Not all
White House reporters are pushovers
Go
to article
Media missing
new evidence about Genoa violence
Police in Genoa, Italy
have recently begun to admit to fabricating evidence in an attempt to
justify police violence against protesters during the G8 summit in July
2001. Protesters were injured during a police raid, and Carlo Giuliani,
pictured right, was shot and killed during a demonstration.
Photos courtesy of Italy
Indymedia
Jan. 10— Police in Genoa, Italy have admitted to fabricating evidence
against globalization activists in an attempt to justify police brutality
during protests at the July 2001 G8 Summit. In searches of the Nexis database,
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) has been unable to find a single
mention of this development in any major US newspapers or magazines, national
television news shows or wire service stories.
According to reports from the BBC and the German wire service Deutsche
Presse-Agentur (1/7/03, 1/8/03), a senior Genoa police officer, Pietro
Troiani, has admitted that police planted two Molotov cocktails in a school
that was serving as a dormitory for activists from the Genoa Social Forum.
The bombs were apparently planted in order to justify the police force’s
brutal July 22 raid on the school. According to the BBC, the bombs had
in fact been found elsewhere in the city, and Troijani now says planting
them at the school was a "silly" thing to do. The BBC and DPA
also report that another senior officer has admitted to faking the stabbing
of a police officer in order to frame protesters.
These revelations have emerged over the course of a parliamentary inquiry
into police conduct that was initiated by the Italian government under
pressure from "domestic and international outrage over the blood-soaked
G8 summit in Genoa" (London Guardian, 7/31/01). Three police chiefs
have been transferred and at least 77 officers have been investigated
on brutality charges.
An "embarrassing" inquiry
More than 100,000 people participated in the 2001 Genoa protests, most
of them peacefully. Italian authorities, however, prepared for the protests
by ordering 200 body bags and designating a room at the Genoa hospital
as a temporary morgue (BBC, 6/21/01). Twenty thousand police and troops
were on hand, armed with tear gas, water cannon, and military hardware
as authorities enclosed part of the city in a so-called "ring of
steel," with many railways and roads closed and air traffic shut
down. The US press routinely gloss over this militaristic response, instead
invoking the demonstrations as proof of the threat posed by globalization
activists. Even the killing of Carlo Giuliani — a protester who was
shot in the head, run over, and killed by police after he threw a fire
extinguisher at a police vehicle — is recounted by US media as a
timely "lesson" for activists that, as Time magazine put it,
"You reap what you sow" (7/30/01).
As FAIR documented at the time (FAIR Action Alert, 7/26/01), most US
media responded to the violence with sensationalistic reports on the drama
"in the streets of this gritty port city" (ABC World News Tonight,
7/20/01), but showed little curiosity about fundamental questions, such
as why Italian forces were armed with live ammunition. (As for the substantive
political concerns motivating the protests, they were all but ignored).
The July 22 police raid, which has become a focus of Italy’s parliamentary
inquiry, was carried out on the headquarters of the Genoa Social Forum
— the umbrella group coordinating the protests — and the neighboring
Independent Media Center (IMC).
It received largely indifferent coverage in the US, but reports in independent
and non-US media indicated that some 200 police officers brutally beat
sleeping activists in an attack that led to more than a dozen of the arrestees
being carried out on stretchers, some unconscious (Guardian, 7/24/01).
Of the 93 people arrested at the school, 72 suffered injuries. All were
eventually released without charge (DPA, 1/8/03).
The coverage of this attack on the nightly newscasts of the US’s
three major broadcast networks was instructive. At first, ABC World News
Tonight did not report the raid at all. CBS Evening News (7/22/01) mentioned
it in passing, with the reporter noting almost approvingly that "the
tactics were heavy-handed, but the streets were quiet today." Commendably,
NBC Nightly News (7/22/01) devoted more significant attention to the attack
and reported organizers’ claim that all the arrestees had been non-violent
and were "the latest victims of police brutality."
A couple of weeks later, it emerged that some of the victims were American.
The three nightly newscasts then showed somewhat more attention to the
issue of police brutality, running reports that included footage of the
blood splashed on the floors and walls of the school (ABC, 8/8/01; CBS
and NBC, 8/11/01). CBS distinguished itself poorly again by introducing
its follow-up report with excuses: "However provoked the Italian
police were during the rioting around last month’s summit in Genoa,
their behavior has become the subject of an embarrassing domestic inquiry
in Italy."
Embarrassing is one word for it. Amnesty International found a few others,
saying that police at the summit seemed to show "scant concern"
for human rights (The Wire, September 2001). Amnesty characterized the
arrests at the school as illegal and cited reports that detainees were
"slapped, kicked, punched, and spat on and subjected to verbal abuse,
sometimes of an obscene sexual nature ... deprived of food, water and
sleep for lengthy periods, made to line up with their faces against the
wall and remain for hours spread-eagled, and beaten if they failed to
maintain this position." In addition, "some were apparently
threatened with death and, in the case of female detainees, rape."
