publisher)
Digital News Media (a popular Australian digital news source)
My Space
Murdoch was also responsible for the creation of the Weekly Standard, a neocon opinion magazine edited by William Kristol:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/006/025sapgi.asp
As luck would have it, Kristol knew Rupert Murdoch thanks to a mutual friend, Irwin Stelzer. So when Murdoch dropped by Kristol's office a few weeks later, Kristol popped the question. Would he be interested in funding a new conservative magazine? Yes, he said. To lock up the deal, Kristol, Podhoretz, Tell, and I met over dinner with Murdoch in March 1995 at his home in Beverly Hills. Thanks to Murdoch's generosity, The Standard was born a couple of months later.
Murdoch's relationship with the state of Israel can be seen in this Jerusalem Post article he wrote:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237392665709&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
This is what the Center for American Progress (an American think tank with strong connections in the Obama administration) has to say about Murdoch:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122948.html
'But who is the real Rupert Murdoch? As this report shows, he is a far-right partisan who has used his empire explicitly to pull American political debate to the right.
'… Murdoch owns the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal that employed key figures who pushed for war in Iraq. As the American Journalism Review noted, the circulation of Murdoch's Weekly Standard "hovers at only around 65,000. But its voice is much louder than those numbers suggest." Editor Bill Kristol "is particularly adept at steering Washington policy debates by inserting himself and his views into the discussion." In the early weeks of the War on Terror, Kristol "shepherded a letter to President Bush, signed by 40 D.c= opinion-makers, urging a wider military engagement." [Source: AJR, 12/01]
'… The last governor of Hong Kong before it was handed back to China, Chris Patten, signed a contract to write his memoirs with Murdoch's publishing company, HarperCollins. But according to the Evening Standard, when "Murdoch heard that the book, East and West, would say unflattering things about the Chinese leadership, with whom he was doing satellite TV business, the contract was cancelled. It caused a furor in the press - except, of course, in the Murdoch papers, which barely mentioned the story." According to BusinessWeek, internal memos surfaced suggesting the canceling of the contract was motivated by "corporate worries about friction with China, where HarperCollins' boss, Rupert Murdoch, has many business interests." [Evening Standard, 8/13/03; BusinessWeek, 9/15/98]
'… Time Magazine reported that while Murdoch is supposedly "a devout anti-Soviet and anti-communist" he "became bewitched by China in the early '90s." In an effort to persuade Chinese dictators that he would never challenge their behavior, Murdoch "threw the BBC off Star TV" (his satellite network operating in China) after BBC aired reports about Chinese human rights violations. Murdoch argued the BBC "was gratuitously attacking the regime, playing film of the massacre in Tiananmen Square over and over again." In 1998 Chinese President Jiang Zemin praised Murdoch for the "objective" way in which his papers and television covered China. [Source: Time Magazine, 10/25/99]'
The Times Online is often a source of breaking news. But it's good to compare its viewpoint with that of the Guardian, which is run by the Scott Trust on a non-profit basis, dedicated to "liberal journalism". These two British papers represent opposite sides of the politcal fence on several issues, and you may find it interesting to see both sides.
It's amazing that one man can so affect the information that Americans (and thus Taiwanese) receive, however. Of course, he's not the only powerful media tycoon. We'll look at some more next week.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/ and http://news.xinhuanet.com/english Xinhua News Agency is, of course, an organ of the P.R.C. government. Its news and views are those deliberately published by the Chinese state. While this is not a very reliable source of general news, Xinhua makes an interesting comparison to the news and views of the American press. Its carefully chosen language on Copenhagen may be worth reading.
http://www.spiegel.de/international Der Spiegel is a famous German newspaper, and the international edition is published online in English. Because it is "out of step" with the American government and media, one occassionally finds a different sort of news here. Spiegel may be critical of the Afghan war, for instance, or look at trade issues quite differently than the New York Times.
A third source is:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
The Times is part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which also owns quite a large number of other famous media:
The Wall Street Journal
The Sun (a London tabloid)
Fox News
Sky Satellite Network
Star TV
National Geographic Channel Worldwide
20th Century Fox (movie and TV studios)
HarperCollins (huge book publisher)
Digital News Media (a popular Australian digital news source)
My Space
Murdoch was also responsible for the creation of the Weekly Standard, a neocon opinion magazine edited by William Kristol:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/006/025sapgi.asp
As luck would have it, Kristol knew Rupert Murdoch thanks to a mutual friend, Irwin Stelzer. So when Murdoch dropped by Kristol's office a few weeks later, Kristol popped the question. Would he be interested in funding a new conservative magazine? Yes, he said. To lock up the deal, Kristol, Podhoretz, Tell, and I met over dinner with Murdoch in March 1995 at his home in Beverly Hills. Thanks to Murdoch's generosity, The Standard was born a couple of months later.
Murdoch's relationship with the state of Israel can be seen in this Jerusalem Post article he wrote:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237392665709&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
This is what the Center for American Progress (an American think tank with strong connections in the Obama administration) has to say about Murdoch:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122948.html
'But who is the real Rupert Murdoch? As this report shows, he is a far-right partisan who has used his empire explicitly to pull American political debate to the right.
'… Murdoch owns the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal that employed key figures who pushed for war in Iraq. As the American Journalism Review noted, the circulation of Murdoch's Weekly Standard "hovers at only around 65,000. But its voice is much louder than those numbers suggest." Editor Bill Kristol "is particularly adept at steering Washington policy debates by inserting himself and his views into the discussion." In the early weeks of the War on Terror, Kristol "shepherded a letter to President Bush, signed by 40 D.c= opinion-makers, urging a wider military engagement." [Source: AJR, 12/01]
'… The last governor of Hong Kong before it was handed back to China, Chris Patten, signed a contract to write his memoirs with Murdoch's publishing company, HarperCollins. But according to the Evening Standard, when "Murdoch heard that the book, East and West, would say unflattering things about the Chinese leadership, with whom he was doing satellite TV business, the contract was cancelled. It caused a furor in the press - except, of course, in the Murdoch papers, which barely mentioned the story." According to BusinessWeek, internal memos surfaced suggesting the canceling of the contract was motivated by "corporate worries about friction with China, where HarperCollins' boss, Rupert Murdoch, has many business interests." [Evening Standard, 8/13/03; BusinessWeek, 9/15/98]
'… Time Magazine reported that while Murdoch is supposedly "a devout anti-Soviet and anti-communist" he "became bewitched by China in the early '90s." In an effort to persuade Chinese dictators that he would never challenge their behavior, Murdoch "threw the BBC off Star TV" (his satellite network operating in China) after BBC aired reports about Chinese human rights violations. Murdoch argued the BBC "was gratuitously attacking the regime, playing film of the massacre in Tiananmen Square over and over again." In 1998 Chinese President Jiang Zemin praised Murdoch for the "objective" way in which his papers and television covered China. [Source: Time Magazine, 10/25/99]'
The Times Online is often a source of breaking news. But it's good to compare its viewpoint with that of the Guardian, which is run by the Scott Trust on a non-profit basis, dedicated to "liberal journalism". These two British papers represent opposite sides of the politcal fence on several issues, and you may find it interesting to see both sides.
