To return to AGR, click here

To read an article, click on the headline.

Media blackout: media miss story of biggest pay cut in US history

Ex-BBC chief: Blair’s world of ‘lies and bullying’

Government attempts
subpoena for Indymedia logs

 

back to top

Media blackout: media miss story of biggest pay cut in US history

By David Swanson

Aug. 27— On Aug. 23, the Bush Administration’s Department of Labor eliminated the right to time-and-a-half pay for overtime work for millions of Americans in what amounted to the biggest pay cut in American history. The facts that should have made that statement a headline in every paper in the country were easily obtainable. Reporters had had months in which to review the changes. Experts had written helpful analyses. The specific ways in which various categories of workers were being stripped of their rights would have been no secret to a sixth grader with internet access writing a report for school.

And if our national media couldn’t take the time to read the rule changes, the goals of the Department of Labor (DOL) and other parties involved had been made abundantly clear. The DOL had published advice to employers on how to avoid paying overtime. Both houses of Congress had passed an amendment to prevent the new changes from stripping workers of overtime pay, but a conference committee under Republican leadership had removed that measure. Business groups supported the changes. Labor unions opposed them. And the Bush Administration had spent four years building a solid record of reducing worker rights and of lying about its actions.

For the media to take seriously Bush Administration claims that these changes would benefit workers would require not only a strict avoidance of research, but also the assumption that the administration was as likely as workers’ organizations to make honest claims about what would help workers. Of course, the media made this assumption, illustrating a fundamental problem with contemporary journalism: reporters believe they cannot arbitrate between competing views and that they must give extra deference to the government. As a result, whether or not they do their own research, they do not report on what they learn.

This was the lead of the AP story by Leigh Strope on August 23: “Paychecks could surge or shrink for a few or for millions of workers across the country starting Monday, when sweeping changes to the nation’s overtime pay rules take effect.” What reader in the country was wiser after reading that? The rest of the article was no more enlightening, unless you’ve learned to read between the lines. Strope betrayed no evidence of having read the changes or of having drawn any conclusions. To have done so would have strayed from the ethic of “balanced reporting” in which two sides, regardless of the evidence or their credibility, are allowed to use the “unbiased” reporter as a stenographer.

And it’s not as if Strope didn’t know who the players were in this drama, having published the day before an article that in its first two sentences did more than almost any other to make clear what interests were at stake – before moving on in the third sentence to the traditional “balanced” approach:

”In an unprecedented overhaul of the nation’s overtime pay rules, the Bush administration is delivering to its business allies an election-year plum they’ve sought for decades. The new rules take effect Monday after surviving many efforts by Democrats, labor unions and worker advocates to block them in Congress and kill them through public and political pressure. The administration and business groups say the old regulations were out of date and confusing, and were sparking multimillion dollar lawsuits. The Labor Department says no more than 107,000 workers will lose overtime eligibility from the changes, but about 1.3 million will gain it. The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington think tank, says 6 million will lose, and only a few will get new rights to premium pay for working more than 40 hours a week. But no one really knows. That makes the issue harder to demonize politically, a benefit — or a problem — depending on the side you take.”

What could be more even-handed and professional? It just depends what side you take. And if the media can’t figure out which side is right, how should I presume? That has to be the reaction many readers had to articles like those bearing these headlines:

• “Overtime Law Clarification Is Hard to Figure” -- San Diego Union-Tribune
• “Labor Experts Disagree on What Overtime Overhaul Will Mean” – Orlando Sentinel
• “Rules for Overtime Pay to Take Effect: Employers, Workers Confused by Regulations on Eligibility, Classification” -- Washington Post
• “Unclear on Overtime Rules” -- St. Petersburg Times
• “Overtime Changes Create Potential Minefield: Rules Take Effect Tomorrow: New Regulations Expected to Cause Some Confusion” -- Seattle Times
• “Nobody Really Knows: Pay Confusion: Uncertainty Lingers on Effect of New Overtime Rules” -- Patriot Ledger
• “New U.S. Overtime Rules in Effect: Bush Administration Says the Change Makes More Workers Eligible, But Opponents Say More Will Be Left Out” -- Los Angeles Times
• “Overdue Overtime Overhaul Is Overly Confusing” -- Lewiston Morning Tribune

Reading the articles that follow these headlines is an experience not unlike reading the sports section. There are always two competing sides, and they just can’t seem to agree. This is what the Tallahassee Democrat told us, in a typical article: “Labor department officials say the new rules will expand overtime coverage to 1.3 million low-income workers. But labor groups and other opponents charge the new rules could result in at least 6 million people who now get overtime being moved into classes of workers not eligible for time-and-a-half pay.” (The Labor Department always simply “says” things, while “opponents” usually “charge” or “argue” or “claim.”)

Some coverage was worse than typical. The Austin American-Statesman opened with this mischaracterization: “New rules governing overtime pay for white-collar workers go into effect today.” Here’s the lead from the Oklahoman: “A new study shows 17 categories of Oklahoma City employees will be eligible for overtime under federal rules that take effect today.”