Detainees also reported being denied prompt access to lawyers and medical
care.
Discrediting the left
The new admissions from Italian police that they attempted to frame activists
in order to justify their own violence are very significant, but there
was other, earlier evidence of misconduct that reporters could have followed
up.
Much of this evidence was documented by Rory Carroll, a reporter for
the London Guardian newspaper. He reported as early as July 24, 2001 that
"an interior ministry source" had admitted that "the raid
had turned into a revenge attack by police." In the same story, Carroll
reported a claim from the Genoa Social Forum that "the homemade bombs
were probably planted."
Another story by Carroll (Guardian, 7/23/01) focused on allegations that
segments of supposedly anarchist groups utilizing the "black bloc"
protest technique — often held up as proof that globalization activists
are violent — were in fact provocateurs from European security forces.
Groups of black-clad people "burned buildings, ransacked shops and
attacked banks with crowbars and scaffolding" during the protests,
reported Carroll. Some attacked journalists, "smashing their equipment
and tearing up their notebooks." Yet "few, if any" of these
people were arrested, and local activists seemed not to know the people
involved.
The Guardian quoted Francesco Martone, a Green Party senator for Genoa,
alleging that police and neo-fascists "worked together to infiltrate
the genuine protesters" and discredit the left. It also quoted an
Italian communist Minister of Parliament, Luigi Malabarba: "I saw
groups of German and French people dressed as demonstrators in black with
iron bars inside the police station near the Piazza di Kennedy. Draw your
own conclusions."
"Violent protests"
Despite the numerous questions about who instigated most of the violence
in Genoa, "Genoa" has become a kind of shorthand for "violent
protesters" in mainstream media.
For instance, it was common for mainstream news stories to link activists
gathering to protest the June 2002 G8 Summit in Banff, Canada, to the
supposedly dangerous demonstrators of Genoa. The New York Times (6/27/02)
described Canada’s extreme security measures as a response to Genoa,
"where violent protesters battled the police." But what about
the violent police? Many outlets simply write them out of the story. To
continue with the New York Times -- though they’re far from the only
outlet at fault -- consider the paper’s coverage of a massive November
anti-war march in Florence. Framing the story (11/10/02) with warnings
about government fears of "a reprise of the bloodshed and chaos"
of Genoa, the Times stated that officials were "still haunted by
that melee," and that officials had debated whether to permit demonstrations
at all. With such partial information, a reader might naturally -- and
incorrectly -- assume that most of the violence was caused by out-of-control
protesters. Just last month (12/15/02), the New York Times ran an article
about the lingering impact of the protests, stating that, for over a year,
Italy "has been haunted by the violent clashes between the police
and anti-globalization protesters." It’s a reasonable premise,
except that the Times’ selective reporting suggested that protesters
bear all the blame. Amazingly, the article noted the prosecutions of 11
people recently arrested for looting and property damage during the protests,
but failed to mention Italy’s ongoing inquiry into police brutality.
In contrast, the inquiry seems to be getting serious attention in Italy.
According to the BBC (1/7/03), newspapers such as La Repubblica and Il
Secolo XIX have been publishing transcripts from the inquiry, and one
report on the television channel Rai Uno stated: "Now that the investigation
into the G8 events is drawing to a close, suspected truths which had already
emerged are being officially confirmed." Considering how fond US
media are of dramatic stories about protester/police "clashes,"
they should be able to find the energy to carefully investigate such incidents.
This is crucial journalistic work; the right to peaceful assembly is central
to democracy. The public deserves to have access to follow-up investigations
of what happened at Genoa’s "violent" protests.
Source: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
(FAIR)
Back to top
Not all
White House reporters are pushovers
By Norman Solomon
Jan. 9— At 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., reporters usually shuffle along
to a snoozy beat. But anyone who denigrates the mainstream media in general,
or the White House press corps in particular, should acknowledge that
exceptional journalists do strive to ask deeper questions while most of
their colleagues go through the motions.
The latest in a long line of presidential spinners, Ari Fleischer, began
a news conference on Jan. 6 with a nice greeting: "Good afternoon
and happy New Year to everybody." But his bonhomie didn’t last
more than a minute.
"At the earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the president deplored
the taking of innocent lives," Helen Thomas began. "Does that
apply to all innocent lives in the world?"
It was a simple question -- and, unfortunately, an extraordinary one.
Few journalists at the White House move beyond the subtle but powerful
ties that bind reporters and top officials in Washington. Routinely, shared
assumptions are the unspoken name of the game.
In this case, Thomas wasn’t playing -- and Fleischer’s new
year wasn’t exactly off to a great start. His tongue moved, but he
declined to answer the question. Instead, he parried: "I refer specifically
to a horrible terrorist attack on Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded
hundreds."