It's amazing that one man can so affect the information that Americans (and thus Taiwanese) receive, however. Of course, he's not the only powerful media tycoon. We'll look at some more next week.
2009年12月7日 星期一
Under-reported stories that will change your Life
A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned a story that will change Taiwan and the world: a report by the United States Navy announcing that it soon will be unable to protect its interests along Asia’s Pacific coastline. This means that Japan, Korea, Okinawa, Taiwan and the Philippines are no longer under U.S. protection. Below is the link to the Bloomberg story. Bloomberg is one of America’s most respected financial news sources, and its main owner is the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg. He is also called the 8th richest American by Forbes, which claims he has a personal fortune of $16 billion. The world is like that.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=annrZr9ybk7A
China’s New Missile May Create a ‘No-Go Zone’ for U.S. Fleet
That story was not followed up in the New York Times or other mainstream news sources. As far as I know, it has not been reported in Taiwan. Why? Because it would cause panic and a lack of confidence in the economy. This news will change the world, but the corporations who control the news dare not stress the implications. Only those who are really trying to get the real news will get it.
Here’s another story, reported in the Guardian, but ignored by the American and Taiwanese media. Again, the implications of the story are huge. And that’s why the story has been buried.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency
Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official
"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.
This story – which has not appeared in the mainstream US or Taiwan news (!) – implies that the financial markets (Wall Street, London, Taipei, Hong Kong, Shanghai) are being manipulated to believe that continuous growth is possible when it is not. The world economy needs energy to produce wealth, and it needs more and more energy if it is going to grow. If the economy does not grow, it collapses. Non-growth is called "Recession". If the economy shrinks enough, it’s called a "Depression". (Think: 1930s.)
That’s because economic growth is based on debt with interest payments. If you borrow 100 dollars at 4% interest, you must repay the 100 dollars PLUS the interest. If everyone is trying to do this at the same time, the total economy must grow by 4% or many will fail to pay their debts. The total exposure of the financial system to risky debts (derivatives) is now over $1 quadrillion. That’s A MILLION BILLIONS.
The BBC reports:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/10/a_global_solution_needed.html The derivatives market represents a debt of 1.2 QUADRILLION dollars globally. There is not 1.2 Quadrillion dollars in existence in all the currency on earth. Much of that derivatives are loans for gambles made at 10% and then passed on at another % and so on and so on. The institutions left holding the debt have on their books (in writing) assets worth trillions, BUT are in reality debts that could never possibly be be repaid as the money does not, and has never existed.
This is why, although the mainstream media continue to comment on Obama's "green shoots", there is a much larger economic collapse in store for the world.
Dr. Colin Campbell, one of the world’s foremost oil geologists, replied to the Guardian story about phony oil statistics with (among many other comments) these words:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5970
“In fact, today 28 billion barrels a year support a world population on 6.7 billion people, but by 2050 the supply will have fallen to a level able to support less than half that number in their present way of life.”
The meaning of Campbell’s statement is obvious: either there will be less than 3.4 billion people in 2050, or they will, on the average, be living a lifestyle only half as wonderful and convenient. (Or something between the two.) For us, in the first world, living with only half of the resources we now enjoy would be very frustrating, but it would be endurable. For the “bottom billion” it certainly means starvation.
That's why distorted statistics form the basis of the news you read, such as Obama’s famous “green shoots”. If the general public knew that our economy will not grow, but shrink over the next generation, it would be very upset – and in no mood to buy more stuff from the global corporations who are responsible for the mainstream news. Much of the real news is not comfortable, so it’s seldom mentioned.
You, as intelligent world citizens, want to know what’s really going on – not just accept what the mainstream media are telling you. That way, you can plan your own lives in a way that maximizes your chances for survival and happiness. And to get the real information, you have to really try. It’s hard work, especially for ESL students. I am trying to help you.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=annrZr9ybk7A
China’s New Missile May Create a ‘No-Go Zone’ for U.S. Fleet
That story was not followed up in the New York Times or other mainstream news sources. As far as I know, it has not been reported in Taiwan. Why? Because it would cause panic and a lack of confidence in the economy. This news will change the world, but the corporations who control the news dare not stress the implications. Only those who are really trying to get the real news will get it.
Here’s another story, reported in the Guardian, but ignored by the American and Taiwanese media. Again, the implications of the story are huge. And that’s why the story has been buried.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency
Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official
"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.
This story – which has not appeared in the mainstream US or Taiwan news (!) – implies that the financial markets (Wall Street, London, Taipei, Hong Kong, Shanghai) are being manipulated to believe that continuous growth is possible when it is not. The world economy needs energy to produce wealth, and it needs more and more energy if it is going to grow. If the economy does not grow, it collapses. Non-growth is called "Recession". If the economy shrinks enough, it’s called a "Depression". (Think: 1930s.)
That’s because economic growth is based on debt with interest payments. If you borrow 100 dollars at 4% interest, you must repay the 100 dollars PLUS the interest. If everyone is trying to do this at the same time, the total economy must grow by 4% or many will fail to pay their debts. The total exposure of the financial system to risky debts (derivatives) is now over $1 quadrillion. That’s A MILLION BILLIONS.
The BBC reports:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/10/a_global_solution_needed.html The derivatives market represents a debt of 1.2 QUADRILLION dollars globally. There is not 1.2 Quadrillion dollars in existence in all the currency on earth. Much of that derivatives are loans for gambles made at 10% and then passed on at another % and so on and so on. The institutions left holding the debt have on their books (in writing) assets worth trillions, BUT are in reality debts that could never possibly be be repaid as the money does not, and has never existed.
This is why, although the mainstream media continue to comment on Obama's "green shoots", there is a much larger economic collapse in store for the world.
Dr. Colin Campbell, one of the world’s foremost oil geologists, replied to the Guardian story about phony oil statistics with (among many other comments) these words:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5970
“In fact, today 28 billion barrels a year support a world population on 6.7 billion people, but by 2050 the supply will have fallen to a level able to support less than half that number in their present way of life.”
The meaning of Campbell’s statement is obvious: either there will be less than 3.4 billion people in 2050, or they will, on the average, be living a lifestyle only half as wonderful and convenient. (Or something between the two.) For us, in the first world, living with only half of the resources we now enjoy would be very frustrating, but it would be endurable. For the “bottom billion” it certainly means starvation.
That's why distorted statistics form the basis of the news you read, such as Obama’s famous “green shoots”. If the general public knew that our economy will not grow, but shrink over the next generation, it would be very upset – and in no mood to buy more stuff from the global corporations who are responsible for the mainstream news. Much of the real news is not comfortable, so it’s seldom mentioned.
You, as intelligent world citizens, want to know what’s really going on – not just accept what the mainstream media are telling you. That way, you can plan your own lives in a way that maximizes your chances for survival and happiness. And to get the real information, you have to really try. It’s hard work, especially for ESL students. I am trying to help you.