Yet the Economic Policy Institute had explained in a July report exactly how the rule changes would eliminate the right to overtime for millions of white- and blue-collar workers: http://www.epinet.org/static/briefingpapers_bp152.htm. And three former DOL officials who had served under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton had released a report in July including very similar explanations: http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/upload/OvertimeStudyTextfinal.pdf. These weren’t just claims, but detailed explanations. Most of the media neither presented nor refuted them, but simply cited their conclusions as “claims.”

Editors at the New York Times were able to recognize the importance of these analyses and published an admirable editorial on August 25, including this sentence: “The administration goes so far as to say that its changes will expand the pool of people eligible for overtime, but research by liberal and labor advocates PERSUASIVELY argue that the changes would cut the number, by as many as six million.” (emphasis added)

But editorials are where the media allow themselves to occasionally admit that their government sources are telling whoppers. The Times’ article by Steven Greenhouse on August 23 made no such admission. Greenhouse simply gave both sides.

Greenhouse lacks neither intelligence nor familiarity with the topic. It’s impossible to believe he hasn’t formed some conclusion in his own mind. Yet, against the enormous weight of evidence, he presents two camps as equally worth listening to.

Is that a policy that benefits the public or merely one that allows the Bush Administration to use the media to deceive under the guise of “objectivity”? If our elected leaders can obtain a respectful 50 percent of the media coverage by telling obvious lies, what motivation do they have to tell the truth?

Variation in coverage of this issue came in articles focused on businesses’ struggles to comply with the new rules and articles covering vice presidential candidate John Edwards’ campaigning. There were also articles claiming certain state laws would protect workers from the new changes. Typically these articles admitted the destructive effects of the new rules but claimed they wouldn’t have any impact in some states – an overly confident claim given states’ tendency to review their laws and conform them to federal standards. Useful articles that conveyed to readers what was being done to overtime protections were few and far between, and almost all of them were labeled “columns” rather than articles.

The Wichita Eagles’ article was relatively informative. The San Mateo County Times’ wasn’t bad. The Hartford Courant published an excellent column called “Selling Workers Snake Oil.” The author of the EPI report had a good column printed in the Contra Costa Times and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney published a column in the Charleston Gazette and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The President of the New Hampshire AFL-CIO published a column in the Manchester Union Leader. The Macon Telegraph printed a column called “Stealth Attack on Pay Rules.” And Cox News Service ran a column called “Chutzpah and George Bush” that merits quoting:

“It will probably be years until the changes settle and the outcomes are clear. But if you think this is an administration that would set out to do workers a great big favor and pester employers’ bottom lines, you ought to check your zip code. It may be time for you to move back to Earth.”

But columns are framed as “opinion”, not “fact.” And other columns expressed the opposing opinion.

On Aug. 23, the AFL-CIO organized a rally outside the DOL attended by two US senators. Strope from the AP wrote an article that described the rally in detail without substantively presenting the union’s position on the issue, but giving the administration’s view of the issue. The rally had become another opportunity to present the administration’s point of view.

Television coverage followed that same outline. ABC World News Tonight showed union members yelling and then included a sound bite from a Commerce Department official who said “Most of their opposition is simply political. Substantively there really is not that much to complain about in this regulation.” CNN’s Bill Tucker showed a few seconds of the rally and then said “But that’s just the controversy, will it mean a pay cut? Here’s what the rule changes are…,” but he omitted most of the changes. CBS MarketWatch gave seven sentences to what the DOL “says” followed by one on what labor “claims.” CBS Evening News presented the DOL case, mentioned what “critics charge,” and then aired two sound bites from the Heritage Foundation and one from a management lawyer. NPR allowed some time to a speaker from the National Employment Law Project, but primarily pounded home again and again the notion that the rule changes are too complicated to be understood.

Fox News claimed: “[T]he people who will be affected the most are those earning between $12,000 and $25,000 a year. They’ll now be guaranteed mandatory overtime.” Fox, to my knowledge, stood alone in claiming that so many more workers were going to be paid more that businesses were worried they would have to raise prices.

Many media outlets did an excellent job of telling this story, almost all of them labor and other alternative media productions. On the ILCAonline.org website are articles by Press Associates Inc., the Union Advocate, the Newspaper Guild of New York, and the AFL-CIO. TomPaine.com published Sweeney’s column, and countless other labor papers and other alternative outlets published excellent articles. Given the corporate media’s deference to government sources, the alternative media is often the only place to turn for news, including the story of the biggest pay cut in US history.

Source: ILCA Online

back to top

Ex-BBC chief: Blair’s world of ‘lies and bullying’

By Kamal Ahmed

Aug. 29— Greg Dyke, former director-general of the BBC, laid bare on Aug. 29 the astonishing inside story of the war waged by the Prime Minister and Downing Street against the BBC over its coverage of the Iraq war and the controversial issue of weapons of mass destruction.