Of course that attack was reprehensible. But Thomas had asked whether
President Bush deplored the taking of "all innocent lives in the
world." And Fleischer didn’t want to go there.
But Helen Thomas, an 82-year-old journalist who has been covering the
White House for several decades, was not to be deterred by the flack’s
sleight-of-tongue maneuver. "My follow-up is," she persisted,
"why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?"
On a dime, Fleischer spun paternal and nationalistic. "Helen, the
question is how to protect Americans, and our allies and friends --"
What Fleischer had just called "the question" was actually
his question. He had no use for hers.
Thomas responded: "They’re not attacking you. Have they [the
Iraqis] laid the glove on you or on the United States ... in 11 years?"
Fleischer laced his retort with sarcasm. "I guess you have forgotten
about the Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as a result
of Saddam Hussein’s aggression then."
"Is this revenge," Thomas replied, "11 years of revenge?"
The man in charge of White House spin revved up the RPMs. "Helen,
I think you know very well that the president’s position is that
he wants to avert war ..."
But the journalist refused to jettison her original, still-unanswered
question. She asked: "Would the president attack innocent Iraqi lives?"
"The president wants to make certain that he can defend our country
..."
Thomas would not back off. She demanded to know whether Bush thinks the
Iraqi people "are a threat to us."
At that point, Fleischer went off-message with a weird statement. "The
Iraqi people are represented by their government," said the man speaking
for the president of the United States. A journalist’s persistence
had led him to put foot in polished mouth.
Some people like to play "Hail to the Chief." I would prefer
to say "Hail to the dean of the Washington press corps -- Helen Thomas."
She knows that asking truly tough questions involves a lot more than echoing
partisan ping-pong.
After 57 years as a reporter for United Press International, she quit
UPI in 2000 when it was bought by News World Communications, a firm affiliated
with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s right-wing Unification Church. (Among
its holdings is The Washington Times.) Since then, Thomas has been writing
an incisive syndicated column for Hearst Newspapers.
In a speech at MIT a couple of months ago, Helen Thomas told the audience:
"I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter." Media
professionals are frequently unwilling to say in public what they know
in private. When a mainstream journalist breaks out of self-censorship,
the public benefits.
Day in and day out, Helen Thomas is conspicuous for her fortitude at
White House press conferences. And let’s also give credit to an intrepid
newcomer at such press follies. The other day, Russell Mokhiber of the
Corporate Crime Reporter asked a simple question that went unanswered:
"Ari, other than Elliott Abrams, how many convicted criminals are
on the White House staff?"
You can find transcripts of Mokhiber’s many exchanges with Fleischer
posted at www.commondreams.org under the heading "Ari and I".
They are examples of unflinching questions and slimy evasions at the White
House.
Thank you, Helen Thomas. Thank you, Russell Mokhiber. It sure is refreshing
to see journalists doing their jobs instead of going along to get along.
Norman Solomon is co-author of "Target Iraq: What the News Media
Didn’t Tell You" (Context Books), to be published in late January.
Journalist Helen Thomas
Photo courtesy of www.womcom.org
Back to top
BRIEFS
Australian radio told to curb free
speech, ethnic TV
In a letter to Australia’s 2,500 organizations responsible for community
radio and TV stations, the federal Multicultural Affairs Minister warned
ethnic broadcasters they have greater responsibility than the mainstream
media to avoid broadcasting reports that incite "racial violence
and hatred." Radio stations put their licenses at risk if they allow
racial vilification and have been warned to watch how they exercise their
"freedom of speech." A station manager of a full-time ethnic
broadcaster said the letter is redundant because ethnic broadcasters already
know their powerful role in calming ethnic tensions. (The
Australian)
FCC flooded with letters opposing media
consolidation
The FCC has received nearly 1,700 comments on a proceeding that could
result in the dismantling of many of its media ownership restrictions.
The commissioners are likely to take notice of the volume of letters but
not necessarily their contents, according to a former FCC insider. The
FCC is much more likely to scrutinize comments from the media industry,
which favors the dismantling of the six rules setting national and local
limits on ownership of radio and TV stations, as well as restrictions
on cross-ownership of newspapers and television stations or radio and
television stations. (Dow Jones Newswire)
Stations reject TV ads that connect
SUVs to terrorism
Television stations in New York, Detroit, and Los Angeles are refusing
to air ads linking driving sport utility vehicles (SUVs) with supporting
terrorism. "What kind of mileage does you SUV get? Oil money supports
some terrible things," says one of the ads modeled on hard-hitting
anti-drug public service announcements produced by the Bush administration
that equate drug use with support of violence and terrorism. The media
campaign is part of a growing national backlash against SUVs, which get
poor gas mileage, in efforts to curb US dependence on foreign oil. For
the most part, Bush has been against increasing cars’ fuel economy.
The US produces 25 percent of the world’s man-made carbon dioxide,
the chief greenhouse gas responsible for global warming. (Scripps
Howard News Service)
Back to top
|