2009年12月1日 星期二
How to GET the news
Newspapers tell you what they want you to think. Sometimes they actually lie, but usually the deliberate effort to change your opinions is more subtle. In order to get the real news, you must "read between the lines". That is, you must find the ways in which the paper is "spinning" the news, subtract the spin, and get some idea about what the real events are.
There are several kinds of articles in most newspapers. These include:
* breaking news You can get up-to-the-minute reporting on things that either have happened very recently, or which are happening right now. If a bomb has just gone off in Mexico City (three hours ago) Reuters (and other news services, such as AP, UPI and AFP) will send it out to all the media, including online newspapers. Yahoo and MSN will carry the story on the front page of your e-mail service, and the story will appear on the Reuter’s site. If you look at the little type at the top of guardian.co.uk, that is breaking news (or so they say – sometimes it gets a little old).
* daily news These stories are fact-based reporting on events that have happened within the last day or two. ‘Fire Kills Two at London Warehouse’ is and example.
* feature stories These are sometimes (but not always) fairly long, and analyze a general situation, rather than a particular event. ‘Pigs Prove to be Smart” was a feature story, and so was the long cover story by the journalist who had been captured by the Taliban.
* editorials Sometimes called op-eds (opinion editorials), these do not pretend to be unbiased. The author is obviously trying to make the reader understand an issue in a particular way, and come to a particular conclusion. ‘The Aggression in China’s Goodwill’ was the title of a recent Taipei Times editorial.
A feature story should be based on facts, without being too much influenced by the author’s opinions. However, feature stories always involve some interpretation of facts, both unconscious and deliberate. Deliberate interpretation, designed to give the reader a desired impression (possibly a false impression) is called spin. If the government wants to cover up an embarrassing defeat in battle, an official might say to the press: “Our brave soldiers held off the enemy at great cost of lives, and inflicted huge losses on the enemy. Our soldiers have retreated for the moment to assess the situation.” The official is spinning the situation to suggest that the army was not defeated at all, but making an intelligent move that will later result in victory. In fact, the army ran away after many of their guys were killed. That’s the news.
Journalists often pass on the spin they get from government officials, and they may also spin the news themselves. One technique involves “framing the issue”. To label the victims of an American bombing as ‘terrorists” gives the impression that all of the Pakistanis killed in the raid were 'dangerous criminals hoping to harm decent people with terrifying violence'. However, it is very hard for the journalist to know whether those killed were actually dangerous criminals. Another publication, framing the facts differently, would have called them “innocent civilians”. In fact, the only actual fact we get is that people died in an American bombing raid. This fact is “framed” in such a way as to give a certain impression.
As we read a newspaper, we need to ask ourselves what the bias of the editors probably is. By knowing that the New York Times is published by an Eastern Elite that is also represented in Ivy League universities, prominent think tanks (such as CFR) and the highest levels of government, we can guess that the paper is promoting the interests of that elite. If, on the other hand, we are reading the Latin American Press, we should recognize that the editors are interested in advancing the rights of the poor against corporations and right wing governments: their spin will highlight the crimes of their enemies and the justice of their friends. By reading the same story in two opposing papers, one can see (and eliminate) the spin of both papers, and find the facts that both papers agree on. That’s the actual news. For extreme examples of this, read a South Asian story in both the Times of India and Pakistan’s The Nation, or a Mideast story in both al Jezeera and the Jerusalem Post.
In order to eliminate the American point of view – common to almost all American newspapers – I like to review big stories in the Guardian, a liberal British paper.
If you don’t have much time to read a lot of papers, an interesting project is to read a different paper each day, for maybe half an hour. You will find out amazing things that the New York Times did not tell you. And, with all due respect, the Taiwan press simply does not cover world affairs. I recommend that you start with Africa, South Asia and Latin America, to learn soooooooo many things that you never had imagined.
Here's a list of valuable English-language online news "papers":
http://www.reuters.com/
Reuters is not a newspaper, actually, but a news service which feeds stories to newspapers around the world. It also offers this website, with the latest breaking news. I find it more reliable and in-depth than Yahoo News, MSN or USA Today, which also specialize in the latest news stories.
http://asia.wsj.com/home-page
Wall Street Journal (Asian edition) is also available in simplified Chinese (click at the top of the page).
http://wsjdn.wsj.com/
Wall Street Journal Digital Network offers more non-Asian stories, plus videos. I don’t know how to get the New York version on my computer here. That seems to mean that Asia is getting different news than New York.
http://www.csmonitor.com/
Christian Science Monitor recently stopped printing a paper edition, and publishes only online. Although it is operated by a (fairly liberal) Christian sect, the Monitor has a very good reputation for honest, thorough reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/ and http://global.nytimes.com/
New York Times is one of America’s oldest and most respected newspapers. It’s affiliation with Council on Foreign Relations and the East Coast elite are common knowledge, and its opinions often coincide with currents of thought in powerful U.S. government circles.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/world
San Francisco Chronicle is owned by the Hearst Corporation, controlled by the powerful Hearst family, which made its fortune in media. It offers more coverage of the Western U.S. and Pacific, and contemporary arts.
http://guardian.co.uk/
The online version of the 2-centuries-old Manchester Guardian, traditional opponent of the Conservative Party, calls itself “the voice of the left.” It is controlled on a not-for-profit basis by the Scott Trust, established in 1936 “to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of the Guardian.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
This online version of the Daily Telegraph is now owned by Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, twin billionaires who bought the business from disgraced financier Conrad Black. A large majority of its subscribers support the Conservative Party (says Wikipedia). It does offer comprehensive and fairly balanced reporting, though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
The BBC, or British Broadcasting Corporation, is noted as a reliable, fairly balanced, very comprehensive news source, which covers more on Africa and the Mediterranean than the American press. It’s owned and managed by the British government.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
Times of India offers South Asian and world news from an Indian perspective, meaning the news is told with a Hindu bias, unfavourable to Islamic culture.
http://www.nation.com.pk/
The Nation (Pakistan) delivers South Asian and world news from a Pakistani perspective.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/IndexPhoto&cid=1123495333292
Jerusalem Post – Mideast news Keep in mind the bias toward Jewish and Israeli interests. This source is most important for finding out what the Israeli position is on American and Mideast affairs. Israel has a very powerful influence on U.S. policy. Once owned by Conrad Black (see Telegraph), its editorial policy is hard-line conservative.
Also see International coverage here:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/IndexPhoto&cid=1123495333281
http://english.aljazeera.net/
al Jazeera, published from Dubai with Saudi capital, is an excellent news source, but its bias against Israel and for Islamic culture is very strong. Click at the left for Africa, Middle East, etc.
http://allafrica.com/
All Africa is an internet news service that reports on the entire continent in fairly good English (and French). Its news stories come from 130 different media providers. The American founder, Reed Kramer, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. So is Tamela Hultman (chief strategy and content officer and director). All Africa is registered as a non-profit company.
http://www.lapress.org/index.asp
Latin American Press, also known as Comunicaciones Aliadas, is “a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Lima, Peru, specializing in the production of information and analysis about events across Latin America and the Caribbean with a focus on rights, while strengthening the communications skills of local social leaders.”
http://taipeitimes.com/
Taipei Times, Taiwan’s own online English news, delivers better International – and especially Asian – news than any paper on the West Coast of the United States. I was disappointed in the Oregon newspapers after reading the Taipei Times for many years. However, it is owned by the Liberty Times (Tz-you Shi-bau) and supports the DPP against both China and the KMT. It pays to stay aware of this bias when reading related articles.