In an explosive autobiography which returns the corrosive issue of Iraq to the heart of political debate, Dyke reveals that Tony Blair wrote an unprecedented letter to him and Gavyn Davies, the former BBC chairman, trying to force the corporation to change the tone of its coverage.

In the extracts serialized in The Observer today, Dyke reveals:

· That he believes Blair reneged on a deal not to call for “heads to roll” at the BBC.
· That he believes Alastair Campbell, the former Number 10 director of communications, was forced out by Blair for being “out of control.”
· That six still-serving BBC governors should resign over their part in the affair.

The disclosures, which will reignite the row between the BBC and the government, will again raise the question of trust which has dogged the Prime Minister since the WMD row first surfaced. It is unheard of for a serving Prime Minister to write to the head of Britain’s public service broadcaster. Dyke, who says the move was intimidatory, claims Blair later regretted sending the letter, but was persuaded to by Campbell.

Dyke says Campbell had become “obsessed” with trying to “beat” the BBC, was out of control, vindictive and eventually had to be removed by the Prime Minister.

The book, Inside Story, also claims that Blair broke a promise to Davies that he would not demand the resignations of either himself or Dyke following publication of the Hutton Report.

The Hutton inquiry was set up after the death of David Kelly, the government scientist linked to claims on the Today program that Downing Street had “sexed up” intelligence to make a stronger case for war.

Both Davies and Dyke left the BBC within 36 hours of the report’s appearance, after Campbell accused the corporation of lying in an officially sanctioned statement.

The book reveals that the BBC was baffled when Hutton said the government was not guilty of the “sexing up” claims. Dyke’s book quotes a comment by Philip Gould, one of Blair’s closest allies and advisers, by way of explanation, alleging that he told a Labor peer: “Don’t worry, we appointed the right judge.”

Dyke says a number of governors should resign after capitulating to political pressure. He accuses Blair of allowing Number 10 to produce “mountains of untruth” in two dossiers published by the government to justify going to war. He said Downing Street started using techniques similar to those of Nixon’s White House to smear those seen as being against the interests of the government.

“The charge against Blair is damning,” Dyke says. “He was either incompetent and took Britain to war on a misunderstanding, or he lied when he told the House of Commons that he didn’t know what the 45-minute claim meant.

“We were all duped. History will not be on Blair’s side, it will show that the whole saga is a great political scandal.”

The book also reveals fresh doubts at the very top of the intelligence services about claims that Saddam Hussein was an international threat.

Dyke says John Scarlett, former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee who was promoted by Blair to head of MI6, had professed private doubts to a BBC journalist about the case for war. In particular, he was concerned by claims that Saddam could launch a chemical or biological weapons attack within 45 minutes of an order to do so.

“At the BBC, we knew he [Scarlett] was uncomfortable with the public case being made for the war because that is what he had told one journalist on a bench in the grounds of Ditchley Park, the exclusive Oxfordshire house used as a center for high level discussions on international affairs. Scarlett told the journalist he was particularly worried about how the dossier had been interpreted in the press.”

Dyke says he was forced out after the governors failed to back him following Hutton. He argues that the six governors who voted for him to go, including the former chairman of the JIC, Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, should resign because they “bowed to political pressure” and damaged the BBC’s standing.

He also reveals that when the BBC did finally apologize after Dyke had quit, they first checked the statement with Number 10.

“I had no idea I would be fired by a board of governors behaving like frightened rabbits caught in car headlights,” Dyke says. “The new BBC chairman, Michael Grade, needs better, more knowledgeable, governors to support him. There is no greater betrayal of BBC principles than to fold under political pressure, particularly from the government of the day.”

Blair’s letter, revealed for the first time, to Davies and Dyke was sent on Mar. 19, 2003, a week before the war in Iraq started.

“It seems to me there has been a real breakdown of the separation of news and comment,” the Prime Minister wrote. “I believe, and I am not alone in believing, that you have not got the balance right between support and dissent; between news and comment; between the voices of the Iraqi regime and the voices of Iraqi dissidents; or between the diplomatic support we have, and diplomatic opposition.”

Dyke says he sent back a robust response.

“My view was straightforward: if the government was going to try to bully the BBC, then I was going to fight back,” Dyke says in the book.

After Kelly’s death, the government further tried to turn the screw, with one Cabinet minister briefing journalists that “the problem with the BBC was too much money and Greg Dyke.” The minister also spoke of “revenge.”

Dyke wrote to Blair saying the attack was a “blatant threat to the funding and editorial independence of the BBC from a member of your Cabinet.”

He initially thought that he could sit out the post-Hutton storm because of a private pledge the Prime Minister had made to Davies.

“I knew Blair had told Gavyn in a private telephone conversation that, whatever happened, Number 10 would not be calling on either Gavyn or me to go,” Dyke says. “When we watched Blair in the Commons [following the Hutton publication] Gavyn realized the Prime Minister had gone back on his word.”

Source: Observer (UK)

back to top