There are several kinds of articles in most newspapers. These include:
* breaking news You can get up-to-the-minute reporting on things that either have happened very recently, or which are happening right now. If a bomb has just gone off in Mexico City (three hours ago) Reuters (and other news services, such as AP, UPI and AFP) will send it out to all the media, including online newspapers. Yahoo and MSN will carry the story on the front page of your e-mail service, and the story will appear on the Reuter’s site. If you look at the little type at the top of guardian.co.uk, that is breaking news (or so they say – sometimes it gets a little old).
* daily news These stories are fact-based reporting on events that have happened within the last day or two. ‘Fire Kills Two at London Warehouse’ is and example.
* feature stories These are sometimes (but not always) fairly long, and analyze a general situation, rather than a particular event. ‘Pigs Prove to be Smart” was a feature story, and so was the long cover story by the journalist who had been captured by the Taliban.
* editorials Sometimes called op-eds (opinion editorials), these do not pretend to be unbiased. The author is obviously trying to make the reader understand an issue in a particular way, and come to a particular conclusion. ‘The Aggression in China’s Goodwill’ was the title of a recent Taipei Times editorial.
A feature story should be based on facts, without being too much influenced by the author’s opinions. However, feature stories always involve some interpretation of facts, both unconscious and deliberate. Deliberate interpretation, designed to give the reader a desired impression (possibly a false impression) is called spin. If the government wants to cover up an embarrassing defeat in battle, an official might say to the press: “Our brave soldiers held off the enemy at great cost of lives, and inflicted huge losses on the enemy. Our soldiers have retreated for the moment to assess the situation.” The official is spinning the situation to suggest that the army was not defeated at all, but making an intelligent move that will later result in victory. In fact, the army ran away after many of their guys were killed. That’s the news.
Journalists often pass on the spin they get from government officials, and they may also spin the news themselves. One technique involves “framing the issue”. To label the victims of an American bombing as ‘terrorists” gives the impression that all of the Pakistanis killed in the raid were 'dangerous criminals hoping to harm decent people with terrifying violence'. However, it is very hard for the journalist to know whether those killed were actually dangerous criminals. Another publication, framing the facts differently, would have called them “innocent civilians”. In fact, the only actual fact we get is that people died in an American bombing raid. This fact is “framed” in such a way as to give a certain impression.
As we read a newspaper, we need to ask ourselves what the bias of the editors probably is. By knowing that the New York Times is published by an Eastern Elite that is also represented in Ivy League universities, prominent think tanks (such as CFR) and the highest levels of government, we can guess that the paper is promoting the interests of that elite. If, on the other hand, we are reading the Latin American Press, we should recognize that the editors are interested in advancing the rights of the poor against corporations and right wing governments: their spin will highlight the crimes of their enemies and the justice of their friends. By reading the same story in two opposing papers, one can see (and eliminate) the spin of both papers, and find the facts that both papers agree on. That’s the actual news. For extreme examples of this, read a South Asian story in both the Times of India and Pakistan’s The Nation, or a Mideast story in both al Jezeera and the Jerusalem Post.
In order to eliminate the American point of view – common to almost all American newspapers – I like to review big stories in the Guardian, a liberal British paper.
If you don’t have much time to read a lot of papers, an interesting project is to read a different paper each day, for maybe half an hour. You will find out amazing things that the New York Times did not tell you. And, with all due respect, the Taiwan press simply does not cover world affairs. I recommend that you start with Africa, South Asia and Latin America, to learn soooooooo many things that you never had imagined.
Here's a list of valuable English-language online news "papers":
http://www.reuters.com/
Reuters is not a newspaper, actually, but a news service which feeds stories to newspapers around the world. It also offers this website, with the latest breaking news. I find it more reliable and in-depth than Yahoo News, MSN or USA Today, which also specialize in the latest news stories.
http://asia.wsj.com/home-page
Wall Street Journal (Asian edition) is also available in simplified Chinese (click at the top of the page).
http://wsjdn.wsj.com/
Wall Street Journal Digital Network offers more non-Asian stories, plus videos. I don’t know how to get the New York version on my computer here. That seems to mean that Asia is getting different news than New York.
http://www.csmonitor.com/
Christian Science Monitor recently stopped printing a paper edition, and publishes only online. Although it is operated by a (fairly liberal) Christian sect, the Monitor has a very good reputation for honest, thorough reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/ and http://global.nytimes.com/
New York Times is one of America’s oldest and most respected newspapers. It’s affiliation with Council on Foreign Relations and the East Coast elite are common knowledge, and its opinions often coincide with currents of thought in powerful U.S. government circles.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/world
San Francisco Chronicle is owned by the Hearst Corporation, controlled by the powerful Hearst family, which made its fortune in media. It offers more coverage of the Western U.S. and Pacific, and contemporary arts.
http://guardian.co.uk/
The online version of the 2-centuries-old Manchester Guardian, traditional opponent of the Conservative Party, calls itself “the voice of the left.” It is controlled on a not-for-profit basis by the Scott Trust, established in 1936 “to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of the Guardian.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
This online version of the Daily Telegraph is now owned by Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, twin billionaires who bought the business from disgraced financier Conrad Black. A large majority of its subscribers support the Conservative Party (says Wikipedia). It does offer comprehensive and fairly balanced reporting, though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
The BBC, or British Broadcasting Corporation, is noted as a reliable, fairly balanced, very comprehensive news source, which covers more on Africa and the Mediterranean than the American press. It’s owned and managed by the British government.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
Times of India offers South Asian and world news from an Indian perspective, meaning the news is told with a Hindu bias, unfavourable to Islamic culture.
http://www.nation.com.pk/
The Nation (Pakistan) delivers South Asian and world news from a Pakistani perspective.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/IndexPhoto&cid=1123495333292
Jerusalem Post – Mideast news Keep in mind the bias toward Jewish and Israeli interests. This source is most important for finding out what the Israeli position is on American and Mideast affairs. Israel has a very powerful influence on U.S. policy. Once owned by Conrad Black (see Telegraph), its editorial policy is hard-line conservative.
Also see International coverage here:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/IndexPhoto&cid=1123495333281
http://english.aljazeera.net/
al Jazeera, published from Dubai with Saudi capital, is an excellent news source, but its bias against Israel and for Islamic culture is very strong. Click at the left for Africa, Middle East, etc.
http://allafrica.com/
All Africa is an internet news service that reports on the entire continent in fairly good English (and French). Its news stories come from 130 different media providers. The American founder, Reed Kramer, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. So is Tamela Hultman (chief strategy and content officer and director). All Africa is registered as a non-profit company.
http://www.lapress.org/index.asp
Latin American Press, also known as Comunicaciones Aliadas, is “a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Lima, Peru, specializing in the production of information and analysis about events across Latin America and the Caribbean with a focus on rights, while strengthening the communications skills of local social leaders.”
http://taipeitimes.com/
Taipei Times, Taiwan’s own online English news, delivers better International – and especially Asian – news than any paper on the West Coast of the United States. I was disappointed in the Oregon newspapers after reading the Taipei Times for many years. However, it is owned by the Liberty Times (Tz-you Shi-bau) and supports the DPP against both China and the KMT. It pays to stay aware of this bias when reading related articles.
2009年11月27日 星期五
God Gene?
This week my cover story attempts to show, using the work of two archeologists, that mankind developed religion due to a gene. That gene is supposedly the one that makes us social, that makes us want to dance all night together, defend the tribe and risk our lives for our social group. These archaeologists make a good case, that this kind of a gene would lead to success in battle, better social relations and a greater likelihood of survival.
So perhaps we have such a gene. But I don't see, from reading the article, why that should lead to bowing before statues and believing in an afterlife. Frankly, dancing all night seems good in itself, philosophy being an entirely different field. But you can decide for yourselves.
Last week I posted a bunch of information on the Council on Foreign Relations. What I should have posted was this link:
http://www.ecfr.eu/content/about
This is the EUROPEAN Council on Foreign Relations, not the American one. The study referred to in last week's cover story was published by the ECFR, founded in 2007 by George Soros and friends. The American and European CFR organizations are related by the business interests of Wall Street.
According to Wikipedia, Soros is the world's 29th richest man, with a fortune of around 11 billion USD. He is also a former director of the AMERICAN Council on Foreign Relations. Born in Hungary, Soros has a strong interest in European affairs, and wants both a strong EU and a strong alliance between US and EU. Hungary was once part of the Soviet (Russian) "Warsaw Pact", whereas now it is part of the Western military union, NATO (since 1999) and the EU (since 2004). American cooperation with Europe is essential to keep this relationship intact.
The point of the article was that Europe must embrace Obama's program for tighter American-European cooperation, under American direction. The immediate objective is more troops in Afghanistan. After the article was published, President Obama did decide to send over 30,000 new American troops to Afghanistan. The article had blamed his indecision for the hesitation Europeans were feeling about committing more NATO soldiers. The implication of the article is that now Europe must follow Obama's lead and send thousands more Europeans into the Afghan war, if it wants to avoid "global irrelevance".
The relationship between American billionaires, CFR, ECFR, the Obama administration and the New York Times has to be appreciated, in order to make sense of the articles we read. As I predicted, the NYT article of last week warned us of what Obama would do. We can wait and see if its expectation for European cooperation also comes true.
If the group which sponsors CFR and the NYT get their way, the new Lisbon Treaty will gather Europe more tightly together under central government in Brussels, weakening local government in the individual countries. NATO will gradually merge with the EU, reinforcing the US military and the US economy in a dominant role there. If a small elite can govern Europe under American direction, it is felt that this cultural bloc can compete successfully with Russia, China and the Islamic world for domination of the world's resources, notably in Africa.
For what it's worth, here is a link to a New York Times book review of Robert Kagan's The Return of History and the End of Dreams (2008), which argues approximately the same thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/books/review/Sanger-t.html
So perhaps we have such a gene. But I don't see, from reading the article, why that should lead to bowing before statues and believing in an afterlife. Frankly, dancing all night seems good in itself, philosophy being an entirely different field. But you can decide for yourselves.
Last week I posted a bunch of information on the Council on Foreign Relations. What I should have posted was this link:
http://www.ecfr.eu/content/about
This is the EUROPEAN Council on Foreign Relations, not the American one. The study referred to in last week's cover story was published by the ECFR, founded in 2007 by George Soros and friends. The American and European CFR organizations are related by the business interests of Wall Street.
According to Wikipedia, Soros is the world's 29th richest man, with a fortune of around 11 billion USD. He is also a former director of the AMERICAN Council on Foreign Relations. Born in Hungary, Soros has a strong interest in European affairs, and wants both a strong EU and a strong alliance between US and EU. Hungary was once part of the Soviet (Russian) "Warsaw Pact", whereas now it is part of the Western military union, NATO (since 1999) and the EU (since 2004). American cooperation with Europe is essential to keep this relationship intact.
The point of the article was that Europe must embrace Obama's program for tighter American-European cooperation, under American direction. The immediate objective is more troops in Afghanistan. After the article was published, President Obama did decide to send over 30,000 new American troops to Afghanistan. The article had blamed his indecision for the hesitation Europeans were feeling about committing more NATO soldiers. The implication of the article is that now Europe must follow Obama's lead and send thousands more Europeans into the Afghan war, if it wants to avoid "global irrelevance".
The relationship between American billionaires, CFR, ECFR, the Obama administration and the New York Times has to be appreciated, in order to make sense of the articles we read. As I predicted, the NYT article of last week warned us of what Obama would do. We can wait and see if its expectation for European cooperation also comes true.
If the group which sponsors CFR and the NYT get their way, the new Lisbon Treaty will gather Europe more tightly together under central government in Brussels, weakening local government in the individual countries. NATO will gradually merge with the EU, reinforcing the US military and the US economy in a dominant role there. If a small elite can govern Europe under American direction, it is felt that this cultural bloc can compete successfully with Russia, China and the Islamic world for domination of the world's resources, notably in Africa.
For what it's worth, here is a link to a New York Times book review of Robert Kagan's The Return of History and the End of Dreams (2008), which argues approximately the same thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/books/review/Sanger-t.html
2009年11月17日 星期二
Council on Foreign Relations
One of the best reasons I can think of for a Taiwanese person to learn Newspaper English is to gain from the foreign press new information not available locally. The New York Times is a good source of high-level information from America. Its articles are read by intelligent American professionals, business executives and government officials, and the paper helps to form their opinions on world events.
You should be aware, however, that the New York Times, like most papers, is deliberately trying to shape public opinion in specific ways. In order to explain this somewhat, I’m using this week’s blog post to talk about the three-way relationship between the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York Times and the American government.
It would be too simplistic to say that CFR is the U. S. Government. But biographies I have seen show 90 top-level Obama administration officials who were or are members of the Council. The movie link included in this weeks vocab list suggests that Secretary of State Clinton is also a member, but I could not verify that.
That YouTube video should be “taken with a grain of salt”. This means that, although its information is substantially correct, its interpretation may be less reliable, and you should treat it as only one point of view. Although some members (including Jay Rockefeller) may truly desire a world government under the rule of a small, wealthy elite, that is not necessarily the purpose or aim of CFR.
I also included a link to the official history of CFR http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/anniversary_foreword.html, which is posted on its website. Since it’s quite long, I don’t suppose any Taiwanese students are willing to read the whole thing. But I will give you some quotes, and you can search the document using these as key words.
“By the mid-1990s, more than two-thirds of Council members lived and worked beyond a 50-mile radius of New York; Washington and Boston retain the largest share, but a significant increase in membership has taken place on the West Coast, in the Midwest, and in such southern cities as Dallas and Atlanta.”
Elsewhere:
“National members now make up more than one-third of the total membership, with the other two-thirds divided between New York and Washington, DC.”
1/3 New York City, so therefore 1/3 Washington, DC. That leaves 1/3 divided between Boston and the rest of the country. Why Boston? Harvard and M.I.T., for one thing. Also, Boston was the hub of the early industrial revolution and retains a strong foreign trade economy. The corridor between Boston and Washington, D.C. probably accounts for at least 3/4 of CFR’s membership. So point number one: this is an organization comprised of foreign policy experts concentrated in the Northeast coast of America.
FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in his book on the Kennedy presidency, A Thousand Days, wrote that Kennedy was not part of what he called the "New York establishment":
"In particular, he was little acquainted with the New York financial and legal community-- that arsenal of talent which had so long furnished a steady supply of always orthodox and often able people to Democratic as well as Republican administrations. This community was the heart of the American Establishment. Its household deities were Henry Stimson and Elihu Root; its present leaders, Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy; its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations; its organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs."
Foreign Affairs magazine is published by Council on Foreign Relations.
A “front organization” is a group that does your public business for you, without exposing you personally to public attention.
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. was a prominent member of CFR, and was “Special Assistant to the President” under John Kennedy.
Thus, CFR is working for the same Northeast Coast elite that controls the editorial policy of the New York Times.
Again, from the official history of CFR, concerning the 1920s and ‘30s:
“Members who were directors of large corporations seized the opportunity to inject the concerns of business into the reflections of scholars. Some 26 firms signed up for a program of corporate financial support.
“…Supported by a $50,000 grant from the Carnegie Corporation, the Council launched a major initiative in December 1937 to spread its activities and role across the United States.”
Andrew Carnegie, the founder of the Carnegie Corporation, had made a fortune in the steel industry, and worked closely with Elihu Root, CFR’s first president, who was also president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
At the end of World War II,
“…the 55 Council officers and directors also held 74 corporate directorships.”
Elsewhere:
“The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to fund the project [War and Peace Studies] with nearly $350,000.”
And:
“Over the course of the 1950s large foundations stepped in to support and enlarge the Council as a leading force in America’s international awareness; from the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Corporation came $500,000 each, topped by $1.5 million from the new Ford Foundation in 1954.”
So CFR is funded by, and controlled by, the captains of industry in the Northeast US.
Allen Dulles started the OSS during World War II, which later became the CIA. Dulles directed the CIA for many years. He was also a director of CFR, and served as its secretary.
Henry Kissinger is a prominent member. Nearly every Secretary of State during the 20th century (as well as Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton, if you believe the YouTube video) have been CFR members. Robert Gates, now Secretary of Defense and formerly head of the CIA, is a member. David Rockefeller was chairman of CFR from 1970-1985. This organization contains the heaviest business and government leaders, at any given moment.
From the official history:
“‘Whatever General Eisenhower knows about economics,’ said one member later, ‘he has learned at the [CFR] study group meetings,’”
To say that CFR has a profound impact on the workings of the US government would be an understatement. Government leaders are given fellowships, and intellectuals willing to cooperate with the business-oriented goals of the organization are invited to join. After serving in CFR for some time, many attain high government posts. From the history:
“Richard Barnet, a scholar elected to Council membership in 1969 who remained a frequent critic, noted that membership in the Council on Foreign Relations could well be considered ‘a rite of passage for an aspiring national security manager.’”
Now for the relationship with the New York Times. The “official history” was written by Peter Grosse, who was managing editor of Foreign Affairs. He was also a diplomatic correspondent for the New York Times and served as deputy director of the Policy Planning Staff at the Department of State. Leslie Gelb, chairman emeritus of CFR, is a former editor of the NYT. The history itself mentions Leonard Silk (economics writer). Nicholas Kristof (who learned Mandarin in Taipei) writes for both Foreign Affairs and the New York Times. Many, many NYT writers and editors, past and present, have belonged to CFR. If you look carefully at stories about government, international affairs, economics, war and diplomacy, you will often find quotations by Council members.
The New York Times is a high-quality newspaper, noted for accurate reporting and good writing. It’s good to read the NYT, but it’s also good to know that the opinions you’re reading correspond to the views common among Northeast Coast, business-oriented intellectuals close to the actual workings of government. The usual routine is to discuss international problems in think tanks like CFR, publish policy papers, then place the desired viewpoints in Foreign Affairs, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, as well as magazines such as the Nation, the New Yorker, and Time.
In this way, points of view can be disseminated to the intellectuals who actually affect government, and these people can come to share the opinions of NYT and CFR. When government officials begin to discuss the policies in Congress or at political rallies, they already have the support of well-read intellectuals, who will smooth the passage of legislation and assist in their political agendas. So it’s very important to notice what is printed in the New York Times, because within six months to one year’s time, the opinions expressed there are likely to impact actions such as war-making, changes in the economic system and America’s relations with China or Iran.
The opinions and interpretations embedded in New York Times articles are only opinions, and you should feel free to disagree – to challenge these opinions. But you should also know that these opinions carry a great deal of weight with the Establishment (the Northeast Coast business interests who sponsor both CFR and the New York Times). For better or worse, what is suggested in the pages of the New York Times is likely to become US policy in the near future. And this is one of the great values of reading the paper.
You should be aware, however, that the New York Times, like most papers, is deliberately trying to shape public opinion in specific ways. In order to explain this somewhat, I’m using this week’s blog post to talk about the three-way relationship between the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York Times and the American government.
It would be too simplistic to say that CFR is the U. S. Government. But biographies I have seen show 90 top-level Obama administration officials who were or are members of the Council. The movie link included in this weeks vocab list suggests that Secretary of State Clinton is also a member, but I could not verify that.
That YouTube video should be “taken with a grain of salt”. This means that, although its information is substantially correct, its interpretation may be less reliable, and you should treat it as only one point of view. Although some members (including Jay Rockefeller) may truly desire a world government under the rule of a small, wealthy elite, that is not necessarily the purpose or aim of CFR.
I also included a link to the official history of CFR http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/anniversary_foreword.html, which is posted on its website. Since it’s quite long, I don’t suppose any Taiwanese students are willing to read the whole thing. But I will give you some quotes, and you can search the document using these as key words.
“By the mid-1990s, more than two-thirds of Council members lived and worked beyond a 50-mile radius of New York; Washington and Boston retain the largest share, but a significant increase in membership has taken place on the West Coast, in the Midwest, and in such southern cities as Dallas and Atlanta.”
Elsewhere:
“National members now make up more than one-third of the total membership, with the other two-thirds divided between New York and Washington, DC.”
1/3 New York City, so therefore 1/3 Washington, DC. That leaves 1/3 divided between Boston and the rest of the country. Why Boston? Harvard and M.I.T., for one thing. Also, Boston was the hub of the early industrial revolution and retains a strong foreign trade economy. The corridor between Boston and Washington, D.C. probably accounts for at least 3/4 of CFR’s membership. So point number one: this is an organization comprised of foreign policy experts concentrated in the Northeast coast of America.
FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in his book on the Kennedy presidency, A Thousand Days, wrote that Kennedy was not part of what he called the "New York establishment":
"In particular, he was little acquainted with the New York financial and legal community-- that arsenal of talent which had so long furnished a steady supply of always orthodox and often able people to Democratic as well as Republican administrations. This community was the heart of the American Establishment. Its household deities were Henry Stimson and Elihu Root; its present leaders, Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy; its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations; its organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs."
Foreign Affairs magazine is published by Council on Foreign Relations.
A “front organization” is a group that does your public business for you, without exposing you personally to public attention.
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. was a prominent member of CFR, and was “Special Assistant to the President” under John Kennedy.
Thus, CFR is working for the same Northeast Coast elite that controls the editorial policy of the New York Times.
Again, from the official history of CFR, concerning the 1920s and ‘30s:
“Members who were directors of large corporations seized the opportunity to inject the concerns of business into the reflections of scholars. Some 26 firms signed up for a program of corporate financial support.
“…Supported by a $50,000 grant from the Carnegie Corporation, the Council launched a major initiative in December 1937 to spread its activities and role across the United States.”
Andrew Carnegie, the founder of the Carnegie Corporation, had made a fortune in the steel industry, and worked closely with Elihu Root, CFR’s first president, who was also president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
At the end of World War II,
“…the 55 Council officers and directors also held 74 corporate directorships.”
Elsewhere:
“The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to fund the project [War and Peace Studies] with nearly $350,000.”
And:
“Over the course of the 1950s large foundations stepped in to support and enlarge the Council as a leading force in America’s international awareness; from the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Corporation came $500,000 each, topped by $1.5 million from the new Ford Foundation in 1954.”
So CFR is funded by, and controlled by, the captains of industry in the Northeast US.
Allen Dulles started the OSS during World War II, which later became the CIA. Dulles directed the CIA for many years. He was also a director of CFR, and served as its secretary.
Henry Kissinger is a prominent member. Nearly every Secretary of State during the 20th century (as well as Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton, if you believe the YouTube video) have been CFR members. Robert Gates, now Secretary of Defense and formerly head of the CIA, is a member. David Rockefeller was chairman of CFR from 1970-1985. This organization contains the heaviest business and government leaders, at any given moment.
From the official history:
“‘Whatever General Eisenhower knows about economics,’ said one member later, ‘he has learned at the [CFR] study group meetings,’”
To say that CFR has a profound impact on the workings of the US government would be an understatement. Government leaders are given fellowships, and intellectuals willing to cooperate with the business-oriented goals of the organization are invited to join. After serving in CFR for some time, many attain high government posts. From the history:
“Richard Barnet, a scholar elected to Council membership in 1969 who remained a frequent critic, noted that membership in the Council on Foreign Relations could well be considered ‘a rite of passage for an aspiring national security manager.’”
Now for the relationship with the New York Times. The “official history” was written by Peter Grosse, who was managing editor of Foreign Affairs. He was also a diplomatic correspondent for the New York Times and served as deputy director of the Policy Planning Staff at the Department of State. Leslie Gelb, chairman emeritus of CFR, is a former editor of the NYT. The history itself mentions Leonard Silk (economics writer). Nicholas Kristof (who learned Mandarin in Taipei) writes for both Foreign Affairs and the New York Times. Many, many NYT writers and editors, past and present, have belonged to CFR. If you look carefully at stories about government, international affairs, economics, war and diplomacy, you will often find quotations by Council members.
The New York Times is a high-quality newspaper, noted for accurate reporting and good writing. It’s good to read the NYT, but it’s also good to know that the opinions you’re reading correspond to the views common among Northeast Coast, business-oriented intellectuals close to the actual workings of government. The usual routine is to discuss international problems in think tanks like CFR, publish policy papers, then place the desired viewpoints in Foreign Affairs, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, as well as magazines such as the Nation, the New Yorker, and Time.
In this way, points of view can be disseminated to the intellectuals who actually affect government, and these people can come to share the opinions of NYT and CFR. When government officials begin to discuss the policies in Congress or at political rallies, they already have the support of well-read intellectuals, who will smooth the passage of legislation and assist in their political agendas. So it’s very important to notice what is printed in the New York Times, because within six months to one year’s time, the opinions expressed there are likely to impact actions such as war-making, changes in the economic system and America’s relations with China or Iran.
The opinions and interpretations embedded in New York Times articles are only opinions, and you should feel free to disagree – to challenge these opinions. But you should also know that these opinions carry a great deal of weight with the Establishment (the Northeast Coast business interests who sponsor both CFR and the New York Times). For better or worse, what is suggested in the pages of the New York Times is likely to become US policy in the near future. And this is one of the great values of reading the paper.
2009年11月11日 星期三
One good excuse for this blog is to tell you that our regular class on Tuesday, November 17, will be cancelled, due to a faculty meeting. You are invited to attend, but nothing bad will happen to you if you do not. I, on the other hand, am required to be there.
Anyway, we will discuss articles from the NYT issue that came out in yesterday's Lian He Bau (11/10/09) ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24.
If you did not attend class on the 10th, and are not sure what article you should prepare, please e-mail me.
Here, I would like to post three links that already appeared in the vocab list I sent you for 11/10.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDAFQjLoxCM&feature=related
mountain-top removal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJVbdiMgfM
“clean coal” air freshener
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKC5YV2yrFk&feature=related
“clean coal” smudge
These short videos show the truth about coal, one of the dirtiest sources of energy that we use today. Calling it "clean" will not excuse the "ramping up" of coal production to replace oil depletion. What we need is to do is to
use less energy and less stuff.
You might be interested in this:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2008/09/04/2003422196
A survey by Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) showed that the Taichung and Mailiao coal-fired power plants ranked No. 1 and No. 5 worldwide in terms of carbon dioxide emissions by power plants respectively, casting a shadow on the government’s energy-saving and carbon-reduction policies.
And this:
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=27&sid=1743620
Federal study shows mercury in fish widespread
August 20, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) - No fish can escape mercury pollution. That's the take-home message from a federal study of mercury contamination released Wednesday that tested fish from nearly 300 streams across the country.
The toxic substance was found in every fish sampled, a finding that underscores how widespread mercury pollution has become.
Mercury consumed by eating fish can damage the nervous system and cause learning disabilities in developing fetuses and young children.
The main source of mercury to most of the streams tested, according to the researchers, is emissions from coal-fired power plants. The mercury released from smokestacks here and abroad rains down into waterways, where natural processes convert it into methylmercury _ a form that allows the toxin to wind its way up the food chain into fish.
On that happy note, I remind you again that
OUR NEXT CLASS IS NOVEMBER 24. Have an enjoyable night off next Tuesday.
Anyway, we will discuss articles from the NYT issue that came out in yesterday's Lian He Bau (11/10/09) ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24.
If you did not attend class on the 10th, and are not sure what article you should prepare, please e-mail me.
Here, I would like to post three links that already appeared in the vocab list I sent you for 11/10.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDAFQjLoxCM&feature=related
mountain-top removal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJVbdiMgfM
“clean coal” air freshener
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKC5YV2yrFk&feature=related
“clean coal” smudge
These short videos show the truth about coal, one of the dirtiest sources of energy that we use today. Calling it "clean" will not excuse the "ramping up" of coal production to replace oil depletion. What we need is to do is to
use less energy and less stuff.
You might be interested in this:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2008/09/04/2003422196
A survey by Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) showed that the Taichung and Mailiao coal-fired power plants ranked No. 1 and No. 5 worldwide in terms of carbon dioxide emissions by power plants respectively, casting a shadow on the government’s energy-saving and carbon-reduction policies.
And this:
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=27&sid=1743620
Federal study shows mercury in fish widespread
August 20, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) - No fish can escape mercury pollution. That's the take-home message from a federal study of mercury contamination released Wednesday that tested fish from nearly 300 streams across the country.
The toxic substance was found in every fish sampled, a finding that underscores how widespread mercury pollution has become.
Mercury consumed by eating fish can damage the nervous system and cause learning disabilities in developing fetuses and young children.
The main source of mercury to most of the streams tested, according to the researchers, is emissions from coal-fired power plants. The mercury released from smokestacks here and abroad rains down into waterways, where natural processes convert it into methylmercury _ a form that allows the toxin to wind its way up the food chain into fish.
On that happy note, I remind you again that
OUR NEXT CLASS IS NOVEMBER 24. Have an enjoyable night off next Tuesday.
2009年10月25日 星期日
My cover story this week involves casualties in Afghanistan and the reaction of the American public to the Afghan War. So far, around 800 US soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan (compared to more than 4000 in Iraq) and over 2000 have been seriously wounded. Generally, the public thinks only about American casualties, but there have also been many thousands of "enemy" soldiers killed, and about 8000 civilians.
The article, however, seeks to balance the horror (and tremendous $ expense) of the war against the possibility that good will come of it. "Is the war necessary?" asks the author. The argument is that we HAVE to win this war to make America safe from terrorists. In truth, we may be protecting Israel from nuclear-armed Islamic Pakistan (which is similar to the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran), rather than protecting America. But Israel is the proxy of the West in the oil-rich Mideast region, and America has (so far) always chosen to back up Israel against all competitors. Loss of Mideast oil would definitely be a disaster for the American economy.
Besides the question of whether the war is necessary, the article asks "Can America ever win this war?" The Taliban definitely hope that, like the Russians before them, the Americans will find war in Afghanistan too difficult and too expensive. If the Taliban are correct, America would have to retreat in a year or two, having lost lives, money and national honor (similar to the situation in 1975 as US Marines left Vietnam). If, on the other hand, America is able to create a sustainable nation state that respects American (and Israeli) interests, then the American people are likely to praise the government that brings this about. If the public sees progress toward this kind of positive future, it will support the war; if not, protests will grow and the government may be forced to abandon the war.
But what if the object of this war is not "to win". What if 90% of the world's heroin supply is sufficient motivation to remain, to dominate the huge profits and direct the valuable drug toward addicts willing to serve the interests of the war-makers? What if keeping armies on the eastern border of Iran (Afghanistan) and the western border (Iraq) is another important motivation? What if the real target is Pakistan, the traditional enemy of both India (the world's second-largest developing economy, which just signed several trade pacts with the US) and Israel?
Winning the war may or may not be Obama's objective, but whether the public sees progress toward a desirable goal certainly will influence what he can do there.
The article, however, seeks to balance the horror (and tremendous $ expense) of the war against the possibility that good will come of it. "Is the war necessary?" asks the author. The argument is that we HAVE to win this war to make America safe from terrorists. In truth, we may be protecting Israel from nuclear-armed Islamic Pakistan (which is similar to the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran), rather than protecting America. But Israel is the proxy of the West in the oil-rich Mideast region, and America has (so far) always chosen to back up Israel against all competitors. Loss of Mideast oil would definitely be a disaster for the American economy.
Besides the question of whether the war is necessary, the article asks "Can America ever win this war?" The Taliban definitely hope that, like the Russians before them, the Americans will find war in Afghanistan too difficult and too expensive. If the Taliban are correct, America would have to retreat in a year or two, having lost lives, money and national honor (similar to the situation in 1975 as US Marines left Vietnam). If, on the other hand, America is able to create a sustainable nation state that respects American (and Israeli) interests, then the American people are likely to praise the government that brings this about. If the public sees progress toward this kind of positive future, it will support the war; if not, protests will grow and the government may be forced to abandon the war.
But what if the object of this war is not "to win". What if 90% of the world's heroin supply is sufficient motivation to remain, to dominate the huge profits and direct the valuable drug toward addicts willing to serve the interests of the war-makers? What if keeping armies on the eastern border of Iran (Afghanistan) and the western border (Iraq) is another important motivation? What if the real target is Pakistan, the traditional enemy of both India (the world's second-largest developing economy, which just signed several trade pacts with the US) and Israel?
Winning the war may or may not be Obama's objective, but whether the public sees progress toward a desirable goal certainly will influence what he can do there.
2009年10月17日 星期六
Hooray! We have a blog.
Okay, this coming Tuesday, October 20, everyone will be reading the New York Times insert in the Lian He Bau (United Daily News) which came out on October 13. As usual, I have the cover story. This week's cover feature is called "Invasive Humans" -- a good title for 7 billion people on the Earth today, but especially apt for the Galapagos Islands, located about a thousand miles off the coast of Ecuador.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal%C3A1pagos_Islar for a general view of the islands.
You may also enjoy this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCIacOeB9cs
In the future, student may add information they find interesting by posting comments. For instance, if your weekly article concerns the Afghanistan war, you may want to post some additional information on the country, the war, the number of casualties, or websites you think are important about the topic. You do not have to do that, however.
I'm not sure why the school has asked us to make this blog, actually, but it has. Let's find ways to use it profitably. If you have any ideas, post them as comments or just bring them to class.
WARNINGS: Do not expect me to look at the blog daily. Students have my e-mail address and can contact me with questions that way. Whatever you post here will form a (more or less) permanent record of our activities. Post only what you want the whole world to read, and especially what would be interesting to our class.
Okay, this coming Tuesday, October 20, everyone will be reading the New York Times insert in the Lian He Bau (United Daily News) which came out on October 13. As usual, I have the cover story. This week's cover feature is called "Invasive Humans" -- a good title for 7 billion people on the Earth today, but especially apt for the Galapagos Islands, located about a thousand miles off the coast of Ecuador.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal%C3A1pagos_Islar for a general view of the islands.
You may also enjoy this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCIacOeB9cs
In the future, student may add information they find interesting by posting comments. For instance, if your weekly article concerns the Afghanistan war, you may want to post some additional information on the country, the war, the number of casualties, or websites you think are important about the topic. You do not have to do that, however.
I'm not sure why the school has asked us to make this blog, actually, but it has. Let's find ways to use it profitably. If you have any ideas, post them as comments or just bring them to class.
WARNINGS: Do not expect me to look at the blog daily. Students have my e-mail address and can contact me with questions that way. Whatever you post here will form a (more or less) permanent record of our activities. Post only what you want the whole world to read, and especially what would be interesting to our class.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)